The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.

The 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part I. Duplex Scanning and Treatment of Superficial Truncal Reflux: Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Medicine and the International Union of Phlebology.

The Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society collaborated to update the 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum clinical practice guidelines and provide new evidence-based recommendations on critical issues affecting the care of patients with varicose veins. Each recommendation is based on a recent, independent systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic tests and treatments options for patients with lower extremity varicose veins. Part I of the guidelines includes evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation of patients with CEAP (Clinical Class, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathology) class 2 varicose vein using duplex ultrasound scanning and other diagnostic tests, open surgical treatment (ligation and stripping) vs endovenous ablation techniques, thermal vs nonthermal ablation of the superficial truncal veins, and management of incompetent perforating veins in CEAP class 2 disease. We have also made recommendations on the concomitant vs staged treatment of varicose tributaries using phlebectomy or liquid or foam sclerotherapy (with physician-compounded foam or commercially prepared polidocanol endovenous microfoam) for patients undergoing ablation of incompetent superficial truncal veins.

Practice patterns of adjunctive therapy for venous leg ulcers.

Objectives Venous leg ulcers (VLU) are the most severe clinical sequelae of venous reflux and post thrombotic syndrome. There is a consensus that ablation of refluxing vein segments and treatment of significant venous obstruction can heal VLUs. However, there is wide disparity in the use and choice of adjunctive therapies for VLUs. The purpose of this study was to assess these practice patterns among members of the American Venous Forum. Methods The AVF Research Committee conducted an online survey of its own members, which consisted of 16 questions designed to determine the specialty of physicians, location of treatment, treatment practices and reimbursement for treatment of VLUs Results The survey was distributed to 667 practitioners and a response rate of 18.6% was achieved. A majority of respondents (49.5%) were vascular specialists and the remaining were podiatrists, dermatologists, primary care doctors and others. It was found that 85.5% were from within the USA, while physicians from 14 other countries also responded. Most of the physicians (45%) provided adjunctive therapy at a private office setting and 58% treated less than 5 VLU patients per week. All respondents used some form of compression therapy as the primary mode of treatment for VLU. Multilayer compression therapy was the most common form of adjunctive therapy used (58.8%) and over 90% of physicians started additional modalities (biologics, negative pressure, hyperbaric oxygen and others) when VLUs failed compression therapy, with a majority (65%) waiting less than three months to start them. Medicare was the most common source of reimbursement (52.4%). Conclusions Physicians from multiple specialties treat VLU. While most physicians use compression therapy, there is wide variation in the selection and point of initiation for additional therapies once compression fails. There is a need for high-quality data to help establish guidelines for adjunctive treatment of VLUs and to disseminate them to physicians across multiple specialties to ensure standardized high-quality treatment of patients with VLUs.

Anatomic characteristics of abdominal aortic aneurysms presenting with delayed rupture after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the mainstay of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) requiring repair. Delayed rupture after EVAR represents a rare but potentially fatal complication. The purpose of this study was to review the frequency and characteristics of patients presenting with secondary rupture and to define the relationship between rupture after EVAR and initial compliance with instructions for use (IFU). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients presenting with delayed rupture after EVAR were identified from January 2002 to December 2014. Medical records and imaging were reviewed to define anatomic characteristics and compliance with IFU criteria. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative imaging, and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to compliance with IFU criteria. Outcomes included type of repair (open vs secondary endovascular) as well as perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3081 patients underwent EVAR for AAA from 2002 to 2014. Of the 3081 patients, 45 experienced delayed rupture after EVAR. The mean time interval between initial repair and rupture was 38 months. All patients with delayed ruptures had a type Ia endoleak. Mean follow-up after secondary repair was 44.1 months, and overall mortality was 6.7% (n = 3). Patients were divided in two groups according to compliance with IFU criteria: within the IFU and outside the IFU. There was no significant difference in comorbidities between the two groups except smoking, which was more frequent in the outside the IFU group (25% vs 21%; P = .03). Patients repaired outside the IFU had a higher incidence of type Ia endoleak before presenting with a rupture (44% vs 6%; P = .001), more frequently required open repair (44% vs 12%; P = .002), and had higher perioperative mortality (10.3% vs 0%; P = .01). On review of preoperative computed tomography scans, the outside the IFU group had larger aneurysm sac diameters (7.2 vs 5.6 cm; P = .04), larger proximal neck diameters (28 vs 24 mm; P = .01), shorter proximal necks (12 vs 21 mm; P = .007), and a higher degree of neck angulation >40 degrees (56 vs 11%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed rupture after EVAR is a rare but potentially fatal complication. In patients presenting with secondary rupture, EVAR performed outside the IFU was associated with higher perioperative mortality and need for open repair. Careful selection of patients based on AAA anatomy and adherence to the IFU criteria may reduce the incidence of delayed rupture.

Regionalization of Emergent Vascular Surgery for Patients With Ruptured AAA Improves Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Safe and efficient endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (r-AAA) requires advanced infrastructure and surgical expertise not available at all US hospitals. The objective was to assess the impact of regionalizing r-AAA care to centers equipped for both open surgical repair (r-OSR) and EVAR (r-EVAR) by vascular surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with r-AAA undergoing open or endovascular repair in a 12-hospital region. Patient demographics, transfer status, type of repair, and intraoperative variables were recorded. Outcomes included perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-one patients with r-AAA were treated from 2002 to 2015. Three hundred twenty-one patients (71%) presented initially to community hospitals (CHs) and 130 (29%) presented to the tertiary medical center (MC). Of the 321 patients presenting to CH, 133 (41%) were treated locally (131 OSR; 2 EVAR) and 188 (59%) were transferred to the MC. In total, 318 patients were treated at the MC (122 OSR; 196 EVAR). At the MC, r-EVAR was associated with a lower mortality rate than r-OSR (20% vs 37%, P = 0.001). Transfer did not influence r-EVAR mortality (20% in r-EVAR presenting to MC vs 20% in r-EVAR transferred, P > 0.2). Overall, r-AAA mortality at the MC was 20% lower than CH (27% vs 46%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of r-AAA repair to centers equipped for both r-EVAR and r-OSR decreased mortality by approximately 20%. Transfer did not impact the mortality of r-EVAR at the tertiary center. Care of r-AAA in the US should be centralized to centers equipped with available technology and vascular surgeons.

Current state of the treatment of perforating veins.

Perforating veins may play a role in the development of chronic venous insufficiency and ulceration. There is renewed interest in minimally invasive treatments vs historic surgical options. Current indications for treatment, technical success, and evidence for clinical efficacy are summarized. Existing recommendations include perforator closure in Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology class 5 or class 6 disease through percutaneous thermal ablation, subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery, open surgery, or sclerotherapy. Closure rates for percutaneous thermal ablation are reported as 60% to 80% initially. More recanalization and de novo perforator formation have been reported than after thermal saphenous closure. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy has shown promise in perforator closure and wound healing, but with variable success rates. Regardless of method used, successful closure of perforators appears predictive of wound healing with minimal morbidity. However, the power and design of all studies supporting this are far from robust, and more work is needed.

Venous occlusive diseases in women.

Women have a high incidence of chronic venous disease. Venous occlusive disease can lead to significant morbidity and even death. Factors such as genetics, medications, and diseases can play a role in the development of venous thrombosis. In women, pregnancy can lead to a hypercoagulable state and a greater risk of venous complication. Awareness and education will be very important in the future to help identify those patients at risk.

The impact of hemodynamic status on outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair for rupture.

OBJECTIVE: To date, there are no published reports comparing hemodynamically (Hd)-stable and Hd-unstable patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-AAAs) undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study evaluates outcomes of EVAR for r-AAA based on patient's Hd status METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 136 patients with r-AAAs underwent EVAR and were categorized into two groups based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements before EVAR: 92 (68%) Hd-stable (SBP ≥ 80 mm Hg) and 44 (32%) Hd-unstable (SBP <80 mm Hg for >10 minutes). All data were prospectively entered in a database and retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, the need for secondary reinterventions, and midterm mortality. The effect of potential predictors on 30-day mortality was assessed by χ(2) and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 136 r-AAA patients with EVAR, the Hd-stable and Hd-unstable groups had similar comorbidities (coronary artery disease, 63% vs 59%; hypertension, 72% vs 75%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 21% vs 26%; and chronic renal insufficiency, 18% vs 18%), mean AAA maximum diameter (6.6 vs 6.4 cm), need for on-the-table conversion to open surgical repair (3% vs 7%), and incidences of nonfatal complications (43% vs 38%) and secondary interventions (23% vs 25%). Preoperative computed tomography scan was available in significantly fewer Hd-unstable patients (64% vs 100%; P < .05). Compared with Hd-stable patients, the Hd-unstable patients had a significantly higher intraoperative need for aortic occlusion balloon (40% vs 6%; P < .05), mean estimated blood loss (744 vs 363 mL; P < .05), incidence of developing abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS; 29% vs 4%; P < .01), and death (33% vs 18%; P < .05). ACS was a significant predictor of death; death in all r-EVAR with ACS was significantly higher compared with all r-EVAR without ACS (10 of 17 [59%] vs 22 of 119 [18%]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR for r-AAA is feasible in Hd-stable and Hd-unstable patients, with a comparable incidence of conversion to open surgical repair, nonfatal complications, and secondary interventions. Hd-stable patients have reduced mortality at 30 days, whereas Hd-unstable patients require intraoperative aortic occlusion balloon more frequently, and have an increased risk for developing ACS and death.

Renal protection: preconditioning for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy.

As the numbers of interventional procedures are rising exponentially, identification of those patients at risk for renal complications has become even more important. Renal complications have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality after interventions. Risk factors have been studied to help identify those patients at increased risk for developing contrast-induced nephropathy. Hydration and medications have been studied as protective measures to decrease risk of renal complications. Preconditioning patients with intravenous hydration has been found to be the most helpful in circumventing postprocedural contrast-induced nephropathy.

Long-term outcomes of secondary procedures after endovascular aneurysm repair.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes of secondary procedures after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: From 2002 to 2009, 1768 patients underwent EVAR for treatment of 1662 elective (94%) and 106 emergent (6%) infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with a variety of Food and Drug Administration-approved and commercially available stent grafts. Postoperative follow-up included clinical examination, pulse volume recording, duplex ultrasound imaging, and computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography at 1, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Patients with type I and III endoleaks, unexplained endotension, limb occlusion, stent graft migration, with and without type I endoleak, and aneurysm rupture underwent secondary interventions. Type II endoleak at >6 months without a decrease in the aneurysm sac underwent translumbar embolization. Data were prospectively collected. RESULTS: EVAR was performed in 1768 patients. During a mean follow-up of 34 (SD, 30.03) months, 339 patients (19.2%) required additional secondary procedures for aneurysm-related complications, including type I (n = 51, 15.0%), type II (n = 136, 40.1%), and type III (n = 5, 1.5%) endoleaks; endotension (n = 8, 2.4%), stent graft migration proximal fixation site (n = 46, 13.6%), stent graft iliac limb thrombosis or stenosis (n = 25, 7.4%), subsequent iliac aneurysm formation (n = 39, 11.5%), or aneurysm rupture after EVAR (n = 29, 8.6%). The mean age was 74 (SD, 9.15) years. Mean AAA size was 5.7 (SD 3.24) cm. Compared with secondary procedures for AAA rupture, the nonrupture patients had a significantly lower mortality (1.6% vs 17.2%, P < .05) and a higher likelihood of being managed by endovascular means (98.8% vs 44.8%, P < .05). When nonruptured EVAR patients required urgent secondary procedures for type I endoleaks and stent graft migration or limb thrombosis, the mortality was 6.0% vs 0.5% for elective procedures (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term EVAR experience indicates that 18% of patients require additional secondary procedures, and most of these patients can be managed by endovascular means with an acceptable overall mortality of 2.9%. Most type I and II endoleaks can be successfully treated by transluminal embolization, and most patients with delayed aneurysm rupture after EVAR can be successfully managed by endovascular or open surgical repair.

Outcomes of planned celiac artery coverage during TEVAR.

OBJECTIVE: Successful thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) requires adequate proximal and distal fixation and seal. We report our experience of planned celiac artery coverage during endovascular repair of complex thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA). METHODS: Since 2004, 228 patients underwent TEVAR under elective (n=162, 71%) and emergent circumstances (66, 29%). Patients with inadequate distal stent grafts landing zones during TEVAR underwent detailed evaluation of the gastroduodenal arcade with communicating collaterals between the celiac and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) by computed tomography angiography and intraoperative arteriogram. If needed, in presence of a patent SMA and demonstration of collaterals to the celiac artery, the stent grafts were extended to the SMA with celiac artery coverage. Furthermore, instances when further lengthening of distal thoracic stent graft landing zone was needed to obtain an adequate seal, the SMA was partially covered with the endograft, and a balloon expandable stent was routinely deployed in proximal SMA to maintain patency. Outcome data were prospectively collected and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 228 (14%) patients with TEVAR required celiac artery interruption; 24 (77%) had demonstrable collaterals to the SMA. Twelve (39%) of 31 patients underwent additional partial SMA coverage by stent graft, and proximal SMA stent. The majority of patients were females (n=20, 65%), the mean age was 74 years (range 55-87 years), and the mean TAA size was 6.5 cm. Postoperative complications included visceral ischemia in 2 (6%) patients, paraplegia in 2 (6%) patients, and death in 2 (6%) patients. All type 1b endoleaks (n=2, 6%) and type 2 endoleaks vial retrograde flow from the celiac artery (n=3, 10%) were successfully treated by transfemoral coil embolization. Over a mean follow-up of 15 months, there have been no other complications of mesenteric ischemia, spinal cord ischemia, SMA in-stent stenosis, or conversion to open surgical repair. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that celiac artery coverage to facilitate adequate distal sealing during TEVAR with complex TAA is relatively safe in the presence of SMA-celiac collaterals. Pre-existing SMA stenosis can be successfully treated by balloon expandable stents during TEVAR, and endoleaks arising from distal stent grafts attachment site or via retrograde flow from the celiac artery can be successfully managed by transfemoral coil embolization. Although early results are encouraging, long-term efficacy of these procedures remains to be determined and vigilant follow-up is needed.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular program development and results.

Improvements in endovascular technology and techniques have allowed us to treat patients in ways we never thought possible. Today endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with markedly decreased morbidity and mortality when compared to the open surgical approach, yet there are several fundamental obstacles in our ability to offer these endovascular techniques to most patients with ruptured aneurysms. This article will focus on the technical aspects of endovascular aneurysm repair for rupture, with particular attention to developing a standardized multidisciplinary approach that will help ones ability to deal with not just the technical aspects of these procedures, but also address some of the challenges including: the availability of preoperative CT, the choice of anesthesia, percutaneous vs. femoral cut-down approach, use of aortic occlusion balloons, need for bifurcated vs. aorto-uniiliac stentgrafts, need for adjunctive procedures, diagnosis and treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome, and conversion to open surgical repair.

Strategies to improve spinal cord ischemia in endovascular thoracic aortic repair: Outcomes of a prospective cerebrospinal fluid drainage protocol.

PURPOSE: Although endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm has been shown to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates, spinal cord ischemia remains a persistent problem. We evaluated our experience with spinal cord protective measures using a standardized cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage protocol in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic repair. METHODS: From 2004 to 2006, 121 patients underwent elective (n = 52, 43%) and emergent (n = 69, 57%) endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n = 94, 78%), symptomatic penetrating ulceration (n = 11, 9%), pseudoaneurysms (n = 5, 4%) and traumatic aortic transactions (n = 11, 9%). In 2005, routine use of a CSF drainage protocol was established to minimize the risks of spinal cord ischemia. The CSF was actively drained to maintain pressures <15 mm Hg and the mean arterial blood pressures were maintained at >/=90 mm Hg. Data was prospectively collected in our vascular registry for elective and emergent endovascular thoracic aortic repair and the patients were divided into 2 groups (+CSF drainage protocol, -CSF drainage protocol). A chi(2) statistical analysis was performed and significance was assumed for P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients with thoracic stent graft placement, the mean age was 72 years, 62 (51%) were male, and 56 (46%) underwent preoperative placement of a CSF drain, while 65 (54%) did not. Both groups had similar comorbidities of coronary artery disease (24 [43%] vs 27 [41%]), hypertension (44 [79%] vs 50 [77%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18 [32%] vs 22 [34%]), and chronic renal insufficiency (10 [17%] vs 12 [18%]). None of the patients with CSF drainage developed spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and 5 (8%) of the patients without CSF drainage developed SCI within 24 hours of endovascular repair (P< .05). All patients with clinical symptoms of SCI had CSF drain placement and augmentation of systemic blood pressures to >/=90 mm Hg, and 60% (3 of 5 patients) demonstrated marked clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: Perioperative CSF drainage with augmentation of systemic blood pressures may have a beneficial role in reducing the risk of paraplegia in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement. However, selective CSF drainage may offer the same benefit as mandatory drainage.

Establishing a protocol for endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: outcomes of a prospective analysis.

PURPOSE: In our transition from elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to emergent ruptured AAA (r-AAA) repair with endovascular techniques, we recognized that the availability of endovascularly trained staff in the operating rooms and emergency departments, and adequate equipment were the limiting factors. To this end, we established a multidisciplinary protocol that facilitates endovascular repair (EVAR) of r-AAA. METHODS: In January 2002, we instituted a multidisciplinary approach that included the vascular surgeons, emergency department physicians, anesthesiologists, operating room staff, radiology technicians, and availability of a variety of stent-grafts to expedite EVAR of r-AAAs. Five patients with symptomatic, not ruptured AAAs suitable for EVAR underwent simulation of patients presenting to the emergency department with r-AAAs. Emergency department physicians alerted the on-call vascular surgery team (vascular surgeon, vascular resident or fellow) and the operating room staff, emergently performed an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan in only hemodynamically stable patients with systolic blood pressures > or =80 mm Hg, and transported the patient to the operating room. The vascular surgeon informed the operating room staff to set up for EVAR and open surgical repair in an operating room equipped with interventional capabilities. The operating room setup was rehearsed with the anesthesiologists, operating room staff, and radiology technicians who were knowledgeable of the sequence of steps involved. Since then, 40 patients have undergone emergent EVAR for r-AAAs with general anesthesia. RESULTS: No complications developed in any of the symptomatic (simulation) patients, and 40 (95%) of 42 patients with r-AAAs had a successful EVAR with Excluder (n = 27, 68%), AneuRx (n = 9, 23%), or the Zenith (n = 4, 10%) stent-grafts. The mean age was 73 years (range, 54 to 88 years), and pre-existing comorbidities included coronary artery disease in 26 (65%), hypertension in 23 (58%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 7 (18%), renal insufficiency not on dialysis in two (5%), and diabetes in nine (23%). Fourteen (38%) patients were diagnosed with r-AAAs at another hospital and subsequently were transferred to us, and 26 (62%) presented directly to the emergency department at our institution. At the initial presentation, 30 patients (75%) were hemodynamically stable and either had a CT scan at an outside hospital or in the emergency department, and 10 (25%) hemodynamically unstable patients with systolic blood pressures <80 mm Hg were rushed to the operating room for EVAR without a preoperative CT scan. The mean time from the presumptive diagnosis of a r-AAA in the emergency department to the operating room for EVAR was 20 minutes (range, 10 to 35 minutes), and the mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 80 minutes (range, 35 to 125 minutes). Seven patients (18%) needed supraceliac aortic occlusion balloon, and six (15%) needed aortouniiliac stent-grafts. The mean blood loss was 455 mL (range, 115 to 1100 mL). Two patients each (5%) developed myocardial infarction, renal failure, and ischemic colitis, seven (18%) developed abdominal compartment syndrome, and seven (18%) died. Over a mean follow-up of 17 months, three patients with endovascular r-AAA repair required four secondary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The early results show that emergent endovascular treatment of hemodynamically stable and unstable patients is associated with a limited mortality of 18% once a standardized protocol is established. There is an increased recognition of emerging complications with an endovascular approach, and a synchrony of disciplines must be developed to initiate a successful program for endovascular treatment of r-AAAs.

Combined carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with asymptomatic high-grade stenoses: an analysis of 758 procedures.

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of hemodynamically significant carotid artery stenoses has been well documented, especially in the asymptomatic patient. However, in those patients presenting with hemodynamically significant asymptomatic carotid artery disease who are to undergo cardiac surgery, optimal treatment remains controversial. In this study, we analyze our experience with patients who underwent synchronous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass graft procedures (CABG) for hemodynamically significant (>70%) asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Demographics and outcomes of all patients undergoing synchronous CEA/CABG for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between April 1980 and January 2005 were reviewed from our vascular registry and patient charts. We included patients who underwent standard patching of their carotid artery and those undergoing eversion CEA. All neurologic events within the first 30 days that persisted >24 hours were considered a stroke. For purposes of comparison, we also reviewed outcomes for patients undergoing synchronous CEA/CABG for symptomatic carotid stenosis. RESULTS: Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 702 patients (276 women and 426 men) undergoing 758 CEAs. In the asymptomatic group, 22 patients, of which 21 succumbed to cardiac dysfunction, and one died from a hemorrhagic stroke. The overall mortality rate was 3.1%. Seven permanent nonfatal neurologic deficits occurred in this series (1 woman, 6 men). The combined stroke mortality was 4.3%. This compares to a 30-day stroke mortality of 6.1% in 132 symptomatic combined CEA/CABG patients. The difference in stroke mortality in women compared with men was not significant. CONCLUSION: In this experience, patients presenting with hemodynamically significant (>70%) asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis can undergo synchronous CEA/CABG with low morbidity and mortality.

Factors associated with abdominal compartment syndrome complicating endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-AAAs) has the potential to offer improved outcomes. As our experience with endovascular repair of r-AAA evolved, we recognized that the development of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) led to an increase in morbidity and mortality. We therefore reviewed our experience to identify risk factors associated with the development of ACS. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2004, 30 patients underwent emergent endovascular repair of r-AAA by using commercially available stent grafts. All patients who developed ACS underwent emergent laparotomy. Physiological and clinical parameters were analyzed between patients with and without ACS after endovascular r-AAA repair. RESULTS: Over the past 3 years, 30 patients underwent endovascular r-AAA repair, and 6 (20%) patients developed ACS. Patients with ACS had a higher incidence of the need for aortic occlusion balloon (67% vs 12%; P = .01), a markedly longer activated partial thromboplastin time (128 +/- 84 seconds vs 49 +/- 31 seconds; P = .01), a greater need for blood transfusion (8 +/- 2.5 units vs 1.8 +/- 1.7 units; P = .08), and a higher incidence of conversion to aortouni-iliac devices because of ongoing hemodynamic instability and an inability to expeditiously cannulate the contralateral gate (67% vs 8%) when compared with patients without ACS. The mortality was significantly higher in the patients with ACS (67%; 4 of 6) compared with patients without ACS (13%; 3 of 24; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: ACS is a potential complication of endovascular repair of r-AAA and negatively affects survival. Factors associated with the development of ACS include (1) use of an aortic occlusion balloon, (2) coagulopathy, (3) massive transfusion requirements, and (4) conversion of bifurcated stent grafts into aortouni-iliac devices. We recommend that, after endovascular repair of r-AAA, these patients undergo vigilant monitoring for the development of ACS.

Safety and efficacy of eversion carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of recurrent stenosis: 20-year experience.

Current options for treating recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS) include standard longitudinal arteriotomy and patch angioplasty with or without carotid endarterectomy (s-PCEA), carotid-carotid bypass, or carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS). Eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) is an effective procedure for treating primary carotid stenosis, yet it has not been reported for treating RCS. We evaluated the feasibility and outcome of e-CEA for treating of RCS in comparison to s-PCEA. The records of all patients undergoing elective CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade RCS from January 1981 to July 2002 were reviewed. Although during the earlier period s-PCEA was performed preferentially, this paradigm changed to e-CEA being the preferred technique for treatment of RCS. During the course of postoperative follow-up when duplex sonography suggested high-grade RCS, the diagnosis was confirmed via arteriography. Data on cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death were prospectively collected into a vascular registry database and analyzed retrospectively, Students' t-test and chi-square analysis were used to compare the group's baseline characteristics and outcomes. Over a 21-year period, 7001 patients underwent primary CEA for symptomatic (n = 2405, 34%) or asymptomatic (n = 4596, 66%) high-grade stenosis via standard (n = 1501, 21%) or eversion (n = 5500, 79%) techniques. Fifteen (25%) patients had 70 to 80% stenosis, 30 (51%) had 81 to 90% stenosis, and 14 (24%) had 91 to 99% stenosis. During this time period, 59 patients presented with symptomatic (n = 18, 31%) or asymptomatic (n = 41, 69%) high-grade RCS and underwent operative repair via s-PCEA (n = 22, 37%) or eversion (n = 37, 63%) techniques. The mean time interval for repeat carotid surgery for RCS was 49 months in the s-PCEA group and 48 months in the e-CEA group. Permanent cranial nerve injuries, stroke, and recurrent restenosis occurred in one (4.5%), one (4.5%), and one (4.5%) of the patients undergoing s-PCEA, respectively. In the e-CEA group, these events occurred in one (27%), none (0%), and one (2.7%) patients, respectively, There were no deaths during the 30-day postoperative period. Eversion CEA is a feasible option for the treatment of many RCSs and can be performed safely with a low rate of cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death.

Does sac size matter? Findings based on surgical exploration of excluded abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To prospectively examine the outcomes of excluded abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) that continue to expand without evidence of endoleak. METHODS: From 1984 to 1998, 1218 patients underwent operative retroperitoneal exclusion of AAA and aortoiliac reconstructions. During the procedure, the aneurysm sac was ligated proximally, as well as distally, which created an ideal in-vivo model of excluded AAA sacs with or without endoleaks. From January 2002 to June 2003, 15 of these patients were identified as having an increase in AAA sac size with or without an endoleak on duplex ultrasonography. These patients were prospectively evaluated by computed tomography and diagnostic arteriography. Patients with a demonstrable endoleak underwent embolization, and the remainder underwent open surgical exploration. RESULTS: Eight patients had arteriographically demonstrated endoleaks that were treated with coil embolization. The remaining 7 patients (6 men; mean age 76 years, range 68-81) without a demonstrable endoleak underwent elective surgical exploration and sac endoaneurysmorrhaphy. The mean time interval between the original surgery and aneurysm sac exploration was 76 months (range 52-92); during this time, the mean aneurysm sac size increased by 2.7 cm (range 1.3-5.2). The mean sac pressure was 53 mmHg, and the sac walls were noticeably thickened, with markedly dilated vasa vasorum. The sac contained yellow, fibrinous material with clear serous fluid (5 patients without any evidence of retrograde flow) or liquefied thrombus with serosanguinous fluid (2 patients with retrograde flow from lumbar arteries). No AAA sacs were pulsatile. CONCLUSIONS: Continued expansion of excluded AAA sacs can occur from causes other than a missed endoleak. Exudation of fluid from thickened sac wall and vasa vasorum, as well as local enzymatic activity, might lead to the formation of a sac hygroma. Furthermore, these findings raise questions as to the need for surgical exploration of all patients with an enlarging AAA sac in the setting of low sac pressures and no definable endoleak.

Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair via endovascular versus open retroperitoneal approach.

The beneficial effects of open surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair via a left retroperitoneal approach have been established. We compared the short-term outcome of infrarenal AAA repair via an endovascular approach with that of an open retroperitoneal approach. From October 2001 to April 2003, patients with infrarenal AAA >5 cm were offered repair via an endovascular approach (group I) with a variety of industry-made stent grafts or with an open retroperitoneal surgical approach (group II). Data were prospectively collected in the vascular registry and complications were analyzed. Data comparison between the two groups was done by using chi-squared analysis and two-tailed Students t-test. Statistical significance was identified at p < 0.05. Over an 18-month period, 492 patients underwent evaluation for AAA. Of these, 446 patients had infrarenal AAA and underwent either endovascular (group I: n = 175, male 85%, female 15%) or open surgical repair (group II: n = 232, male 74%, female 26%) via a left retroperitoneal approach. Group I patients had a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 35%, p < 0.05), hypertension (74% vs. 43%, p < 0.05), chronic obstructed pulmonary disease (29% vs. 12%, p < 0.05), and diabetes mellitus (20% vs. 7%, p < 0.05), a lower mean amount of intraoperative blood loss (277 cc vs. 1452 cc, p < 0.05), and shorter length of stay in the hospital (1.7 days vs., 7.3 days, p < 0.05). Group I also had fewer complications of myocardial infarction (1.7% vs. 5.2%, p = NS), renal failure (0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.05), pulmonary failure (1.7% vs. 2.6%, p = NS), ischemic colitis requiring colectomy (0.6% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.05), multisystem organ failure (0% vs. 1.3%, p = NS), and death (0.6% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.05). Despite increased preexisting comorbidities, patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair had less morbidity, mortality, and blood loss and a shorter in-hospital length of stay than patients undergoing open surgical aneurysm repair via a left retroperitoneal approach.