Improved survival with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease. However, their effect on limb-specific outcomes is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on limb salvage (LS) and survival in patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was used to identify patients undergoing PVI for CLTI between April 1, 2010, and June 1, 2017. Patients with complete comorbidity, procedural, and follow-up limb and survival data were included. Propensity score matching was performed to control for baseline differences between the groups. LS, amputation-free survival (AFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated in matched samples using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12,433 limbs (11,331 patients) were included. The ACE inhibitors/ARBs group of patients had significantly higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (31% vs 27%; P < .001), diabetes (67% vs 57%; P < .001), and hypertension (94% vs 84%; P < .001) and lower incidence of end-stage renal disease (7% vs 12%; P < .001). Indication for intervention was tissue loss in 64% of the ACE inhibitors/ARBs group vs 66% in the no ACE inhibitors/ARBs group (P = .005). Postmatching survival analysis at 5 years showed improved OS (81.8% vs 79.9%; P = .01) and AFS (73% vs 71.5%; P = .04) with ACE inhibitors/ARBs but no difference in LS (ACE inhibitors/ARBs, 88.3%; no ACE inhibitors/ARBs, 88.1%; P = .56). After adjustment for multiple variables in a Cox regression model, ACE inhibitors/ARBs were associated with improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.99; P = .03) and AFS (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.99; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: ACE inhibitors/ARBs are independently associated with improved survival and AFS in patients undergoing PVI for CLTI. LS rates remained unaffected. Further research is required to investigate the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in this population of patients, especially CLTI patients with other indications for therapy with ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Comparison of Autologous Vein and Bovine Carotid Artery Graft as a Bypass Conduit in Arterial Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Surgical revascularization is the mainstay treatment in treating most traumatic arterial injuries, and autologous great saphenous vein is widely regarded as the conduit of choice. However, the use of the great saphenous vein may be limited by many factors, and there are little data to guide management in this setting. Bovine carotid artery graft (Artegraft, Inc., North Brunswick, NJ, USA) is a biologic conduit that has been used in select trauma cases at our center. The objective of this study was to review and compare our experience with autologous vein and bovine carotid artery in traumatic arterial injuries requiring bypass or interposition. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients with a traumatic arterial injury repaired with autologous vein or bovine carotid artery graft at a single center between April 2014 and October 2016. Outcomes of interest included differences in duration of ischemia, operative times, patency, limb salvage, graft-related complications, and functional status. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in this study. Seventeen (57%) injuries were to the lower extremity (LE) and 13 (43%) to the upper extremity. Bovine carotid artery graft was used as a conduit in 12 (40%) cases, while autologous vein was used in 18 (60%) patients. Patients were predominantly male (90%). Mean age was 31 ± 15 years. Comorbidities did not differ significantly between the groups. Mean follow-up duration was 19 ± 13 months. Overall primary patency was 82%: bovine versus autologous vein (78% vs. 85%; P = 0.68). Overall secondary patency was 91%: bovine versus autologous vein (78% vs. 100%; P = 0.16). Overall limb salvage was 90%: bovine versus autologous vein (82% vs. 94%; P = 0.28). When comparing bovine carotid artery graft to autologous vein in LE interventions, primary patency (50% vs. 71%; P = 0.40), secondary patency (75% vs. 100%; P = 0.23), and limb salvage (80% vs. 86%; P = 0.76) did not differ significantly. There were no early or late graft infections with either conduit. There were no significant differences in ambulatory status at discharge by graft type. Overall survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, there is a trend toward improved patency and limb salvage with autologous vein. Autologous vein should be the standard of care for revascularization of traumatic arterial injuries. Bovine carotid artery graft appears be a viable alternative, especially in patients requiring urgent revascularization, that does not significantly compromise patency, limb salvage, or functional outcomes.

Poorer limb salvage in African American men with chronic limb ischemia is due to advanced clinical stage and higher anatomic complexity at presentation.

OBJECTIVE: African Americans (AAs) with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) have been reported to have fewer revascularization attempts and poorer patency and limb salvage (LS) rates than Caucasians (CAUs). This study compared the outcomes between AA and CAU men with chronic limb ischemia. METHODS: All AA and CAU men who underwent treatment for symptomatic PAD between November 1, 2003, and May 31, 2012, were included. Patency rates, LS, major adverse cardiovascular and limb events, amputation-free survival, and survival were compared before and after propensity score matching and with multivariate (Cox regression) analysis. RESULTS: Of the 834 men (1062 limbs), 107 were AA (137 limbs) and 727 were CAU (925 limbs). AAs were more likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dialysis dependence, lower albumin levels, and critical limb ischemia (73% vs 61%; P = .006), whereas CAUs had more coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In patients with critical limb ischemia, primary amputation rates (10.9% vs 7.2%; P = .209) were similar between groups; however, infrapopliteal interventions were more frequent in AAs (62.6% vs 44.3%; P = .004). Perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar. Mean follow-up was 38.5 ± 28.9 months (range, 0-119 months). Patency rates, major adverse limb and cardiovascular events, amputation-free survival, and survival were similar in AAs and CAUs; however, the LS rate was significantly lower in AA (73% ± 6% vs 83% ± 2%; P = .048), mainly due to the difference in the endovascular-treated group (5-year LS, 69% ± 7% in AAs vs 84% ± 2% in CAUs; P = .025). All outcomes were similar in propensity score-matched cohorts. In multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, gangrene, poor functional capacity, dialysis-dependence, and need for infrapopliteal revascularization were independently associated with limb loss, whereas race was not. CONCLUSIONS: AA men with symptomatic PAD were found to have lower LS rates than CAUs. However, this was likely due to presenting with advanced ischemia or with poor prognostic factors that are independently associated with limb loss.

Ambulatory percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) has been associated with fewer groin wound complications and shorter operative times, but same-day discharge (SDD) has not been reported. The goal of our article is to assess the feasibility and safety of ambulatory PEVAR and identify patient characteristics that are eligible for this approach. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) between March 2011 and December 2012 were reviewed. SDD was discussed during the preoperative visit with patients who were functionally independent, without significant comorbidities, and had favorable anatomy. These patients were given the option to be discharged in the evening of the PEVAR after 6 hours of bed rest if the procedure was uneventful. Causes for discharge delay and early outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 79 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, 64 of whom (mean age, 70.2 ± 9.9; range, 59-97) had elective EVAR (3 ruptures, 5 acute presentations, 3 fenestrated EVARs, 4 elective open AAA repairs were excluded). Fifty-three patients (83%) had bilateral percutaneous access, seven had unilateral percutaneous (11%) access, and the remaining four (6%) had bilateral femoral endarterectomies. The percutaneous closure success rate was 96% in 113 attempts (three conversions for inadequate hemostasis, one for inability to deploy device). Mean length of stay was 1.3 ± 1.4 days (median, 1 day) with no 30-day mortality. Twenty-one patients (33%) were discharged the same day (SDD group), 24 (37%) on postoperative day (POD) 1, 16 (25%) on POD 2/3, and 3 (5%) stayed ≥ 4 days. One patient in the SDD group was readmitted on POD 3 after EVAR for severe postimplantation syndrome. Of the 23 patients who were discharged on POD 1, 10 were kept overnight due to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or advanced age, three transportation issues, two inability to void, two patient preference, two for renal protection, and four due to unplanned femoral cutdown. Patients in the SDD group were significantly younger (66.5 ± 5.4 years vs 72.0 ± 10.6 years; P = .029), had smaller AAAs (5.3 ± 0.5 cm vs 5.9 ± 1.0 cm; P = .013), less blood loss (115 ± 90 mL vs 232 ± 198 mL; P = .012), and shorter operating time (79 ± 24 minutes vs 121 ± 73 minutes; P = .013). There were fewer American Society of Anesthesiologists 4 patients in the SDD group (24% vs 48%; P = .056). The majority (81%) of patients in all groups had general anesthesia (86% vs 79% SDD vs others; P = .523). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory PEVAR was found to be feasible and safe in one-third of patients undergoing elective EVAR who did not have excessive medical risk, had good functional capacity, and underwent an uneventful procedure. The impact of SDD on cost-effectiveness needs to be further assessed and may not be feasible in hospitals reimbursed based on admission status.

Clinical presentation and outcome after failed infrainguinal endovascular and open revascularization in patients with chronic limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Failure of prior endovascular (EV) interventions for chronic limb ischemia has been reported to negatively affect patency and limb salvage after subsequent revascularization procedures. The goal of our study was to compare the clinical presentation of patients who failed infrainguinal EV and open revascularizations (OR) and the effect of the initial intervention on final outcomes. METHODS: From June 2001 to October 2010, 216 patients (237 limbs; 66 disabling claudication [DC], 171 critical limb ischemia [CLI]) presented with failed infrainguinal OR or EV revascularization for chronic limb ischemia. Clinical presentation, reinterventions, patency and limb salvage rates, and final outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The EV group (n = 143) had more diabetes (44% vs 57%; P = .048) and ulcers (26% vs 38%; P = .039), whereas the OR group (n = 94) had more multilevel revascularizations (59% vs 33%; P < .001), rest pain (23% vs 9%; P = .002), and infrapopliteal interventions (58% vs 38%; P = .038). Presentation at time of failure was non-limb-threatening ischemia in 70% of DC and 16% of CLI patients (P < .001), with no difference in those initially treated with EV or OR. In CLI, 23% presented with acute limb ischemia in the OR group vs 10% in the EV group (P = .024). Early failure (<3 months) occurred in 15% of DC and in 36% of CLI patients and was more in the OR than in the EV group (30% vs 7% for DC [P = .011] and 71% vs 38% for CLI [P = .024]). Overall, 195 (82%) had attempted reinterventions (79% in DC and 85% in CLI; P = .245). In DC patients, 48% of OR had OR + EV and 26% had EV; 32% of EV had OR + EV and 47% had EV reinterventions. In CLI patients, 40% of OR had OR + EV and 42% had EV; 17% of EV had OR + EV; and 70% had EV reinterventions. A patent revascularized limb was achieved in 66% of OR and in 92% of EV patients (P < .001). Patency and limb salvage were significantly better in the EV group, mainly due to the difference in CLI patients, whereas survival was identical. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical presentation after failed infrainguinal revascularization is determined by the initial indication. CLI patients are more likely to present early with acute limb ischemia, especially after OR. EV reinterventions play a significant role in the management of patients with failed revascularization, and EV failure is associated with better outcomes than those after OR failure, likely due to OR patients having more disadvantaged anatomy and advanced disease at the time of their initial presentation.

Management of patients with concomitant lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and malignancy is challenging. We aimed to define the coincidence of AAA and lung cancer and to determine a treatment strategy. METHODS: The outcomes for patients diagnosed with AAA and lung cancer between 1991 and 2004 at our institution were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: We identified 75 patients with both lesions among 1,096 AAA and 1,875 lung cancer patients. Survival correlated with cancer stage; only 3 deaths were directly attributable to the patient's AAA. Of 59 patients who did not have AAA repair at the time of cancer diagnosis, 12 were repaired. Twenty-seven of those 59 patients had a 5.0-cm or larger AAA; only 1 patient with a 7.5-cm AAA had a rupture 5 months after thoracotomy and died. CONCLUSIONS: The co-existence of AAA and lung cancer is not rare; prognosis is poor and largely determined by the lung cancer stage. Open or endovascular repair of AAA rarely is justified in patients with advanced disease unless the AAA is symptomatic or large (>7 cm). Treatment for AAAs greater than 5.5 cm should be based on stage, histology, and patient comorbidities.