Management and outcomes of venous thoracic outlet decompression: A transition to the infraclavicular approach.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thoracic outlet syndrome (vTOS) is caused by compression of the subclavian vein at the costoclavicular space, which may lead to vein thrombosis. Current treatment includes thoracic outlet decompression with or without venolysis. However, given its relatively low prevalence, the existing literature is limited. Here, we report our single-institution experience in the treatment of vTOS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent rib resection for vTOS at our institution from 2007 to 2022. Demographic, procedural details, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were identified. The mean age was 36 years. Swelling was the most common symptom (93%), followed by pain (6.6%). Ninety percent of patients had associated deep vein thrombosis, with 99% of these patients starting anticoagulation preoperatively. A total of 91% of patients underwent rib resection via the infraclavicular approach, 2% via the paraclavicular approach (due to a neurogenic component), and 7% via the transaxillary approach. Eighty-three percent of patients had endovascular intervention before or at the time of the rib resection, with catheter-directed thrombolysis (87%), followed by angioplasty (71%) and rheolytic thrombectomy (57%) being the most common interventions. The median time from endovascular intervention to rib resection was 14 days, with 25% at the same admission. The median postoperative stay was 3 days (2-5 days). There was no perioperative mortality or nerve injury. Fourteen percent of patients had postoperative complications, with bleeding complications (12%) being the most common. Waiting more than 30 days between initial endovascular intervention and rib resection was not associated with decreased risk of bleeding complications. Patients were seen postoperatively at 1-month (physical examination) and 6-month (duplex) intervals or for any new or recurrent symptoms. Twenty-two percent of our overall patient population underwent reintervention, most commonly angioplasty (21%). At last follow-up, 97% of subclavian veins were patent, and 93% of patients were symptom free. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, we have transitioned to an infraclavicular approach for isolated vTOS, with low perioperative morbidity and good patency rates. These results support the adoption of the infraclavicular approach with adjunct endovascular techniques as a safe and efficacious treatment of vTOS.

Outcomes Following Carotid Revascularization in Patients with Prior Ipsilateral Carotid Artery Stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous carotid artery stenting. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, tfCAS and CEA in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the VQI. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA following prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, BMI, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior CAD, prior CABG/PCI, CHF, renal dysfunction, smoking, COPD, anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability-weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality and cranial nerve injury (CNI) following TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. RESULTS: We identified 2,137 patients undergoing revascularization following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%) and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%,aOR:0.33[0.11-1.05]; p=0.06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%,aOR:0.80[0.16-3.98]; p=0.8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of post-operative MI (0.1% vs 14%,aOR:0.02[0.00-0.10]; p<0.001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%,aOR:0.05[0.01-0.25]; p<0.001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%,aOR:0.04[0.00-0.30]; p=0.002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1% with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the post-procedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

Association between Diabetes Status and Long-term Outcomes Following Open and Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Current literature reports conflicting findings regarding the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes of AAA repair. In this study we examined the effect of DM and its management on outcomes following open (OAR) and endovascular (EVAR) AAA repair. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing OAR or EVAR for infrarenal AAA between 2003-2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry data linked with Medicare claims. We excluded patients with missing DM status. Patients were stratified by their preoperative DM status, and then further stratified by DM management: dietary, non-insulin anti-diabetic medications (NIM), or insulin. Outcomes of interest included one-year aneurysm sac dynamics, 8-year aneurysm rupture, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. These outcomes were analyzed with chi-square, Kaplan-Meier methods, and multivariable cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 34,021 EVAR patients and 4,127 OAR patients of which 20% and 16% had DM, respectively. Of all DM patients, 22% were managed by dietary management, 59% by NIM, and 19% by insulin. Following EVAR, DM patients were more likely to have stable sacs while non-DM patients were more likely to have sac regression at 1 year. Compared with non-DM, DM was associated with a significantly lower risk for 8-year rupture in EVAR (EVAR HR: 0.68 [0.51-0.92]). Compared with non-DM, NIM was associated with lower risk of rupture within 8-years for both EVAR and OAR (EVAR HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]; OAR HR: 0.29 [0.41-0.80]), while dietary and insulin had similar rupture risk compared with non-DM. However, compared with non-DM, DM was associated with higher risk of 8-year all-cause mortality following EVAR and OAR (DM vs. non-DM: EVAR HR: 1.17 [1.11-1.23]; OAR HR: 1.16 [1.00-1.36]). Following further DM management sub-stratification, compared with non-DM, management with NIM and insulin were associated with higher 8-year mortality in EVAR and OAR (EVAR: NIM HR: 1.12 [1.05-1.20] & insulin HR: 1.40 [1.26-1.55]; OAR: NIM HR: 1.27 [1.06-1.54] & insulin HR: 1.57 [1.15-2.13]). Finally, there was a similar risk of reintervention across the DM and non-DM populations in EVAR and OAR. CONCLUSION: DM was associated with lower adjusted risk of rupture following EVAR as well as OAR in patients managed with NIM. Nevertheless, just as in patients without AAA, preoperative DM was associated with a higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality. Further study is needed to evaluate for differences in aneurysm-related mortality between DM and non-DM, and studies are planned to evaluate the independent effect of NIM on aneurysm-related outcomes.

The impact of travel distance in patient outcomes following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patient travel distance to the hospital is a key metric of individual and social disadvantage and its impact on the management and outcomes following intervention for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is likely underestimated. We sought to evaluate the effect of travel distance on outcomes in patients undergoing first-time lower extremity revascularization at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients undergoing first-time lower extremity revascularization, both endovascular and open, for CLTI from 2005 to 2014. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on travel distance from home to hospital greater than or less than 30 miles. Outcomes included reintervention, major amputation, restenosis, primary patency, wound healing, length of stay, length of follow-up and mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine event rates. Logistic and cox regression was used to evaluate for an independent association between travel distance and these outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1293 patients were identified, 38% traveled >30 miles. Patients with longer travel distances were younger (70 years vs 73 years; P = .001), more likely to undergo open revascularization (65% vs 41%; P < .001), and had similar Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection stages (P = .404). Longer distance travelled was associated with an increase in total hospital length of stay (9.6 days vs 8.6 days; P = .031) and shorter total duration of postoperative follow-up (2.1 years vs 3.0 years; P = .001). At 5 years, there was no definitive difference in the rate of restenosis (hzard ratio [HR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.9; P = .155) or reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.1; P = .065), but longer travel distance was associated with an increased rate of major amputation (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7; P = .011), and death (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2; P = .002). Longer travel distance was also associated with higher rate of nonhealing wounds (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.5; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Longer patient travel distance was found to be associated with a lower likelihood of limb salvage and survival in patients undergoing first-time lower extremity revascularization for CLTI. Understanding and addressing the barriers to discharge, need for multidisciplinary follow-up, and appropriate postoperative wound care management will be key in improving outcomes at tertiary care regional specialty centers.

Bailout Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenting after Carotid Endarterectomy: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting may be employed as a bailout maneuver when an inadequate end point or clamp injury is encountered at the time of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a surgically inaccessible region of the distal ICA. We sought to characterize the indications, technique, and outcomes for this infrequently encountered clinical scenario. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent distal ICA stenting at the time of CEA at our institution between September 2008 and July 2022. Procedural details and postoperative follow-up were reviewed for each patient. RESULTS: Six patients were identified during the study period. All were male with an age range of 63 to 82 years. Five underwent carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and one patient was treated for amaurosis fugax. Three patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy preoperatively, whereas 2 were on aspirin monotherapy, and one was on aspirin and low-dose rivaroxaban. Five patients underwent CEA with patch angioplasty, and one underwent eversion CEA. The indication for stenting was distal ICA dissection due to clamp or shunt injury in 2 patients and an inadequate distal ICA end point in 4 patients. In all cases, access for stenting was obtained under direct visualization within the common carotid artery, and a standard carotid stent was deployed with its proximal aspect landing within the endarterectomized site. Embolic protection was typically achieved via proximal common carotid artery and external carotid artery clamping for flow arrest with aspiration of debris before restoration of antegrade flow. There was 100% technical success. Postoperatively, 2 patients were found to have a cranial nerve injury, likely occurring due to the need for high ICA exposure. Median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-7 days) with no instances of perioperative stroke or myocardial infarction. All patients were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy with no further occurrence of stroke, carotid restenosis, or reintervention through a median follow-up of 17 months. CONCLUSIONS: Distal ICA stenting is a useful adjunct in the setting of CEA complicated by inadequate end point or vessel dissection in a surgically inaccessible region of the ICA and can minimize the need for high-risk extensive distal dissection of the ICA in this situation.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Discrepancies in clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length measurements for transcarotid artery revascularization using different imaging modalities.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an effective method for carotid artery stenting. However, anatomic eligibility for TCAR is most often limited by an inadequate clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length of <5 cm. Preoperative clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation distances may be underestimated when using conventional straight-line measurements on computed tomographic angiography (CTA) imaging. We therefore compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths as measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA, and intraoperative duplex ultrasound (US), to assess potential differences. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive TCAR procedures performed between 2016 and 2019 for atherosclerotic carotid disease. For each patient, we compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA using TeraRecon image reconstruction, and intraoperative duplex US with neck extension and rotation. We further assessed patient and imaging characteristics in individuals with a ≥0.5 cm difference among the measurement methods. In particular, common carotid artery (CCA) tortuosity, defined as the inability to visualize the entire CCA from clavicle to carotid bifurcation on both a single coronal and sagittal imaging cut, was examined as a contributing factor for these discrepancies. RESULTS: Of the 70 TCAR procedures identified, 46 had all three imaging modalities available for review. The median clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length was found to be 6.4 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4-6.7 cm) on straight-line CTA, 7.0 cm (IQR, 6.0-7.5 cm) on intraoperative duplex US, and 7.2 cm (IQR, 6.5-7.5 cm) on center-line CTA (P < .001). Patients with a ≥0.5 cm difference between their straight-line CTA and either their intraoperative duplex US or center-line CTA measurements were more likely to have tortuous CCAs (60.0% vs 19.1%; P = .01; 51.4% vs 0.0%; P = .01). There were no notable differences in age, gender, prior neck/cervical spine surgery, or neck immobility among these individuals. In patients with tortuous CCAs, duplex US and center-line CTA measurements added 1.0 cm (IQR, 0.6-1.5 cm) and 1.1 cm (IQR, 0.9-1.6 cm) more in length than straight-line CTA measurements, respectively. There was a strong linear correlation between the additional lengths provided by duplex US measurements and those provided by center-line CTA measurements for each individual within the tortuous CCA group (r = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The use of straight-line CTA during preoperative planning can underestimate the clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, particularly in those with tortuous CCAs. Both duplex US performed with extended-neck surgical positioning and center-line CTA provide similar and longer carotid length measurements, and should be utilized in patients with tortuous carotid vessels to better determine TCAR anatomic eligibility.

Efficacy and safety of single versus dual antiplatelet therapy in carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet (AP) therapy (DAPT) before carotid artery stenting (CAS); however, the true clinical effect of single AP therapy vs DAPT is unknown. We examined the efficacy and safety of preoperative single AP therapy vs DAPT in patients who had undergone transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone tfCAS or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2021. We stratified the patients by procedure and identified those who had received the following preoperative AP regimens: DAPT (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] + P2Y12 inhibitor [P2Yi]), no AP therapy, ASA only, ASA + AP loading dose, P2Yi only, and P2Yi + AP loading dose. The AP loading dose was given within 4 hours of CAS. We generated propensity scores for each treatment regimen and assessed in-hospital outcomes using inverse probability weighted log binomial regression, with DAPT as the reference and adjusting for intraoperative protamine use. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite end point of stroke and death, and the primary safety outcome was access-related bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 18,570 tfCAS patients, 70% had received DAPT, 5.6% no AP therapy, 10% ASA only, 8.0% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.6% P2Yi only, and 2.9% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 2.2%, 6.8%, 4.1%, 5.1%, 2.4%, and 2.3%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.2), ASA only (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1), and ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.7) but was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.58-1.7) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.49-2.5). Of the 25,459 TCAR patients, 81% had received DAPT, 2.0% no AP therapy, 5.5% ASA only, 3.5% ASA + AP loading dose, 4.9% P2Yi only, and 2.4% P2Yi + AP loading dose. The corresponding unadjusted rates of stroke/death were 1.5%, 3.3%, 3.3%, 2.9%, 1.2%, and 1.1%. After adjustment, compared with DAPT, the incidence of stroke/death was higher with no AP therapy (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3) and ASA only (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.1), with a trend toward a higher incidence with ASA + AP loading dose (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.99-2.6), and was similar with P2Yi only (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.54-1.8) and P2Yi + AP loading dose (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.27-1.6). No differences were found in the incidence of access-related bleeding between the treatment groups after tfCAS or TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DAPT, no AP therapy or ASA monotherapy was associated with higher rates of stroke/death after CAS and should be discouraged as unsafe practice. Meanwhile, P2Yi monotherapy was associated with similar rates of stroke/death. No differences were found in the incidence of bleeding complications, and adding an AP loading dose to ASA or P2Yi monotherapy within 4 hours of the procedure did not affect the outcomes. Overall, these findings support the current guidelines recommending DAPT before CAS but also suggest that P2Yi monotherapy might confer thromboembolic benefits similar to those with DAPT. However, an immediate preoperative AP loading dose might not provide additional thromboembolic benefits.

The impact of neighborhood social disadvantage on abdominal aortic aneurysm severity and management.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have highlighted socioeconomic disparities in the severity and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease. However, these studies focus on individual measures of social disadvantage such as income and insurance status. The area deprivation index (ADI), a validated measure of neighborhood deprivation, provides a more comprehensive assessment of social disadvantage. Therefore, we examined the impact of ADI on AAA severity and its management. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent endovascular or open repair of an AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between 2003 and 2020. An ADI score of 1 to 100 was assigned to each patient based on their residential zip code, with higher ADI scores corresponding with increasing deprivation. Patients were categorized by ADI quintiles. Outcomes of interest included rates of ruptured AAA (rAAA) repair versus an intact AAA repair and rates of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus the open approach. Logistic regression was used to evaluate for an independent association between ADI quintile and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 55,931 patients who underwent AAA repair, 6649 (12%) were in the lowest ADI quintile, 11,692 (21%) in the second, 15,958 (29%) in the third, 15,035 (27%) in the fourth, and 6597 (12%) in the highest ADI quintile. Patients in the two highest ADI quintiles had a higher proportion of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) compared with those in the lowest ADI quintile (8.8% and 9.1% vs 6.2%; P < .001). They were also less likely to undergo EVAR (vs open approach) when compared with the lowest ADI quintile (81% and 81% vs 88%; P < .001). There was an overall trend toward increasing rAAA and decreasing EVAR rates with increasing ADI quintiles (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, when compared with patients in the lowest ADI quintile, patients in the highest ADI quintile had higher odds of rAAA repair (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8; P < .001) and lower odds of undergoing EVAR (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, those with higher neighborhood deprivation had significantly higher rates of rAAA repair (vs intact repair) and lower rates of EVAR (vs open approach). Further work is needed to better understand neighborhood factors that are contributing to these disparities to identify community-level targets for improvement.

Effect of postoperative antithrombotic therapy on lower extremity outcomes after infrapopliteal bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Although the current guidelines have recommended single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) for patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), antithrombotic management has varied by patient and provider. Our aim was to examine the effects of different postoperative antithrombotic regimens on 3-year clinical outcomes after infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI. METHODS: We identified patients who had undergone infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry from 2003 to 2017 with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We divided the patients into three cohorts according to the discharge antithrombotic regimen: SAPT (aspirin or clopidogrel), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin and clopidogrel), or anticoagulation (AC) plus any antiplatelet (AP) agent. To reduce selection bias, we restricted the analysis cohorts to patients treated by providers who discharged >50% of patients with each antithrombotic regimen. Our primary outcome was 3-year major adverse limb events (MALE; major amputation or reintervention). The secondary outcomes included 3-year major amputation, reintervention, and mortality. We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess these outcomes stratified by antithrombotic regimen and adjusted for demographic, comorbid, clinical, and operative differences between the treatment groups with clustering at the center level. RESULTS: Among 1812 patients (median follow-up, >2 years), 693 (38%) were discharged with SAPT, 544 (30%) with DAPT, and 575 (32%) with AC+AP. At 3 years, the MALE rates were 75% with DAPT, 74% with AC+AP, and 68% with SAPT. In adjusted analyses with SAPT as the reference group, no differences were found in 3-year MALE with DAPT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.3; P = .71) or AC+AP (aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.96-1.3; P = .14). Across the treatment groups, we also found no differences in the individual end points of 3-year major amputation (DAPT: aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.3; AC+AP: aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.96-1.7), reintervention (DAPT: aHR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.84-1.3; AC+AP: aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.96-1.3), or mortality (DAPT: aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4; AC+AP: aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.2). In a sensitivity analysis evaluating patients treated by providers who discharged >60%, >70%, or >80% of patients with these regimens, the association between antithrombotic regimen and MALE was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SAPT, DAPT and anticoagulation therapy were not associated with improved outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI at VQI participating centers. These findings support current guidelines recommending SAPT after lower extremity bypass and suggest that the routine use of DAPT or anticoagulation therapy might not provide clinical benefit in this high-risk, elderly population. However, further evaluation of the risks and benefits of various antithrombotic regimens in relevant subgroups is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in carotid artery stenting.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel resistance is associated with increased periprocedural neurologic events after carotid artery stenting (CAS). Ticagrelor offers an improved resistance profile; however, its bleeding risk has not been assessed with CAS. Therefore, we examined the efficacy and safety of perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin/ticagrelor vs aspirin/clopidogrel in patients undergoing transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent tfCAS or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to March 2021. We stratified patients by procedure and assessed outcomes using 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received perioperative aspirin/ticagrelor vs aspirin/clopidogrel. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke/death, and the primary safety outcome was access-related bleeding. As a secondary analysis, we assessed these outcomes after stratifying each cohort by intraoperative protamine use. RESULTS: Among 17,731 tfCAS patients, 593 (3.3%) received aspirin/ticagrelor and 11,404 (64%) received aspirin/clopidogrel. For the 2065 matched patients, no significant differences were found in the composite endpoint of stroke/death (aspirin/ticagrelor, 4.1%; vs aspirin/clopidogrel, 2.6%; relative risk [RR],1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-2.7) or in the individual endpoints of stroke (2.9% vs 1.8%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.87-3.0) or death (1.7% vs 1.1%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.71-3.5). However, aspirin/ticagrelor was associated with a higher risk of bleeding (5.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2). In a subgroup analysis of 297 tfCAS patients (14%) who received intraoperative protamine, no differences remained in stroke/death (1.5% vs 3.9%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-3.0), and there was no longer a difference in bleeding (3.0% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.24-5.5). Among 17,946 TCAR patients, 453 (2.5%) received aspirin/ticagrelor and 13,696 (76%) received aspirin/clopidogrel. For the 1618 matched patients, no differences were found in stroke/death (0.7% vs 1.4%; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.16-1.8), stroke (0.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-1.5), death (0.5% vs 0.2%; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.42-21), or bleeding (1.2% vs 1.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.28-2.0). For the 1429 TCAR patients (88%) who received protamine, no differences were found in stroke/death (0.8% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.20-2.4) or bleeding (0.6% vs 1.4%; RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with aspirin/clopidogrel, aspirin/ticagrelor was associated with a potentially lower risk of stroke/death and bleeding complications after CAS in cases in which protamine was used but a higher risk of these outcomes in the absence of protamine. Given our limited sample size, our analysis should be repeated when more patients are available for study. However, our findings suggest that aspirin/ticagrelor could be a reasonable alternative to aspirin/clopidogrel for both tfCAS and TCAR when protamine is used.

Wound location is independently associated with adverse outcomes following first-time revascularization for tissue loss.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies adequately evaluate the impact of wound location on patient outcomes after lower extremity revascularization. Consequently, we evaluated the relationship between lower extremity wound location and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all patients at our institution undergoing any first-time open surgical bypass or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting for tissue loss between 2005 and 2014. We categorized wounds into three distinct groups: forefoot (ie, toes and metatarsal heads), midfoot (ie, dorsal, plantar, lateral, medial surfaces excluding toes, metatarsal heads, or heel), and heel. Limbs with multiple wounds were excluded from analyses. We compared rates of perioperative complications, wound healing, reintervention, limb salvage, amputation-free survival, and survival using χ2, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 2869 infrainguinal revascularizations from 2005 to 2014, 1126 underwent a first-time revascularization for tissue loss, of which 253 patients had multiple wounds, 197 had wounds proximal to the ankle, 100 had unreliable wound information, and 576 (forefoot, n = 397; midfoot, n = 61; heel, n = 118) fit our criteria and had a single foot wound with reliable information regarding wound specifics. Patients with forefoot, midfoot, and heel wounds had similar rates of coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking history (all P > .05). Conversely, there were significant differences in patient age (71 vs 69 vs 70 years), prevalence of gangrene (41% vs 5% vs 21%), and dialysis dependence (18% vs 17% vs 30%) (all P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences in perioperative mortality (1.3% vs 4.9% vs 4.2%; P = .06) or postoperative complications among the three groups. Between forefoot, midfoot, and heel wounds, there were significant differences in unadjusted 6-month rates of complete wound healing (69% vs 64% vs 53%), 3-year rates of amputation-free survival (54% vs 57% vs 35%), and survival (61% vs 72% vs 41%) (all P < .05). After adjustment, compared with forefoot wounds, heel wounds were associated with higher rates of incomplete 6-month wound healing (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.]), major amputation or mortality (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), but not major amputation alone (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-4.5). In open surgical bypass-first patients, heel wounds were solely associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8), whereas heel wounds in percutaneous transluminal angioplasty-first patients were associated with an increased risk of incomplete wound healing (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7), major amputation or mortality (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4), and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-7.2). CONCLUSIONS: Heel wounds confer considerably higher short- and long-term morbidity and mortality compared with midfoot or forefoot wounds in patients undergoing any first-time lower extremity revascularization.

Five-year survival following endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is improving.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing experience and improving technology have led to the expansion of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We investigated whether the 5-year survival after both EVAR and open repair for ruptured AAA changed over the last 14 years. METHODS: We identified repairs for ruptured infrarenal AAA within the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between 2004 and 2018. We compared the 5-year survival of both EVAR and open repair between the early (2004-2012) and late (2013-2018) cohorts. In addition, we compared EVAR with open repair in the early and late cohorts. We used propensity score modeling to create matching cohorts for each analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival proportions and univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to compare differences in hazard of mortality in the matched cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 4638 ruptured AAA repairs. This included 409 EVARs in the early cohort and 2250 in the late cohort, as well as 558 open repairs in the early cohort and 1421 in the late cohort. Propensity matching resulted in 366 matched pairs of late vs early EVAR and 391 matched-pairs of late vs early open repair. When comparing EVAR with open repair, propensity matching resulted in 277 matched pairs of early EVAR versus open, and 1177 matched pairs of late EVAR versus open. In matched EVAR patients, 5-year survival was higher in the late cohort (63% vs 49%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.97; P = .027), whereas there was no difference between matched late vs early for open repair patients (52% vs 59%; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.28; P = .69). In the early cohort, there was no survival difference between EVAR and open repair (51% vs 46%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .28). However, in the late cohort EVAR was associated with higher survival compared with open repair (63% vs 54%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year survival after EVAR for ruptured AAA has improved over time, whereas survival after open repair remained constant. Consequently, the relative survival benefit of EVAR over open repair has increased over time, which should encourage further adoption of EVAR for ruptured AAA.

Endovascular Versus Surgical Revascularization for Acute Limb Ischemia: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains unclear, and contemporary comparative effectiveness data on endovascular versus surgical revascularization are lacking. METHODS: We used the 2010 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ALI. Patients were propensity-score matched on the likelihood of undergoing endovascular versus surgical revascularization using a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke, any amputation, fasciotomy, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, transfusion, vascular complications, length of stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 10 484 (weighted national estimate=51 914) hospitalizations for ALI, endovascular revascularization was performed in 5008 (47.8%) and surgical revascularization in 5476 (52.2%). In the propensity-score matched cohort (n=7746; 3873 per group), patients who underwent endovascular revascularization had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.8% versus 4.0%; P=0.002), myocardial infarction (1.9% versus 2.7%; P=0.022), composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (5.2% versus 7.5%; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (10.5% versus 11.9%; P=0.043), fasciotomy (1.9% versus 8.9%; P<0.001), major bleeding (16.7% versus 21.0%; P<0.001), and transfusion (10.3% versus 18.5%; P<0.001), but higher vascular complications (1.4% versus 0.7%; P=0.002), compared with those undergoing surgical revascularization. Rates of any amputation were similar between the 2 groups (4.7% versus 5.1%; P=0.43). Median length of stay was shorter and hospital costs higher with endovascular versus surgical revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI, endovascular revascularization was associated with better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared with surgical revascularization. Contemporary randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for ALI.

Image Fusion and 3-Dimensional Roadmapping in Endovascular Surgery.

Practitioners of endovascular surgery have historically used 2-dimensional (2D) intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging, with intravascular contrast opacification, to treat complex 3-dimensional (3D) pathology. Recently, major technical developments in intraoperative imaging have made image fusion techniques possible, the creation of a 3D patient-specific vascular roadmap based on preoperative imaging which aligns with intraoperative fluoroscopy, with many potential benefits. First, a 3D model is segmented from preoperative imaging, typically a computed tomography scan. The model is then used to plan for the procedure, with placement of specific markers and storing of C-arm angles that will be used for intraoperative guidance. At the time of the procedure, an intraoperative cone beam computed tomography is performed, and the 3D model is registered to the patient's on-table anatomy. Finally, the system is used for live guidance in which the 3D model is codisplayed with overlying fluoroscopic images. There are many applications for image fusion in endovascular surgery. We have found it to be particularly useful for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), complex EVAR, thoracic EVAR, carotid stenting, and for type 2 endoleaks. Image fusion has been shown in various settings to lead to decreased radiation dose, less iodinated contrast use, and shorter procedure times. In the future, fusion models may be able to account for vessel deformation caused by the introduction of stiff wires and devices, and the user-dependent steps may become more automated. In its current form, image fusion has already proven itself to be an essential component in the planning and success of complex endovascular procedures.

Modern Fixed Imaging Systems Reduce Radiation Exposure to Patients and Providers.

High-definition fluoroscopic imaging is required to perform endovascular procedures safely and precisely, especially in complex cases, resulting in longer procedures and increased radiation exposure. This is of importance for training institutions as trainees, even with sound instruction in as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles, tend to have high radiation exposures. Recently, there was an upgrade in the imaging system allowing for comparison of radiation exposure to patients and providers. We performed an analysis of consecutive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and superficial femoral artery (SFA) interventions in the years 2013 to 2014. We recorded body mass index (BMI) and fluoroscopy time (FT) and subsequently matched 1:1 based on BMI, FT, or both. We determined radiation dose using air kerma (AK) and also recorded individual surgeons' badge readings. Allura Xper FD20 was upgraded to AlluraClarity with ClarityIQ. We identified a total of 77 EVARs (52 pre and 25 post) and 134 SFA interventions (99 pre and 35 post). Unmatched results for EVAR were BMI pre 26.2 versus post 25.8 (kg/m2, P = .325), FT 28.1 versus 21.2 (minutes, P = .051), and AK 1178.5 versus 581 (mGy, P < .001), respectively. After matching, there was a 53.2% reduction in AK (846.1 vs 395.9 mGy; P = .004) for EVAR. Unmatched results for SFA interventions were BMI pre 28.1 versus post 26.6 ( P = .327), FT 18.7 versus 16.2 ( P = .282), and AK 285.6 versus 106.0 ( P < .001), respectively. After matching, there was a 57.0% reduction in AK (305.0 vs 131.3, P < .001). The total deep dose equivalent from surgeons' badge readings decreased from 39.5 to 17 mrem ( P = .029). Aortic and peripheral endovascular interventions can be performed with reduced radiation exposure to patients and providers, employing modern fixed imaging systems with advanced dose reduction technology. This is of particular importance in the light of the increasing volume and complexity of endovascular and hybrid procedures as well as the prospect of decades of radiation exposure during training and practice.