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.

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.

The rise of endovascular repair for abdominal, thoracoabdominal, and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in intervention guidelines and the growing popularity of endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms, we examined the trends in admissions and repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs), and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). METHODS: We identified all patients admitted with ruptured aortic aneurysms and intact aortic aneurysms repaired in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2019. We then examined the use of open, endovascular, and complex endovascular repair (OAR, EVAR, and cEVAR) for each aortic aneurysm location (AAA, TAAA, and TAA), alongside their resulting in-hospital mortality, over time. cEVAR included branched, fenestrated, and physician-modified endografts. RESULTS: 715,570 patients were identified with AAA (87% intact repairs and 13% rupture admissions). Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions decreased significantly between 2004 and 2019 (intact 41,060-34,215, P < .01; ruptured 7175-4625, P = .02). Of all AAA repairs performed in a given year, the use of EVAR increased (2004-2019: intact 45%-66%, P < .01; ruptured 10%-55%, P < .01) as well as cEVAR (2010-2019: intact 0%-23%, P < .01; ruptured 0%-14%, P < .01). Mortality after EVAR of intact AAAs decreased significantly by 29% (2004-2019, 0.73%-0.52%, P < .01), whereas mortality after OAR increased significantly by 16% (2004-2019, 4.4%-5.1%, P < .01). In the study, 27,443 patients were identified with TAAA (80% intact and 20% ruptured). In the same period, intact TAAA repairs trended upward (2004-2019, 1435-1640, P = .055), and cEVAR became the most common approach (2004-2019, 3.8%-72%, P = .055). A total of 141,651 patients were identified with ascending, arch, or descending TAAs (90% intact and 10% ruptured). Intact TAA repairs increased significantly (2004-2019, 4380-10,855, P < .01). From 2017 to 2019, the mortality after OAR of descending TAAs increased and mortality after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair decreased (2017-2019, OAR 1.6%-3.1%; thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair 5.2%-3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions significantly decreased between 2004 and 2019. The use of endovascular techniques for the repair of all aortic aneurysm locations, both intact and ruptured, increased over the past two decades. Most recently in 2019, 89% of intact AAA repairs, infrarenal through suprarenal, were endovascular (EVAR or cEVAR, respectively). cEVAR alone increased to 23% of intact AAA repairs in 2019, from 0% a decade earlier. In this period of innovation, with many new options to repair aortic aneurysms while maintaining arterial branches, endovascular repair is now used for the majority of all intact aortic aneurysm repairs. Long-term data are needed to evaluate the durability of these procedures.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

The association between sex and outcomes after thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has found worse outcomes for female patients after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and mixed findings after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent TEVAR for aTBAD (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. RESULTS: We included 1626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, female patients were significantly older (65 [interquartile range: 54, 75] years vs 56 [interquartile range: 49, 68] years; P = .01). Regarding indications for repair, female patients had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; P = .02) and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; P < .001), specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Female patients had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; P < .01). After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality to males (8.1 vs 9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.77-1.32]). On testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | adjusted hazard ratio: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Female patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality to male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed that females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians. RESULTS: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

Readmission after thoracic endovascular aortic repair following blunt thoracic aortic injury.

PURPOSE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized to treat blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI), but post-discharge outcomes remain underexplored. We examined 90-day readmission in patients treated with TEVAR following BTAI. METHODS: Adult patients discharged alive after TEVAR for BTAI in the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2019 were included. Outcomes examined were 90-day non-elective readmission, primary readmission reasons, and 90-day mortality. As a complementary analysis, 90-day outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI were compared with those following TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD). RESULTS: We identified 2085 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI. The median age was 43 years (IQR, 29-58), 65% of all patients had an ISS ≥ 25, and 13% were readmitted within 90 days. The main primary causes for readmission were sepsis (8.8%), wound complications (6.7%), and neurological complications (6.5%). Two patients developed graft thrombosis as primary readmission reasons. Compared with acute TBAD patients, BTAI patients had a significantly lower rate of readmission within 90 days (BTAI vs. TBAD; 13% vs. 29%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: We found a significant proportion of readmission in patients treated with TEVAR for BTAI. However, the 90-day readmission rate after TEVAR for BTAI was significantly lower compared with acute TBAD, and the common cause for readmission was not related to residual aortic disease or vascular devices. This represents an important distinction from other patient populations treated with TEVAR for acute vascular conditions. Elucidating differences between trauma-related TEVAR readmissions and non-traumatic indications better informs both the clinician and patients of expected post-discharge course. Level of evidence/study type: IV, Therapeutic/care management.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

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.

One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.

Incidence of Barrett's Esophagus Following Sleeve Gastrectomy in Southeast Asian Population.

Background: Variable incidences (up to 18.8%) of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been reported following sleeve gastrectomy (SG), however, there is no published data from the Southeast Asian population. Objective: To determine the incidence of BE following SG in Southeast Asians. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study from a tertiary-care center, all patients who had undergone SG from 2008 to 2021 and completed a minimum of 1-year follow-up were contacted to participate. Preoperative data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. On recruitment, all patients underwent barium swallow and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and weight parameters and reflux symptoms were recorded. Results: One hundred fourteen patients with no preoperative evidence of BE were included. The mean follow-up duration was 5.4 ± 3.1 years. On follow-up endoscopy, Barrett's was suspected in 4 patients. However, 3 patients had columnar-lined epithelium and only 1 patient (0.87%) had evidence of intestinal metaplasia without dysplasia on histology. Reflux esophagitis (grade LA-A) resolved in 9 out of 11 patients, while the rate of de novo esophagitis was reported in 22.3%. The mean reflux Symptom Severity score increased from 0.6 ± 1.8 to 2.6 ± 5.4 (P = .002). The mean body mass index reduced from 44.1 ± 7.1 to 33.6 ± 6.9 kg/m2 (P < .0001), however, 23.7% of the patients experienced significant weight recidivism. Conclusions: Southeast Asians might have a low incidence of BE following SG. Hence, endoscopic surveillance for the sole purpose of diagnosing BE may not be advisable for these patients.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Sex-related Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for intact isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sex and outcomes following TEVAR for intact isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (iiDTAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Data regarding sex-related long-term outcomes after TEVAR for iiDTAA are limited and conflicting results regarding perioperative outcomes have been reported. METHODS: We included all TEVAR for iiDTAA between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims, allowing reliable assessment of long-term outcome data. Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures of the thoracic aorta. Secondarily we assessed perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 685 patients, of which 54% were females. Females had higher aortic size index (females vs. males: 3.31 [IQR, 2.81-3.85] cm/m2 vs. 2.93 [IQR, 2.42-3.36] cm/m2; P<.001), were more frequently symptomatic (31% vs. 20%; P=.001), had longer procedure time (111 [IQR, 72-165] min vs. 97 [IQR, 70-146] min) and more iliac procedures (16% vs. 7.6%; P=.001). Compared with males, females had similar rates of 5-year mortality (58% vs. 53%; HR, 0.93; 95%CI 0.71-1.22; P=.61), reinterventions (39% vs. 30%; HR, 1.12; 95%CI 0.73-1.73; P=.60) and late ruptures (0.6% vs. 1.2%; HR, 0.87; 95%CI 0.12-6.18; P=.89). After adjustment, these outcomes remained similar through 5-years. Furthermore, perioperative mortality was not significantly different between sexes (4.1% vs. 2.2%; P=.25), as were rates of any complication as a composite outcome (16% vs. 21%; P=.16), as well as of individual complications (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females who undergo TEVAR for iiDTAA have similar 5-year and perioperative outcomes as compared with males.

Impact of Physician Experience on Stroke or Death Rates in Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting: Insights from the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Objective: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using VQI data. Methods: We analyzed tfCAS patient data from 2005-2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and in-hospital stroke/TIA. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using Cochran Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines, validated using generalized estimating equations. Results: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2,476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2% to 1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8% to 1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6% to 2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0% to 1.1%) (all p-values<0.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1% to 1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6% to 1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7% to 0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8% to 1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all p-values<0.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. Conclusions: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates post-tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. With the recent CMS coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased post-operative complications.

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.