Preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular surgery, with an incidence rate ranging from 5% to 20%. Preoperative coronary interventions, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may help prevent acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major vascular surgery when used in addition to routine perioperative drugs (e.g. statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet agents), CABG by creating new blood circulation routes that bypass the blockages in the coronary vessels, and PCI by opening up blocked blood vessels. There is currently uncertainty around the benefits and harms of preoperative coronary interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and CINAHL EBSCO on 13 March 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care versus usual care for preventing acute myocardial infarction during major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We included participants of any sex or any age undergoing major open vascular surgery, major endovascular surgery, or hybrid vascular surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes of interest were acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and adverse events resulting from preoperative coronary interventions. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, quality of life, vessel or graft secondary patency, and length of hospital stay. We reported perioperative and long-term outcomes (more than 30 days after intervention). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (1144 participants). Participants were randomised to receive either preoperative coronary revascularisation with PCI or CABG plus usual care or only usual care before major vascular surgery. One trial enrolled participants if they had no apparent evidence of coronary artery disease. Another trial selected participants classified as high risk for coronary disease through preoperative clinical and laboratorial testing. We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis because participants from both the control and the intervention groups were eligible to undergo preoperative coronary revascularisation. We identified a high risk of performance bias in all included trials, with one trial displaying a high risk of other bias. However, the risk of bias was either low or unclear in other domains. We observed no difference between groups for perioperative acute myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 4.57; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial showed a reduction in incidence of long-term (> 30 days) acute myocardial infarction in participants allocated to the preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care group, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28; 1 trial, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on all-cause mortality in the perioperative period when comparing the preoperative coronary intervention plus usual care group to usual care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of preoperative coronary interventions on long-term (follow up: 2.7 to 6.2 years) all-cause mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.80; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no adverse effects related to coronary angiography, whereas the other two studies reported five deaths due to revascularisations. There may be no effect on cardiovascular mortality when comparing preoperative coronary revascularisation plus usual care to usual care in the short term (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 1 trial, 426 participants; low-certainty evidence). Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care in the short term may reduce length of hospital stay slightly when compared to usual care alone (mean difference -1.17 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.28; 1 trial, 462 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or vessel graft patency at either time point, and no study reported on adverse effects, cardiovascular mortality, or length of hospital stay at long-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may have little or no effect on preventing perioperative acute myocardial infarction and reducing perioperative all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain. Similarly, limited, very low-certainty evidence shows that preoperative coronary interventions may have little or no effect on reducing long-term all-cause mortality. There is very low-certainty evidence that preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may prevent long-term myocardial infarction, and low-certainty evidence that they may reduce length of hospital stay slightly, but not cardiovascular mortality in the short term, when compared to usual care alone. Adverse effects of preoperative coronary interventions were poorly reported in trials. Quality of life and vessel or graft patency were not reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence most frequently for high risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. None of the analysed trials provided significant data on subgroups of patients who could potentially experience more substantial benefits from preoperative coronary intervention (e.g. altered ventricular ejection fraction). There is a need for evidence from larger and homogeneous RCTs to provide adequate statistical power to assess the role of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

Adjunctive Utilization of Intravascular Ultrasound in Peripheral Arterial Disease Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The utility and benefit of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been well established in coronary interventions, however widespread adoption for peripheral interventions has lagged. The objectives of this review article were to discuss the technical components of IVUS, describe key learning pearls for IVUS utilization, and review the literature describing the clinical outcomes of endovascular peripheral arterial interventions using IVUS. METHODS: A scoping review of the current literature utilizing Pubmed. Terms used to search the literature included "intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)" in conjunction with "peripheral arterial disease (PAD)," "endovascular interventions," "chronic limb threatening ischemia," "balloon angioplasty" "stenting," "percutaneous coronary intervention," and "outcomes." All types of articles were reviewed including review articles, retrospective reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective observational and randomized studies. RESULTS: Published literature regarding IVUS use in peripheral arterial interventions is heterogeneous and limited to mainly retrospective studies, registry analyses and metanalyses. Outcomes are generally favorable with the adjunct of IVUS compared to traditional angiography-driven peripheral interventions. The addition of IVUS improves stent expansion, stent patency, and reduces reintervention rates, particularly in infrainguinal arterial lesions. Long-term costs may also be lower with IVUS-guided procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus largely supports the implementation of IVUS in endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease. However, more robust high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, durability, and cost of IVUS in peripheral arterial disease are still needed.

Endosutured Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Short Necks Achieves Acceptable Midterm Outcomes-Results from the Peru Registry.

BACKGROUND: The study aims to describe midterm outcomes following treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short necks by endosutured aneurysm repair using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor system. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 9 vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019, including treated AAAs with neck lengths ≤10 mm. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. There were 2 Groups further assessed according to neck length, A (≥4 and <7 mm) and B (≥7 and ≤10 mm). The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (TIaELs), sac size increase, all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included in the study, 17 fell into Group A and 59 into Group B. Median follow-up for the cohort was 40.5 (interquartile range 12-61) months. A median of 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed in each subject. Technical success was 86.8% for the total group, 82.4% and 88.1% (P = 0.534) for Groups A and B respectively. Six out of 10 (60%) of TIaELs at the completion angiographies showed spontaneous resolution. Cumulative freedom from TIaEL at 3 and 5 years for the total group was 89% and 84% respectively; this was 93% and 74% for Group A and 88% at both intervals in Group B (P = 0.545). In total, there were 7 (9.2%) patients presenting with TIaELs over the entire study period. Two (11.8%) in Group A and 5 (8.5%) in Group B (P = 0.679). There were more patients with sac regression in Group B (Group A = 6-35.3% vs. Group B = 34-57.6%, P = 0.230) with no statistical significance. All-cause mortality was 19 (25%) patients, with no difference (4-23.5% vs. 15-25.4%, P = 0.874) between groups; whereas aneurysm-related mortality occurred in 1 patient from Group A and 3 from Group B. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates reasonable outcomes for patients with short-necked AAAs treated by endosutured aneurysm repair in terms of TIaELs up to 5-year follow-up. EndoAnchor use should be judiciously evaluated in short necks and may be a reasonable option when anatomical constraints are encountered, mainly for those with 7-10 mm neck lengths. Shorter neck length aspects, as indicated by the results from Group A, may be an alternative when no other options are available or feasible.

Aortobifemoral bypass vs covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation.

BACKGROUND: Covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) is increasingly used as a first line-treatment in patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent CERAB compared with the gold standard of aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients who underwent ABF or CERAB from 2009 to 2021. Propensity scores were generated using demographics, comorbidities, Rutherford class, and urgency. The two groups were matched using 5-to-1 nearest-neighbor match. Our primary outcomes were 1-year estimates of primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALEs), MALE-free survival, reintervention-free survival, and amputation-free survival. Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS: A total of 3944 ABF and 281 CERAB cases were identified. Of all patients with AIOD, the proportion of CERAB increased from 0% to 17.9% between 2009 and 2021. Compared with ABF, patients who underwent CERAB were more likely to be older (64.7 vs 60.2; P < .001) and more often had diabetes (40.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and end-stage renal disease (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03). In the matched analysis (229 CERAB vs 929 ABF), ABF patients had improved MALE-free survival (93.2% [±0.9%] vs 83.2% [±3%]; P < .001) and lower rates of MALE (5.2% [±0.9%] vs 14.1% [±3%]; P < .001), with comparable primary patency rates (98.3% [±0.3%] vs 96.6% [±1%]; P = .6) and amputation-free survival (99.3% [±0.3%] vs 99.4% [±0.6%]; P = .9). Patients in the CERAB group had significantly lower reintervention-free survival (62.5% [±6%] vs 92.9% [±0.9%]; P < .001). Matched analysis also revealed shorter length of stay (1 vs 7 days; P < .001), as well as lower pulmonary (1.2% vs 6.6%; P = .01), renal (1.8% vs 10%; P < .001), and cardiac (1.8% vs 12.8%; P < .001) complications among CERAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: CERAB had lower perioperative morbidity compared with ABF with a similar primary patency 1-year estimates. However, patients who underwent CERAB experienced more major adverse limb events and reinterventions. Although CERAB is an effective treatment for patients with AIOD, further studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of CERAB compared with the established durability of ABF and further define the role of CEARB in the treatment of AIOD.

The association between frailty and outcomes following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a less invasive method than the more physiologically stressful open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with anatomically appropriate abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Early postoperative outcomes are associated with both patients; physiologic reserve and the physiologic stresses of the surgical intervention. Among frail patients with reduced physiologic reserve, the stress of an aortic rupture in combination with the stress of an operative repair are less well tolerated, raising the risk of complications and mortality. This study aims to evaluate the difference in association between frailty and outcomes among patients undergoing minimally invasive EVAR and the physiologically more stressful OSR for ruptured AAAs (rAAAs). METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study included adults undergoing rAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2022. The validated Risk Analysis Index (RAI) (robust, ≤20; normal, 21-29; frail, 30-39; very frail, ≥40) quantified frailty. The association between the primary outcome of 1-year mortality and frailty status as well as repair type were compared using multivariable Cox models generating adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interaction terms evaluated the association's moderation. RESULTS: We identified 5806 patients (age, 72 ± 9 years; 77% male; EVAR, 65%; robust, 6%; normal, 48%; frail, 36%; very, frail 10%) with a 53% observed 1-year mortality rate following rAAA repair. OSR (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.73) was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. Increasing frailty status (frail aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.59; very frail aHR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.26-2.13) was associated with increased 1-year mortality, which was moderated by repair type (P-interaction < .05). OSR was associated with increased 1-year mortality in normal (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87) and frail (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.20-1.89), but not among robust (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.32) and very frail (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and OSR were associated with increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality following rAAA repair. Among normal and frail patients, OSR was associated with an increased adjusted risk of 1-year mortality when compared with EVAR. However, there was no difference between OSR and EVAR among robust patients who can well tolerate the stress of OSR and among very frail patients who are unable to withstand the surgical stress from rAAA regardless of repair type.

Safety of local anesthesia in endovascular treatment of Aneurysms: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (EVTIAs) is increasingly popular due to its minimally invasive nature and high success rate. While general anesthesia (GA) has been the historical preference for EVTIAs, there's growing interest in local anesthesia (LA). However, concerns persist about LA safety for EVTIAs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess LA safety for EVTIAs. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Pooled analysis with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) assessed effects, I2 statistics gauged heterogeneity, and a random-effects model was adopted. Conversion to GA, neurological or procedure-related complications, intraoperative intracranial hemorrhagic complications (IIHC), and mortality were assessed. Subanalyses for ruptured and unruptured cases were performed. RESULTS: The analysis included eleven studies, 2,133 patients, and 2,369 EVTIAs under LA. Conversion to GA rate was 1 % (95 %CI: 0 to 2 %). Neurological or procedure-related complications rate was 13 % (95 % CI: 8 % to 17 %). IIHC analysis revealed a rate of 1 % (95 % CI: 1 % to 2 %). The mortality rate was 0 % (95 %CI: 0 % to 0 %). Subanalyses revealed similar rates in ruptured and unruptured subgroups, except for a slightly high rate of complications and IIHC in the ruptured subgroup. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that EVTIA under LA is safe, with low conversion and mortality rates, even for ruptured aneurysms. Complications rates, also in IIHC rates, are comparable to those reported for GA, emphasizing LA's comparable safety profile in EVTIAs. Considering these promising outcomes, the decision to opt for the LA approach emerges as meaningful and well-suited for the endovascular treatment of aneurysms. Beyond its safety, LA introduces inherent supplementary advantages, including shortened hospitalization periods, cost-effectiveness, and an expedited patient recovery process.

Survival, Short And Long-Term Outcomes Of Open And Endovascular Surgical Repair Of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) has become the standard management of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (UIAAA); however, current evidence is limited and uncertain in our environment compared to Open repair. Our study aimed to determine the survival, short and long-term outcomes of EVAR vs. Open in a Peruvian cohort of UIAAA. METHODS: A single-center observational, analytical, longitudinal study using a retrospective registry of 251 patients treated (EVAR=205 vs Open=46) for UIAAA from 2000 to 2017. Variables considered were baseline, comorbidities, type of treatment, short-term (<30 days) and long-term (<5 years) outcomes, postoperative mortality according to the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Risk Score, survival curves including reoperation-free rate and according to size (<65 mm vs. >65 mm) of long-term UIAAA. All variables were grouped according to the treatment performed (EVAR vs. Open) and we used the descriptive, multivariate, Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival statistical analyses. RESULTS: 251 UIAAA were evaluated and the mean age was 74.5 years [±13.32], smoking, family members with UIAAA, and previous abdominal surgery were the main antecedents. Diabetes mellitus 2 was the main comorbidity; more than 50% of patients with UIAAA had diameters greater than 65 mm (p=0.021). The calculated mortality (VQI) was Open=2.21% vs. EVAR=1.65%. The outcomes in short-term were mortality (Open=2.92% vs. EVAR=0%; p=0.039), blood transfusion >4 Units (Open=72.68% vs. EVAR=17.39%; p=0.021) and overall hospital stay (Open=14 vs. EVAR=5 days; p=0.049. A reduction in mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, p=0.045) and readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.79-0.85, p=0.031). In long-term outcomes, mortality (Open=3.41% vs. EVAR=19.56%; p=0.047), aneurysmal rupture (Open=0% vs. EVAR 13.04%; p=0.032) and reinterventions (Open=2.43% vs. EVAR=10.86%; p=0.002). An 86% risk of mortality (HR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.32-2.38, p=0.039) and elevated risk of readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 2.21, 95% CI, 1.98-2.45, p=0.028). At 5 years, survival for Open=93.67% vs. EVAR=80.44% (p=0.043), reintervention-free survival for Open=89.26% vs. EVAR=47.82% (p=0.021), survival for treated IUAAA <65 mm for Open=95.77% vs. EVAR=63.63% (p=0.019) and >65 mm for Open=92.53% vs. EVAR=85.71% (p=0.059). CONCLUSION: EVAR has shown better short-term benefits and survival than Open management; however, the latter still prevails in the long term in our Peruvian UIAAA cohort. Further follow-up studies are required to demonstrate the long-term benefit of EVAR in our population.

Management of Spontaneous Isolated Celiac Artery Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous isolated celiac artery dissection (SICAD) is uncommon, with very few series reported in the literature. The present study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with SICAD treated at a single Chilean institution over 20 years. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients from a single academic hospital with SICAD diagnosed between January 2003 and March 2023 was performed. Conservative treatment included antiplatelets, anticoagulation, or both. The normal size of a celiac artery in our population was 7.9 ± 0.79 mm in females and 8.3 ± 1.08 mm in males. We defined a celiac artery with a diameter equal to or more than 12.5 mm as an aneurysmal celiac artery. RESULTS: The cohort included 27 patients; 77.8% (n = 21) were males. The median age was 51.0 years (range: 38-84 years). Fourteen (51.8%) patients presented with aneurysmal dilatation. Fourteen (51.8%) patients were treated with antiplatelets, 6 (22.2%) patients with anticoagulation, and 7 (25.9%) with anticoagulation and antiplatelets. One patient was treated with endovascular therapy due to a pseudoaneurysm of the celiac artery detected 10 days after conservative treatment with antiplatelets. The median length of hospital stay was 5 days (range: 2-14 days). Complete remodeling was seen in 6 (22.2%) patients, partial remodeling in 10 (37.0%) patients, and no change was seen in 8 (26.9%) patients. Three (11.5%) patients were lost to follow-up. There were no significant differences between treatments and remodeling outcomes (P = 0.729). The median celiac artery diameter of patients with aneurysmal dilatation was 13.5 mm (range: 12.5-20.5 mm). Systemic arterial hypertension was found more commonly in patients who presented with aneurysmal dilatation than in patients without (87.5% vs. 12.5%, respectively, P = 0.016). Mean follow-up was 41.5 months and median follow-up was 16 months (range: 6-204 months). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with SICAD can be treated conservatively with excellent outcomes. Hypertension was more commonly found in patients with SICAD and aneurysmal dilatation.

Stereolithographic (SLA) 3D Printing for Preprocedural Planning in Endovascular Aortic Repair of a Thoracic Aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: When treating aortic aneurysm patients with complex anatomical features, preprocedural planning aided by 3D-printed models offers valuable insights for endovascular intervention. This study highlights the use of stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing to fabricate a phantom of a challenging aortic arch aneurysm with a complex neck anatomy. CLINICAL CASE: A 75-year-old female presented with a 58 mm descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) extending to the distal arch, involving the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the left common carotid artery (LCCA). The computed tomography (CT) scans underwent scrutiny by radiology and vascular teams. Nevertheless, the precise spatial relationships of the ostial origins proved to be challenging to ascertain. To address this, a patient-specific phantom of the aortic arch was fabricated utilizing an SLA printer and a biomedical resin. The thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedure was simulated using fluoroscopy on the phantom to enhance procedural preparedness. Subsequently, the patient underwent a right carotid-left carotid bypass and a right carotid-left subclavian bypass. After a 24-hour interval, the patient underwent the TEVAR procedure, during which a 37 mm × 150 mm stent graft (CTAG, WL Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) and a 40 mm × 200 mm stent graft (CTAG, WL Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) were deployed, effectively covering the LSA and LCCA. Notably, the aneurysm exhibited complete sealing, with no indications of endoleaks or graft infoldings. At the 12-month follow-up, the patient remains in good health, with no evidence of endoleaks or any other surgery-related complication. CONCLUSION: This report showcases the successful use of a 3D-printed endovascular phantom in guiding the decision-making process during the preparation for a TEVAR procedure. The simulation played a pivotal role in selecting the appropriate stent graft, ensuring an intervention protocol optimized based on the patient-specific anatomy.

Vascular access complications associated with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in adult trauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is gaining popularity worldwide for managing hypotensive trauma patients. Vascular access complications related to REBOA placement have been reported, with some cases resulting in permanent morbidity. We aim to capitalize on the increase in literature to further describe and estimate the incidence of REBOA-associated vascular access complications in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL for studies reporting vascular access complications of REBOA in adult trauma patients from inception to October 14, 2021. Studies reporting data from adult trauma patients who underwent REBOA insertion were eligible. Exclusion criteria included patients 15 years and younger, nontrauma patients, non-REBOA use, non-vascular access complications and patient duplication. Study data was abstracted using the PRISMA checklist and verified independently by three reviewers. Meta-analysis of proportions was performed using a random effects model with Freeman-Turkey double-arcsine transformation. Post hoc meta-regression by year of publication, sheath-size, and geographic region was also performed. The incidence of vascular access complications from REBOA insertion was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analysis was performed by degree of bias, sheath size, technique of vascular access, provider specialty, geographical region, and publication year. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis, for a total of 675 trauma patients who underwent REBOA insertion. The incidence of vascular access complications was 8% (95% confidence interval, 5%-13%). In post hoc meta-regression adjusting for year of publication and geographic region, the use of a smaller (7-Fr) sheath was associated with a decreased incidence of vascular access complications (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.99; p = 0.046; R 2 = 35%; I 2 = 48%). CONCLUSION: This study provides a benchmark for quality of care in terms of vascular access complications related to REBOA insertion in adult trauma patients. Smaller sheath size may be associated with a decrease in vascular access complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level III.

Surgical Outcomes of Infective Native Aortoiliac Aneurysms in a Chilean Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: Infective native aortic aneurysms (INAAs), formerly called mycotic aneurysms, remain an uncommon disease with significant heterogeneity among cases; hence, there is lack of solid evidence to opt for the best treatment strategy. The present study aims to describe a 20-year experience at a single institution treating this uncommon condition. METHODS: Retrospective study of all patients treated for INAA at a single academic hospital in Santiago, Chile, between 2002 and 2022. Clinical characteristics are described, as well as operative outcomes per type of treatment. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test or Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed when appropriate, and results were reported as median and ranges. Survival at given timeframes was determined by a Kaplan-Meier curve, with analysis performed through a Cox regression model. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,798 patients underwent aortic procedures at our center, of which 35 (1.9%) were treated for INAA. Of them, 25 (71.4%) were male. One patient had 2 INAAs. Median age was 69.5 years (range: 34-89 years). Of the 36 INAAs, the most frequent location was the abdominal and thoracic aorta in 20 (55.5%) and 11 (30.5%) cases, respectively, followed by the iliac arteries in 4 (11.1%) cases. One (2.7%) patient presented a thoracoabdominal INAA. Overall, endovascular treatment associated with long-term antibiotics was used in 20 (57.1%) patients: 4 of them underwent hybrid treatment. Fifteen (42.8%) patients underwent direct aortic debridement followed by in situ or extra anatomic revascularization. There was a significant difference in age between both treatment strategies (a median of 76.5 years for endovascular versus a median of 57 years for open, P = 0.011). The median hospital stay was 15 days (range: 2-70 days). The early complications rate (<30 postoperative days) was 20% (n = 7). Early mortality rate (inhospital or before postoperative 30 days) was 14.2% (n = 5). Median follow-up was 33 months (range: 6-216 months). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 69.9% (standard error [SE] 8.0), 61.7% (SE 9.8), and 50.9% (SE 11.8), respectively. Five-year survival rate of patients undergoing endovascular treatment compared with open approach was 45.9% (SE 15.1) versus 80.0% (SE 17.8), respectively (P = 0.431). There were no significant differences in survival between open and endovascular treatment, hazard ratio 3.58 (confidence interval 95%: 0.185-1.968, SE ± 0.45 P = 0.454). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated by endovascular approach were older than patients treated by open approach. Even though, the open group had a higher 5-year survival rate than the endovascular group, not statically significance differences were found between treatments.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm characteristics and outcomes: a single-center retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and its correlation with mortality in the first 30 days after the procedure was performed. METHODS: Demographic information, clinical and radiological characteristics, as well as outcomes 30 days after the procedure was performed were assessed and compared. Continuous variables were analyzed with Student's t-test and categorical with Chi-square and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Duration of the procedure (p = 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), age > 75 years (p = 0.027), aneurysm size > 65 mm (p = 0.01), open surgery (p = 0.001), presence of pain (p = 0.005), chronic kidney disease (p = 0.03), and rupture of the aneurysm (p < 0.001) were the factors significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: It is essential that patient characteristics and comorbidities are assessed, as well as factors that may affect the outcomes to predict the prognosis in patients with AAA. At present, no mortality predictive model is universally applicable and highly variable performance across different populations might need a model that adapts to the population of interest.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar las características y resultados de los pacientes con aneurisma de aorta abdominal y su correlación con la mortalidad en los primeros 30 días después de realizado el procedimiento. MÉTODOS: Se evaluó y comparó la información demográfica, las características clínicas y radiológicas, así como los resultados a los 30 días de realizado el procedimiento. Las variables continuas se analizan con la prueba de t de Student y las categóricas con Chi-cuadrado y la prueba exacta de Fisher. RESULTADOS: La duración del procedimiento (p = 0.001), pérdida de sangre (p < 0.001), edad > 75 años (p = 0.027), tamaño del aneurisma > 65 mm (p = 0.01), cirugía abierta (p = 0.001), presencia de dolor (p = 0.005), enfermedad renal crónica (p = 0.03) y rotura del aneurisma (p < 0.001) fueron los factores asociados significativamente a la mortalidad. CONCLUSIÓN: Es fundamental evaluar las características de los pacientes y las comorbilidades, así como los factores que pueden afectar los resultados para predecir el pronóstico en pacientes con aneurisma de aorta abdominal. En la actualidad, ningún modelo predictivo de mortalidad es universalmente aplicable y la alta variabilidad de resultados entre diferentes poblaciones podría necesitar un modelo que se adapte a la población de interés.

Associations between insomnia and large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke: An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the association between insomnia and the clinical outcome of large vessel occlusion Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) and attempted to explore its potential mechanisms from the perspectives of inflammation and oxidative stress. METHODS: AIS patients who underwent endovascular treatment for large vessel occlusion at Binzhou Central Hospital from 2018 to 2022 (n = 508) were included. Patients were divided into an insomnia group and a non-insomnia group. Insomnia was judged by self-reported Athens Insomnia Scale score. Regression analysis was used to compare the differences in the 24-hour and 7-day National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, Early Neurological Deterioration (END), early adverse event incidence, 90-day prognosis and mortality, and serum biomarkers levels. RESULTS: The incidence of insomnia in the study population was 39.6% (n = 144, insomnia group; n = 364, non-insomnia group). Compared with the non-insomnia group, a worse prognosis outcome (63% vs. 49%, adjusted rate ratio: 1.8, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.2-3.7; p = 0.016), higher 24-h and 7-day NIHSS score (17 [9-36] vs. 13 [5-20]; p = 0.024, and 11 [4‒24) vs. 8 [2‒14]; p = 0.031, respectively), higher END (24% vs. 15%, p = 0.022), and higher incidence of adverse events were observed in the insomnia group (79% vs. 59%, p = 0.010). The 90-day mortality was higher in the insomnia group than that in the non-insomnia group (22% vs. 17%), however, such a difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Insomnia is closely related to the clinical outcome of AIS with large vessel occlusion, and inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms may be involved.

Shared decision-making and specific informed consent in patients with aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the refusal rate of elective aortic aneurysm surgery in asymptomatic patients after the presentation of a detailed informed consent form followed by a meeting where patient and their families can analyze each item. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 49 patients who had aneurysms and were offered surgical treatment between June 2017 and February 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: the Rejected Surgery Group, which was composed of patients who refused the proposed surgical treatment, and the Accepted Surgery Group, comprising patients who accepted the proposed surgeries and subsequently underwent them. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients, 13 (26.5%) refused surgery after reading the informed consent and attending the comprehensive meeting. We observed that patients who refused surgery had statistically smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery (9% versus 26%). These smaller aneurysms were above the indication size, according to the literature. CONCLUSION: One-quarter of patients who were indicated for elective surgical repair of aortic aneurysms rejected surgery after shared decision-making, which involved presenting patients with an informed consent form followed by a clarification meeting for them and their families to analyze each item. The only factor that significantly influenced a rejection of the procedure was the size of the aneurysm; patients who rejected surgery had smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery. Up to 26% of patients with aortic aneurysms refused surgical repair. The proposed technique, whether open or endovascular, did not influence patients' decisions. Patients with smaller aneurysms were more likely to refuse aortic aneurysm treatment.

[Procedural and long-term outcomes of elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians]. / Resultados perioperatorios y a largo plazo de la reparación electiva endovascular del aneurisma de aorta abdominal en octogenarios.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the immediate and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between patients under and over the age of 80 with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods: From 2011 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with AAA patients who received elective EVAR. Primary outcomes included hospital mortality, length of stay, acute kidney injury, and the need for re-interventions. Secondary outcomes included aneurysm-related mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Results: A total of 77 (62.6%) patients under the age of 80 years old and 46 (37.4%) octogenarians were included in the study. The male gender and AAA diameter did not differ among groups (92.2% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.11 and 5.4 cm [4.9-6.2 cm] vs. 5.4 cm [5-6 cm], p = 0.53, respectively). The younger patients had a higher prevalence of tobacco use (72.7% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.01). There were no deaths during the index hospitalization. The incidence of reinterventions (5.3% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.11) and acute kidney injury (14.3% vs. 23.9%, p = 0.18) did not differ between groups, but the length of stay was longer for octogenarian patients (3 days [2-4] vs. 2 days [2-3, p = 0.04)]. Endoleaks were the most common cause for re-interventions (81.8%), with a prevalence of 34% across the entire cohort. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes between groups. Conclusion: In octogenarian patients with AAA, EVAR represents a safe procedure both during the index hospitalization and during long-term follow-up.

Objetivo: Comparar los resultados inmediatos y a largo plazo de la reparación endovascular del aneurisma de aorta abdominal (REVA) entre pacientes menores de 80 años y octogenarios. Método: Cohorte retrospectiva que incluyó pacientes con aneurisma de aorta abdominal (AAA) sometidos a REVA electiva desde 2011 hasta 2017. Se evaluaron como punto finales primarios la mortalidad hospitalaria, la duración de la estadía hospitalaria, la incidencia de insuficiencia renal aguda y el requerimiento de reintervenciones. Los puntos finales secundarios incluyeron la mortalidad asociada al aneurisma, infarto agudo de miocardio, accidente cerebrovascular, isquemia arterial aguda de las extremidades y ventilación mecánica prolongada. Resultados: Se incluyeron 77 (62.6%) pacientes menores de 80 años y 46 (37.4%) octogenarios. La prevalencia de sexo masculino y el diámetro del AAA no difirieron entre ambos grupos (92.2% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.11 y 5.4 cm [4.9-6.2 cm] vs. 5.4 cm [5-6 cm], p = 0.53, respectivamente). Los pacientes más jóvenes presentaron una mayor prevalencia de tabaquismo (72.7% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.01). No se registraron muertes durante la hospitalización índice. La incidencia de reintervenciones (5.3% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.11) e insuficiencia renal aguda (14.3% vs. 23.9%, p = 0.18) no difirieron entre ambos grupos, pero la estadía hospitalaria fue más prolongada en pacientes octogenarios (3 días [2-4 días] vs. 2 días [2-3 días], p = 0.04). La causa más frecuente de reintervenciones fue la presencia de endofugas (81.8%), con una prevalencia del 34% en toda la cohorte. No se observaron diferencias en ninguno de los puntos finales secundarios entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: En pacientes octogenarios con AAA, la REVA presentó un buen perfil de seguridad perioperatorio y a largo plazo.

Characterization of multiple organ failure after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is associated with poor outcomes and increased mortality in sepsis and trauma. There are limited data regarding MOF in patients after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. We aimed to identify the contemporary prevalence and characteristics of patients with rAAA with MOF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with rAAA who underwent repair (2010-2020) at our multihospital institution. Patients who died within the first 2 days after repair were excluded. MOF was quantified by modified (excluding hepatic system) Denver, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) for postoperative days 3 to 5 to determine the prevalence of MOF. MOF was defined as a Denver score of >3, dysfunction in two or more organ systems by SOFA score, or a MODS score of >8. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing were used to evaluate differences in 30-day mortality between multiple organ failure and patients without MOF. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of MOF. RESULTS: Of 370 patients with rAAA, 288 survived past two days (mean age, 73±10.1 years; 76.7% male; 44.1% open repair), and 143 had data for MOF calculation recorded. From postoperative days 3 to 5, 41 (14.24%) had MOF by Denver, 26 (9.03%) by SOFA, and 39 (13.54%) by MODS criteria. Among these scoring systems, pulmonary and neurological systems were impacted most commonly. Among patients with MOF, pulmonary derangement occurred in 65.9% (Denver), 57.7% (SOFA), and 56.4% (MODS). Similarly, neurological derangement occurred in 92.3% (SOFA) and 89.7% (MODS), but renal derangement occurred in 26.8% (Denver), 23.1% (SOFA), and 10.3% (MODS). MOF by all three scoring systems was associated with increased 30-day mortality (Denver: 11.3% vs 41.5% [P < .01]; DOFA: 12.6% vs 46.2% [P < .01]; MODS: 12.5% vs 35.9% [P < .01]), as was MOF by any criteria (10.8% vs 35.7 %; P < .01). Patients with MOF were more likely to have a higher body mass index (55.9±26.6 vs 49.0±15.0; P = .011) and to have had a preoperative stroke (17.9% vs 6.0%; P = .016). Patients with MOF were less likely to have undergone endovascular repair (30.4% vs 62.1%; P < .001). Endovascular repair was protective against MOF (any criteria) on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.64; P = .019) after adjusting for age, gender, and presenting systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: MOF occurred in only 9% to 14% of patients after rAAA repair, but was associated with a three-fold increase in mortality. Endovascular repair was associated with a reduced MOF incidence.

Association of Preoperative Frailty with Inferior Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Bypass for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a risk factor associated with adverse postoperative outcomes following lower extremity bypass (LEB) surgery in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) represents the worst form of PAD, and frailty is common among patients presenting with CLTI. Multiple frailty assessment scores have been developed for the past 2 decades; however, a universal clinical assessment tool for measuring frailty has not yet been established due to the complexity of the concept. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the use of a frailty index as a predictor of postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing LEB. METHODS: The review protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022358888). A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Scopus databases. The review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of 3,929 studies were initially selected originally and were eventually left with 6 studies that met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. RESULTS: Six studies were examined that assessed the relationship between frailty index and long-term mortality following LEB for CLTI were screened. All analyses were published between 2017 and 2020 and included a broad spectrum of patients who underwent LEB. The results of these studies showed inconsistencies in the reporting of postoperative outcomes and the time endpoint of these events. However, all correlated with higher frailty index and increased mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Higher frailty index preoperatively is associated with an increased likelihood of postoperative comorbidities after undergoing LEB. Identifying and addressing the preoperative frailty index of these patients may be a practical approach to reducing postoperative adverse outcomes. A thorough review of the frailty spectrum and standardized reporting of outcomes in the context of frailty could be helpful to have a more comprehensive understanding of this subject.

Postoperative acute kidney injury after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved as the standard for treating complicated acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD). Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in critically ill patients and is commonly observed in patients with ATBAD. The purpose of the study was to characterize AKI after TEVAR. METHODS: All patients who underwent TEVAR for ATBAD from 2011 through 2021 were identified using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. The primary end point was AKI. A generalized linear model analysis was performed to identify a factor associated with postoperative AKI. RESULTS: A total of 630 patients presented with ATBAD and underwent TEVAR. The indication for TEVAR was complicated ATBAD in 64.3%, high-risk uncomplicated ATBAD in 27.6%, and uncomplicated ATBAD in 8.1%. Of 630 patients, 102 (16.2%) developed postoperative AKI (AKI group) and 528 patients (83.8%) did not (non-AKI group). The most common indication for TEVAR was malperfusion (37.5%). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the AKI group (18.6% vs 4%; P < .001). Postoperatively, cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia, limb ischemia, and prolonged ventilation were more commonly observed in the AKI group. The expected mortality was similar at 2 years between the two groups (P = .51). Overall, the preoperative AKI was observed in 95 (15.7%) in the entire cohort consisting of 60 (64.5%) in the AKI group and 35 (6.8%) in the non-AKI group. A history of CKD (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-14.1; P = .01) and preoperative AKI (odds ratio, 24.1; 95% confidence interval, 10.6-55.0; P < .001) were independently associated with postoperative AKI. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative AKI was 16.2% in patients undergoing TEVAR for ATBAD. Patients with postoperative AKI had a higher rate of in-hospital morbidities and mortality than those without. A history of CKD and preoperative AKI were independently associated with postoperative AKI.