Renal preservation in immediate bifurcation of the renal artery in a solitary kidney using inner branch in a physician-modified, fenestrated-branched endovascular graft.

For high-risk patients with complex aortic aneurysms and post-dissection aneurysms, fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) offers minimally invasive options customized to each individual's anatomy. Company-manufactured devices or physician-modified endovascular grafts performed under the purview of an investigational device exemption are two United States Food and Drug Administration-approved avenues to perform fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair. This case report describes a creative use of physician-modified endograft to salvage renal function in a solitary kidney with a near immediate bifurcation of the renal artery in a patient with post-dissection extent II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. In our patient, the immediate bifurcation (2 mm distal to the common left renal artery orifice) of the left renal artery in the setting of a known long-standing occlusion of a remotely placed right renal stent presented a clinical and technical challenge to maintaining this patient's kidney function without sacrificing a significant portion of his remaining solitary kidney. Additionally, each branch was sizeable (5 and 7 mm), perfusing the cranial and caudal half of the kidney, respectively. Early bifurcation of renal arteries often results in sacrifice of the smaller branch to obtain adequate target vessel seal. Although some analyses have shown no change in glomerular filtration rate from coverage of accessory renal arteries, more recent studies have indicated clinically significant drops in both glomerular filtration rate and kidney length at 2-year follow-up. Herein, we describe use of a combination of an inner and external branch modification to stent both branches to preserve renal parenchyma and function. The patient has provided written informed consent for publication of this case report and their associated imaging studies.

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

INTRODUCTION: The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success. RESULTS: Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed. CONCLUSION: The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research. CLINICAL IMPACT: Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonoperative Management for SVS Grade II Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury is defined as intramural hematoma with or without external contour abnormality. It is uncertain whether this aortic injury pattern should be treated with endovascular stent-grafting or nonoperative measures. Since the adoption of the SVS Guidelines on endovascular repair of blunt traumatic aortic injury, the practice pattern for management of grade II injuries has been heterogenous. The objective of the study was to report natural history outcomes of grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury. METHODS: A systematic review of published traumatic aortic injury studies was performed. Online database searches were current to November 2022. Eligible studies included data on aortic injuries that were both managed nonoperatively and classified according to the SVS 2011 Guidelines. Data points on all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality and early aortic intervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis. The methodology was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 204 cases of SVS grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury treated nonoperatively. The outcomes rates were estimated at 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7%-14.9%) for all-cause mortality, 2.9% (95% CI 1.1%-5.7%) for aorta-related mortality, and 3.3% (95% CI 1.4%-6.2%) for early aortic intervention. The studies included in the analysis were of fair quality with a mean Downs and Black score 15 (±1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury follows a relatively benign course with few instances of aortic-related mortality. Death in the setting of this injury pattern is more often attributable to sequelae of multisystem trauma and not directly related to aortic injury. The current data support nonoperative management and imaging surveillance for grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury instead of endovascular repair. Longer-term effects on the aorta at the site of injury are unknown.

A hybrid approach to persistent sciatic artery fusiform aneurysm repair.

A persistent sciatic artery is a rare vascular anomaly that is prone to early atherosclerotic development and aneurysmal degeneration. Repair of the degenerative aneurysm is critical because it can lead to rupture, thrombosis, distal embolization, and sciatic nerve damage from compression. We report a case of a symptomatic unilateral persistent sciatic artery fusiform aneurysm that was treated using a simultaneous open surgical and endovascular approach. The patient underwent right common femoral to below-knee popliteal artery bypass and percutaneous endovascular embolization of the right sciatic artery aneurysm. Proper surgical intervention determined by the patient's comorbidities and unique anatomy achieved favorable outcomes.

Comprehensive framework of factors accounting for worse aortic aneurysm outcomes in females: A scoping review.

Sex-based outcome studies have consistently documented worse results for females undergoing care for abdominal aortic aneurysms. This review explores the underlying factors that account for worse outcomes in the females sex. A scoping review of studies reporting sex-based disparities on abdominal aortic aneurysms was performed. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Factors that account for worse outcomes in the females sex were identified, grouped into themes, and analyzed. Key findings of each study are reported and a comprehensive framework of these factors is presented. A total of 35 studies were identified as critical in highlighting sex-based disparities in care of patients with aortic aneurysms. We identified the following 10 interrelated themes in the chain of aneurysm care that account for differential outcomes in females: natural history, risk factors, pathobiology, biomechanics, screening, morphology, device design and adherence to instructions for use, technique, trial enrollment, and social determinants. Factors accounting for worse outcomes in the care of females with aortic aneurysms were identified and described. Some factors are immediately actionable, such as screening criteria, whereas device design improvement will require further research and development. This comprehensive framework of factors affecting care of aneurysms in females should serve as a blueprint to develop education, outreach, and future research efforts to improve outcomes in females.

Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are found in up to 6% of men and 1.7% of women over the age of 65 years and are usually asymptomatic. The natural history of aortic aneurysms is continued dilation leading to rupture, which is associated with an overall 80% mortality. Of the patients with ruptured aneurysms that undergo intervention, half will not survive their hospitalization. Reduction in aneurysm mortality is therefore achieved by prophylactic repair during the asymptomatic period. On a population-based level, this is supported by abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programs. Approximately 60% of abdominal aortic aneurysms are confined to the infrarenal portion of the aorta and are amenable to repair with off-the-shelf endovascular devices. Endovascular techniques have now replaced open surgery as the primary modality for aneurysm repair.

Regulatory challenges and investigational device exemption protocols for fenestrated and branched EVAR in the United States.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created with the intent to ensure the safety of consumers in the United States. During the 1970s, this mandate was expanded to include medical devices. Aortic endografts, implanted since the 1990s, fall under this purview. Industry-sponsored and physician-sponsored investigation of the efficacy and safety of these devices is critical to the ongoing development of interventions for complex aortic anatomy. This research, in accordance with federal rules and regulation, must be conducted in coordination and with the approval of the FDA. The FDA has designed a process for which manufacturers or investigators may conduct efficacy and safety research using new or modified devices with oversight by the federal government. To conduct this type of research, an investigational device exemption must be obtained from the FDA. An investigational device exemption, although useful from a regulatory perspective, places a large time and financial responsibility on the investigator. As it stands now, the regulatory environment limits research into fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair to only those physicians and manufacturers able to provide the significant number of resources required to complete the laborious pre-application, application, and ongoing reports associated with obtaining and maintaining an investigational device exemption.

Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Adoption Should not Be Hindered by a Concern for a Long Learning Curve.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) offers a novel technique for carotid artery stenting (CAS) that provides flow reversal in the carotid artery and avoids aortic arch manipulation, thus, potentially lowering ipsilateral and contralateral periprocedural stroke rates. As a new technology, adoption may be limited by concern for learning a new technique. This study seeks to examine the number of cases needed for a surgeon to reach technical proficiency. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed using a prospectively collected database of all TCAR procedures performed in a tertiary health care system between 2016 and 2020. Patient demographics and anatomic characteristics were collected. Intraoperative variables and perioperative outcomes were examined. These variables were collated into groups for the first 4 procedures, procedures 5-8, and after 8. Independent Samples t test, 1-way ANOVA, and logarithmic regression were used to statistically analyze the data. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighty-seven TCARs were performed by 14 surgeons. One hundred and twenty-two (65%) were male, 59 (32%) were older than 75 years, and 83 (44%) were symptomatic. The most common indications were high-lesions in 87 patients (47%) and recurrent stenosis after CEA in 37 patients (20%). Significant differences were found between the first and second groups of 4 cases when comparing mean operative time (71 vs. 58 min; P = 0.001) and flow reversal time (10.8 vs. 7.9 min; P= 0.004). similar significant differences were found between the first and third groups of 4 cases but not between the second and third groups. There was a reduction in contrast usage and fluoroscopy time after the first 4 cases, however, this did not reach statistical significance. There was no ipsilateral perioperative strokes. One patient had a contralateral stroke on postoperative day 2 due to intracranial atherosclerosis, and there was one perioperative mortality that occurred on postoperative day 3 after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural and flow reversal times significantly shorten after 4 TCAR procedures are performed. Other metrics, such as fluoroscopy time and contrast usage, are also decreased. Complications, in general, are minimal. Proficiency in TCAR, as measured by these metrics, is met after performing only 4 procedures.

Delayed referral of venous ulcers increases resource usage.

OBJECTIVE: Venous insufficiency is often not readily recognized as a contributing etiology to nonhealing wounds by nonvascular surgery specialists, potentially delaying appropriate treatment to achieve wound healing and increasing healthcare costs. The objective of the present study was to understand the time and resources used before the definitive treatment of venous ulcers. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective medical record review of C6 patients undergoing radiofrequency saphenous and perforator vein ablation from May 2016 to January 2018 identified 56 patients with 67 diseased limbs. The numbers of inpatient, emergency department, and wound care visits and the intervals to vein ablation from the initial evaluation of the ulceration by a healthcare provider were collected. The demographics, comorbidities, previous venous interventions, wound characteristics, duplex ultrasound imaging, and available wound healing follow-up through July 2018 were assessed for all patients. RESULTS: For the 67 limbs examined, 588 total healthcare visits were performed for wound assessment before a referral to a vascular surgeon, with 413 visits at a wound care center (70% of all visits). Other specialty visits included emergency medicine (17.9% of limbs) and rheumatology (22.4% of limbs). Six patients (nine limbs) were admitted to inpatient services for treatment of their ulceration. Overall, the patients were seen an average of 8.6 ± 9.7 times for their ulcer with the wound center before determination of a contributing venous etiology and subsequent treatment. These visits translated to a median of 230 days (interquartile range, 86.5-1088 days) between the first identification of the ulcer by healthcare providers and subsequent accurate diagnosis and definitive treatment of their venous disease with radiofrequency saphenous and perforator vein ablation. After intervention, 18.64% of the limbs had healed at 1 month, 33.92% had healed at 3 months, 50% had healed at 6 months, and 82.92% had healed by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: An earlier and accurate diagnosis of the venous contribution to ulcers and subsequent appropriate treatment of venous etiologies in wound formation by a vascular venous specialist could significantly improve healing and minimize resource usage.

Optimization of factors for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord ischemia following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a devastating complication. This study seeks to demonstrate how a standardized protocol to prevent spinal cord ischemia affects incidence in patients undergoing TEVAR. METHODS: Using CPT codes 33880 and 33881, all TEVAR procedures performed at a single tertiary care center from January 2017 to December 2018 were examined. Patients who had concomitant ascending aortic repairs or a TEVAR for traumatic indications were excluded from analysis, leaving 130 TEVAR procedures. Comorbid conditions, procedural characteristics, extent of coverage, peri-procedural management strategies, and post-operative outcomes were collected and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients undergoing TEVAR were examined for four perioperative variables: postoperative hemoglobin greater than 10 g/dL, subclavian revascularization, preoperative spinal drain placement, and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring (SSEP). All conditions were met in 46.2% (60/130) of procedures; 37.8% (28/74) in emergent/urgent cases and 61.5% (32/52) in elective cases. Of patients who required subclavian coverage, 87.1% (54/62) underwent subclavian revascularization; 70.8% (92/130) of patients received spinal drains preoperatively; 68.5% (89/130) of patients had SSEP monitoring; 73.8% (93/130) of patients obtained a postoperative hemoglobin of >10 g/dL. Out of all patients, two (1.5%) developed spinal cord ischemia. CONCLUSION: Incidence of spinal cord ischemia in our cohort was low at 1.5% (2/130). Individual and bundled interventions for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia were unable to demonstrate a statistically significant effect given the low rate. Nonetheless, we advocate for a proactive approach for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia given our experience in this complex population.

Contemporary Outcomes After Partial Resection of Infected Aortic Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic graft infection remains a considerable clinical challenge, and it is unclear which variables are associated with adverse outcomes among patients undergoing partial resection. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of patients who underwent partial resection of infected aortic grafts from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standard database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, operative, and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis, and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients at 22 medical centers in 6 countries underwent partial resection of an infected aortic graft. Seventy percent were men with median age 70 years. Ninety-seven percent had a history of open aortic bypass graft: 88 (77%) patients had infected aortobifemoral bypass, 18 (16%) had infected aortobiiliac bypass, and 1 (0.8%) had an infected thoracic graft. Infection was diagnosed at a median 4.3 years post-implant. All patients underwent partial resection followed by either extra-anatomic (47%) or in situ (53%) vascular reconstruction. Median follow-up period was 17 months (IQR 1, 50 months). Thirty-day mortality was 17.5%. The KM-estimated median survival from time of partial resection was 3.6 years. There was no significant survival difference between those undergoing in situ reconstruction or extra-anatomic bypass (P = 0.6). During follow up, 72% of repairs remained patent and 11% of patients underwent major amputation. On univariate Cox regression analysis, Candida infection was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 2.4; P = 0.01) as well as aortoenteric fistula (HR 1.9, P = 0.03). Resection of a single graft limb only to resection of abdominal (graft main body) infection was associated with decreased risk of mortality (HR 0.57, P = 0.04), as well as those with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification less than 3 (HR 0.35, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any factors significantly associated with mortality. Persistent early infection was noted in 26% of patients within 30 days postoperatively, and 39% of patients were found to have any post-repair infection during the follow-up period. Two patients (1.8%) were found to have a late reinfection without early persistent postoperative infection. Patients with any post-repair infection were older (67 vs. 60 years, P = 0.01) and less likely to have patent repairs during follow up (59% vs. 32%, P = 0.01). Patients with aortoenteric fistula had a higher rate of any post-repair infection (63% vs. 29%, P < 0.01) CONCLUSION: This large multi-center study suggests that patients who have undergone partial resection of infected aortic grafts may be at high risk of death or post-repair infection, especially older patients with abdominal infection not isolated to a single graft limb, or with Candida infection or aortoenteric fistula. Late reinfection correlated strongly with early persistent postoperative infection, raising concern for occult retained infected graft material.

Results of Obturator Foramen Bypass in Patients with Groin Infection and Arterial Involvement.

BACKGROUND: Arterial bypass tunneling via the obturator foramen (OFB) can be performed to circumvent groin infections during lower extremity revascularization. The objective of this study is to report safety and efficacy outcomes of OFB in the setting of infected femoral pseudoaneurysms and infected prosthetic femoral bypass grafts. METHODS: A multihospital, single-entity healthcare system retrospective review was conducted for all patients who underwent OFB between January 2014 through June 2020. Any patient >18 years of age who underwent OFB in the setting of groin infection with a minimum of 30 days follow-up was included in the trial. Demographic, operative, and clinical characteristics of patients were gathered during chart review. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and R studio. RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent OFB during the defined time-period. Demographic data are presented in the first table (Demographic Characteristics). Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3.25. Mean estimated blood loss was 500 mL. Mean operative time was 307 min. Mean follow-up time was 8.5 months (range 0-35 months). In total, 41.2% patients underwent fluoroscopic-guided tunneling, and, when compared to blind tunneling, showed no difference in intraoperative complications or operative time (P value 0.3). In total, 52.9% of patients required ICU admission resulting in a mean number of 0.8 ICU days. The overall mean length of stay was 16.8 days. Two major amputations were reported during follow-up. Patient mortality within 30 days was 0%. Primary patency within 30 days was 100%. Intravenous drug use was not associated with an increased number of subsequent groin wound procedures (P value 0.3). Intravenous drug use was not associated with concomitant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (P value 0.3). CONCLUSION: OFB is a safe and effective surgical option in patients who are unable to undergo anatomic tunneling during lower extremity bypass. OFB is associated with favorable rates of primary patency and amputation-free survival at midterm follow-up.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular interventions for Stanford type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The standard surgical approach to Stanford type A aortic dissection is open repair. However, up to one in four patients will be declined surgery because of prohibitive risk. Patients who are treated nonoperatively have an unacceptably high mortality. Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta is emerging as an alternative treatment for a select group of patients. The reported rates of technical success, mortality, stroke, and reintervention have varied. The objective of the study was to systematically report outcomes for acute type A dissections repaired using an endovascular approach. METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. We performed online literature database searches through April 2020. The demographic and procedural characteristics of the individual studies were tabulated. Data on technical success, short-term mortality, stroke, and reintervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 80 cases of aortic dissection (55 acute and 25 subacute) were included in the final analysis. A wide variation was found in technique and device design across the studies. The outcomes rates were estimated at 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-26%) for mortality, 15% (95% CI, 8%-23%) for technical failure, 11% (95% CI, 6%-19%) for stroke and 18% (95% CI, 9%-31%) for reintervention. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 13.9 ± 3.2. CONCLUSIONS: The technique for endovascular repair of type A aortic dissection is feasible and reproducible. The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for inoperable patients who otherwise would have an extremely poor prognosis. Data from clinical trials are required before the technique can be introduced into routine clinical practice.

Surgical Treatment of True Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Superior mesenteric artery aneurysms (SMAAs) are a rare clinical problem that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal surgical approach for both mycotic and degenerative SMAAs remains poorly defined. The study was designed to review our institutional experience and develop a treatment algorithm. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review was performed to document presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical repair of SMAAs from 2003 to 2020. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality, and secondary end-points included complications, patency, freedom from reinfection, freedom from reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (mean age: 46 ± 16 yrs; 50% male; mean diameter 2.4 ± 2.0 cm) underwent treatment of mycotic (50%) or degenerative (50%) SMAAs. Abdominal pain (66%) was the most common presenting symptom, and the diagnosis was confirmed with CT arteriography. Endocarditis secondary to intravenous drug abuse was responsible for most (88%) of the mycotic SMAAs, with a majority (66%) having positive cultures and Streptococcus being the most common organism. The majority (61%) of patients underwent urgent or emergent repair with aneurysmectomy and interposition saphenous vein bypass being the most common treatment of mycotic SMAAs while aneurysmectomy and prosthetic bypass were used most frequently for degenerative aneurysms. The operative mortality rate was 6% with a major complication rate of 17% (n = 3 patients: respiratory failure/reintubation-1, pulmonary embolism-1, necrotizing pancreatitis/graft disruption and death-1). The single death occurred in a patient with a degenerative aneurysm that developed postoperative pancreatitis and multiple organ dysfunction. The mean clinical follow-up time was 25 ± 48 (95% CI 1-48) months. The estimated primary patency, freedom from reinfection, and freedom from reintervention were 93 ± 7 %, 94 ± 5%, and 94 ± 5%, respectively, at 1 year. The overall mean survival was 55 ± 51 (95% CI 30-80) months with an estimated survival at 3 years of 77 ± 10%. CONCLUSIONS: SMAAs associated with both degenerative and mycotic etiologies can be treated using a variety of surgical approaches with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Mycotic SMAAs should likely be repaired, regardless of size, while the indications for asymptomatic, degenerative aneurysms remain to be defined by further natural history studies.

In situ bypass and extra-anatomic bypass procedures result in similar survival in patients with secondary aortoenteric fistulas.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal revascularization modality in secondary aortoenteric fistula (SAEF) remains unclear in the literature. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients with SAEF. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of SAEF from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and operative and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 182 patients at 34 institutions from 11 countries presented with SAEF (median age, 72 years; 79% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in SAEF were 138 surgical grafts (76%) and 42 endografts (23%), with 2 unknown; 102 of the SAEFs (56%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material, followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-soaked prosthetic graft (53), autogenous femoral vein (neoaortoiliac surgery; 17), cryopreserved allograft (28), and untreated prosthetic grafts (4). There were 80 patients (44%) who underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB) with infected graft excision. Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 319 days (interquartile range, 20-2410 days). Stratified by EAB vs ISB, there was no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated survival (P = .82). In comparing EAB vs ISB, EAB patients were older (74 vs 70 years; P = .01), had less operative hemorrhage (1200 mL vs 2000 mL; P = .04), were more likely to initiate dialysis within 30 days postoperatively (15% vs 5%; P = .02), and were less likely to experience aorta-related hemorrhage within 30 days postoperatively (3% aortic stump dehiscence vs 11% anastomotic rupture; P = .03). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, and intraoperative or postoperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed that the duration of antibiotic use (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.98; P = .01) and rifampin use at time of discharge (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = .03) independently decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ISB does not offer a survival advantage compared with EAB and does not decrease the risk of postoperative aorta-related hemorrhage. After repair, <50% of SAEF patients survive 10 months. Each week of antibiotic use decreases mortality by 8%. Further study with risk modeling is imperative for this population.

Safety and efficacy of a hybrid approach for repair of complicated aberrant subclavian arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA), a well-described aortic arch anomaly, is frequently associated with dysphagia and development of Kommerell diverticulum (KD) with aneurysmal degeneration. Historically, open repair has been performed, which can be associated with significant morbidity. More recently, hybrid approaches using different arch vessel revascularization techniques in combination with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (hybrid TEVAR) have been described, but there is a paucity of literature describing outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to describe our experience with management of complicated ASAs using hybrid TEVAR, further adding to the literature describing approaches to and outcomes of hybrid ASA repair. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review was performed of all patients treated for ASA complications using hybrid TEVAR (2002-2018). The primary end point was technical success, defined as absence of type I or type III endoleak intraoperatively and within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and survival. Centerline measurement of KD diameters (maximum diameter = opposing aortic outer wall to diverticulum apex) was employed. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (1.4% of 1240 total TEVAR procedures; male, 67%; age, 59 ± 13 years) were identified (left-sided arch and right ASA, 94% [n = 17]; right-sided arch and left ASA, n = 1 [6%]; retroesophageal location and associated KD, 100%); median preoperative KD diameter was 60 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 37-108 mm). Operative indications included diverticulum diameter (61%), dysphagia (17%), rupture (11%), rapid expansion (6%), and endoleak after TEVAR (6%). All procedures used some combination of supraclavicular revascularization and TEVAR (staged, 50% [n = 9]), whereas partial open arch reconstruction was used in 17% (n = 3). There were no perioperative deaths or spinal cord ischemic events. Major complications occurred in 22% (n = 4): nondisabling stroke, one; arm ischemia, one; upper extremity neuropathy, one; and iatrogenic descending thoracic aortic dissection, one. Technical success was 83%, but 44% (n = 8) had an endoleak (type I, n = 3; type II, n = 5 [intercostal, n = 2; aneurysmal subclavian artery origin, n = 3]) during follow-up (median, 4 months; IQR, 1-15 months). Two endoleaks resolved spontaneously, three were treated, and three were observed (1-year freedom from reintervention, 75% ± 10%). Median KD diameter decreased by 7 mm (IQR, 1-12 mm), and 78% (n = 14) experienced diameter reduction or stability in follow-up. The 1- and 3-year survival was 93% ± 6% and 84% ± 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid open brachiocephalic artery revascularization with TEVAR appears to be safe and reasonably effective in management of ASA complications as evidenced by a low perioperative complication risk and reasonable positive aortic remodeling. However, endoleak rates raise significant concerns about durability. Therefore, if this technique is employed, the mandatory need for surveillance and high rate of reintervention should be emphasized preoperatively. This analysis represents a relatively large series of a hybrid TEVAR technique to treat ASA complications, but greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to further establish the role of this procedure.

Anatomical aspects and feasibility of endovascular repair for chronic post-dissection arch and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Aortic dissection is a complex pathology that carries significant morbidity and mortality if not treated in a timely fashion. While the open repair remains the gold standard treatment for patients with acute type A dissection, ascending aortic replacement is associated with high incidence of arch and descending thoracic aorta residual false lumen patency and aneurysmal degeneration. Multiple approaches have been used over the decades to address aneurysmal degeneration in the arch and thoracoabdominal aorta. This article summarizes anatomical requirements for total endovascular repair of aortic arch and TAAAs using fenestrated and branched endografts.

Impact of Secondary Aortic Interventions After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Survival.

BACKGROUND: The indications for and technology surrounding thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have undergone significant evolution with increasing adoption. The purpose of this report is to evaluate pathology-specific incidence, timing, and types of secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR and their impact on survival. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was made of all TEVAR and SAI performed from 2004 to 2018. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable logistic regression were used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival, and to identify SAI predictors. RESULTS: Of 1037 patients (mean age 65.4 ± 15.1 years), 155 (14.9%) underwent 212 SAIs (median 5 months; interquartile range, 1.5 to 18) with 37 (3.6%) requiring more than one SAI. The primary aortic pathology at index TEVAR significantly (P = .0001) affected the incidence of SAI: chronic dissection, 26.5%; postsurgical anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, 19.4%; degenerative aneurysm, 15.3%; and acute dissection, 11.2%. The most common indications for SAI were endoleaks (44.8%), disease progression or remote aortic procedure (23.1%), and persistent false lumen flow (9.9%). After exclusion of 30-day mortality events, patients who did not undergo a SAI had better survival compared with patients having SAI: no SAI 1 year 88.8% ± 1.1%, 5 years 75.2% ± 1.7%, and 10 years, 66.5% ± 2.3%; SAI 1 year 91.7% ± 2.4%, 5 years 61.9% ± 4.9%, and 10 years 33.5% ± 8.4% (log rank P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR is not uncommon, particularly among patients with chronic dissection pathology. Patients surviving their index hospitalization who undergo SAI have worse long-term survival. The varying incidence of SAI by indication identifies the need for pathology-specified patient selection, surveillance strategies after TEVAR, and better device design that addresses the limitations of TEVAR, particularly in dealing with dissection-related indications.