Frequency and Significance of Maneuvers to Dissect the Distal Internal Carotid Artery During Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency, factors associated with, and significance of surgical dissection maneuvers of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) during carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information in patients undergoing CEA, we recorded information on demographics, risk factors and comorbidities, dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA, other operative variables and neurological outcome measures. RESULTS: During the period July 2008 and February 2020 inclusive, 218 consecutive patients (180 males, median age 69.5 years) underwent 240 CEAs. In 117 (48.8%) of them, CEA was performed for a symptomatic stenosis. Dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA were required in 77 cases (32.1%), including division and ligation of the sternocleidomastoid vessels in 66 cases (27.5%), mobilization of the XII cranial nerve in 69 cases (28.7%, with concomitant transection of the superior root of the ansa cervicalis in 11 cases, 4.6%) and division of the posterior belly of the digastric muscle in 8 cases (3.3%). Styloid osteotomy was not required in any case. Smoking was the single predictive factor associated with the use of an adjunctive dissection maneuver (odds ratio 2.23, p = 0.009). The use of a patch was more common in smokers (16% vs 7.1% in non-smokers, odds ratio 2.48, p = 0.05). Perioperative stroke and/or death rate was 0%, not allowing testing for associations with maneuver performance. Two patients (0.8%) developed a transient ischemic attack and 4 patients (1.7%) a cranial nerve injury (CNI), including 2 patients with recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, diagnosed on routine laryngoscopy during planning of a contralateral CEA. There was no association between CNI and dissection of the distal ICA using an operative adjunct (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Several surgical maneuvers are often required to accomplish dissection of the distal ICA beyond the point of atherosclerotic disease. When dictated by operative findings, such maneuvers are deemed safe.

Predictors of Operative Mortality of 928 Intact Aortoiliac Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to identify preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with in-hospital mortality of intact abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm repair. METHODS: In this observational study, prospectively collected information included demographics, risk factors, comorbidities, aneurysm characteristics (including special aneurysm presentation, i.e., inflammatory, mycotic/infected, aortocaval fistula), investigations, and operative variables. Receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis of the Glasgow aneurysm score (GAS) and the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) score was performed in the subgroup of bland aneurysms undergoing isolated elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 928 cases with intact aortoiliac aneurysms had an elective (n = 882) or urgent (n = 46) repair, associated with an in-hospital mortality of 1.7% and 8.7%, respectively (P = 0.01). Open repair (n = 514) was a predictor of higher mortality (3.3% vs. 0.5% for endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR], n = 414, odds ratio [OR] 7.1, P = 0.003), and so was the pre-EVAR era (4.8% vs. 1.3% in the EVAR era, OR 4.0, P = 0.004). Other significant predictors included the presence of abdominal/back pain (7.5% vs. 1.3%, OR = 6.0, P = 0.001), preoperative angiography (7% vs. 1.6%, OR = 4.5, P = 0.01), special aneurysm presentation (10.9% vs. 1.5%, OR = 8.1, P < 0.001), concomitant major procedures (19% vs. 1.7%, OR = 14.0, P < 0.001), serious intraoperative complications (9.1% vs. 1.5%, OR = 6.6, P = 0.001), median number of transfused units of blood intraoperatively (2 and 0 for cases with and without mortality, respectively, P < 0.001), and procedure duration (270 and 150 min for cases with and without mortality, respectively, P < 0.001). Open repair (OR = 4.5, P = 0.05), special aneurysm presentation (OR = 6.58, P = 0.001), and concomitant major procedures (OR = 14.3, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of higher mortality. ROC curve analysis for the GAS (P = 0.87) and VSGNE score (P = 0.10) failed to demonstrate statistical significance in the subgroup of bland aneurysms undergoing isolated elective repair. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has demonstrated independent risk factors for mortality, which should be considered when contemplating aortoiliac aneurysm repair. We failed to externally validate the GAS and VSGNE score.

A Unique Indication for the Altura Endograft to Repair Bilateral Common Iliac Artery Aneurysms Associated with a Short-Infrarenal Aorta.

A 71-year-old man with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis presented with bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms diagnosed during the workup of his chronic kidney disease. On computed tomography angiography, common iliac artery aneurysm diameters measured 6.1 cm on the right side and 3.1 cm on the left side. The infrarenal aorta also had a small 3.2-cm aneurysm, but the length from the lowest left renal to the aortic bifurcation was only 6.7 cm, precluding use of most bifurcated endografts. Following an uneventful staged preoperative internal iliac artery embolization, a two-piece D: -shaped Altura endograft for the aorta, with bilateral iliac components, landing at the level of the external iliac arteries was successfully performed. Postoperative course was uneventful with no endoleak or endograft migration on computerized tomographic angiography 45 days later, although billowing mimicking an endoleak was evident and will be closely followed.

Improved effectiveness of the repositionable GORE EXCLUDER AAA endoprosthesis featuring the C3 delivery system compared with the original GORE EXCLUDER AAA endoprosthesis for within the instructions for use treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two endograft types, the original GORE EXCLUDER AAA endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) with the repositionable GORE EXCLUDER featuring the C3 delivery system, which allows repositioning of the proximal part of the graft to achieve accurate placement in relation to the renal arteries, in unselected patients with aortoiliac aneurysms. In a second nested, substudy we investigated the relative effect of the standard Gore and Gore Dryseal introducer sheaths on intraoperative transfusion needs. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected information. The primary composite outcome measure was the intraoperative misdeployment or migration of the endograft's main body, proximally or distally to the renals (leading to technical failure or requiring either placement of aortic cuff extenders or conversion to open repair). Secondary outcome measures included the composite long-term event of rupture and/or type I/III endoleak. RESULTS: A total of 313 consecutive patients (303 males; median age, 73 years) had either an original GORE EXCLUDER device (n = 174) or the new device (n = 139) placed between 2004 and 2011 and 2011 and 2017, respectively, to treat an infrarenal aortoiliac aneurysm or an isolated common iliac artery aneurysm. The primary composite outcome measure occurred more often in patients who had the original GORE EXCLUDER device placed (10.9% vs 3.6% for the new device; odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.84; P = .016), confirmed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. This difference between the two groups was exclusively driven by distal misdeployment or migration of the endograft (10.3% vs 2.9% for the new device; P = .01), mostly requiring aortic extender placement. Intraoperative blood transfusion rates were lower in patients who had the GORE Dryseal introducer sheath used (1.1% vs 18.9% for the original GORE introducer sheath; OR, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.006-0.35; P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 1.7 years (maximum, 13 years), 11 patients developed the composite event. On univariate Cox analysis, significant predictors included female gender (P = .003), absence of dyslipidemia (P = .023), the primary outcome measure (P = .006), and failure to cannulate (P = .009), but not device type or other variables. On multivariate Cox regression, female gender (hazard ratio, 37; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio, 3.99; P = .045), the primary outcome measure of the study (hazard ratio, 8.9; P = .002), and failure to cannulate (hazard ratio, 43; P = .003) were all independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has demonstrated that the repositionable GORE EXCLUDER has important safety characteristics compared with the original device and equivalent long-term effectiveness. Additional benefit was obtained with the use of the Gore Dryseal introducer sheath.

Acute Effects of Graduated Elastic Compression Stockings in Patients with Symptomatic Varicose Veins: A Randomised Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of graduated elastic compression stockings (GECS) below the knee in improving symptoms in patients with varicose veins in the absence of high quality evidence. METHODS: This was a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. Thirty patients with no experience of elastic stockings, presenting with primary varicose veins causing calf pain or aching were randomised to a GECS (18-21 mmHg at the ankle level, n=15) or a placebo stocking (0 mmHg, n=15). Pain or aching of the index leg after 1 week was the primary outcome measure. In patients with bilateral varicose veins the leg with the most severe pain/aching was considered. Other defined symptoms were secondary outcome measures. All symptoms were scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: The two study groups were well balanced at baseline. At the completion of the study after 1 week, GECS were more effective than placebo stockings in reducing pain or aching (VAS score 1.7±3.0 vs. 4.5±2.8 for placebo, p=.02), while non-significant trends were observed for some of the remaining symptoms of the index leg, including feeling of swelling (VAS score 0.9±1.9 vs. 3.3±3.5 for placebo), paraesthesiae (VAS score 0.2±0.6 vs. 2.1±3.1 for placebo), and the number of symptoms other than pain or aching (1.3±1.1 vs. 2.8±1.7 for placebo). Number needed to treat (95% CI) for a 50% or complete improvement of pain or aching in the index leg was 2 (95% CI 1.2-5.5) and 2 (95% CI 1.2-5.3), respectively. Mean daily use of the placebo stockings and GECS was 8.0 hours and 10.2 hours, respectively (p=.13). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with varicose veins, GECS seem effective in ameliorating symptoms, particularly pain or aching, compared with placebo stockings after 1 week of use. Long-term studies are justified.

Surgical and endovascular revision of brachio-basilic vein fistula.

PURPOSE: The brachio-basilic vein fistula (BBVF) is currently the third vascular access option for patients on hemodialysis, following radio-cephalic and brachio-cephalic arterio-venous fistulas. Like all types of hemodialysis vascular access, a variety of procedures may have to be performed in order to maintain long-term use of the BBVF. The aim of the present study was to perform a literature review of endovascular or surgical revisions of BBVFs. METHODS: On Pubmed search, 676 records were obtained and reviewed for relevance with the aim of the search. RESULTS: A variety of endovascular and surgical revision techniques has been described to manage BBVF poor maturation, dysfunction manifested as failing BBVF (most often the result of a stenosis at the transposed/swing segment), thrombosis, aneurysm formation and hemodialysis access-induced hand ischemia (steal syndrome). The role of revision is crucial in BBVF maintenance, taking into account that around 70% of these fistulas will require some intervention by 18 months and as a result of revision, secondary patency is preserved in the vast majority, according to the results of one study. Endovascular revision is the treatment of choice for most cases of BBVF dysfunction or thrombosis, with redo surgery reserved for failures of endovascular techniques or other specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: BBVF revision, more often in the form of endovascular surgery, plays a crucial role in BBVF maintenance and its continued use for hemodialysis, necessary for reducing graft and catheter use and the associated morbidity.