Characterizing the frequency and indications for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with diameters smaller than recommended by societal guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Although the Society for Vascular Surgery recommends repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) at 5.5 cm or greater in men and 5.0 cm or greater in women, AAA repair below these thresholds has been well-documented. There are clear indications for repair other than these strict size criteria, but the expected proportion of such repairs in one's practice has not been studied. We sought to characterize the indications for repairs of aneurysms below diameter recommendations at a single academic center. Using the assumption that this real-world experience would approximate that of other practices, we then used national data to extrapolate these findings. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was conducted of all elective open AAA (oAAA) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) from 2010 to 2020 to assess the incidence of and indications for repair of aneurysms below diameter recommendations (defined as <5.5 cm in men and <5.0 cm in women). Reasons for these repairs were defined as (1) iliac aneurysm, (2) saccular morphology, (3) rapid expansion, (4) patient anxiety, (5) distal embolization, (6) other, and (7) no documented reason. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) was queried for all asymptomatic oAAA and EVAR (2010-2020) and repairs below diameter recommendations were identified. Findings from the single-center analysis were applied to the VQI cohort to extrapolate estimates of reasons for repairs done nationally. In-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared between those below size recommendations and those meeting size recommendations. RESULTS: Of 456 elective AAA repairs at our center, 147 (32%) were below size recommendations. This finding was more common for EVAR (35% vs 28%). Reasons were: not documented (41%), iliac aneurysm (23%), saccular (10%), rapid expansion (10%), patient anxiety (7%), other (6%), and distal embolism (3%). Of 44,820 elective AAA repairs in the VQI, 17,057 (38%) were below size recommendations (40% EVAR, 26% oAAA). Patients who were repaired below size recommendations had lower in-hospital death (oAAA, 2.4% vs 4.6% [P < .0001]; EVAR, 0.3% vs 0.8% [P < .0001]). When single-center findings were applied to the VQI dataset, an estimated 10,064 repairs were performed nationally for acceptable indications other than size criteria. Conversely, there may have been 6993 repairs (with an associated 35 deaths) performed without documented indication. CONCLUSIONS: Repairs for AAA below the recommended diameter guidelines account for approximately one-third of all elective AAA procedures in both the VQI and our single-center experience. Assuming our practice is typical, nearly 60% of repairs below size recommendations meet the criteria for other clear reasons. The remaining 40% lack a documented reason, meaning that 13% of all elective AAA repairs were done for aneurysms below size recommendations without an acceptable indication. As awareness of overuse and underuse is heightened, these data help to estimate the expected proportion of repairs for less common pathologies. They also provide a potential baseline data point for efforts at decreasing overuse.

Building and growing a successful F/BEVAR program.

As an emerging technology, fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) shows tremendous promise for managing complex aortic disease. However, pathways for building and growing a clinical program capable of successfully performing these repairs remain ill-defined. Fundamental to the process of program building is determining a clear vision of what defines success for the group and organization. First steps include decisions about the scope of the program and involvement of the US Food and Drug Administration. These decisions are interrelated with decisions about the extent of aneurysms that a program will treat and the types of devices needed to do so. The required financial resources and organizational infrastructure must be considered, with a thoughtful approach to the feasibility of such a clinical program. As for any clinical program, growth requires a track record of good clinical outcomes, patient experiences, and referring physician experiences. We describe an overview of these general considerations, while recognizing that local factors may dictate the applicability or lack thereof.

Computed tomography angiography-derived area stenosis calculations overestimate degree of carotid stenosis compared with North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial-derived diameter stenosis calculations.

OBJECTIVE: The degree of carotid artery stenosis, calculated using catheter-based angiography and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) method, has been shown to predict the stroke risk in several, large, randomized controlled trials. In the present era, patients have been increasingly evaluated using computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) before carotid artery revascularization, especially as the use of transcarotid artery revascularization has increased. Interpretation of CTA findings regarding the degree of carotid stenosis has not been standardized, with both NASCET methods and the area stenosis used. We performed a single-institution, blinded, retrospective analysis of CTA studies using both the NASCET method and the CT-derived area stenosis to assess the concordance and discordance between the two methods when evaluating ≥70% and ≥80% stenosis. METHODS: The UMass Memorial Medical Center vascular laboratory database was queried for all carotid duplex ultrasound scans performed from 2008 to 2017. The included patients were limited to those with duplex-defined ≥70% stenosis (defined as a peak systolic velocity of ≥125 cm/s and an internal carotid artery/common carotid artery ratio of ≥4), and a correlative CTA study performed within 1 year of the duplex ultrasound examination. A blinded review of all correlative CTA studies using centerline measurements on a three-dimensional workstation (Aquarius iNtuition Viewer; Terarecon, Durham, NC) was performed to characterize the degree of carotid stenosis using the NASCET method and the area stenosis method. Patients were excluded if revascularization had been performed between the two imaging studies. RESULTS: Of the 37,204 carotid duplex ultrasound scans reviewed (performed from 2008 to 2017), 3480 arteries met the criteria for duplex ultrasound-defined ≥70% stenosis. A correlative CTA study within 1 year of the duplex ultrasound examination was identified in 460 arteries, of which 320 were adequate quality for blinded review. The median interval between the duplex ultrasound and CTA examinations was 9.5 days. Concordance between the area stenosis and NASCET methods was poor for both ≥70% (κ = 0.32) and ≥80% (κ = 0.25) stenosis. Of the 247 arteries considered to have ≥70% area stenosis, 127 (51.4%) were considered to have ≥70% stenosis using the NASCET method. Of the 169 arteries considered to have ≥80% area stenosis, 44 (26.0%) were considered to have ≥80% stenosis using the NASCET method. CONCLUSIONS: The area stenosis CTA calculations of carotid artery stenosis dramatically overestimated the degree of carotid stenosis compared with that calculated using the NASCET method. Given that stroke risk estimates have been determined from trials that used the NASCET method, the area stenosis method likely overestimates the risk of stroke. Therefore, area stenosis calculations could lead to unnecessary carotid revascularization procedures. This model highlights the need for standardized usage of the NASCET method when using CTA as the imaging modality to determine the threshold for carotid revascularization.

Carotid Duplex Velocity Criteria Recommended by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Endorsed by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Lack Predictive Ability for Identifying High-Grade Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid duplex is the first-line imaging modality for characterizing degree of carotid stenosis. The Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), in published guideline documents, has endorsed use of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) criteria to characterize ≥70% stenosis: peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥230 cm/s. We sought to perform a validation of the SRU criteria using computed tomography (CT) angiography as a gold standard imaging modality and to perform a sensitivity analysis to determine optimal velocity criteria for identifying ≥80% stenosis. METHODS: We queried all carotid duplex examinations performed at our institution between 2008 and 2017. Patients with ≥70% carotid stenosis, based on previous criteria, were identified. Of these patients, those who also had a CT angiogram of the neck within one year formed the study cohort. Patients who underwent carotid revascularization between the 2 imaging dates were excluded. Degree of stenosis, as reported from the CT angiogram, was considered the true degree of stenosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate the SRU criteria and to identify the optimal discrimination threshold for high-grade carotid stenosis. RESULTS: Of 37,204 carotid duplex examinations, 3,478 arteries met criteria for ≥70% stenosis. Of these, 344 patients had a CT angiogram within 1 year of the carotid duplex (mean time between studies, 55 days, SD 6.5) and 240 (69.8%) were consistent with ≥80% carotid stenosis. The predictive ability of the SRU criteria to identify ≥70% stenosis was poor, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.51. A sensitivity analysis to identify ≥80% stenosis demonstrated the optimal discrimination threshold to be PSV ≥450 cm/s or end diastolic velocity (EDV) ≥120 cm/s, with an AUC of 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: In this validation study, the SRU criteria, endorsed by the IAC, to identify ≥70% carotid stenosis had no predictive value. For detection of ≥80% stenosis, the optimal criteria are a PSV ≥450 cm/s or EDV ≥120 cm/s. This study demonstrates the critical importance of carotid duplex examination validation.

Results of repeated percutaneous interventions on failing arteriovenous fistulas and grafts and factors affecting outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Repeated percutaneous interventions on failing arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) for hemodialysis are common, but the outcomes are largely unknown. We sought to determine the results of the second percutaneous intervention on failing AVGs and AVFs and to identify factors associated with loss of patency. METHODS: For the purpose of this study, the second percutaneous intervention was identified as the index procedure. We reviewed the second percutaneous interventions on failing AVFs and AVGs at a single institution between 2007 and 2013. Patient comorbidities, graft or fistula configuration, lesion characteristics, and procedural characteristics of the intervention performed were analyzed with respect to technical success, primary patency, primary assisted patency, and secondary patency. Patency was defined per Society for Vascular Surgery recommended reporting standards and was determined from the time of the index procedure. Cox proportional hazards multivariable modeling was performed to identify independent determinants of loss of patency. RESULTS: Among 91 patients, 96 second-time percutaneous interventions were performed on 52 AVFs and 44 AVGs. Patients included 56% men and 44% women with a mean age of 64 ± 17 years. The lesions intervened on were primarily located along the accessed portion of the outflow in AVFs and within the length of the graft and at the venous anastomosis in AVGs. Transluminal angioplasty alone was performed in 82 procedures (85%), and uncovered or covered stents were placed in 15 procedures (16%). Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy was performed in 32 patients (34%) and was more commonly performed in AVGs compared with AVFs (53% vs 17%; P = .0002). Technical success was achieved in 90 procedures (97%; n = 92). One-year primary patency, assisted primary patency, and secondary patency rates were 35%, 86%, and 86%, respectively. One-year primary patency did not differ between AVFs and AVGs, but secondary patency was lower for AVG in comparison to AVF (P = .04). On multivariable analysis, only the need for pharmacomechanical thrombectomy significantly predicted failure of primary patency (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.3). The presence of an AVG rather than an AVF independently predicted failure of secondary patency (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-8.2). CONCLUSIONS: The second percutaneous interventions on AVFs and AVGs are associated with excellent technical success but poor primary patency. The need for pharmacomechanical thrombectomy predicts the need for additional percutaneous intervention to maintain patency. With additional interventions, acceptable secondary patency out to 5 years can be achieved, although AVGs have inferior secondary patency to AVFs. To develop optimal practice management algorithms, the effectiveness of repeated percutaneous interventions for failing AVGs and AVFs vs creation of a new access should be further investigated.