Endovascular management of acute aortic dissections.

INTRODUCTION: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is one of the most common aortic emergencies that vascular specialists are asked to manage. Traditional surgical interventions for cases complicated by malperfusion have resulted in significant morbidity and mortality. With increasing availability of thoracic endografts, endovascular interventions for complicated AAD have become more acceptable. We reviewed our experience with endovascular treatment of AAD since January 2005. METHODS: Medical records of patients admitted for AAD from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2008, were entered into our vascular registry and analyzed for risk factors, extent of dissection, type of management, fate of the false lumen, complications, and survival. There were 249 admissions for aortic dissections during the study period. Our study group included 28 patients with complicated AAD who underwent endovascular intervention. RESULTS: During the study interval, 28 patients (16 male) underwent 44 procedures. The average age was 54 years. Risk factors differed from the typical atherosclerotic patient and were dominated by an 89.3% incidence of hypertension. Five patients (17.9%) presented with a history of recent cocaine use. The average length of stay was 25.1 days (range, 1-196 days). Stanford type B dissections were present in all but one patient. Twenty-six thoracic endografts were placed in 25 patients. Eight patients required multiple procedures in addition to a thoracic endograft. Morbidity occurred in 17 (60.7%) patients, with renal insufficiency occurring in 11 patients (39.3%) and one requiring permanent dialysis. Four neurologic events occurred: three strokes (10.7%) and one patient (3.6%) with temporary paraplegia. Three patients (10.7%) died in the periprocedural period, with ruptured dissection in one and pericardial tamponade in another. Eight of 10 computed tomography scans (80%) available for review in follow-up showed complete thrombosis of the thoracic false lumen. CONCLUSIONS: Complicated AAD remains a challenging problem, with significant morbidity and mortality rates. However, our early experience with endovascular management offers a favorable reduction in mortality from historic controls.

The cost-effectiveness of a "quick-screen" program for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasing, and the prognosis of ruptured AAA remains dismal. Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial. We designed this study to determine whether selected population screening with a brief "quick-screen" ultrasound could be cost-effective. METHODS: A series of 25 patients with risk factors for AAA were evaluated in a blinded fashion by a quick-screen ultrasound and a full conventional study. Times and accuracy for the 2 approaches were compared. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of screening for AAA was then performed using a Markov model. We determined the long-term survival in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old males undergoing either AAA screening or not. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). RESULTS: The average time for a quick screen was one-sixth that of a conventional study (4 vs 24 minutes). The accuracy of the quick screen was 100%. In our base-case analysis, screening for AAA was cost-effective with a CER of $11,215. Society usually is willing to pay for interventions with CER of less than $60,000 (eg, CER for coronary artery bypass grafting, $9500; breast cancer screening, $16,000). In sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of screening from $259 (approximate Medicare reimbursement) to $40 (the quick screen) improved the CER to $6850. Moreover, screening populations with increased prevalence of AAA (eg, male with family history [18%]) further improved the CER. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates that ultrasound screening for AAA should be offered to all males above the age of 60. Widespread screening for AAA should be adopted and reimbursed by Medicare and other insurers.

Graft-free surgical retroperitoneal vascular access as bail-out technique for failed percutaneous approach to transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Surgical retroperitoneal access to the iliac artery may provide an alternative route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and prohibitively small common femoral arteries. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR via the femoral approach were divided into two groups; standard percutaneous access (n=103) and surgical retroperitoneal access (n=15) for patients in whom dilators could not be advanced without resistance. For retroperitoneal access, proximal groin vessels were exposed surgically and direct puncture was performed. The sheath was tunneled from the level of the initial inguinal puncture site in order to achieve coaxial entry of the sheath into the vessel. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Procedural characteristics were insignificantly different between groups; although, procedure time was longer (34 min), while fluoroscopy time and contrast utilization were lower in the retroperitoneal access group. There was no outcome difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical retroperitoneal access is a reasonable alternative for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who have poor percutaneous access options due to peripheral vascular disease.

Tibial angioplasty as an alternative strategy in patients with limb-threatening ischemia.

The purpose of this study was to assess the technical feasibility and early outcome of tibial angioplasty for a subset of patients with limb-threatening ischemia who were not candidates for bypass grafting. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 19 patients (7 male, 12 female) who underwent crural angioplasty for limb-threatening ischemia using 0.018- or 0.014 inch-based systems. Contraindications to bypass were insufficient conduit in 7 patients and severe comorbid illness in 12. Concurrent treatment of inflow lesions was performed in 12 of 20 limbs via either angioplasty alone (5) or combined with stenting (12). Outcome measures were ankle-brachial indices (ABI), relief of rest pain, and healing or healed wounds. Twenty-three vessels were treated, including 14 tibial occlusions and 9 stenoses. The average length of diseased segment was 11 cm (range, 3-25 cm). Thirteen of 14 occlusions were treated with subintimal recanalization, the remainder with laser recanalization. Technical success was achieved in 22 of 23 treated vessels. Mean preoperative ABI was 0.53 and mean postoperative ABI was 0.85. Palpable pulses were present in 11 of 20 limbs (55%). There was one perioperative mortality (5.2%). Mean follow-up was 3 months. Three failures occurred requiring amputation (15.8%). The remaining 16 patients were improved with healing (8) or healed (4) wounds and relief of rest pain (4). These results indicate that technical success may be achieved with outflow lesion angioplasty in the majority of patients encountered. The durability of this method of therapy is unknown, and our length of follow-up is not sufficient to answer this question. However, an attempt at angioplasty appears justified before primary amputation and before surgical bypass in those patients at high risk for intervention.

Is carotid angioplasty and stenting more cost effective than carotid endarterectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been advocated as a minimally invasive and inexpensive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, a precise comparative analysis of the immediate and long-term costs associated with these two procedures has not been performed. To accomplish this, a Markov decision analysis model was created to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of these two interventions. METHODS: Procedural morbidity/mortality rate for CEA and costs (not charges) were derived from a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell (n = 447). Data for CAS were obtained from the literature. We incorporated into this model both the immediate procedural costs and the long-term cost of morbidities, such as stroke (major stroke in the first year = $52,019; in subsequent years = $27,336/y; minor stroke = $9419). We determined long-term survival rate in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetic cohort of 70-year-old patients undergoing either CEA or CAS. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The immediate procedural costs of CEA and CAS were $7871 and $10,133 respectively. We assumed major plus minor stroke rates for CEA and CAS of 0.9% and 5%, respectively. We assumed a 30-day mortality rate of 0% for CEA and 1.2% for CAS. In our base case analysis, CEA was cost saving (lifetime savings = $7017/patient; increase in quality-adjusted life years saved = 0.16). Sensitivity analysis revealed major stroke and death rates as the major contributors to this differential in cost effectiveness. Procedural costs were less important, and minor stroke rates were least important. CAS became cost effective only if its major stroke and mortality rates were made equivalent to those of CEA. CONCLUSION: CEA is cost saving compared with CAS. This is related to the higher rate of stroke with CAS and the high cost of stents and protection devices. To be economically competitive, the mortality and major stroke rates of CAS must be at least equivalent if not less than those of CEA.