Retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for nonruptured open conversion after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies comparing the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair suggest that the RP approach may result in lower rates of perioperative mortality and morbidity. However, data comparing these approaches for open conversion are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the association between the type of approach and outcomes following open conversion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We included all patients who underwent open conversion after EVAR between 2010 and 2022 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients presenting with rupture were excluded. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and 5-year mortality. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for factors with statistical or clinical significance. Logistic regression was used to assess perioperative mortality and complications in the weighted cohort. The 5-year mortality was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: We identified 660 patients (39% RP) who underwent open conversion after EVAR. Compared with TP, RP patients were older (75 years [interquartile range, 70-79 years] vs 73.5 years [interquartile range, 68-79 years]; P < .001), and more frequently had prior myocardial infarction (33% vs 22%; P = .002). Compared with the TP approach, the RP approach was used less frequently in cases of associated iliac aneurysm (19% vs 27%; P = .026), but more frequently with associated renal bypass (7.8% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and by high-volume physicians (highest quintile, >7 AAA annually: 41% vs 17%; P < .001) and in high-volume centers (highest quintile, >35 AAA annually: 36% vs 20%; P < .001). RP patients, compared with TP patients, were less likely to have external iliac or femoral distal anastomosis (8.2% vs 21%; P < .001), and an infrarenal clamp (25% vs 36%; P < .001). Unadjusted perioperative mortality was not significantly different between approaches (RP vs TP: 3.8% vs 7.5%; P = .077). After risk adjustment, RP patients had similar odds of perioperative mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-1.10; P = .082), and lower odds of intestinal ischemia (aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.86; P = .028) and in-hospital reintervention (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.85; P = .015). No significant differences were found in the other perioperative complications or 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.47-1.32; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the RP approach may be associated with a lower adjusted odds of perioperative complications compared with the TP approach. The RP approach should be considered for open conversion after EVAR when feasible.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous CAS. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the Vascular Quality Iniatitive. METHODS: Using Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA after prior ipsilateral CAS. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, body mass index, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary artery disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and cranial nerve injury (CNI) after TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. RESULTS: We identified 2137 patients undergoing revascularization after prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%), and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%; aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-3.98; P = .8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of postoperative MI (0.1% vs 14%; aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P < .001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%; aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%; aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30; P = .002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1%, with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably higher in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the postprocedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

Factors associated with and outcomes of respiratory adverse events following thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory adverse events (RAEs) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain poorly characterized owing to the lack of comprehensive studies that identify individuals prone to these complications. This study aims to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and outcomes of RAEs after TEVAR. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing TEVAR isolated to zones 0 to 5 from 2010 to 2023 for nontraumatic pathologies. After determining the incidence of postoperative RAEs, we assessed baseline characteristics, pathology, procedural details, and postoperative complications stratified by respiratory complication status: none, pneumonia only, reintubation only, or both. We then examined preoperative and intraoperative variables independently associated with the development of postoperative RAEs using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine associations between postoperative RAEs and 5-year survival adjusting for preoperative variables and other nonrespiratory postoperative complications in a separate model. RESULTS: Of 10,708 patients, 8.3% had any RAE (pneumonia only, 2.1%; reintubation only, 4.8%; both, 1.4%). Patients with any RAE were more likely to present with aortic dissection (any respiratory complication, 46% vs no respiratory complication, 35%; P < .001), and be symptomatic (58% vs 48%; P < .001). Developing RAEs after TEVAR was associated with male sex (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.41; P = .037), obesity (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; P = .009), morbid obesity (aRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.32; P = .002), renal dysfunction (aRR, estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-45, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.15-1.82; P = .002; estimated glomerular filtration rate <30/hemodialysis, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.37-2.11; P < .001), anemia (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.58; P = .003), aortic diameter >65 mm (aRR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.25-1.89; P < .001), proximal disease in the aortic arch (aRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48; P = .025) or ascending aorta (aRR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.14; P = .002), acute aortic dissection (aRR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.72-2.63; P < .001), ruptured presentation (aRR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.43-3.87; P < .001), same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment (aRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.82; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen (aRR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.08-2.25; P = .014), limited self-care or bed-bound status (aRR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.45-3.03; P < .001), and intraoperative transfusion (aRR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.40; P < .001). Patients who developed postoperative RAEs had higher 30-day mortality (27% vs 4%; P < .001) and 5-year mortality than patients without respiratory complications (46% vs 20%; P < .001). After adjusting for preoperative and postoperative variables, the 5-year mortality was higher in patients who developed any postoperative RAE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6, 2.1; P < .001), postoperative pneumonia only (aHR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0, 1.8; P = .046), reintubation only (aHR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8, 2.6; P < .001) or both (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1, 2.0; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: RAEs after TEVAR are common, more likely to occur in male patients with obesity, renal dysfunction, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, acute aortic dissection, ruptured presentation, same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment, who received intraoperative transfusion, and are associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year mortality regardless of the development of other postoperative complications. Considering these factors in assessing the risks and benefits of TEVAR procedures, along with implementing customized postoperative care, can potentially improve clinical outcomes.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Patients' Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: To investigate associations between patient characteristics, intraprocedural complexity factors, and radiation exposure to patients during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Elective standard EVAR procedures between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics and intraprocedural data (i.e., type of device, endograft configuration, additional procedures, and contralateral gate cannulation time [CGCT]) were collected. Dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time were considered as measurements of radiation exposure. Furthermore, effective dose (ED) and doses to internal organs were calculated using PCXMC 2.0 software. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and multivariable linear regression were applied to investigate predictors of increased radiation exposure. RESULTS: The 99 patients were mostly male (90.9%) with a mean age of 74 ± 7 years. EVAR indications were most frequently abdominal aortic aneurysm (93.9%), penetrating aortic ulceration (2.0%), focal dissection (2.0%), or subacute rupture of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (2.0%). Median fluoroscopy time was 19.6 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 14.1-29.4) and median DAP was 86,311 mGy cm2 (IQR, 60,160-130,385). Median ED was 23.2 mSv (IQR, 17.0-34.8) for 93 patients (93.9%). DAP and ED were positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) and CGCT. Kidneys, small intestine, active bone marrow, colon, and stomach were the organs that received the highest equivalent doses during EVAR. Higher DAP and ED values were observed using the Excluder endograft, other bi- and tri-modular endografts, and EVAR with ≥2 additional procedures. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT were independent positive predictors of DAP and ED levels after accounting for endograft type. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related and procedure-related factors such as BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT resulted predictors of radiation exposure for patients undergoing EVAR, as quantified by higher DAP and ED levels. The main intraprocedural factor that increased radiation exposure was CGCT. These data can be of importance for better managing radiation exposure during EVAR.

Sex-related Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for intact isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sex and outcomes following TEVAR for intact isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (iiDTAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Data regarding sex-related long-term outcomes after TEVAR for iiDTAA are limited and conflicting results regarding perioperative outcomes have been reported. METHODS: We included all TEVAR for iiDTAA between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims, allowing reliable assessment of long-term outcome data. Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures of the thoracic aorta. Secondarily we assessed perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 685 patients, of which 54% were females. Females had higher aortic size index (females vs. males: 3.31 [IQR, 2.81-3.85] cm/m2 vs. 2.93 [IQR, 2.42-3.36] cm/m2; P<.001), were more frequently symptomatic (31% vs. 20%; P=.001), had longer procedure time (111 [IQR, 72-165] min vs. 97 [IQR, 70-146] min) and more iliac procedures (16% vs. 7.6%; P=.001). Compared with males, females had similar rates of 5-year mortality (58% vs. 53%; HR, 0.93; 95%CI 0.71-1.22; P=.61), reinterventions (39% vs. 30%; HR, 1.12; 95%CI 0.73-1.73; P=.60) and late ruptures (0.6% vs. 1.2%; HR, 0.87; 95%CI 0.12-6.18; P=.89). After adjustment, these outcomes remained similar through 5-years. Furthermore, perioperative mortality was not significantly different between sexes (4.1% vs. 2.2%; P=.25), as were rates of any complication as a composite outcome (16% vs. 21%; P=.16), as well as of individual complications (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females who undergo TEVAR for iiDTAA have similar 5-year and perioperative outcomes as compared with males.

Five-year sex-related outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of sex on outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents an area of increased interest over the last decade, and long-term data are lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate sex-related differences in long-term outcomes after TEVAR using real-world data from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained retrospectively after querying the multicenter, sponsored Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment. Patients treated with TEVAR between December 2010 and January 2021 were selected regardless of the type of thoracic aortic disease. The primary outcome was sex-specific all-cause mortality at 5 years and maximum follow-up. Secondary outcomes were sex-specific all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year, and aorta-related mortality, major adverse cardiac events, neurological complications, and device-related complications or reinterventions at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years, and maximum follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 805 patients were analyzed; 535 (66.5%) were males. Females were older (median, 66 years [interquartile range (IQR), 57-75 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 59-78 years], P < .001). Males had more frequently a history of coronary artery bypass grafting and renal insufficiency (8.7% vs 3.7% [P = .010] and 22.4% vs 11.6% [P < .001]). The median follow-up was 3.46 years (IQR, 1.49-4.99 years) for males and 3.18 years (IQR, 1.29-4.86 years) for females. Indications for TEVAR were mostly descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (n = 307 [38.1%]) type B aortic dissections (n = 250 [31.1%]) or others (n = 248 [30.8%]). Freedom from 5-year all-cause mortality was similar for males and females (67% [95% CI, 62.1-72.2] vs 65.9% [95% CI, 58.5-74.2]; P = .847), and there were no differences in secondary outcomes. Multivariable Cox regression showed females to have lower all-cause mortality rates; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72-1.30; P = .834). Additional subgroup analyses based on the indication for TEVAR did not identify differences between both sexes for the primary and secondary outcomes except more endoleak type II in females with complicated type B aortic dissection (1.8% vs 12.1%; P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that long-term outcomes of TEVAR performed irrespective of the type of aortic disease are similar for males and females. Further studies are needed to clarify existing controversies regarding the impact of sex on outcomes of TEVAR.

Sex-Specific Morphometric Analysis of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch for Planning Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: In many studies on aortic disease, women are underrepresented. The present study aims to assess sex-specific morphometric differences and gain more insight into endovascular treatment of the ascending aorta (AA) and arch. METHODS: Electrocardiogram-gated cardiac computed tomography scans of 116 consecutive patients who were evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were retrospectively reviewed. Measurements of the AA and aortic arch were made in multiplanar views, perpendicular to the semi-automatic centerline. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors affecting AA and aortic arch diameter in men and women. Propensity score matching was used to investigate whether sex influences aortic morphology. RESULTS: In both sexes, body surface area (BSA) was identified as a positive predictor and diabetes as a negative predictor for aortic diameters. In men, age was identified as a positive predictor and smoking as a negative predictor for aortic diameters. Propensity score matching identified 40 pairs. Systolic and diastolic mean diameters and AA length were significantly wider in men. On average, male aortas were 7.4% wider than female aortas, both in systole and diastole. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis demonstrates that, in women, increased BSA is associated with increased aortic arch diameters, while diabetes is associated with decreased AA and arch diameters. In men, increased BSA and age are associated with increased AA and arch diameters, while smoking and diabetes are associated with decreased AA and arch diameters. Men were confirmed to have 7.4% greater AA and arch diameters than women. CLINICAL IMPACT: Men had 7.4% greater ascending aorta and arch diameters than women in a retrospective cohort, gated computed tomography-based study of 116 patients. Sex-specific differences in ascending aortic and arch size should be considered by aortic endovascular device manufacturers and physicians when developing ascending and arch endografts and planning aortic interventions.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of the Reproducibility of Ultrasound Calliper Placement Methods in Abdominal Aortic Diameter Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess which ultrasound (US) method of maximum anteroposterior (AP) abdominal aortic diameter measurement can be considered most reproducible. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched (PROSPERO ID: 276694). Eligible studies reported intra- and or interobserver agreement according to Bland-Altman analysis (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) for abdominal aortic diameter AP US evaluations with an outer to outer (OTO), inner to inner (ITI), and or leading edge to leading edge (LELE) calliper placement. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies statement was followed. The QUADAS-2 tool and QUADAS-C extension were used for risk of bias assessment and the GRADE framework to rate the certainty of evidence. Pooled estimates (fixed effects meta-analysis, after a test of homogeneity of means) for each US method were compared with pairwise one sided t tests. Sensitivity analyses (for studies published in 2010 or later) and meta-regression were also performed. RESULTS: 21 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Twelve were eligible for quantitative analysis. Studies showed heterogeneity in the US model and transducer used, sex of participants, and observer professions, expertise, and training. Included studies shared a common mean for each US method (OTO: p = 1.0, ITI: p = 1.0, and LELE: p = 1.0). A pooled estimate of interobserver reproducibility for each US method was obtained, combining the mean ± SD (Bland-Altman analysis) from each study: OTO: 0.182 ± 0.440; ITI: 0.170 ± 0.554; and LELE: 0.437 ± 0.419. There were no statistically significant differences between the methods (OTO vs. ITI: p = .52, OTO vs. LELE: p = .069, ITI vs. LELE: p = .17). Considering studies published in 2010 and later, the pooled estimate for LELE was the smallest, without statistically significant differences between the methods. Despite the low risk of bias, the certainty of the evidence for both meta-analysed outcomes remained low. CONCLUSION: The interobserver reproducibility for OTO and ITI was 2.5 times smaller (indicating better reproducibility) than LELE; however, without statistically significant differences between the methods and low GRADE evidence certainty. Additional data are needed to validate these findings, while inherent differences between the methods need to be emphasised.

Thoracic Stent Graft Numerical Models To Virtually Simulate Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Pre-procedural planning of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may implement computational adjuncts to predict technical and clinical outcomes. The aim of this scoping review was to explore the currently available TEVAR procedure and stent graft modelling options. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched (English language, up to 9 December 2022) for studies presenting a virtual thoracic stent graft model or TEVAR simulation. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, compared, grouped, and described. Quality assessment was performed using a 16 item rating rubric. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Among the currently available in silico simulations of TEVAR, severe heterogeneity exists in study characteristics, methodological details, and evaluated outcomes. Ten studies (71.4%) were published during the last five years. Eleven studies (78.6%) included heterogeneous clinical data to reconstruct patient specific aortic anatomy and disease (e.g., type B aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm) from computed tomography angiography imaging. Three studies (21.4%) constructed idealised aortic models with literature input. The applied numerical methods consisted of computational fluid dynamics analysing aortic haemodynamics in three studies (21.4%) and finite element analysis analysing structural mechanics in the others (78.6%), including or excluding aortic wall mechanical properties. The thoracic stent graft was modelled as two separate components (e.g., graft, nitinol) in 10 studies (71.4%), as a one component homogenised approximation (n = 3, 21.4%), or including nitinol rings only (n = 1, 7.1%). Other simulation components included the catheter for virtual TEVAR deployment and numerous outcomes (e.g., Von Mises stresses, stent graft apposition, drag forces) were evaluated. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified 14 severely heterogeneous TEVAR simulation models, mostly of intermediate quality. The review concludes there is a need for continuous collaborative efforts to improve the homogeneity, credibility, and reliability of TEVAR simulations.

Vascular Access Challenges in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to comprehensively summarize access challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by describing vascular access routes, associated risks, outcomes, and complications. METHODS: A literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Qualitative and quantitative data from selected studies are extracted and discussed according to available standards for narrative reviews. RESULTS: In total, there were 109 eligible studies based on predefined inclusion- and exclusion criteria. There were 39 original articles or reviews and 57 case series or case reports. This article summarizes the evidence from these studies and discusses traditional retrograde access routes and techniques for TEVAR via a femoral or iliac route, with or without the use of conduits. Next, alternative antegrade access routes and techniques via a brachial, axillary, carotid, ascending aorta, transapical, transcaval, or another route are discussed. Vascular access complications are presented with specific attention to the importance of gender and alternative antegrade access routes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple access routes and techniques are currently available to overcome access challenges associated with TEVAR, based on low grade evidence from heterogeneous studies. Future research that compares different access routes and techniques might help in the development of a tailored access protocol for specific patients with challenging TEVAR access.

Long-term patency of surgical left subclavian artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding the long-term patency rates of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization, especially when performed concomitant to thoracic endovascular aortic repair and without arterial occlusive disease. Our aim is to contribute to the existing evidence by reporting the patency rates at mid- and long-term follow-up after surgical LSA revascularization. METHODS: This observational, retrospective, single-center cohort study included 90 eligible patients who underwent a left common carotid artery to LSA bypass (72%) or transposition (28%) from December 31, 2017 to January 1, 2000. Data regarding demographics, medical history, intraoperative characteristics, and outcomes regarding bypass graft or transposition patency, severe stenosis, or occlusion were assessed at discharge, 3 months, 1 year, and maximum follow-up using consecutive follow-up computed tomography scans. RESULTS: In our predominantly male (74%) cohort with a mean age of 66 years (standard deviation, ±12 years), LSA revascularization was mostly performed concomitant to or adjacent to thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair procedures (98%) with the primary indication for surgery being degenerative or saccular aneurysmatic aortic disease (50%), subacute or acute type B aortic dissection (17%), post-dissection aortic aneurysm (16%), type B intramural hematoma (6%), and other indications (11%). Ninety-seven percent of our left common carotid artery to LSA bypasses were performed using a central, supraclavicular approach, and the other 3% were performed using an infraclavicular approach to the LSA. Median diameter of the bypass was 6 mm (range, 6-12 mm). We found two occlusions at 7.7 and 12.9 months follow-up and four severe stenoses at 21.2, 35.4, 38.3, and 46.7 months follow-up, respectively. Estimated freedom from occlusion was 97% ± 2% and freedom from severe stenosis was 90% ± 4% at both midterm (5 years) and long-term (10 years) follow-up, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months for occlusion (25th-75th percentile, 15.4-67.4 months) and 41.9 months (25th-75th percentile, 15.4-67.4 months) for severe stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical LSA revascularization may be considered the gold standard to preserve antegrade LSA flow in the context of debranching for thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair or open surgical aortic arch repair, with excellent patency rates at mid-term and long-term follow-up.

Cardiac and Aortic Modifications After Endovascular Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a devastating condition that commonly occurs in healthy and young patients. Endovascular treatment is the first choice; however, it has also been demonstrated to alter cardiovascular haemodynamics. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the cardiovascular modifications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for BTAI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies reporting on modifications in aortic stiffness, blood pressure, cardiac mass, and aortic size. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies reporting on 265 patients were included. Severe heterogeneity existed among the included studies with regard to demographics, BTAI grade, endograft specifications, reported outcomes, and the method of evaluation. Regarding aortic stiffness, two studies found a significant increase in pulse wave velocity (PWV) in patients after TEVAR compared with a control group, while one did not find a significant increase in PWV and augmentation index after > 3 years of follow up. Five studies reported an increase in the incidence of post-TEVAR hypertension up to 55% (range 34.8% - 55.0%) vs. baseline. One study found a statistically significant increase in left ventricular mass and left ventricular mass index during follow up. Nine studies report data regarding aortic dilatation or remodelling after TEVAR. One found a 2.4 fold faster growth rate in ascending aortic diameter vs. controls, while other studies described significant changes in aortic size at different locations along the aorta and endograft after TEVAR. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights adverse cardiac and aortic modifications after TEVAR for BTAI. The results stress the need for lifelong surveillance in these patients and the necessity of developing a more compliant endograft to prevent cardiovascular complications in the long term.

Modifications in Aortic Stiffness After Endovascular or Open Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Increased aortic stiffness (AoS) has been recognised as a risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of aortic repair on AoS. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically for relevant studies evaluating the consequences of endovascular and open aortic repair on AoS. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement was followed to perform the research process. Papers containing data on AoS before and after both thoracic (TEVAR) and abdominal (EVAR) endovascular repair, as well as open surgical repair (OSR), were included for detailed evaluation. A fixed effects model was used to perform analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was calculated for each included study. RESULTS: The first article cluster comprised 367 papers. After removal of duplicates and the adoption of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 14 articles remained, 13 of which were selected for meta-analysis. Ten studies analysed EVAR and three analysed TEVAR. Five of the selected papers were case control studies, with OSR adopted in four of these as the EVAR comparator. Several graft types were used in the endovascular group. AoS increased after TEVAR and EVAR, in terms of pulse wave velocity (PWV), even though several spatial levels and measurement modalities were adopted. No differences were described after OSR, although no pooled data could be analysed. CONCLUSION: EVAR and TEVAR both demonstrated a significant increase in AoS measurement (PWV). Although the heterogeneity and the low number of available studies limit the strength of the results, this review highlights the potential deleterious endograft role in the cardiovascular system although further studies are needed to achieve robust evidence. Further studies are needed to improve the mutual interaction between aorta and endograft, minimising their impact on the native aortic wall properties.