Outcomes of endovascular intervention for atherosclerotic lesions confined to the popliteal artery.

OBJECTIVE: Most surgeons employ an endovascular-first approach to the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), but controversy remains regarding the ideal interventions for the management of isolated popliteal artery disease (IPAD). Indeed, there are a paucity of data that compare outcomes of popliteal stents vs other peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of PVIs in IPAD. METHODS: The Vascular Study Group of New England database was queried for all IPAD PVIs performed for atherosclerotic occlusive disease from 2010 to 2021. Those with at least 1 year of follow-up data available were included for analysis. The primary endpoint was 1-year freedom from a composite target lesion (TL) treatment failure that included restenosis >50% on duplex, reintervention, or ipsilateral major amputation. RESULTS: We included 689 procedures performed on 634 patients. Of these, 250 (36.3%) were treated with plain balloons (POBA), 215 (31.2%) had stents, 170 (24.7%) had special balloons (drug-coated, cutting, or lithotripsy), and 54 (7.8%) atherectomies were performed. Stent placement was associated with lower freedom from TL treatment failure (72.6%) than special balloon (81.2%; P = .048) and atherectomy (88.9%; P = .012), but not POBA (76.8%; P = .293). On multivariable logistic regression, stents (odds ratio, 0.637; P = .021) and preoperative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 0.683; P = .048) were both associated with lower freedom from intervention failure. CONCLUSIONS: Popliteal stent placement is associated with a higher rate of TL treatment failure at 1 year when compared with other PVIs including special balloon angioplasty and atherectomy, but not POBA, and should therefore be avoided in favor of special balloons or atherectomy whenever feasible.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Infrainguinal Bypass in the Endovascular Era.

BACKGROUND: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) developed objective performance goals (OPGs) for lower extremity bypass (LEB) in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) based on studies that included patients who were at good risk for open revascularization. In the endovascular era, many LEB patients have had prior interventions, and most would be considered high-risk by the original SVS OPG standards. The goal of this study is to characterize a contemporary patient population undergoing LEB for CLTI and determine if outcomes remain commensurate with the parameters established by the SVS OPG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent LEB for CLTI over a 10-year period (2012-2021) were identified. Patients were stratified into low- and high-risk categories based upon the clinical, conduit, and anatomic parameters used in the SVS OPG. Limb salvage at 1 year and amputation-free survival, a composite outcome of major amputation and mortality, at 1 year were compared with the SVS OPG cohort. Primary, assisted, and secondary patency at 1 and 3 years were also evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: There were 169 LEBs performed for CLTI. One hundred and two (60.36%) males, 101 (59.76%) current or former smokers, 115 (68.05%) with hypertension, 69 (40.83%) with diabetes mellitus, and 40 (23.67%) with coronary artery disease. Median age was 71.84 years, and mean follow-up was 2.17 years. 65 (38.46%) had a prior ipsilateral endovascular intervention, and 18 (10.65%) were redo bypasses. 21 (12.43%) were deemed clinically high-risk, 44 (26.04%) were high-risk conduits, and 118 (69.82%) had high-risk anatomic factors. Freedom from amputation at 1 year was 87.05% in this cohort which was similar to the overall SVS OPG cohort (88.9%). Amputation-free survival at 1 year was 77.78%, which was also similar to the overall SVS OPG cohort (76.5%). Primary patency at one and three years was 46.84% and 37.59%, assisted patency at one and three years was 61.87% and 44.81%, and secondary patency at one and three years was 72.13% and 61.16%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing LEB in the endovascular era meet the SVS OPG criteria for high risk. Despite this, the 1-year limb salvage and amputation-free survival in this cohort were equivalent to the SVS OPG LEB cohort. This supports the continued use of LEB for limb salvage in high-risk patients and those who have failed endovascular approaches.

Strategic response to bleeding in laparoscopic hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: an intraoperative checklist.

BACKGROUND: The aim is to develop and test the utility of an event-initiated, team-based check list to optimize the response to bleeding during laparoscopic HPB surgery. METHODS: To build a checklist for managing bleeding events, we conducted a systematic review. Using nominal group technique (NGT), a checklist consisting of four domains was developed. Following team-based training of anesthesia and surgical staff, the checklist was implemented. HPB cases before and after implementation of the checklist were compared for adverse outcomes, bleeding complications, and transfusions. RESULTS: NGT identified four domains: Communicate Control, Expose, and Repair under which the checklist was organized. Supplemental Video for a detailed review of how each domain was applied to a specific case example. We compared 169 HPB cases before to 53 cases after implementation. We found a significant decrease in mean EBL (from 518 ± 852.8 to 151.5 ± 221.7 ml (P = 0.001)) for cases performed after implementation of the checklist and a trends toward less volume of pRBC transfused (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 1.7 units/per patient, P = 0.611) and transfusion rates (22% vs 11%, P = 0.703). CONCLUSION: An event-initiated, team-based response to an adverse bleeding event during laparoscopic HPB surgery correlates with positive effects on bleeding management, and transfusion rates.

Laparoscopic Segment 1 with Partial IVC Resection in Advanced Cirrhosis: How to Do It Safely.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic versus open hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) resection reduces morbidity without a compromise in oncologic safety.1-4 Moreover, in the subgroup of cirrhotic patients, a decreased risk of prolonged postoperative ascites and liver decompensation has been reported.5-7 METHODS: A 54-year-old homeless, deaf male with chronic alcoholism, hepatitis C, and advanced cirrhosis was referred with a caudate tumor from a critical access hospital. Imaging showed a 3.6-cm HCC in the caudate lobe compressing the inferior vena cava (IVC). With the patient in reversed, modified French position, the liver was mobilized, and the hepatocaval space dissected. Portal and short hepatic vein branches were individually controlled, and the caudate lobe was dissected off the IVC. At the superior portion of the Spiegel process, the tumor was inseparable from the IVC, necessitating en bloc segment 1 with partial IVC resection. The IVC was reconstructed laparoscopically following a preplanned approach. The pathology report confirmed R0 resection of a moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma without microvascular or perineural invasion (pT1bN0M0). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy for cirrhotic patients with partial IVC resection is technically demanding. It therefore requires a strategic and preplanned approach with dedicated instrumentation and laparoscopic skills available. Although the caudal view along the axis of the IVC facilitates dissection, a laparoscopic approach necessitates particular attention to central venous pressure management (intravenous fluid and respiratory tidal volume), meticulous control of portal and short hepatic vein branches, and availability of specialty laparoscopic instrumentation to ensure procedural safety.

Postoperative Delirium and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction: Overlap and Divergence.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction share risk factors and may co-occur, but their relationship is not well established. The primary goals of this study were to describe the prevalence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and to investigate its association with in-hospital delirium. The authors hypothesized that delirium would be a significant risk factor for postoperative cognitive dysfunction during follow-up. METHODS: This study used data from an observational study of cognitive outcomes after major noncardiac surgery, the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery study. Postoperative delirium was evaluated each hospital day with confusion assessment method-based interviews supplemented by chart reviews. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction was determined using methods adapted from the International Study of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction. Associations between delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction were examined at 1, 2, and 6 months. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four of 560 participants (24%) developed delirium during hospitalization. Slightly fewer than half (47%, 256 of 548) met the International Study of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction-defined threshold for postoperative cognitive dysfunction at 1 month, but this proportion decreased at 2 months (23%, 123 of 536) and 6 months (16%, 85 of 528). At each follow-up, the level of agreement between delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction was poor (kappa less than .08) and correlations were small (r less than .16). The relative risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction was significantly elevated for patients with a history of postoperative delirium at 1 month (relative risk = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.67), but not 2 months (relative risk = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.72-1.64), or 6 months (relative risk = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.71-2.09). CONCLUSIONS: Delirium significantly increased the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the first postoperative month; this relationship did not hold in longer-term follow-up. At each evaluation, postoperative cognitive dysfunction was more common among patients without delirium. Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction may be distinct manifestations of perioperative neurocognitive deficits.

Global Vascular Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

GUIDELINE SUMMARY: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Giant Bilobed Hepatic Artery Aneurysm with Occlusion of the Celiac Axis: Repair Using a Bifurcated Graft.

Hepatic artery aneurysms are uncommon, with fewer than 500 cases noted in the literature. Bilobed hepatic artery aneurysms are extremely rare, with no documented cases in the literature. Although often asymptomatic, these visceral aneurysms are at high risk of rupture. We present an interesting case report of a bilobed hepatic artery aneurysm with occlusion of the celiac axis in a 72-year-old woman. She was asymptomatic at the time of presentation, and diagnosis was made on computerized tomography scan. She was not a candidate for endovascular repair due to the anatomy of the aneurysm and a chronically occluded celiac artery origin. Surgical repair using a bifurcated graft with ligation of the gastroduodenal artery was performed.

Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines for atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the lower extremities: management of asymptomatic disease and claudication.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) continues to grow in global prevalence and consumes an increasing amount of resources in the United States health care system. Overall rates of intervention for PAD have been rising steadily in recent years. Changing demographics, evolution of technologies, and an expanding database of outcomes studies are primary forces influencing clinical decision making in PAD. The management of PAD is multidisciplinary, involving primary care physicians and vascular specialists with varying expertise in diagnostic and treatment modalities. PAD represents a broad spectrum of disease from asymptomatic through severe limb ischemia. The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Practice Guidelines committee reviewed the evidence supporting clinical care in the treatment of asymptomatic PAD and intermittent claudication (IC). The committee made specific practice recommendations using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. There are limited Level I data available for many of the critical questions in the field, demonstrating the urgent need for comparative effectiveness research in PAD. Emphasis is placed on risk factor modification, medical therapies, and broader use of exercise programs to improve cardiovascular health and functional performance. Screening for PAD appears of unproven benefit at present. Revascularization for IC is an appropriate therapy for selected patients with disabling symptoms, after a careful risk-benefit analysis. Treatment should be individualized based on comorbid conditions, degree of functional impairment, and anatomic factors. Invasive treatments for IC should provide predictable functional improvements with reasonable durability. A minimum threshold of a >50% likelihood of sustained efficacy for at least 2 years is suggested as a benchmark. Anatomic patency (freedom from restenosis) is considered a prerequisite for sustained efficacy of revascularization in IC. Endovascular approaches are favored for most candidates with aortoiliac disease and for selected patients with femoropopliteal disease in whom anatomic durability is expected to meet this minimum threshold. Conversely, caution is warranted in the use of interventions for IC in anatomic settings where durability is limited (extensive calcification, small-caliber arteries, diffuse infrainguinal disease, poor runoff). Surgical bypass may be a preferred strategy in good-risk patients with these disease patterns or in those with prior endovascular failures. Common femoral artery disease should be treated surgically, and saphenous vein is the preferred conduit for infrainguinal bypass grafting. Patients who undergo invasive treatments for IC should be monitored regularly in a surveillance program to record subjective improvements, assess risk factors, optimize compliance with cardioprotective medications, and monitor hemodynamic and patency status.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Threatened Limb Classification System: risk stratification based on wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI).

Critical limb ischemia, first defined in 1982, was intended to delineate a subgroup of patients with a threatened lower extremity primarily because of chronic ischemia. It was the intent of the original authors that patients with diabetes be excluded or analyzed separately. The Fontaine and Rutherford Systems have been used to classify risk of amputation and likelihood of benefit from revascularization by subcategorizing patients into two groups: ischemic rest pain and tissue loss. Due to demographic shifts over the last 40 years, especially a dramatic rise in the incidence of diabetes mellitus and rapidly expanding techniques of revascularization, it has become increasingly difficult to perform meaningful outcomes analysis for patients with threatened limbs using these existing classification systems. Particularly in patients with diabetes, limb threat is part of a broad disease spectrum. Perfusion is only one determinant of outcome; wound extent and the presence and severity of infection also greatly impact the threat to a limb. Therefore, the Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Guidelines Committee undertook the task of creating a new classification of the threatened lower extremity that reflects these important considerations. We term this new framework, the Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Threatened Limb Classification System. Risk stratification is based on three major factors that impact amputation risk and clinical management: Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI). The implementation of this classification system is intended to permit more meaningful analysis of outcomes for various forms of therapy in this challenging, but heterogeneous population.

Prosthetic graft infections involving the femoral artery.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic graft infection is a major complication of peripheral vascular surgery. We investigated the experience of a single institution over 10 years with bypass grafts involving the femoral artery to determine the incidence and risk factors for prosthetic graft infection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort single-institution review of prosthetic bypass grafts involving the femoral artery from 2001 to 2010 evaluated patient demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, indications, location of bypass, type of prosthetic material, case urgency, and previous ipsilateral bypass or percutaneous interventions and evaluated the incidence of graft infections, amputations, and mortality. RESULTS: There were 496 prosthetic grafts identified with a graft infection rate of 3.8% (n = 19) at a mean follow-up of 27 months. Multivariable analysis showed that redo bypass (hazard ratio [HR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-15.0), active infection at the time of bypass (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.9-14.2), female gender (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.7), and diabetes mellitus (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.5-14.3) were significant predictors of graft infection. Graft infection was predictive of major lower extremity amputation (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 3.5-27.1), as was preoperative tissue loss (HR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-11.9). Graft infection did not predict long-term mortality; however, chronic renal insufficiency (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4), tissue loss (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9), and active infection (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4) did. Infected grafts were removed 79% of the time. Staphylococcus epidermidis (37%) and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (26%) were the most common pathogens isolated. CONCLUSIONS: Redo bypass, female gender, diabetes, and active infection at the time of bypass are associated with a higher risk for prosthetic graft infection and major extremity amputation but do not confer an increased risk of mortality. Autologous vein for lower extremity bypass and endovascular interventions should be considered when feasible in high-risk patients.

Endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become first-line therapy at our institution and is performed under a standardized protocol. We compare perioperative mortality, midterm survival, and morbidity after EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: Records were retrospectively reviewed from May 2000 to September 2010 for repair of infrarenal rAAAs. Primary end points included perioperative mortality and midterm survival. Secondary end points included acute limb ischemia, length of stay, ventilator-dependent respiratory failure, myocardial infarction, renal failure, abdominal compartment syndrome, and secondary intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using the t-test, χ(2) test, the Fisher exact test, and logistic regression calculations. Midterm survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Seventy-four infrarenal rAAAs were repaired, 19 by EVAR and 55 by OSR. Despite increased age and comorbidity in the EVAR patients, perioperative mortality was 15.7% for EVAR, which was significantly lower than the 49% for OSR (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.74; P = .008). Midterm survival also favored EVAR (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.77; P = .028, adjusted for age and sex). Mean follow-up was 20 months, and 1-year survival was 60% for EVAR vs 45% for OSR. Mean length of stay for patients surviving >1 day was 10 days for EVAR and 21 days for OSR (P = .004). Ventilator-dependent respiratory failure was 5% in the EVAR group vs 42% for OSR (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.62; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR of rAAA has a superior perioperative survival advantage and decreased morbidity vs OSR. Although not statistically significant, overall survival favors EVAR. We recommend that EVAR be considered as the first-line treatment of rAAAs and practiced as the standard of care.

The impact of endovascular procedures on fellowship training in lower extremity revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair has resulted in a decline in open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs performed by vascular residents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a similar trend has occurred with open lower extremity revascularization procedures, with increased endovascular procedures producing a decrease in the number of open lower extremity revascularizations. Furthermore, this study evaluates the effect of endovascular procedure volume on the frequency of subtypes of open lower extremity procedures performed. METHODS: The total number of vascular procedures, lower extremity bypasses, and endovascular interventions from 2000 to 2010 were analyzed from case logs of vascular residents as reported by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. RESULTS: The average number of cases performed by vascular residents has increased by 150% from 463.9 in 2000 to 1168 in 2009, due to the increased number of endovascular procedures. The average number of endovascular revascularizations has increased by 317% from 40.5 performed in 2000 to 168.9 in 2009. Femoral-popliteal bypasses have increased in frequency by 27% whereas the number of infrapopliteal bypass has remained unchanged. The largest difference is seen in femoral endarterectomies with a 234% increase from 3.2 per resident in 2001 to 10.7 per resident in 2010. Comparison of the proportion of femoral-popliteal and tibioperoneal interventions performed by angioplasty or bypass after 2007 revealed that endovascular interventions comprise 50% of procedures in the femoral-popliteal distribution, whereas 65% of infrapopliteal interventions are still performed using open techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The number of procedures performed during vascular residency has dramatically increased over the last decade secondary to the increased number of endovascular procedures. The average vascular surgery resident's open operative experience has been stable over the last 10 years, despite the increasing endovascular case volume. Residents perform femoral endarterectomy with increasing frequency, perhaps representing an increasing volume of hybrid procedures. Gaps in information available for evaluating resident training remain a significant obstacle. Moving forward, revision of the current reporting system to a format that more accurately reflects resident experience would be beneficial.

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair success is predicted by access vessel diameter.

OBJECTIVE: Ultrasound scan-guided access allows for direct visualization of the access artery during percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. We hypothesized that the use of ultrasound scan guidance allowed us to safely increase the utilization of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair to almost all patients and decrease access complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs, both abdominal and descending thoracic, from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Patients were identified using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification Codes and stratified based on access type: percutaneous vs cut-down. We examined the success rate of percutaneous access and the cause of failure. Sheath size was large (18-24 F) or small (12-16 F). Minimum access vessel diameter was also measured. Outcomes were wound complications (infections or clinically significant hematomas that delayed discharge or required transfusion), operative and incision time, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Predictors of percutaneous failure were identified. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients (296 arteries) had percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) whereas 131 patients (226 arteries) had femoral cutdown access EVAR. Ultrasound scan-guided access was introduced in 2007. P-EVAR increased from zero cases in 2005 to 92.3% of all elective cases in 2010. The success rate with percutaneous access was 96%. Failures requiring open surgical repair of the artery included seven for hemorrhage and six for flow-limiting stenosis or occlusion of the femoral artery. P-EVAR had fewer wound complications (0.7% vs 7.4%; P = .001), shorter operative time (153.3 vs 201.5 minutes; P < .001), and larger minimal access vessel diameter (6.7 mm vs 6.1 mm; P < .01). Patients with failed percutaneous access had smaller minimal access vessel diameters when compared to successful P-EVAR (4.9 mm vs 6.8 mm; P < .001). More failures occurred in small sheaths than large ones (7.4% vs 1.9%; P = .02). Access vessel diameter <5 mm is predictive of percutaneous failure (16.7% of vessels <5 mm failed vs 2.4% of vessels ≥ 5 mm failed; P < .001; odds ratio, 7.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-33.8; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound scan-guided P-EVAR can be performed in the vast majority of patients with a high success rate, shorter operative times, and fewer wound complications. Access vessel diameters <5 mm are at greater risk for percutaneous failure and should be treated selectively.

Results for primary bypass versus primary angioplasty/stent for intermittent claudication due to superficial femoral artery occlusive disease.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty ± stent (PTA/S) and surgical bypass are both accepted treatments for claudication due to superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusive disease. However, long-term results comparing these modalities for primary intervention in patients who have had no prior intervention have not been reported. We report our results with 3-year follow-up. METHODS: We reviewed all lower extremity bypass procedures at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 2001 through 2009 and all PTA/S performed from 2005 through 2009 for claudication. We excluded all limb salvage procedures and included only those that were undergoing their first intervention for claudication due to SFA disease. We recorded patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative medications, TASC classification, and runoff. Outcomes included complications, restenosis, symptom recurrence, reinterventions, major amputation, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 113 bypass grafts and 105 PTA/S of femoral-popliteal lesions without prior interventions. Bypasses were above the knee in 62% (45% vein) and below the knee in 38% (100% vein). Mean age was 63 (bypass) versus 69 (PTA/S; P < .01). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 3.9 versus 1.2 days (P < .01). Bypass grafts were used less for TASC A (17% vs 40%; P < .01) and more for TASC C (36% vs 11%; P < .01) and TASC D (13% vs 3%; P < .01) lesions. There were no differences in perioperative (2% vs 0%; not significant [NS]) or 3-year mortality (9% vs 8%; NS). Wound infection was higher with bypass (16% vs 0%; P < .01). None involved grafts. Bypass showed improved freedom from restenosis (73% vs 42% at 3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], .23-.71), symptom recurrence (70% and 36% at 3 years; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, .2-.56), and freedom from symptoms at last follow-up (83% vs 49%; HR, 0.18; 95% CI, .08-.40). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention (77% vs 66% at 3 years; NS). Multivariable analysis of all patients showed that restenosis was predicted by PTA/S (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.4) and TASC D (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.5-9) lesions. Recurrence of symptoms was similarly predicted by PTA/S (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5) and TASC D lesions (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.4-7). Statin use postoperatively was predictive of patency (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, .35-.97) and freedom from recurrent symptoms (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, .36-.93). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical bypass for the primary treatment of claudication showed improved freedom from restenosis and symptom relief despite treatment of more extensive disease, but was associated with increased LOS and wound infection. Statins improved freedom from restenosis and symptom recurrence overall.

Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown reductions in perioperative mortality and morbidity with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, as compared with open surgical repair. Longer-term survival rates, however, were similar for the two procedures. There are currently no long-term, population-based data from the comparison of these strategies. METHODS: We studied perioperative rates of death and complications, long-term survival, rupture, and reinterventions after open as compared with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in propensity-score-matched cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing repair during the 2001-2004 period, with follow-up until 2005. RESULTS: There were 22,830 matched patients undergoing open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in each cohort. The average age of the patients was 76 years, and approximately 20% were women. Perioperative mortality was lower after endovascular repair than after open repair (1.2% vs. 4.8%, P<0.001), and the reduction in mortality increased with age (2.1% difference for those 67 to 69 years old vs. 8.5% for those 85 years or older, P<0.001). Late survival was similar in the two cohorts, although the survival curves did not converge until after 3 years. By 4 years, rupture was more likely in the endovascular-repair cohort than in the open-repair cohort (1.8% vs. 0.5%, P<0.001), as was reintervention related to abdominal aortic aneurysm (9.0% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), although most reinterventions were minor. In contrast, by 4 years, surgery for laparotomy-related complications was more likely among patients who had undergone open repair (9.7%, vs. 4.1% among those who had undergone endovascular repair; P<0.001), as was hospitalization without surgery for bowel obstruction or abdominal-wall hernia (14.2% vs. 8.1%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with open repair, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with lower short-term rates of death and complications. The survival advantage is more durable among older patients. Late reinterventions related to abdominal aortic aneurysm are more common after endovascular repair but are balanced by an increase in laparotomy-related reinterventions and hospitalizations after open surgery.

Trends in the national outcomes and costs for claudication and limb threatening ischemia: angioplasty vs bypass graft.

PURPOSE: Debate exists as to the benefit of angioplasty vs bypass graft in the treatment of lower extremity peripheral vascular disease. The associated costs are poorly defined in the literature. We sought to determine national estimates for the costs, utilization, and outcomes of angioplasty and bypass graft for the treatment of both claudication and limb threat. METHODS: We searched the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (1999-2007), identifying patients who had an identifiable International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 diagnosis code of atherosclerotic disease (claudication [440.21] or limb threat [440.22-440.24]). Of these, only patients who underwent intervention of angioplasty ± stent (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA; 39.50-39.90]), peripheral bypass graft (BPG; 39.29) or aortofemoral bypass (ABF; 39.25) were included. We compared demographics, costs, and comorbidities, as well as multivariable-adjusted outcomes of in-hospital mortality and major amputation. Additionally, we used the New Jersey State Inpatient and Ambulatory databases in order to better understand the influence of outpatient procedures on current volume and trends. RESULTS: There were 563,143 patients identified (PTA: 38%, BPG: 50%, ABF: 6%; 5.1%: multiple procedure codes). Patients who had PTA and BPG were similar in age (70.4 vs 69.5 years) but older than patients who had ABF (61.8 years, P < .01). Patients who underwent PTA were more often women (PTA: 46%, BPG: 42%, ABF: 45.2%; P < .01). Average costs for PTA increased over 60% for claudication between 2001 and 2007 ($8670 to $14,084) and limb threat ($13,903 to $23,196). For BPG, average costs increased 36% for both claudication ($9322 to $12,681) and limb threat ($16,795 to $22,910). In 2007, the average cost per procedure of PTA was higher than BPG for both claudication ($13,903 vs $12,681; P = .02) and limb threat ($23,196 vs $22,910; P = .04). The number of patients per year undergoing PTA increased threefold (15,903 to 46,138) for claudication and limb threat (6752 to 19,468). For BPG, procedures per year decreased approximately 40% for both claudication (13,625 to 9108) and limb threat (25,575 to 13,762). In-hospital mortality was similar for PTA and BPG groups for claudication (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .04) and limb threat (2.1% vs 2.6%; P < .01). In-hospital amputation rates were significantly higher for patients who had PTA (7%) than BPG (3.9%, odds ratio [OR], 1.67 [1.49-1.85]; P < .01) or patients who underwent ABF (3.0%; OR, 2.32 [1.79, 3.03]; P < .01). CONCLUSION: PTA has altered the treatment paradigm for lower limb ischemia with an increase in costs and procedures. It is unclear if this represents an increase in patients or number of treatments per patient. Although mortality is slightly lower with PTA for all indications, amputation rates for limb-threat patients appear higher, as does the average cost. Longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the appropriateness of PTA in both claudication and limb-threat patients. The mortality benefit with PTA may be ultimately lost, and average costs elevated, if multiple interventions are performed on the same patients.

Resident and fellow experiences after the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed trends in open and endovascular repair (EVAR) of intact and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in the Medicare population and evaluated recent trends in AAA repair at vascular fellowship training programs. METHODS: We identified all Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of AAA who underwent repair or had a primary diagnosis of rupture (1995-2008). Cohorts were compared by type of repair (open vs EVAR) and presentation (intact vs ruptured AAA). Demographics of age, sex, and race were evaluated. We used unique hospital identifier codes to compare trends and 30-day mortality between hospitals that participate in vascular surgery fellowship training and those that do not. American Council on Graduate Medical Education data, only available for the years 1999 to 2008, were further used to better understand the changes in number of EVAR and open repairs of AAA performed each year for vascular fellows and general surgery residents, over time. RESULTS: We identified 449,122 patients (76% men), with 376,355 intact AAAs (84%) and 72,767 ruptured AAAs (16%). Mean age was 75.1 years. Use of EVAR for intact AAA rose to from 35% in 2001 to 63% in 2005 and comprised 78% of repairs by 2008. During the same period, the number of ruptured AAAs decreased by 40% overall, with nonoperative ruptured AAAs decreasing by 29% and EVAR increasing to 31% of rupture repairs. Hospitals training vascular fellows were quicker to adopt EVAR (2-year lag time) for intact AAA and had higher rates of EVAR for ruptured AAA (41.1% vs 29.2%; P = .001) than did hospitals without fellows. Mortality rates for open repairs of intact (4.0% vs 5.0%; P = .01) and ruptured AAA (34.1% vs 41.0%; P = .031) were lower at fellowship hospitals. The average number of open AAA repairs performed by vascular fellows dropped 50% (44.1 to 21.6/year) from 1999 to 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the expectation of a plateau, use of EVAR for intact AAA continues to rise at fellowship and nonfellowship hospitals. Use of EVAR for rupture is being used more often at fellowship programs. The decline in open repairs performed by vascular fellows, and at fellowship and non-fellowship hospitals, may have important implications for future attending experience.

Thirty-day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: Late survival is similar after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR), despite a perioperative benefit with EVAR. AAA-related reinterventions are more common after EVAR, whereas laparotomy-related reinterventions are more common after open repair. The effect of reinterventions on survival, however, is unknown. We therefore evaluated the rate of reinterventions and readmission after initial AAA repair, 30-day mortality, and the effect on long-term survival. METHODS: We identified AAA-related and laparotomy-related reinterventions for propensity score-matched cohorts of 45,652 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing EVAR and open repair from 2001 to 2004. Follow-up was up to 6 years. Hospitalizations for ruptured AAA without repair and for bowel obstruction or ventral hernia without abdominal surgery were also recorded. Event rates were calculated per year and are presented through 6 years of follow-up as events per 100 person-years. Thirty-day mortality was calculated for each reintervention or readmission. RESULTS: Through 6 years, overall reinterventions or readmissions were similar between repair methods but slightly more common after EVAR (7.6 vs 7.0/100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 1.1; P < .001). Overall 30-day mortality with any reintervention or readmission was 9.1%. EVAR patients had more ruptures (0.50 vs 0.09 [RR, 5.7; P < .001]), with a mortality of 28%, but these were uncommon. EVAR patients also had more AAA-related reinterventions through 6 years (3.7 vs 0.9 [RR, 4.0; P < .001]; mortality, 5.6%), most of which were minor endovascular reinterventions (2.4 vs 0.2 [RR, 11.4; P < .001]), with a 30-day mortality of 3.0%. However, minor open (0.8 vs 0.5 [RR, 1.4; P < .001]; mortality, 6.9%) and major reinterventions (0.4 vs 0.2 [RR, 2.4; P < .001]; mortality, 12.1%) were also more common after EVAR than open repair. Conversely, EVAR patients had fewer laparotomy-related reinterventions than open patients (1.4 vs 3.0 [RR, 0.5; P < .001]; mortality, 8.1%) and readmissions without surgery (2.0 vs 2.7 [RR, 0.7; P < .001]; mortality 10.9%). Overall, reinterventions or readmission accounted for 9.6% of all EVAR deaths and 7.6% of all open repair deaths in the follow-up period (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention and readmission are slightly higher after EVAR. Survival is negatively affected by reintervention or readmission after EVAR and open surgery, which likely contributes to the erosion of the survival benefit of EVAR over time.