The effect of Fiber Optic RealShape technology on the reduction of radiation during complex endovascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the advantages that fenestrated endovascular aortic repair has over open repair, it is accompanied by the consequence of radiation exposure, which can result in long-term complications for both the patient and surgical staff. Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology is a novel advancement that uses emitted light from a fiber optic wire and enables the surgeon to cannulate vessels in real time without live fluoroscopy. This technology has been implemented at select centers to study its effectiveness for cannulation of target vessels and its impact on procedural radiation. METHODS: We collected prospective data on physician-modified endograft (PMEG) cases before and after the introduction of FORS technology. FORS PMEGs were matched with up to three conventional fluoroscopy cases by number of target vessels, inclusion of a bifurcated device below, aneurysm extent, and patient body mass index. The procedural radiation parameters were compared between these cohorts. Within the FORS cohort, we analyzed the rate of successful target vessel cannulation for all cases done with this technology (including cases other than PMEGs), and we compared the radiation between the cannulations using only FORS with those that abandoned FORS for conventional fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Nineteen FORS PMEGs were able to be matched to 45 conventional fluoroscopy cases. Procedures that used FORS technology had significantly reduced total air kerma (527 mGy vs 964 mGy), dose area product (121 Gy∗cm2 vs 186 Gy∗cm2), fluoroscopy dose (72.1 Gy∗cm2 vs 132.5 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (45 minutes vs 72 minutes). There was no difference in procedure length, total contrast, or digital subtraction angiography. Within FORS cases, 66% of cannulations were completed using only FORS. Cannulations using only FORS had significant reduction of navigation air kerma (5.0 mGy vs 26.5 mGy), dose area product (1.2 Gy∗cm2 vs 5.1 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (0.6 minutes vs 2.3 minutes) compared with cannulations abandoning FORS for conventional fluoroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the advantages of FORS for total procedural radiation as well as during individual cannulation tasks. The implementation of FORS for target vessel catheterization has the potential to decrease the total degree of radiation exposure for the patient and surgical staff during complex endovascular aortic surgeries.

Systemic immunosuppression does not affect revascularization outcomes in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) have additional comorbidities requiring systemic immunosuppression. Few studies have analyzed whether these medications may inhibit graft integration and effectiveness, or conversely, whether they may prevent inflammation and/or restenosis. Therefore, our study aim was to examine the effect of systemic immunosuppression vs no immunosuppression on outcomes after any first-time lower extremity revascularization for CLTI. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time infrainguinal bypass graft (BPG) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (PTA/S) for CLTI at our institution between 2005 and 2014. Patients were stratified by procedure type and immunosuppression status, defined as ≥6 weeks of any systemic immunosuppression therapy ongoing at the time of intervention. Immunosuppression vs nonimmunosuppression were the primary comparison groups in our analyses. Primary outcomes included perioperative complications, reintervention, primary patency, and limb salvage, with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models used for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1312 patients, 667 (51%) underwent BPG and 651 (49%) underwent PTA/S, of whom 65 (10%) and 95 (15%) were on systemic immunosuppression therapy, respectively. Whether assessing BPG or PTA/S patients, there were no differences noted in perioperative outcomes, including perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, hematoma, or surgical site infection (P > .05). For BPG patients, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank testing demonstrated no significant difference in three-year reintervention (37% vs 33% [control]; P = .75), major amputation (27% vs 15%; P = .64), or primary patency (72% vs 66%; P = .35) rates. Multivariate analysis via Cox regression confirmed these findings (immunosuppression hazard ratio [HR] for reintervention, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.60; P = .85; for major amputation, HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.70-2.96; P = .32; and for primary patency. HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.38; P = .88). For PTA/S patients, univariate analysis revealed similar rates of reintervention (37% vs 39% [control]; P = .57) and primary patency (59% vs 63%; P = .21); however, immunosuppressed patients had higher rates of major amputation (23% vs 12%; P = .01). After using Cox regression to adjust for baseline demographics, as well as operative and anatomic characteristics, immunosuppression was not associated with any differences in reintervention (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.49-1.16; P = .20), major amputation (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.81-2.62; P = .20), or primary patency (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.19; P = .32). Sensitivity analyses for the differences in makeup of immunosuppression regimens (steroids vs other classes) did not alter the interpretation of any findings in either BPG or PTA/S cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that patients with chronic systemic immunosuppression, as compared with those who are not immunosuppressed, does not have a significant effect on late outcomes after lower extremity revascularization, as measured by primary patency, reintervention, or major amputation.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Association of stroke or death with severity of carotid lesion calcification in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for heavily calcified lesions is controversial due to concern for stent failure and increased perioperative stroke risk. However, the degree to which calcification affects outcomes is poorly understood, particularly in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). With the precipitous increase in TCAR use and its expansion to standard surgical-risk patients, we aimed to determine the impact of lesion calcification on CAS outcomes to ensure its safe and appropriate use. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent first-time transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and TCAR between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified into groups based on degree of lesion calcification: no calcification, 1% to 50% calcification, 51% to 99% calcification, and 100% circumferential calcification or intraluminal protrusion. Outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year composite stroke/death, as well as individual stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between degree of calcification and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 21,860 patients undergoing CAS, 28% patients had no calcification, 34% had 1% to 50% calcification, 35% had 51% to 99% calcification, and 3% had 100% circumferential calcification/protrusion. Patients with 51% to 99% and circumferential calcification/protrusion had higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.6; P = .034; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .004, respectively) compared with those with no calcification. Circumferential calcification was also associated with increased risk for in-hospital myocardial infarction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .003). In tfCAS patients, only circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher in-hospital stroke/death odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P = .013), whereas for TCAR patients, 51% to 99% calcification was associated with increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .025). At 1 year, circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher odds of ipsilateral stroke/death (12.4% vs 6.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CAS, there is an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death for lesions with >50% calcification or circumferential/protruding plaques. Increasing severity of carotid lesion calcification is a significant risk factor for stroke/death in patients undergoing CAS, regardless of approach.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. METHODS: We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. RESULTS: A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

A national census for the off-label treatment of complex aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Despite regulatory challenges, device availability, and rapidly expanding techniques, off-label endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) has expanded in the past decade. Given the lack of United States Food and Drug Administration-approved endovascular technology to treat cAAs, we performed a national census to better understand volume and current practice patterns in the United States. METHODS: Targeted sampling identified vascular surgeons with experience in off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. An electronic survey was distributed with institutional review board approval from the University of Rochester to 261 individuals with a response rate of 38% (n = 98). RESULTS: A total of 93 respondents (95%) reported off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. Mean age was 45.7 ± 8.3 years, and 84% were male. Most respondents (59%) were within the first 10 years of practice, and 69% trained at institutions with a high-volume of off-label endovascular procedures for complex aortic aneurysms with or without a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (PS-IDE). Twelve respondents from 11 institutions reported institutional PS-IDEs for physician-modified endografts (PMEGs), in-situ laser fenestration (ISLF), or parallel grafting technique (PGT), including sites with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. Eighty-nine unique institutions reported elective off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 20.2 ± 16.5 cases/year and ∼1757 total cases/year nationally. Eighty reported urgent/emergent off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 5.7 ± 5.4 cases/year and ∼499 total cases/year nationally. There was no correlation between high-volume endovascular institutions (>15 cases/year) and institutions with high volumes of open surgical repair for cAAs (>15 cases/year; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.5; P = .34). Elective techniques included PMEG (70%), ISLF (30%), hybrid PMEG/ISLF (18%), and PGT (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 63% of respondents. Techniques for emergent endovascular treatment of complex aortic disease included PMEG (52%), ISLF (40%), PGT (20%), and hybrid-PMEG/ISLF (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 41% of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of respondents always or frequently offer referrals to institutions with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. The most common barrier for referral to PS-IDE centers included geographic distance (48%), longitudinal relationship with patient (45%), and costs associated with travel (33%). Only 61% of respondents participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative for complex endovascular aneurysm repair, and only 57% maintain a prospective institutional database. Eighty-six percent reported interest in a national collaborative database for off-label endovascular repair of cAA. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of off-label endovascular repair of cAAs are likely underrepresented in the literature based on this national census. PMEG was the most common technique for elective and emergent procedures. Under-reported off-label endovascular repair of cAA outcomes data appears to be limited by non-standardized PS-IDE reporting to the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the lack of Vascular Quality Initiative participation and prospective institutional data collection. Most participants are interested in a national collaborative database for endovascular repair of cAAs.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians. RESULTS: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Long-term costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs. METHODS: We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs. RESULTS: We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: One-year aneurysm sac changes have previously been found to be associated with mortality and may have the potential to guide personalized follow-up following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In this study, we examined the association of these early sac changes with long-term reintervention and rupture. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing first-time EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2003 and 2018 in the Vascular Quality Initiative with linkage to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We included patients with an imaging study at 1 year postoperatively. Aneurysm sac behavior was defined as per the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines: stable sac (<5 mm change), sac regression (≥5 mm), and sac expansion (≥5 mm). Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and rupture within 8 years, which were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondarily, we utilized polynomial spline interpolation to demonstrate the continuous relationship of diameter change to 8-year hazard of reintervention, rupture, or mortality as a composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 31,185 EVAR patients, 16,102 (52%) had an imaging study at 1 year and were included in this study. At 1 year, 44% of sacs remained stable, 49% regressed, and 6.2% displayed expansion. Following risk adjustment, compared with a stable sac at 1 year, sac regression was associated with lower 8-year mortality (49% vs 53%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99; P = .036), reintervention rate (8.9% vs 15%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68; P < .001), and rupture rate (2.0% vs 4.0%; HR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.29-0.69; P < .001). Conversely, compared with a stable sac, sac expansion was associated with higher 8-year mortality (64% vs 53%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.51; P < .001) and reintervention rate (27% vs 15%; HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.57-2.51; P < .001), but similar risk of rupture (7.2% vs 4.0%; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.88-2.96; P = .12). Polynomial spline interpolation demonstrated that, compared with no diameter change at 1 year, increased sac regression was associated with an incrementally lower risk of late outcomes, whereas increased sac expansion was associated with an incrementally higher risk of late outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following EVAR, compared with a stable sac at 1-year imaging, sac regression and expansion are associated with a lower and higher risk respectively of long-term mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures. Moreover, the amount of regression or expansion seems to be incrementally associated with these late outcomes, too. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve 1-year sac regression, and whether it is safe to extend follow-up intervals for patients with regressing sacs.

The Rise of Endovascular Repair for Abdominal, Thoracoabdominal, and Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in intervention guidelines and the growing popularity of endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms, we examined the trends in admissions and repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA). METHODS: We identified all patients admitted with ruptured aortic aneurysms and intact aortic aneurysms repaired in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2004-2019. We then examined the utilization of open, endovascular, and complex endovascular repair (OAR,EVAR,cEVAR) for each aortic aneurysm location (AAA,TAAA,TAA), alongside their resulting in-hospital mortality, over time. cEVAR included branched, fenestrated, and physician modified endograft. RESULTS: 715,570 patients were identified with AAA (87% Intact-Repairs, 13% Rupture-Admissions). Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions decreased significantly between 2004 and 2019 (intact 41,060-34,215,p<.01; ruptured 7,175-4,625,p=.02). Out of all AAA repairs done in a given year, the use of EVAR increased (2004-2019: intact 45%-66%,p<.01; ruptured 10%-55%,p<.01) as well as cEVAR (2010-2019: intact 0%-23%,p<.01; ruptured 0%-14%,p<.01). Mortality after EVAR of intact AAAs decreased significantly by 29% (2004-2019, 0.73%-0.52%,p<.01) while mortality after OAR increased significantly by 16% (2004-2019, 4.4%-5.1%,p<.01). In the study, 27,443 patients were identified with TAAA (80% Intact, 20% Ruptured). In the same period, intact TAAA repairs trended upwards (2004-2019 1,435-1,640,p=.055) and cEVAR became the most common approach (2004-2019, 3.8%-72%,p=.055). 141,651 patients were identified with ascending, arch, or descending TAA (90% Intact, 10% Ruptured). Intact TAA repairs increased significantly (2004-2019 4,380-10,855,p<.01). From 2017-2019, the mortality after OAR of descending TAAs increased and mortality after TEVAR decreased (2017-2019: OAR 1.6%-3.1%; TEVAR 5.2%-3.8%). CONCLUSION: Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions significantly decreased between 2004 and 2019. The use of endovascular techniques for the repair of all aortic aneurysm locations, both intact and ruptured, increased over the past two decades. Most recently in 2019, 89% of intact AAAs repairs, infrarenal through suprarenal, were endovascular (EVAR or cEVAR, respectively). cEVAR alone has risen to 23% of intact AAA repairs in 2019, from 0% a decade earlier. In this period of innovation, with many new options to repair aortic aneurysms while maintaining arterial branches, endovascular repair is now used for the majority of all intact aortic aneurysm repairs. Long-term data are needed to evaluate the durability of these procedures.

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 2013-2023 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, 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 analysis was performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2,489 patients, 1,842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) received endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median 135 vs. 174min, p<.001), longer fluoroscopy time (median 23 vs. 16min, p<.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 100 vs. 123ml, 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; aOR 0.50[95%C.I., 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable spinal cord ischemia (2.9% vs. 3.5%, p=.60; 0.64[0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs. 3.3%, p=.94; 0.71[0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs. 27%, p<.001; 0.64[0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs. 8 days, p<.001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (aHR 0.85[0.64-1.13]). Sensitivity analysis 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 spinal cord ischemia, perioperative 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.

The Association between Sex and Outcomes following Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Acute Type B Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Prior literature has found worse outcomes for females following endovascular repair of AAA and mixed findings following TEVAR for TAA. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute Type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. RESULTS: We included 1,626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, females were significantly older (65 [IQR: 54,75] years vs 56 [IQR: 49,68] years; p= 0.01). Regarding indications for repair, females had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; p=0.02), and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; p<0.001): specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Females had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; p< 0.01). Following TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality compared with males (8.1 vs 9.2%; Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 0.79 [95% CI: 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95%CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; Adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 1.01 [95%CI: 0.77-1.32]). Upon testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | aHR: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). CONCLUSION: Female patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. Following TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality compared with male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

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.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

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.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in eGFR<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 CKD or on dialysis. METHODS: VQI patients undergoing TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 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/MI (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, CNI and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and pre-op symptoms. Chi-square 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 eGFR of <30 (2,506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3,639, dialysis 704), tfCAS (1,975, 393) or CEA (8,237, 1,409) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of stroke/death/MI (2.8% vs 3.6%, aOR 1.27 [1.00,1.61], p=.049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%, aOR 2.00 [1.31,3.05], p=.001)... Compared to TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8%vs5.8%), stroke (1.2%vs2.6%), death (0.9%vs2,4%)were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%, aOR 1.85[1.15, 2.97]p=.011) and CNI (0.3% vs 1.9%, aOR 7.23[3.28, 15.9] p<.001). Like 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. While tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30: 75.1% vs 74.2%, aHR1.06, p=.3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30: 75.1% vs 70.4%, aHR1.44, p<.001) CONCLUSION: 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 increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, while patients with 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.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

Editor's Choice - An Endovascular Approach to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture is Associated With Improved Outcomes for Patients With Prior Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether outcomes of rupture repair differ by aortic repair history and determine the ideal approach for rupture repair in patients with previous aortic repair. METHODS: This retrospective review included all patients who underwent repair of a ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm from 2003 - 2021 recorded in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes and long term survival were compared between patients with and without prior aortic repair. To assess the impact of open and endovascular approaches to rupture, a subgroup analysis was then performed among patients who ruptured after a prior infrarenal aortic repair. Univariable and adjusted analyses were performed to account for differences in patient characteristics and operative details. RESULTS: A total of 6 197 patients underwent rupture repair during the study period, including 337 (5.4%) with prior aortic repairs. Univariable analysis demonstrated an increased 30 day mortality rate in patients with prior repairs vs. without (42 vs. 36%; p = .034), and prior repair was associated with increased post-operative renal failure (35 vs. 21%; p < .001), respiratory complications (32 vs. 24%; p < .001), and wound complications (9 vs. 4%; p < .001). Following adjustment, all outcomes were similar with the exception of bowel ischaemia, which was decreased among patients with prior repair (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 - 0.9). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with a prior aortic repair history who underwent open rupture repair had increased odds for 30 day death (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.7) and adverse secondary outcomes compared with those managed endovascularly. CONCLUSION: Prior infrarenal aortic repair was not independently associated with increased morbidity or mortality following rupture repair. Patients with a prior aortic repair history demonstrated statistically significantly higher mortality and morbidity when treated with an open repair compared with an endovascular approach. An endovascular first approach to rupture should be strongly encouraged whenever feasible in patients with prior aortic repair.