Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonoperative Management for SVS Grade II Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury is defined as intramural hematoma with or without external contour abnormality. It is uncertain whether this aortic injury pattern should be treated with endovascular stent-grafting or nonoperative measures. Since the adoption of the SVS Guidelines on endovascular repair of blunt traumatic aortic injury, the practice pattern for management of grade II injuries has been heterogenous. The objective of the study was to report natural history outcomes of grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury. METHODS: A systematic review of published traumatic aortic injury studies was performed. Online database searches were current to November 2022. Eligible studies included data on aortic injuries that were both managed nonoperatively and classified according to the SVS 2011 Guidelines. Data points on all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality and early aortic intervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis. The methodology was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 204 cases of SVS grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury treated nonoperatively. The outcomes rates were estimated at 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7%-14.9%) for all-cause mortality, 2.9% (95% CI 1.1%-5.7%) for aorta-related mortality, and 3.3% (95% CI 1.4%-6.2%) for early aortic intervention. The studies included in the analysis were of fair quality with a mean Downs and Black score 15 (±1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury follows a relatively benign course with few instances of aortic-related mortality. Death in the setting of this injury pattern is more often attributable to sequelae of multisystem trauma and not directly related to aortic injury. The current data support nonoperative management and imaging surveillance for grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury instead of endovascular repair. Longer-term effects on the aorta at the site of injury are unknown.

Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Adoption Should not Be Hindered by a Concern for a Long Learning Curve.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) offers a novel technique for carotid artery stenting (CAS) that provides flow reversal in the carotid artery and avoids aortic arch manipulation, thus, potentially lowering ipsilateral and contralateral periprocedural stroke rates. As a new technology, adoption may be limited by concern for learning a new technique. This study seeks to examine the number of cases needed for a surgeon to reach technical proficiency. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed using a prospectively collected database of all TCAR procedures performed in a tertiary health care system between 2016 and 2020. Patient demographics and anatomic characteristics were collected. Intraoperative variables and perioperative outcomes were examined. These variables were collated into groups for the first 4 procedures, procedures 5-8, and after 8. Independent Samples t test, 1-way ANOVA, and logarithmic regression were used to statistically analyze the data. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighty-seven TCARs were performed by 14 surgeons. One hundred and twenty-two (65%) were male, 59 (32%) were older than 75 years, and 83 (44%) were symptomatic. The most common indications were high-lesions in 87 patients (47%) and recurrent stenosis after CEA in 37 patients (20%). Significant differences were found between the first and second groups of 4 cases when comparing mean operative time (71 vs. 58 min; P = 0.001) and flow reversal time (10.8 vs. 7.9 min; P= 0.004). similar significant differences were found between the first and third groups of 4 cases but not between the second and third groups. There was a reduction in contrast usage and fluoroscopy time after the first 4 cases, however, this did not reach statistical significance. There was no ipsilateral perioperative strokes. One patient had a contralateral stroke on postoperative day 2 due to intracranial atherosclerosis, and there was one perioperative mortality that occurred on postoperative day 3 after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural and flow reversal times significantly shorten after 4 TCAR procedures are performed. Other metrics, such as fluoroscopy time and contrast usage, are also decreased. Complications, in general, are minimal. Proficiency in TCAR, as measured by these metrics, is met after performing only 4 procedures.

Optimization of factors for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord ischemia following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a devastating complication. This study seeks to demonstrate how a standardized protocol to prevent spinal cord ischemia affects incidence in patients undergoing TEVAR. METHODS: Using CPT codes 33880 and 33881, all TEVAR procedures performed at a single tertiary care center from January 2017 to December 2018 were examined. Patients who had concomitant ascending aortic repairs or a TEVAR for traumatic indications were excluded from analysis, leaving 130 TEVAR procedures. Comorbid conditions, procedural characteristics, extent of coverage, peri-procedural management strategies, and post-operative outcomes were collected and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients undergoing TEVAR were examined for four perioperative variables: postoperative hemoglobin greater than 10 g/dL, subclavian revascularization, preoperative spinal drain placement, and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring (SSEP). All conditions were met in 46.2% (60/130) of procedures; 37.8% (28/74) in emergent/urgent cases and 61.5% (32/52) in elective cases. Of patients who required subclavian coverage, 87.1% (54/62) underwent subclavian revascularization; 70.8% (92/130) of patients received spinal drains preoperatively; 68.5% (89/130) of patients had SSEP monitoring; 73.8% (93/130) of patients obtained a postoperative hemoglobin of >10 g/dL. Out of all patients, two (1.5%) developed spinal cord ischemia. CONCLUSION: Incidence of spinal cord ischemia in our cohort was low at 1.5% (2/130). Individual and bundled interventions for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia were unable to demonstrate a statistically significant effect given the low rate. Nonetheless, we advocate for a proactive approach for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia given our experience in this complex population.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular interventions for Stanford type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The standard surgical approach to Stanford type A aortic dissection is open repair. However, up to one in four patients will be declined surgery because of prohibitive risk. Patients who are treated nonoperatively have an unacceptably high mortality. Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta is emerging as an alternative treatment for a select group of patients. The reported rates of technical success, mortality, stroke, and reintervention have varied. The objective of the study was to systematically report outcomes for acute type A dissections repaired using an endovascular approach. METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. We performed online literature database searches through April 2020. The demographic and procedural characteristics of the individual studies were tabulated. Data on technical success, short-term mortality, stroke, and reintervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 80 cases of aortic dissection (55 acute and 25 subacute) were included in the final analysis. A wide variation was found in technique and device design across the studies. The outcomes rates were estimated at 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-26%) for mortality, 15% (95% CI, 8%-23%) for technical failure, 11% (95% CI, 6%-19%) for stroke and 18% (95% CI, 9%-31%) for reintervention. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 13.9 ± 3.2. CONCLUSIONS: The technique for endovascular repair of type A aortic dissection is feasible and reproducible. The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for inoperable patients who otherwise would have an extremely poor prognosis. Data from clinical trials are required before the technique can be introduced into routine clinical practice.

In situ bypass and extra-anatomic bypass procedures result in similar survival in patients with secondary aortoenteric fistulas.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal revascularization modality in secondary aortoenteric fistula (SAEF) remains unclear in the literature. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients with SAEF. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of SAEF from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and operative and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 182 patients at 34 institutions from 11 countries presented with SAEF (median age, 72 years; 79% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in SAEF were 138 surgical grafts (76%) and 42 endografts (23%), with 2 unknown; 102 of the SAEFs (56%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material, followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-soaked prosthetic graft (53), autogenous femoral vein (neoaortoiliac surgery; 17), cryopreserved allograft (28), and untreated prosthetic grafts (4). There were 80 patients (44%) who underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB) with infected graft excision. Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 319 days (interquartile range, 20-2410 days). Stratified by EAB vs ISB, there was no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated survival (P = .82). In comparing EAB vs ISB, EAB patients were older (74 vs 70 years; P = .01), had less operative hemorrhage (1200 mL vs 2000 mL; P = .04), were more likely to initiate dialysis within 30 days postoperatively (15% vs 5%; P = .02), and were less likely to experience aorta-related hemorrhage within 30 days postoperatively (3% aortic stump dehiscence vs 11% anastomotic rupture; P = .03). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, and intraoperative or postoperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed that the duration of antibiotic use (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.98; P = .01) and rifampin use at time of discharge (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = .03) independently decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ISB does not offer a survival advantage compared with EAB and does not decrease the risk of postoperative aorta-related hemorrhage. After repair, <50% of SAEF patients survive 10 months. Each week of antibiotic use decreases mortality by 8%. Further study with risk modeling is imperative for this population.

Results of Obturator Foramen Bypass in Patients with Groin Infection and Arterial Involvement.

BACKGROUND: Arterial bypass tunneling via the obturator foramen (OFB) can be performed to circumvent groin infections during lower extremity revascularization. The objective of this study is to report safety and efficacy outcomes of OFB in the setting of infected femoral pseudoaneurysms and infected prosthetic femoral bypass grafts. METHODS: A multihospital, single-entity healthcare system retrospective review was conducted for all patients who underwent OFB between January 2014 through June 2020. Any patient >18 years of age who underwent OFB in the setting of groin infection with a minimum of 30 days follow-up was included in the trial. Demographic, operative, and clinical characteristics of patients were gathered during chart review. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and R studio. RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent OFB during the defined time-period. Demographic data are presented in the first table (Demographic Characteristics). Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3.25. Mean estimated blood loss was 500 mL. Mean operative time was 307 min. Mean follow-up time was 8.5 months (range 0-35 months). In total, 41.2% patients underwent fluoroscopic-guided tunneling, and, when compared to blind tunneling, showed no difference in intraoperative complications or operative time (P value 0.3). In total, 52.9% of patients required ICU admission resulting in a mean number of 0.8 ICU days. The overall mean length of stay was 16.8 days. Two major amputations were reported during follow-up. Patient mortality within 30 days was 0%. Primary patency within 30 days was 100%. Intravenous drug use was not associated with an increased number of subsequent groin wound procedures (P value 0.3). Intravenous drug use was not associated with concomitant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (P value 0.3). CONCLUSION: OFB is a safe and effective surgical option in patients who are unable to undergo anatomic tunneling during lower extremity bypass. OFB is associated with favorable rates of primary patency and amputation-free survival at midterm follow-up.

Surgical Treatment of True Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Superior mesenteric artery aneurysms (SMAAs) are a rare clinical problem that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal surgical approach for both mycotic and degenerative SMAAs remains poorly defined. The study was designed to review our institutional experience and develop a treatment algorithm. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review was performed to document presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical repair of SMAAs from 2003 to 2020. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality, and secondary end-points included complications, patency, freedom from reinfection, freedom from reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (mean age: 46 ± 16 yrs; 50% male; mean diameter 2.4 ± 2.0 cm) underwent treatment of mycotic (50%) or degenerative (50%) SMAAs. Abdominal pain (66%) was the most common presenting symptom, and the diagnosis was confirmed with CT arteriography. Endocarditis secondary to intravenous drug abuse was responsible for most (88%) of the mycotic SMAAs, with a majority (66%) having positive cultures and Streptococcus being the most common organism. The majority (61%) of patients underwent urgent or emergent repair with aneurysmectomy and interposition saphenous vein bypass being the most common treatment of mycotic SMAAs while aneurysmectomy and prosthetic bypass were used most frequently for degenerative aneurysms. The operative mortality rate was 6% with a major complication rate of 17% (n = 3 patients: respiratory failure/reintubation-1, pulmonary embolism-1, necrotizing pancreatitis/graft disruption and death-1). The single death occurred in a patient with a degenerative aneurysm that developed postoperative pancreatitis and multiple organ dysfunction. The mean clinical follow-up time was 25 ± 48 (95% CI 1-48) months. The estimated primary patency, freedom from reinfection, and freedom from reintervention were 93 ± 7 %, 94 ± 5%, and 94 ± 5%, respectively, at 1 year. The overall mean survival was 55 ± 51 (95% CI 30-80) months with an estimated survival at 3 years of 77 ± 10%. CONCLUSIONS: SMAAs associated with both degenerative and mycotic etiologies can be treated using a variety of surgical approaches with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Mycotic SMAAs should likely be repaired, regardless of size, while the indications for asymptomatic, degenerative aneurysms remain to be defined by further natural history studies.

Contemporary Outcomes After Partial Resection of Infected Aortic Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic graft infection remains a considerable clinical challenge, and it is unclear which variables are associated with adverse outcomes among patients undergoing partial resection. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of patients who underwent partial resection of infected aortic grafts from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standard database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, operative, and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis, and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients at 22 medical centers in 6 countries underwent partial resection of an infected aortic graft. Seventy percent were men with median age 70 years. Ninety-seven percent had a history of open aortic bypass graft: 88 (77%) patients had infected aortobifemoral bypass, 18 (16%) had infected aortobiiliac bypass, and 1 (0.8%) had an infected thoracic graft. Infection was diagnosed at a median 4.3 years post-implant. All patients underwent partial resection followed by either extra-anatomic (47%) or in situ (53%) vascular reconstruction. Median follow-up period was 17 months (IQR 1, 50 months). Thirty-day mortality was 17.5%. The KM-estimated median survival from time of partial resection was 3.6 years. There was no significant survival difference between those undergoing in situ reconstruction or extra-anatomic bypass (P = 0.6). During follow up, 72% of repairs remained patent and 11% of patients underwent major amputation. On univariate Cox regression analysis, Candida infection was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 2.4; P = 0.01) as well as aortoenteric fistula (HR 1.9, P = 0.03). Resection of a single graft limb only to resection of abdominal (graft main body) infection was associated with decreased risk of mortality (HR 0.57, P = 0.04), as well as those with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification less than 3 (HR 0.35, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any factors significantly associated with mortality. Persistent early infection was noted in 26% of patients within 30 days postoperatively, and 39% of patients were found to have any post-repair infection during the follow-up period. Two patients (1.8%) were found to have a late reinfection without early persistent postoperative infection. Patients with any post-repair infection were older (67 vs. 60 years, P = 0.01) and less likely to have patent repairs during follow up (59% vs. 32%, P = 0.01). Patients with aortoenteric fistula had a higher rate of any post-repair infection (63% vs. 29%, P < 0.01) CONCLUSION: This large multi-center study suggests that patients who have undergone partial resection of infected aortic grafts may be at high risk of death or post-repair infection, especially older patients with abdominal infection not isolated to a single graft limb, or with Candida infection or aortoenteric fistula. Late reinfection correlated strongly with early persistent postoperative infection, raising concern for occult retained infected graft material.

Safety and efficacy of a hybrid approach for repair of complicated aberrant subclavian arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA), a well-described aortic arch anomaly, is frequently associated with dysphagia and development of Kommerell diverticulum (KD) with aneurysmal degeneration. Historically, open repair has been performed, which can be associated with significant morbidity. More recently, hybrid approaches using different arch vessel revascularization techniques in combination with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (hybrid TEVAR) have been described, but there is a paucity of literature describing outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to describe our experience with management of complicated ASAs using hybrid TEVAR, further adding to the literature describing approaches to and outcomes of hybrid ASA repair. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review was performed of all patients treated for ASA complications using hybrid TEVAR (2002-2018). The primary end point was technical success, defined as absence of type I or type III endoleak intraoperatively and within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and survival. Centerline measurement of KD diameters (maximum diameter = opposing aortic outer wall to diverticulum apex) was employed. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (1.4% of 1240 total TEVAR procedures; male, 67%; age, 59 ± 13 years) were identified (left-sided arch and right ASA, 94% [n = 17]; right-sided arch and left ASA, n = 1 [6%]; retroesophageal location and associated KD, 100%); median preoperative KD diameter was 60 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 37-108 mm). Operative indications included diverticulum diameter (61%), dysphagia (17%), rupture (11%), rapid expansion (6%), and endoleak after TEVAR (6%). All procedures used some combination of supraclavicular revascularization and TEVAR (staged, 50% [n = 9]), whereas partial open arch reconstruction was used in 17% (n = 3). There were no perioperative deaths or spinal cord ischemic events. Major complications occurred in 22% (n = 4): nondisabling stroke, one; arm ischemia, one; upper extremity neuropathy, one; and iatrogenic descending thoracic aortic dissection, one. Technical success was 83%, but 44% (n = 8) had an endoleak (type I, n = 3; type II, n = 5 [intercostal, n = 2; aneurysmal subclavian artery origin, n = 3]) during follow-up (median, 4 months; IQR, 1-15 months). Two endoleaks resolved spontaneously, three were treated, and three were observed (1-year freedom from reintervention, 75% ± 10%). Median KD diameter decreased by 7 mm (IQR, 1-12 mm), and 78% (n = 14) experienced diameter reduction or stability in follow-up. The 1- and 3-year survival was 93% ± 6% and 84% ± 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid open brachiocephalic artery revascularization with TEVAR appears to be safe and reasonably effective in management of ASA complications as evidenced by a low perioperative complication risk and reasonable positive aortic remodeling. However, endoleak rates raise significant concerns about durability. Therefore, if this technique is employed, the mandatory need for surveillance and high rate of reintervention should be emphasized preoperatively. This analysis represents a relatively large series of a hybrid TEVAR technique to treat ASA complications, but greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to further establish the role of this procedure.

Comparative outcomes of open, hybrid, and fenestrated branched endovascular repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Open repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) is associated with substantial morbidity. Alternative strategies, such as hybrid operations combining proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair with either staged open distal TAAA repair or visceral debranching (hybrid), as well as fenestrated/branched endografts (FEVAR), have been increasingly reported; however, benefits of these approaches compared with direct open surgery remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these three different strategies in the management of extent II/III TAAA. METHODS: All extent II/III TAAA repairs (2002-2018) for nonmycotic, degenerative aneurysm or chronic dissection at a single institution were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), complications, unplanned re-operation, 90-day readmission, and out-of-hospital survival. To mitigate impact of covariate imbalance and selection bias, intergroup comparisons were made using inverse probability weighted-propensity analysis. Cox regression was used to estimate survival while cumulative incidence was used to determine reoperation risk. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients (FEVAR, 92; hybrid, 40; open, 66) underwent repair. In unadjusted analysis, compared with hybrid/open patients, FEVAR patients were significantly older with more cardiovascular risk factors, but less likely to have a connective tissue disorder or dissection-related indication. Unadjusted 30-day mortality and complication rates were: 30-day mortality, FEVAR 4%, hybrid 13%, open 12% (P = .01); and complications, FEVAR 36%, hybrid 33%, open 50% (P = .11). Permanent SCI was not different among groups (FEVAR 3%, hybrid 3%, open 6%; P = .64). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality risk was greater for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = .01) with no difference for hybrid vs open/FEVAR. There was significantly lower risk of any SCI for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.96; P = .04); however, no difference in risk of permanent SCI was detected among the three groups. There was no difference in complications or unplanned reoperation, but open patients had the greatest risk of unplanned 90-day readmission. There was a time-varying effect on survival probability, with open repair having a significant survival disadvantage in the first 1 to 6 months after the procedure compared with hybrid/FEVAR patients (Cox model P = .03), but no difference in survival at 1 and 5 years (1- and 5-year survival: FEVAR, 86 ± 3%, 55 ± 8%; hybrid, 86 ± 5%, 60 ± 11%; open 69 ± 7%, 59 ± 8%; Cox-model P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Extent II/III TAAA repair, regardless of operative strategy, is associated with significant morbidity risk. FEVAR is associated with the lowest 30-day mortality risk compared with hybrid and open repair when estimates are adjusted for preoperative risk factors. These data support greater adoption of FEVAR as first-line therapy to treat complex TAAA disease in anatomically suitable patients who present electively.

Impact of secondary interventions on mortality after fenestrated branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) is increasingly used to manage pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic disease (TAAA). Device-related reintervention after F/BEVAR is common, but little is known about its impact on postoperative mortality. The purpose of this analysis was to describe secondary intervention (SI) after F/BEVAR and determine the impact of these procedures on patient survival. METHODS: A single-center review was done on all consecutive F/BEVARs performed from 2010 to 2016. Primary end points were incidence of secondary aortic, branch, and/or access vessel‒related SI, and survival. SI was categorized as minor endovascular (branch restenting, access vessel treatment, or percutaneous coil embolization), major endovascular (new aortic graft placement), or open (bleeding, access vessel, and/or aortic). Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SI and survival. Multivariable analysis was used to identify predictors of SI. RESULTS: A total of 308 F/BEVAR procedures were performed (75% physician-modified, 18% custom, 7% Zfen), with 1022 vessels revascularized (celiac, 228; superior mesenteric artery [SMA], 263; renal, 525). There were 117 (39%) extent I-III TAAA, 132 (44%) extent IV TAAA/4-vessel pararenal, and 54 (18%) <4-vessel pararenal repairs performed. Any type of SI occurred in 24% (74) of patients during the mean follow-up of 20 ± 21 months. The majority of reinterventions were endovascular (minor, 53% [n = 39]; major, 32% [n = 24]), whereas 12% (n = 9) were open and 3% (n = 2) hybrid. Primary indication for SI included: 22 (29%) with branch-related endoleaks (1C or III); 15 (22%) with proximal or distal aortic degeneration; 8 (12%) with branch vessel thrombosis/stenosis; 10 (11%) with aortic device type III endoleak/loss of overlap; 4 (6%) with postoperative mesenteric or renal bleeding events; 5 (5%) with type II endoleak; 3 (5%) with access vessel complication; and 2 (3%) with graft infection. Most SIs were elective (65%; n = 48) with the remainder occurring emergently (24%; n = 18) or for symptoms/urgently (11%; n = 8). Compared with endovascular remediation, open SI was more likely to be emergent (89%, 8 of 9; P = .001). Freedom from SI was 80 ± 3% and 64 ± 4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. One- and 5-year survival with or without SI was: 1 year, 88 ± 4% vs 81 ± 3%; 5 years, 76 ± 5% vs 59 ± 4% (log rank test, P = .06). There was no survival difference based on type of SI (log rank test, P = .3). Extent I-III TAAA (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.98-3.3; P = .06) and history of cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-2.6; P = .07) were predictive of SI. CONCLUSIONS: SIs after F/BEVAR most frequently involve branch vessel or aortic device remediation procedures; however, they do not negatively impact out-of-hospital survival. These results further highlight the crucial role of imaging surveillance after F/BEVAR to maintain durability. Discussions with patients, periprocedural planning, and the next generation of device design must focus on issues surrounding the risk of device-related SI events.

Contemporary outcomes of thoracofemoral bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracofemoral bypass (TFB) is an alternative to aortofemoral bypass (AFB) or extra-anatomic bypass for severe aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). TFB may be particularly useful in select patients with concurrent visceral aortic branch vessel disease, infrarenal aortic occlusions, or after failed AFB. However, there are few contemporary series describing the indications and outcomes for TFB. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to review our experience with TFB. METHODS: All patients undergoing TFB for occlusive disease from 2002 to 2017 were reviewed. All patients underwent left thoracoretroperitoneal exposure of the supraceliac aorta with division of the diaphragmatic crus and supraceliac cross-clamping. An end-to-side aortic anastomosis was created and each graft limb was tunneled in the retroperitoneum to the femoral bifurcation. Adjunctive visceral/infrainguinal revascularization was performed selectively based on symptoms, end-organ function, and/or preoperative imaging. The primary end points were major complications and 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included limb patency, freedom from major adverse limb events, and survival. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to characterize the end points. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (age 61 ± 9 years; 54% female; 7% in a hypercoaguable state) underwent TFB. The mean preoperative ankle-brachial index was 0.4 bilaterally. Indications included critical limb ischemia (56%), claudication (30%), acute limb ischemia (7%), and combined AIOD and mesenteric ischemia (7%). Seven patients (17%) had previously undergone AFB and 15 (38%) had previously undergone any prior aortic operation. Adjunctive visceral bypass occurred in 8 patients (20%; N = 14 grafts, n = 6 renal, n = 5 superior mesenteric artery, and n = 3 celiac). The postoperative duration of stay was 11 days (interquartile range [IQR], 7-16 days) and the 30-day mortality was 5% (n = 2). Major complications occurred in 34% of patients (N = 14; pulmonary, 15%; cardiac, 12%; bleeding, 7%; accidental splenectomy, 5%; renal, 5%; wound, 2%). The mean postoperative ankle-brachial index was 0.9 bilaterally. At a median follow-up of 7 months (IQR, 1-17 months), 5 patients (12%) underwent some form of reintervention (graft/limb related, n = 4 [n = 2 graft thrombosis, n = 2 graft infection], n = 1 mesenteric bypass revision). The estimated 3-year primary limb patency and freedom from major adverse limb events were 80 ± 10%, and 70 ± 10%, respectively. The estimated 5-year survival was 93 ± 5% (median, 27.3; IQR, 14.5-35.2; 95% confidence interval, 17.9-32.8). CONCLUSIONS: This experience represents one of the largest and most current series of retroperitoneal TFB. We demonstrate that TFB can be performed with good outcomes for patients with severe AIOD, especially if concomitant visceral/infrainguinal reconstruction is warranted. These results support a continued role for TFB in select patients.

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective, single university hospital review of all elective, infrarenal EVARs performed from 2010 to 2015 was completed. Index procedure hospitalizations were reviewed for MS-DRG classification, comorbidities, complications, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Patients' comorbidities and postoperative complications were tabulated to verify accuracy of MS-DRG classification. Misclassified patients were audited and reclassified as "standard" or "complex" on the basis of a corrected MS-DRG: standard for 238 (major cardiovascular procedure without MCC) and complex for 237 (major cardiovascular procedure with MCC). RESULTS: There were 104 EVARs identified, including 91 standard (original MS-DRG 238, n = 85; MS-DRG 254, n = 6) and 13 complex hospitalizations (original MS-DRG 237, n = 9; MS-DRG 238, n = 3; MS-DRG 253, n = 1). On review, 3% (n = 3) of the originally assigned MS-DRG 238 patients were undercoded while actually meeting MCC criteria for a 237 designation. Hospitalizations coded with MS-DRG 253 and 254 were considered billing errors because MS-DRG 237 and 238 are more appropriate and specific classifications as major cardiovascular procedures. Overall, there was a 9.6% miscoding rate (n = 10), representing a total lost billing opportunity of $587,799. Mean LOS for standard and complex hospitalizations was 3.0 ± 1.5 days vs 7.8 ± 6.0 days (P < .001), with respective intensive care unit LOS of 0.4 ± 0.7 day vs 2.6 ± 3.1 days (P < .001). Postoperative complications occurred in 23% of patients; however, not all met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria as MCC. Miscoded complexity was found to be due to postoperative events in all patients rather than to missed comorbidities. Mean hospitalization cost for standard and complex patients was $28,833 ± $5597 vs $41,543 ± $12,943 (P < .001). Based on institutional reimbursement data, this translates to a mean loss of $5407 per correctly coded patient. Miscoded patients represent an additional overall reimbursement loss of $140,102. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a large lost billing opportunity with miscoding of elective EVARs from 2010 to 2015, with errors in categorization of the procedure as well as miscoding of complexity. The revenue impact is potentially significant in this population, and additional reviews of coding practices should be considered.

Management of patch infections after carotid endarterectomy and utility of femoral vein interposition bypass graft.

OBJECTIVE: Patch infection after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a rare but devastating complication. A variety of different treatment options are reported; however, there is currently no consensus on how to manage this highly morbid problem. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with management of infectious patch complications after CEA and to highlight utility of femoral vein interposition bypass grafting. METHODS: All CEA patch infection operations at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative history, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were recorded. Bypass patency was verified with duplex ultrasound imaging (1 month, 6 months, annually). The primary end point was 30-day stroke or death; secondary end points included cranial nerve injury, reintervention, reinfection, and survival. Life tables were used to estimate end points. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 70 ± 9 years; male, 76%) were identified. The index CEA occurred at a median of 15 months (interquartile range, 1-55 months) preoperatively (39% <2 months after the index procedure). A variety of patch materials were implicated (Dacron, n = 9; unknown/undocumented, n = 8; bovine pericardium, n = 5; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, n = 3; unidentified nonbiologic prosthetic, n = 3; saphenous vein, n = 1). Carotid reintervention antecedent to the infected patch presentation occurred in 41% (incision and drainage, n = 10; carotid stent, n = 2; vein patch, n = 1). The most common infecting organisms were Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species (52%; n = 15). The most frequent presentation (46%; n = 13) was pericarotid abscess or phlegmon (pulsatile neck mass or pseudoaneurysm, 28% [n = 8]; carotid-cutaneous fistula, 28% [n = 8]). Reconstruction strategy included femoral vein interposition bypass in 24 patients (83%; nonreversed configuration, 16/24 [67%]), saphenous vein patch in 4 patients (14%), and femoral vein patch in 1 patient (3%). Median postoperative length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 4-8 days). Twelve patients (41%) experienced a complication, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 7% (death, n = 1; stroke, n = 1). The single postoperative death occurred in a patient with history of congestive heart failure who developed a pulseless electrical activity arrest on postoperative day 11 that resulted in multiorgan system failure. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 28% (n = 8; cranial nerves X [3], VII [2], XII [2], and IX [1]), all of which resolved by last follow-up. In follow-up (mean clinical follow-up, 17 ± 14 months; mean survival time, 108 months [95% confidence interval, 81-135 months]), two (7%) complained of limb edema with femoral cutaneous nerve palsy that resolved by 3 months. One interposition bypass occluded at 3 months (asymptomatic); the remaining grafts remained patent with no restenosis, reinfection, or reintervention events. The 1- and 5-year survival was 87% ± 6% and 82% ± 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CEA patch infection can be successfully managed with femoral vein interposition bypass with acceptable postoperative outcomes. Excellent patency can be anticipated with good long-term survival. This strategy can be considered especially in cases with carotid size mismatch or if there is limited availability of alternative biologic conduits.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors. RESULTS: TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI. CONCLUSIONS: SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Outcomes of antegrade and retrograde open mesenteric bypass for acute mesenteric ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a challenging clinical problem associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few contemporary reports focus specifically on patients undergoing open mesenteric bypass (OMB) or delineate outcome differences based on bypass configuration. This is notable, because there is a subset of patients who are poor candidates for endovascular intervention including those with flush mesenteric vessel occlusion, long segment occlusive disease, and a thrombosed mesenteric stent and/or bypass. This analysis reviewed our experience with OMB in the treatment of AMI and compared outcomes between patients undergoing either antegrade or retrograde bypass. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent OMB for AMI from 2002 to 2016. A preoperative history of mesenteric revascularization, demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and outcomes were abstracted. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze all end points. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (female 54%; age 63 ± 12 years) underwent aortomesenteric bypass (aortoceliac/superior mesenteric, n = 44; aortomesenteric, n = 38) for AMI. A history of prior stent/bypass was present in 20% (n = 16). A majority (76%; n = 62) underwent antegrade bypass and the remainder received retrograde infrarenal aortoiliac inflow. Patients receiving antegrade OMB were more likely to be male (53% vs 25%; P = .02), have coronary artery disease (48% vs 25%; P = .06), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (52% vs 25%; P = .03), and peripheral arterial disease (60% vs 35%; P = .05). Concurrent bowel resection was evenly distributed (antegrade, 45%; retrograde, 45%; P = .9) and 37% (n = 30) underwent subsequent resection during second look operations. The median duration of stay was 16 days (interquartile range, 9-35 days) and 78% (n = 64) experienced at least one major complication with no difference in rates between antegrade/retrograde configurations. In-hospital mortality was 37% (n = 30; multiple organ dysfunction, 22; bowel infarction, 4; hemorrhage/anemia, 2; arrhythmia, 1; stroke, 1; 30-day mortality, 26%). The median follow-up was 8 months (interquartile range, 1-26 months). The 1- and 3-year primary patency rates were both 82% ± 6% (95% confidence interval, 71%-95%), with 10 patients requiring reintervention. Estimated survival at 1 and 5 years was 57% ± 6% and 50% ± 6%, respectively. Bypass configuration was not associated with complication rates (P > .10), in-hospital mortality (log-rank, P = .3), or overall survival (log-rank, P = .9). However, a higher risk of reintervention was observed in patients undergoing retrograde bypass (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-11.0; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: OMB for AMI results in significant morbidity and mortality, irrespective of bypass configuration. Antegrade OMB is associated with comparable outcomes as retrograde OMB. The bypass configuration choice should be predicated on patient presentation, anatomy, physiology, and surgeon preference; however, an antegrade configuration may provide a lower risk of reintervention.

Implementation of a bundled protocol significantly reduces risk of spinal cord ischemia after branched or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication after branched or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (B/FEVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic disease. The purpose of this analysis was to describe the impact of a bundled clinical care protocol designed to reduce the risk of SCI in this population of patients. METHODS: A bundled SCI prevention protocol including cerebrospinal fluid drainage, blood pressure parameters, transfusion goals, and pharmacologic adjuncts (steroids, naloxone) was initiated in May 2015. Before that date, portions of the protocol (cerebrospinal fluid drainage in particular) were used in an informal fashion in patients perceived to be at high risk. B/FEVAR cases completed from January 2012 to May 2016 were reviewed, and outcomes before (n = 223) and after (n = 70) SCI bundle application were compared. The primary end point was the incidence of SCI events. Secondary end points included length of stay, complications, and survival. High-risk patients for SCI were defined as those undergoing B/FEVAR resulting in aortic coverage equivalent to open Crawford extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis. RESULTS: Postprotocol patients were more likely to be older (75 ± 7 vs 72 ± 8 years; P = .03), to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 designation (94% vs 81%; P = .04), and to be treated for TAAA (67% vs 56%; P = .004). Postprotocol pre-emptive spinal drain use was greater in high-risk patients (100% vs 87%; P = .04) but significantly decreased in lower risk patients (suprarenal aneurysm or extent IV TAAA: 5% after protocol implementation vs 21% before protocol implementation; P = .04). Rates of any SCI before and after implementation of the bundled protocol were 13% (n = 29 of 223) and 3% (n = 2 of 70; P = .007), respectively. In comparing high-risk patients, protocol use resulted in an even more significant reduction in SCI rate (19% [28 of 144] vs 4% [2 of 50]; P = .004). Postoperative morbidity (41% vs 33%; P = .2) and 30-day mortality (5% vs 1%; P = .3) were not different between groups. However, patients treated on protocol had significantly improved 1-year survival (99% ± 1% after protocol implementation vs 90% ± 2% before protocol implementation; log-rank, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a bundled multimodal protocol may significantly reduce risk of SCI after B/FEVAR, with the greatest risk reduction occurring in the most vulnerable patients. Interestingly, reduction in SCI risk was associated with improvement in 1-year survival.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in adult coarctation patients.

BACKGROUND: Aortic coarctation (AC) is most commonly identified in pediatric patients; however, adults can present with late sequelae of untreated coarctation or complications of prior open repair. To date, there are limited data about the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in this group of patients. The purpose of this analysis was to describe our experience with management of adult coarctation patients using TEVAR. METHODS: All TEVAR patients treated for primary coarctation or late sequelae of previous open repair (eg, pseudoaneurysm, recurrent coarctation or anastomotic stenosis related to index open coarctation repair) were reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, procedure-related variables, postoperative outcomes, and reintervention were recorded. Computed tomography centerline assessments of endograft morphology were completed to delineate stent anatomy at the coarctation site. Survival and reintervention were estimated using life-table analysis. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were identified (median age, 46 years [range, 33-71 years]; 67% male [n = 14]). Nine patients (43%) were treated for symptomatic primary (n = 6) or recurrent (n = 3) coarctation. Other indications included degenerative thoracic aneurysm (n = 6), pseudoaneurysm (n = 4), and dissection (n = 2). Technical success was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-100%). No 30-day mortality or paraplegia events occurred; however, two patients (10%) experienced postoperative nondisabling stroke. In primary or recurrent coarctation patients with available computed tomography imaging (n = 8 of 9), nominal stent graft diameters were achieved proximal and distal to the coarctation (range, -0.4 to -1.2 mm of desired final stent diameter). Specific to the coarctation site, there was a significant increase in aortic diameter after TEVAR (before stenting, 11.5 [95% CI, 6.8-12.3] mm; after stenting, 15 [95% CI, 13.7-15.7] mm; P = .004). Concurrently, systolic arterial blood pressure at time of discharge was significantly lower (before stenting: 147 mm Hg; 95% CI, 137-157 mm Hg; after stenting: 124 mm Hg; 95% CI, 118-134 mm Hg; P = .02). For all patients, median clinical follow-up time was 8 months (interquartile range, 3-13 months; range, 1-106 months). Three endoleaks were detected, all of which were type II related to left (n = 2) or aberrant (n = 1) subclavian arteries. Four patients (19%) underwent reintervention (median time, 7 months; range, 2-12 months), with three of four being subclavian artery embolization; one was an aortic root replacement for ascending aneurysm with bicuspid aortic valve. One-year freedom from reintervention was 78% ± 9% (95% CI, 42%-92%). The 1- and 3-year survival was 95% ± 5% (95% CI, 71%-99%). One late death was related to complications from pre-existing congenital heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adult AC patients can be treated safely with TEVAR, and the annular constriction of an AC can be successfully dilated by the stent graft. Given these findings, a greater number of patients with longer term follow-up is warranted to further define the role of TEVAR in the management of adult AC patients.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using aortic arch chimney stents in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch disease is a challenging clinical problem, especially in high-risk patients, in whom open repair can have morbidity and mortality rates of 30% to 40% and 2% to 20%, respectively. Aortic arch chimney (AAC) stents used during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are a less invasive treatment strategy than open repair, but the current literature is inconclusive about the role of this technology. The focus of this analysis is on our experience with TEVAR and AAC stents. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures performed from 2002 to 2015 were reviewed to identify those with AAC stents. Primary end points were technical success and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and endoleak. Technical success was defined as a patient's surviving the index operation with deployment of the AAC stent at the intended treatment zone with no evidence of type I or type III endoleak on initial postoperative imaging. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (age, 69 ± 12 years; male, 70%) were identified, and all were described as being at prohibitive risk for open repair by the treating team. Relevant comorbidity rates were as follows: coronary artery disease/myocardial infarction, 59%; oxygen-dependent emphysema, 30%; preoperative creatinine concentration >1.8 mg/dL, 19%; and congestive heart failure, 15%. Presentations included elective (67%; n = 18), symptomatic (26%; n = 7), and ruptured (7%; n = 2). Eleven patients (41%) had prior endovascular or open arch/descending thoracic repair. Indications were degenerative aneurysm (49%), chronic residual type A dissection with aneurysm (15%), type Ia endoleak after TEVAR (11%), postsurgical pseudoaneurysm (11%), penetrating ulcer (7%), and acute type B dissection (7%). Thirty-two brachiocephalic vessels were treated: innominate (n = 7), left common carotid artery (LCCA; n = 24), and left subclavian artery (n = 1). Five patients (19%) had simultaneous innominate-LCCA chimneys. Brachiocephalic chimney stents were planned in 75% (n = 24), with the remainder placed for either LCCA or innominate artery encroachment (n = 8). Overall technical success was 89% (one intraoperative death, two persistent type Ia endoleaks in follow-up). The 30-day mortality was 4% (n = 1; intraoperative death of a patient with a ruptured arch aneurysm), and median length of stay was 6 (interquartile range, 4-9) days. Seven (26%) patients experienced a major complication (stroke, three [all with unplanned brachiocephalic chimney]; respiratory failure, three; and death, one). Nine (33%) patients underwent aorta-related reintervention, and no chimney occlusion events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up, 9 [interquartile range, 1-23] months). The 1-year and 3-year survival is estimated to be 88% ± 6% and 69% ± 9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR with AAC can be performed with high technical success and acceptable morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients. Unplanned AAC placement during TEVAR results in an elevated stroke risk, which may be related to the branch vessel coverage necessitating AAC placement. Acceptable midterm survival can be anticipated, but aorta-related reintervention is not uncommon, and diligent follow-up is needed.