Assessment of fitness for open repair in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) was originally designed as a treatment modality for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) deemed unfit for open repair. However, the definition of "unfit for open repair" is largely subjective and heterogenous. The purpose of this study was to compare patients deemed unfit for open repair who underwent EVAR to a matched cohort who underwent open repair for infrarenal AAAs. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative of the Society for Vascular Surgery was queried for patients who underwent EVAR and open infrarenal AAA repair from 2003 to 2022. Patients that underwent EVAR were included if they were deemed unfit for open repair by the operating surgeon. EVAR patients deemed unfit because of a hostile abdomen were excluded. Patients in both the open and EVAR datasets were excluded if their repair was deemed non-elective or if they had prior aortic surgery. EVAR patients were matched to a cohort of open patients. The primary outcome for this study was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, pulmonary complications, non-home discharge, reinterventions, and 5-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 5310 EVAR patients were identified who were deemed unfit for open repair. Of those, 3028 EVAR patients (57.0%) were able to be matched 1:1 to a cohort of open patients. Open patients had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (20.2% vs 4.4%; P < .001), pulmonary complications (12.8% vs 1.6%; P < .001), non-home discharges (28.5% vs 7.9%; P < .001), and 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 1.4%; P < .001). There were no differences in early survival, but open repair had better middle and late survival compared with EVAR over the course of 5 years. A total of 74 EVAR patients (2.4%) had reinterventions during the study period. EVAR patients that required interventions had higher 1-year (40.5% vs 7.3%; P < .001) and 5-year mortality (43.2% vs 14.1%; P < .001) compared with those that did not require reinterventions. EVAR patients who had reinterventions had higher 1-year (40.5% vs 6.3%; P < .001) and 5-year (43.2% vs 20.3%; P = .006) mortality compared with their matched open cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing EVAR for AAAs who are deemed unfit for open repair have better perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open repair. However, patients who had an open repair had better middle and late survival over the course of 5 years. The categorization of unfitness for open surgery may be inaccurate and re-evaluation of this terminology/concept should be undertaken.

Prosthetic Conduit Use Does Not Adversely Impact Outcomes after Open Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Single segment, greater saphenous vein (GSV) conduit is considered the optimal bypass conduit among patients undergoing bypass surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD). While this data has been extrapolated to patients undergoing bypass for popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs), the pathophysiology of PAA is inherently different when compared to PAD, and the impact of conduit type on long-term outcomes after open repair of PAA remains unclear. METHODS: A multicenter database of five regional hospitals was retrospectively reviewed for all patients with PAA undergoing open surgical repair. Data were collected on demographic information, operative details, medications, and postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare freedom from major adverse limb events (MALE) following GSV versus prosthetic bypass. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify patient-level characteristics associated with MALE, which was defined as major ipsilateral limb amputation or reintervention for graft patency. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2020, a total of 101 patients with PAA underwent open exclusion and bypass surgery. Median follow-up period was 4.2 years (interquartile range, 1.3-7.4 years), and complete data were available for 99 (98.0%) patients. The majority of patients were male (99.0%) and Caucasian (93.9%). Only 11.1% of procedures were emergent, with the remainder (88.9%) being elective. All patients underwent medial exposure with a below-knee popliteal bypass target (100%). Bypass conduits included GSV (69.7%), prosthetic conduit (28.3%), and 2 (2.0%) alternative conduits (one spliced arm vein, one cryopreserved vein). Patients undergoing prosthetic bypass were older (72 vs. 66 years, P = 0.001) and had similar rates of medical comorbidities. Compared with the GSV group, patients with prosthetic conduits were more frequently placed on postoperative anticoagulation (60.7% vs. 23.2%, P < 0.001). Conduit type did not impact postoperative complication rates (P = NS each). MALE rates were low overall (19.2% at 2 years), and similar when stratified by conduit type (log rank P = 0.47). On multivariable analysis, emergent bypass was associated with MALE (hazard ratio [HR] 5.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-15.85, P < 0.001). Prosthetic conduit usage (HR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.40-2.51, P = 0.99) and postoperative anticoagulation (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.42-2.50, P = 0.97) were not associated with MALE. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair of PAA is associated with excellent long-term outcomes. Prosthetic bypass is a comparable alternative to autogenous conduit for below-knee popliteal bypass targets, and lack of suitable GSV should not prohibit open surgical repair when indicated.

Incidence and Outcomes of Visceral Ischemia in Acute Aortic Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic occlusion (AAO) is a morbid diagnosis in which mortality correlates with severity of ischemia on presentation. Visceral ischemia (VI) is challenging to diagnose and its presentation as a consequence of AAO is not well-studied. We aim to identify characteristics associated with VI in AAO to facilitate diagnosis. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with AAO who underwent revascularization were identified retrospectively from institutional records (2006-2020). The primary outcome was the development of VI (intra-abdominal ischemia). Univariate analysis was used to compare demographic, exam, imaging, and intraoperative variables between patients with and without VI in the setting of AAO. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included. The prevalence of VI was 20.9%. Preoperative comorbidities, time to revascularization, and operative approach did not differ between patients with and without VI. Patients with VI more frequently were transferred from outside institutions (100% vs. 53%, P = 0.02), presented with advanced acute limb ischemia (Rutherford III 36.9% vs. 7.5%, P < 0.01), and had elevated preoperative serum lactate (4.31 vs. 2.41 mmol/L, P < 0.01). VI patients had an increased occurrence of bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion (47.4% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.01). Unilateral IIA occlusion, level of aortic occlusion, and patency of inferior mesenteric arteries were not associated with VI. Patients with VI had worse postoperative outcomes. In particular, VI conferred significant risk of mortality (odds ratio 5.45, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Visceral ischemia is a common consequence of AAO. Elevated lactate, bilateral IIA occlusion, and advanced acute limb ischemia (ALI) should increase clinical suspicion for concomitant VI with AAO and may facilitate earlier diagnosis to improve outcomes.

Room for improvement in patient compliance during peripheral vascular interventions.

Introduction: For patients receiving Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PSA), patient cooperation is crucial as patients remain continuously aware of operating room activity and can be asked to perform tasks such as prolonged breath-holds. This survey aimed to collect information on patient compliance with on-table instructions and its relation to periprocedural outcomes from surgeons nationwide performing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) under PSA. Methods: A 9-question online survey was sent to 383 vascular surgeons (including both vascular surgery attendings and trainees) across the United States through REDCap from August 30 to September 21, 2021, with responses closed on October 30, 2021. The survey response was analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: 83 (21.6%) vascular surgeons responded to the survey, of which 67 (80.7%) were attending vascular surgeons and 16 (19.3%) were vascular surgery trainees. 41 (49.4%) respondents performed 11-20 PVI cases under PSA every month, while 31 (41.0%) respondents performed 1-10 PVI cases under PSA every month. 41 (49.4%) respondents reported that in 1-10% of their cases, additional contrast and/or radiation was administered because patient moved on the table or did not cooperate with breath holds; 25 (30.1%) reported that this occurred in 11-20% of their cases, 12 (14.5%) reported that this occurred in 21-50% of their cases and 4 (4.8%) reported that this occurred in over 50% of their cases. In such cases, the majority of respondents reported a 1-10% increase in contrast volume (59.0%), radiation dosage (62.7%), sedative/analgesia administration (46.3%) and procedural time (54.9%). Of cases being converted to general anesthesia due to inadequate patient cooperation, 35 (42.2%) respondents reported between 1-5 per month, and 3 (3.6%) respondents reported between 6-10 per month. Of cases being aborted due to inadequate patient cooperation, 25 (30.1%) respondents reported between 1-5 per month, and 1 (1.2%) respondents reported between 6-10 per month. Conclusion: A significant fraction of PVI cases performed under PSA result in increased radiation and contrast exposure, sedative administration and procedural time due to inadequate patient cooperation. In certain cases, conversion to general anesthesia or case abortion is required. Further research should be performed to investigate strategies to minimize such adverse patient safety events.