Outcomes of prosthetic upper arm arteriovenous graft vs brachiobasilic fistula for hemodialysis access.

OBJECTIVE: Primary arteriovenous access such as radiocephalic and brachiocephalic fistulas are initial choices for creating vascular access in dialysis patients. When neither of these choices is an option, upper arm arteriovenous graft or brachiobasilic transposition is recommended. Although primary fistula is better than prosthetic graft for suitable patients, there is little data to guide the best treatment strategy in the absence of suitable vein for primary access creation. This study identifies factors that influence patency rates and compares outcomes of patients treated with brachiobasilic fistula vs upper arm graft in patients who have failed forearm access or are not candidates for primary access. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure from 2010 to 2022 was analyzed. Primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency rates were calculated. Incidence rates of complications and reinterventions were compared. RESULTS: There were 148 patients with brachiobasilic fistulas and 157 patients with upper arm grafts. The graft group was older (70.1 ± 14.7 vs 62.5 ± 14.6 years; P = .003) and had a higher incidence of pacemakers (11.9% vs 4.1%; P = .005). Brachiobasilic fistulas had higher 6-month (77.0% vs 64.3%; P = .02) and 1-year (68.2% vs 55.4%; P = .03) primary-assisted patency. Secondary patency rates were better for upper arm grafts at 1-year (82.2% vs 72.3%; P = .05). Access complications of non-maturation and aneurysm were higher in basilic vein transposition (21.6% vs 1.3%; P < .0001; 15.5% vs 6.4%; P = .017). Grafts had higher rates of occlusion (58.0% vs 25.7%; P < .0001). In terms of interventions, upper arm grafts had higher rates of thrombectomy (50.3% vs 18.9%; P < .0001), but there was no difference seen in angioplasty, stent, surgical revision, or steal procedures. Basilic vein transpositions had longer time to cannulation (104.6 ± 81.1 vs 32.5 ± 22.4 days; P < .0001), longer total catheter days (251.1 ± 181.7 vs 72.9 ± 56.3 days; P < .0001), and higher number of procedures to aid maturity (0.7 ± 0.7 vs 0.1 ± 0.3; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, when forearm access or primary arteriovenous access is not an option, basilic vein transposition and upper arm grafts have fairly equivalent primary patency. Primary assisted patency is slightly better in basilic vein fistulas, but secondary patency is better in upper arm grafts at 1 year. Basilic fistulas also had longer time to cannulation, longer total catheter days, and more procedures to aid maturity.

Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Tool for In-hospital Mortality After Thoracic Endovascular Repair in Patients with Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury Using the Aortic Trauma Foundation Registry.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our present effort was to use an international blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) registry to create a prediction model identifying important preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with postoperative mortality, and to develop and validate a simple risk prediction tool that could assist with patient selection and risk stratification in this patient population. METHODS: For the purpose of the present study, all patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for BTAI and registered in the Aortic Trauma Foundation (ATF) database from January 2016 as of June 2022 were identified. Patients undergoing medical management or open repair were excluded. The primary outcome was binary in-hospital all-cause mortality. Two predictive models were generated: a preoperative model (i.e. only including variables before TEVAR or intention-to-treat) and a full model (i.e. also including variables after TEVAR or per-protocol). RESULTS: Out of a total of 944 cases included in the ATF registry until June 2022, 448 underwent TEVAR and were included in the study population. TEVAR for BTAI was associated with an 8.5% in-hospital all-cause mortality in the ATF dataset. These study subjects were subsequently divided using 3:1 random sampling in a derivation cohort (336; 75.0%) and a validation cohort (112; 25.0%). The median age was 38 years, and the majority of patients were male (350; 78%). A total of 38 variables were included in the final analysis. Of these, 17 variables were considered in the preoperative model, 9 variables were integrated in the full model, and 12 variables were excluded owing to either extremely low variance or strong correlation with other variables. The calibration graphs showed how both models from the ATF dataset tended to underestimate risk, mainly in intermediate-risk cases. The discriminative capacity was moderate in all models; the best performing model was the full model from the ATF dataset, as evident from both the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (Area Under the Curve 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.91) and from the density graph. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed and validated a contemporary risk prediction model, which incorporates several preoperative and postoperative variables and is strongly predictive of early mortality. While this model can reasonably predict in-hospital all-cause mortality, thereby assisting physicians with risk-stratification as well as inform patients and their caregivers, its intrinsic limitations must be taken into account and it should only be considered an adjunctive tool that may complement clinical judgment and shared decision-making.

Outcomes and practice patterns of medical management of blunt thoracic aortic injury from the Aortic Trauma Foundation global registry.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is the second leading cause of death from blunt trauma. In the present study, we aimed to determine the outcomes of medical management (MM) for BTAI. We hypothesized from the results of several previously reported studies, that patients with a minimal aortic injury (BTAI grades 1 and 2) could safely be treated with definitive MM alone. METHODS: The Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry was used to examine the demographics, injury characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with BTAI. We analyzed a subset of patients for whom MM was initiated as definitive therapy. RESULTS: From November 2016 to April 2020, 432 patients (median age, 41 years; 76% male; median injury severity score, 34) with BTAI (Society for Vascular Surgery grade 1, 23.6%; grade 2, 14.4%; grade 3, 51.2%; grade 4, 10.9%) were evaluated. Of the 432 patients, 245 (57%) had received MM in the initial period and 114 (26.4%) had received MM as the planned definitive therapy (grade 1, 59.6%; grade 2, 23.7%; grade 3, 15.8%; grade 4, 0.9%). The most common mechanism of BTAI was a motor vehicle collision (60.4%). Hypotension was present on arrival in 74 patients (17.2%). Continuous titratable infusion of antihypertensive medication was used for 49.1%, followed by intermittent bolus administration (29.8%), with beta-blockers (74.6%) the most common agent used. Treatments were targeted to a goal systolic blood pressure for 83.3%, most often to a target goal systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg (66.3%). The MM goals based on blood pressure control were attained in 64.0% (73 of 114). Twelve patients (10.5%; grade 1, 1; grade 2, 0; grade 3, 10; grade 4, 1) had required subsequent intervention after MM. Eleven patients (9.6%) had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair and one (0.9%) had required open repair for a grade 4 injury. The overall in-hospital mortality for patients selected for definitive MM was 7.9%. No aortic-related deaths had occurred in the patients receiving definitive MM. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in four patients with BTAI will receive MM as definitive therapy. The variation in the pharmacologic therapies used is considerable. MM for patients with minimal aortic injury (BTAI grades 1 and 2) is safe and effective, with a low overall intervention rate and no aortic-related deaths. These findings support the use of definitive MM for grade 2 BTAI.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with concomitant blunt thoracic aortic injury and traumatic brain injury from the Aortic Trauma Foundation global registry.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) are the top two leading causes of death after blunt force trauma. Patients presenting with concomitant BTAI and TBI pose a specific challenge with respect to management strategy, because the optimal hemodynamic parameters are conflicting between the two pathologies. Early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is often performed, even for minimal aortic injuries, to allow for the higher blood pressure parameters required for TBI management. However, the optimal timing of TEVAR for the treatment of BTAI in patients with concomitant TBI remains an active matter of controversy. METHODS: The Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry was used to identify all patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAI in the setting of TBI from 2015 to 2020. The primary outcomes included delayed ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, in-hospital mortality, and aortic-related mortality. The outcomes were examined among patients who had undergone TEVAR at emergent (<6 vs ≥6 hours) or urgent (<24 vs ≥24 hours) intervals. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (median age, 43 years; 79% men; median injury severity score, 41) with BTAI (Society for Vascular Surgery BTAI grade 1, 3%; grade 2, 10%; grade 3, 78%; grade 4, 9%) and concomitant TBI who had undergone TEVAR were identified. Emergent repair was performed for 51 patients (51%). Comparing emergent repair (<6 hours) to urgent repair (≥6 hours), no difference was found in delayed cerebral ischemic events (2.0% vs 4.1%; P = .614), in-hospital mortality (15.7% vs 22.4%; P = .389), or aortic-related mortality (2.0% vs 2.0%; P = .996) and no patient had experienced delayed hemorrhagic stroke. Likewise, repairs conducted in an urgent (<24 hours) setting showed no differences compared with those completed in an emergent (≥24 hours) setting regarding delayed ischemic stroke (2.6% vs 4.3%; P = .548), in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 21.7%; P = .764), or aortic-related mortality (1.3% vs 4.3%; P = .654), and no patient had experienced delayed hemorrhagic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior retrospective efforts, results from the Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry have demonstrated that neither emergent nor urgent TEVAR for patients with concomitant BTAI and TBI was associated with delayed stroke, in-hospital mortality, or aortic-related mortality. In these patients, the timing of TEVAR did not have an effect on the outcomes. Therefore, the decision to intervene should be guided by individual patient factors rather than surgical timing.

The first commercial use of the Valiant Navion stent graft system for endovascular repair of a descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard of care for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA), and newer generation stent grafts have significant design improvements compared to earlier generation devices. METHODS: We report the first commercial use of the Medtronic Valiant Navion stent graft for treatment of an 85-year-old woman with a 5.8 cm DTAA and a highly tortuous thoracic aorta. RESULTS: A percutaneous TEVAR was performed using a two-piece combination of the Valiant Navion FreeFlo and CoveredSeal stent graft configurations for zones 2-5 coverage. The devices were successfully delievered through highly tortuous anatomy and deployed, excluding the entire length of the aneurysm with precise landing, excellent apposition and no evidence of endoleak. The patient tolerated the procedure well and has had no stent graft-related complications through one-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Design enhancements such as a lower profile delivery system, better conformability, and a shorter tapered tip are some of the improvements to this third-generation TEVAR device. Coupled with the multiple configuration options available, this gives physicians a better tool to treat thoracic aortic pathologies in patients with challenging anatomy. The early results are encouraging, and evaluation of long-term outcomes will continue.

The AAST prospective Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry: Data on contemporary utilization and outcomes of aortic occlusion and resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA).

INTRODUCTION: Aortic occlusion (AO) for resuscitation in traumatic shock remains controversial. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) offers an emerging alternative. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery registry prospectively identified trauma patients requiring AO from eight ACS Level 1 centers. Presentation, intervention, and outcome variables were collected and analyzed to compare REBOA and open AO. RESULTS: From November 2013 to February 2015, 114 AO patients were captured (REBOA, 46; open AO, 68); 80.7% were male, and 62.3% were blunt injured. Aortic occlusion occurred in the emergency department (73.7%) or the operating room (26.3%). Hemodynamic improvement after AO was observed in 62.3% [REBOA, 67.4%; open OA, 61.8%); 36.0% achieving stability (systolic blood pressure consistently >90 mm Hg, >5 minutes); REBOA, 22 of 46 (47.8%); open OA, 19 of 68 (27.9%); p =0.014]. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) access was femoral cut-down (50%); US guided (10.9%) and percutaneous without imaging (28.3%). Deployment was achieved in Zones I (78.6%), II (2.4%), and III (19.0%). A second AO attempt was required in 9.6% [REBOA, 2 of 46 (4.3%); open OA, 9 of 68 (13.2%)]. Complications of REBOA were uncommon (pseudoaneurysm, 2.1%; embolism, 4.3%; limb ischemia, 0%). There was no difference in time to successful AO between REBOA and open procedures (REBOA, 6.6 ± 5.6 minutes; open OA, 7.2 ± 15.1; p = 0.842). Overall survival was 21.1% (24 of 114), with no significant difference between REBOA and open AO with regard to mortality [REBOA, 28.2% (13 of 46); open OA, 16.1% (11 of 68); p = 0.120]. CONCLUSION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta has emerged as a viable alternative to open AO in centers that have developed this capability. Further maturation of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery database is required to better elucidate optimal indications and outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.