Endovascular Aneurysm Repair-First Strategy for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Might Not Be Applicable to all Cases.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate the relationship between the hospital case volume (HCV) and mortality outcomes after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of intact (iEVAR) and ruptured (rEVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using a contemporary administrative database. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey/Maryland/Florida (2016-2017) were queried using International Classification of Disease-10th edition to identify patients who had undergone OAR and EVAR. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q) per overall (EVAR + OAR) volume, OAR-alone volume and EVAR-alone volume. Cox regression adjusted for confounding factors was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 8,825 patients (mean age, 73.5 ± 9.5 years; 6,861 male [77.7%]) had undergone 1,355 OARs and 7,470 EVARs. Overall HCV had no impact on in-hospital mortality across quartiles after (iEVAR) (range, 0.7%-1.4%, P = 0.15), (rEVAR) (range, 20.5%-29.6%, P = 0.63) and open repair of intact AAA (iOAR) (range, 4.9%-8.8%, P = 0.63). However, the mortality rates after open repair of ruptured AAA (rOAR) in highest-volume (Q4) hospitals were significantly lower than those in the 3 lower quartile hospitals (23.1% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.001). When analyzed per OAR-alone volume, the same findings were observed (22.0% for Q4 vs. 41.6% for Q1-3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, in Q4 hospitals per the OAR-alone volume analysis, the mortality hazard was greater for rEVAR (39.0%) than for rOAR (22.0%) (HR = 2.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.34, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates for iEVAR, rEVAR and iOAR were independent of HCV. However, after rOAR, mortality rates in high OAR volume hospitals were lower than those in the lower quartile hospitals, and, at least comparable to those of rEVAR. EVAR-first strategy for ruptured AAA might not be applicable to all cases. Patent-specific, individualized treatment should be the gold standard. For patients requiring rOAR, transfer to a regional center of excellence, when clinical safe, should be encouraged.

Early survival benefit of a low-profile endograft in blunt traumatic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a low-profile thoracic endograft (19-23 French) in subjects with blunt traumatic aortic injury. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study assessed the RelayPro thoracic endograft for the treatment of traumatic aortic injury. Fifty patients were enrolled at 16 centers in the United States between 2017 and 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The cohort was mostly male (74%), with a mean age of 42.4 ± 17.2 years, and treated for traumatic injuries (4% Grade 1, 8% Grade 2, 76% Grade 3, and 12% Grade 4) due to motor vehicle collision (80%). The proximal landing zone was proximal to the left subclavian artery in 42%, and access was primarily percutaneous (80%). Most (71%) were treated with a non-bare stent endograft. Technical success was 98% (one early type Ia endoleak). All-cause 30-day mortality was 2% (compared with an expected rate of 8%), with an exact two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.1%, 10.6% below the performance goal upper limit of 25%. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated freedom from all-cause mortality to be 98% at 30 days through 4 years (95% CI, 86.6%-99.7%). Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from major adverse events, all-cause mortality, paralysis, and stroke, was 98.0% at 30 days and 95.8% from 6 months to 4 years (95% CI, 84.3%-98.9%). There were no strokes and one case of paraplegia (2%) during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: RelayPro was safe and effective and may provide an early survival benefit in the treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injury.

Direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin at discharge associated with improved survival and patency in infra-geniculate bypasses with prosthetic conduits.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on the optimal anticoagulant regimen following lower extremity bypass. Historically, warfarin has been utilized for prosthetic or compromised vein bypasses. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly replacing warfarin in this context, but their efficacy in bypass preservation has not been well-studied. Recent studies have shown that DOACs may improve outcomes following bypasses; however, it is unclear if this is dependent upon type of bypass conduit. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether a difference exists between vein and prosthetic infra-geniculate bypasses outcomes based on the anticoagulant utilized on discharge, warfarin or DOAC. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infra-inguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who underwent an infra-geniculate bypass and were anticoagulation-naive at baseline but were discharged on either warfarin or DOACs. A survival analysis was performed for patients up to 1 year to determine whether the choice of discharge anticoagulation was associated with differences between those with vein vs prosthetic conduits in overall survival, primary patency, risk of amputation, or risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in baseline demographic factors between the groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2003-2020), 57,887 patients underwent infra-geniculate bypass. Of these, 3230 (5.5%) were anticoagulated on discharge. There was a similar distribution of anticoagulation between vein (n = 1659; 51.4%) and prosthetic conduits (n = 1571; 48.6%). Thirty-two percent were discharged on DOACs, and 68.0% were discharged on warfarin. For prosthetic conduits, being discharged on a DOAC was associated with improved outcomes on univariate and multivariable analyses revealing lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.93; P = .021), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = .003), risk of amputation (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .013), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .048). Patients with a vein bypass had improved univariate outcomes for survival and primary patency; however, with multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in outcomes between DOAC and warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who underwent an infra-geniculate prosthetic bypass had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged on a DOAC compared with warfarin. Those with vein bypasses had similar outcomes regardless of the choice of anticoagulation.

Recurrent symptomatic aortic aneurysm in a young girl with tuberous sclerosis complex and review of the literature.

An abdominal aortic aneurysm is a rare occurrence in pediatric populations. When present, it is usually associated with an underlying etiology such as a connective tissue disorder, inflammatory process, or noninflammatory medial degeneration. In the present report, we describe the case of a girl with tuberous sclerosis complex who underwent successful emergency open repair of a symptomatic infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

Temporary diaphragm pacing for patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation after extensive aortic repair.

Objective: Prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery is common. Studies have demonstrated that diaphragm pacing (DP) improves lung function in patients with unilateral diaphragm paralysis. The goal of this study is to determine whether this technology can be applied to complex aortic repair to reduce prolonged MV and other respiratory sequelae. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent temporary DP after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery between 2019 and 2022. The primary end point was prolonged MV incidence. Other measured end points included diaphragm electromyography improvement, length of hospitalization, duration of intensive care unit stay, and reintubation rates. Results: Fourteen patients deemed at high risk of prolonged MV based on their smoking and respiratory history underwent DP after extensive aortic repair. The mean age was 70.2 years. The indications for aortic repair were a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 8, including 2 ruptured, 2 symptomatic, and 1 mycotic), a perivisceral aneurysm (n = 4), and a perivisceral coral reef aorta (n = 2). All patients had a significant smoking history (active or former) or other risk factors for ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction and prolonged MV. The mean total duration of MV postoperatively was 31.9 hours (range, 8.1-76.5 hours). The total average pacing duration was 4.4 days. Two patients required prolonged MV, with an average of 75.4 hours. Two patients required reintubation. No complications related to DP wire placement or removal occurred. Conclusions: DP is safe and feasible for patients at high risk of pulmonary insufficiency after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery.

Near-wall hemodynamic changes in subclavian artery perfusion induced by retrograde inner branched thoracic endograft implantation.

Objective: Left subclavian artery (LSA)-branched endografts with retrograde inner branch configuration (thoracic branch endoprosthesis [TBE]) offer a complete endovascular solution when LSA preservation is required during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair. However, the hemodynamic consequences of the TBE have not been well-investigated. We compared near-wall hemodynamic parameters before and after the TBE implantation using computational fluid dynamic simulations. Methods: Eleven patients who had undergone TBE implantation were included. Three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were constructed from the pre- and post-TBE implantation computed tomography images. The resulting 22 three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were then discretized into finite element meshes for computational fluid dynamic simulations. Inflow boundary conditions were prescribed using normal physiological pulsatile circulation. Outlet boundary conditions consisted of Windkessel models with previously published values. Blood flow, modeled as Newtonian fluid, simulations were performed with rigid wall assumptions using SimVascular's incompressible Navier-Stokes solver. We compared well-established hemodynamic descriptors: pressure, flow rate, time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), the oscillatory shear index (OSI), and percent area with an OSI of >0.2. Data were presented on the stented portion of the LSA. Results: TBE implantation was associated with a small decrease in peak LSA pressure (153 mm Hg; interquartile range [IQR], 151-154 mm Hg vs 159 mm Hg; IQR, 158-160 mm Hg; P = .005). No difference was observed in peak LSA flow rates before and after implantation: 40.4 cm3/ (IQR, 39.5-41.6 cm3/s) vs 41.3 cm3/s (IQR, 37.2-44.8 cm3/s; P = .59). There was a significant postimplantation increase in TAWSS (15.2 dynes/cm2 [IQR, 12.2-17.7 dynes/cm2] vs 6.2 dynes/cm2 [IQR, 5.7-10.3 dynes/cm2]; P = .003), leading to decreases in both the OSI (0.088 [IQR, 0.063 to -0.099] vs 0.1 [IQR, 0.096-0.16]; P = .03) and percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 (10.4 [IQR, 5.8-15.8] vs 15.7 [IQR, 10.7-31.9]; P = .13). Neither LSA side branch angulation (median, 81°, IQR, 77°-109°) nor moderate compression (16%-58%) seemed to have an impact on the pressure, flow rate, TAWSS, or percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 in the stented LSA. Conclusions: The implantation of TBE produces modest hemodynamic disturbances that are unlikely to result in clinically relevant changes.

Off-the-shelf percutaneous deep vein arterialization for no-option chronic limb-threatening ischemia related to Buerger disease.

Percutaneous deep venous arterialization (pDVA) is an important technique in the pursuit of limb salvage for a certain high-risk subset of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) considered to have "no option" owing to the lack of tibial or pedal targets for revascularization. pDVA seeks to establish an arteriovenous connection at the level of the tibial vessels, in addition to tibial and/or pedal venoplasty, to provide a pathway for arterial perfusion via the tibial and/or plantar venous system. A commercial system for pDVA exists; however, it is not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the present report, we detail a method of pDVA that uses commercially available devices for a patient with no-option CLTI related to Buerger disease.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE. METHODS: We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE. RESULTS: Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process. CONCLUSION: Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

A comparison of endovascular repair to medical management for acute vs subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a viable option of treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) due to the potential for inducing favorable aortic remodeling. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of UTBAD treated medically or with TEVAR in either the acute (1 to 14 days) or subacute period (2 weeks to 3 months). METHODS: Patients with UTBAD between 2007 and 2019 were identified using the TriNetX Network. The cohort was stratified by treatment type (medical management; TEVAR during the acute period; TEVAR during the subacute period). Outcomes including mortality, endovascular reintervention, and rupture were analyzed after propensity matching. RESULTS: Among 20,376 patients with UTBAD, 18,840 were medically managed (92.5%), 1099 patients were in the acute TEVAR group (5.4%), and 437 patients were in the subacute TEVAR group (2.1%). The acute TEVAR group had higher rates of 30-day and 3-year rupture (4.1% vs 1.5%; P < .001; 9.9% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and 3-year endovascular reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001), similar 30-day mortality (4.4% vs 2.9%; P < .068), and lower 3-year survival compared with medical management (86.6% vs 83.3%; P = .041). The subacute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1), 3-year survival (87.0% vs 88.8%; P = .377) and 30-day and 3-year rupture (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1; 4.6% vs 3.4%; P = .388), with significantly higher rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 7.8%; P = .019) compared with medical management. The acute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .171), rupture (3.0% vs 2.5%; P = .666), significantly higher rates of 3-year rupture (8.7% vs 3.5%; P = .002), and similar rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 10.6%; P = .380) compared with the subacute TEVAR group. There was significantly higher 3-year survival (88.5% vs 84.0%; P = .039) in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found lower 3-year survival in the acute TEVAR group compared with the medical management group. There was no 3-year survival benefit found in patients with UTBAD who underwent subacute TEVAR compared with medical management. This suggests the need for further studies looking at the necessity for TEVAR when compared with medical management for UTBAD as it is non-inferior to medical management. Higher rates of 3-year survival and lower rates of 3-year rupture in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group suggest superiority of subacute TEVAR. Further investigations are needed to determine the long-term benefit and optimal timing of TEVAR for acute UTBAD.

Trends and outcomes associated with intravascular ultrasound use during femoropopliteal revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in lower extremity interventions is growing in popularity owing to its imaging in the axial plane, superior detail in imaging lesion characteristics, and its enhanced ability to delineate lesion severity and extent compared with catheter angiograms. However, there are conflicting data regarding whether IVUS affects outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect associated with IVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Vascular Quality Initiative data. Patients undergoing an index endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization from 2016 to 2021 were included. Patients were differentiated by whether or not IVUS was used to assess the femoropopliteal segment during intervention (no IVUS, IVUS). Propensity score matching, based on preoperative demographics and measures of disease severity was used. Primary outcomes were major amputation-free survival (AFS), femoropopliteal reintervention-free survival (RFS), and primarily patent survival (PPS) at 12 months. RESULTS: IVUS use grew steadily throughout the study period, comprising 0.6% of interventions in 2016 and increasing to 8.2% of interventions by 2021; growth was most dramatic in ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory settings where IVUS use grew from 4.4% to 43% to 47% of interventions. In unmatched cohorts, patients receiving interventions using IVUS tended to have lower prevalence of multiple cardiovascular comorbidities (eg, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and dialysis dependence) and presented more often with claudication and less often with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Intraoperatively, IVUS was used more often in complex femoropopliteal lesions (Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A), and more often in conjunction with stenting and/or atherectomy. IVUS use was associated with improved AFS, but similar RFS and PPS at 12 months. However, in multivariable analysis IVUS was not associated with any of the primary outcomes independently; rather, all outcomes were influenced primarily by CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputation status; technical outcomes (ie, RFS and PPS loss) were further driven by complexity of lesion (worse in Transatlantic Intersociety grade D vs A lesions) and treatment setting (ie, ambulatory surgical center or office-based laboratory setting associated with increased hazard for RFS and PPS loss). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS implementation in femoropopliteal interventions is growing, with rapid adoption among interventions in ambulatory surgical centers and office-based laboratories. IVUS was not associated with an effect on technical outcomes at 12 months; improvement in major AFS was observed; however, multivariable analysis suggests this finding may be an effect of confounding by multiple factors highly associated with IVUS use, namely, in patients with lower prevalence of CLTI, dialysis dependence, and prior major amputations, thus conveying baseline lower risk for major amputation and death.

Outcome after revascularization with paclitaxel-coated devices in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices for femoropopliteal artery (FPA) atherosclerotic disease is derived from studies that mainly evaluated patients with claudication. Outcomes of PTX treatment for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is incompletely defined. This study compares outcome in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who underwent FPA intervention for an indication of CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative peripheral vascular intervention database from 2016 to 2020. Patients who had concomitant iliac or tibial interventions were included. One limb per patient was studied. Propensity score matching based on demographics, comorbidities, indication, and pharmacological therapy was performed to generate balanced cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox regression compared limb salvage, overall survival, primary patency, and major adverse limb events (MALE) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, indications, and procedural details were similar between 14,065 PTX and 14,065 non-PTX propensity-matched patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis at 18-month follow-up demonstrated that the PTX group compared with the non-PTX group had a significantly higher rates of limb salvage (89.2% vs 86.5%; P < .001), primary patency (80.3% vs 76.9%; P < .001), and freedom from MALE (72.6% vs 67.9%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis also showed that PTX treatment was associated with a lower risk of major amputation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82; P < .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; P < .001), and MALE (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001). Overall, 21% of patients had a prior ipsilateral peripheral vascular intervention. Removing these patients from the analysis yielded similar results at 18 months. Overall survival at 54 months was not statistically different between the PTX and non-PTX groups in the overall cohort (73.5 vs 71.3%; P = .07), but significant in the de-novo treated patients (73.9% vs 70.7%; P = .02).Multivariate analyses showed a lower mortality risk in the PTX patients (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: FPA intervention with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved limb salvage, primary patency, and freedom from MALE at the 18-month follow-up compared with uncoated devices. This benefit was not associated with an increase in all-cause mortality out to 4.5 years. Further study is necessary to determine the optimal role for PTX in the treatment of the FPA for patients with CLTI and to understand its long-term outcome.

Management and Outcome of Non-Aneurysmal Primary Aortic Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic infection without prior intervention or aneurysm is exceedingly rare. We report the presentation, diagnosis, management, and outcome of patients with this unusual entity. METHODS: Retrospective chart and imaging review of patients with primary aortic infection. RESULTS: 5 patients (3 male, mean age 71.2 years) presented between 2014 and 2022. All had abdominal, back, or flank pain. Four had constitutional symptoms. All were evaluated with a complete blood count; 3 had leukocytosis. Both serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were elevated in the 4 patients evaluated with these tests. All were studied with peripheral blood culture on the first hospital day prior to any antibiotic administration. Blood culture was positive in only 1 patient. Computed tomography (CT) scan showed periaortic inflammation without aneurysm in all. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) was obtained in 3 and a radiolabeled leukocyte single-photon emission CT (SPECT) scan was performed in 2. All demonstrated periaortic concentration of the radioisotope consistent with inflammation or infection. Intraoperative cultures were positive in 3. One patient who had a negative intraoperative culture was examined with broad range polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA sequencing which identified a causative bacterium. The other patient with a negative intraoperative culture had periaortic abscess but was on antibiotics preoperatively, potentially confounding the culture. All patients underwent in-situ repair with rifampin impregnated polyester (N = 2), cryopreserved aortic allograft (N = 2), or autogenous femoral vein (N = 1). No patient developed recurrent infection or aortic related complications following surgery with an average follow up of 31.8 months (range 8-88 months). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with primary aortic infection present similarly with the triad of abdominal or back pain, laboratory markers of infection, and imaging demonstrating periaortic inflammation. Patients were treated successfully with in-situ repair. Preoperative identification of a causative organism was difficult, and PCR may be useful to help identify an organism.

Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants associated with improved survival and bypass graft patency compared with warfarin after infrageniculate bypass.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been reached regarding the optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimen for patients after lower extremity bypass. Usually, patients who have undergone below-the-knee bypass will begin oral anticoagulation therapy. Historically, the bypass has been with prosthetic conduits and the anticoagulation therapy has been warfarin. However, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing owing to their relative ease of dosing. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a difference exists in the postoperative outcomes for patients who have undergone infrageniculate bypass stratified by the use of on DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass, been anticoagulation naive at baseline, and been discharged with anticoagulation therapy. A survival analysis was performed for patients for ≤2 years postoperatively to determine whether discharge with warfarin vs DOACs was associated with differences in overall mortality, loss of primary patency, risk of amputation, and risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in the baseline demographic factors between the two groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2007-2020) 57,887 patients had undergone infrageniculate bypass. Of these patients, 2786 had been anticoagulation naive and discharged with either warfarin (n = 1889) or DOACs (n = 897). Discharge with a DOAC was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.83; P = .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), risk of amputation (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P = .001), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass had had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged with a DOAC than with warfarin.

Vascular surgery patients with elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios have downregulated neutrophil complement RNA expression.

Elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients who undergo elective vascular surgery (EVS) have increased mortality independent of perioperative surgical outcome. To understand why high NLR is associated with higher mortality, we investigated neutrophil and lymphocyte transcriptome expression in patients undergoing EVS. Blood samples were collected from patients undergoing EVS and healthy donors for NLR calculation. RNA samples were isolated from patients' neutrophils and lymphocytes and divided into NLR_Low (<3) and NLR_High (≥3) groups (n = 6 each). Paired samples with the highest RNA integrity number (mean = 9.8 ± 0.4) were sequenced and analyzed for differential expression. Normalized data were inputted for downstream analysis using iPathwayGuide (AdvaitaBio) and gene set enrichment analysis using GenePattern and MSigDB (Broad Institute). There was no clinical difference between the patient groups with regard to clinical diagnosis, age, sex, history of hypertension, lipid abnormalities, diabetes mellitus, smoking, or statin use. The mean NLR was 4.37 ± 0.27 SEM in the NLR_High and 1.88 ± 0.16 for the NLR_Low groups. Significantly differentially expressed gene sets identified in the RNA sequence data were enriched highly (P = 1E-24) in the humoral immunity and complement systems. Neutrophils from NLR_High patients downregulated complement genes (C1QA, C1QB, C1QC, C1S, C2, CR2, C3AR1, C3, C8G, and C9 and complement regulatory genes CD59, SERPING1, C4BPA, CFH, and CFI). Downregulation of gene expressions of humoral immunity and complement within the neutrophils are associated with elevated NLR. It remains to be determined whether and how these changes contribute to increased late mortality previously observed in patients undergoing EVS.

Impact of interfacility transfer of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm patients.

OBJECTIVE: The interfacility transfer (IT) of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) occurs not infrequently to allow for a higher level of care. In the present study, we evaluated, using a contemporary administrative database, the effects of IT on mortality after rAAA repair. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida (2016-2017) was queried using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, to identify patients who had undergone open or endovascular repair of AAAs. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Qs) per overall volume. The mortality rates for IT vs nontransferred (NT) rAAA patients stratified by treatment modality (open aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rOAR] vs endovascular aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rEVAR]) were compared. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1476 patients had presented with a rAAA, of whom 673 (45.7%) were not treated. Of the remaining 803 patients, 226 (28.1%) were transferred, of whom 50 (22.1%) had died without repair after IT. The remaining 753 patients (IT, n = 176; NT, n = 576) had undergone rEVAR (n = 492) or rOAR (n = 261). The baseline characteristics were similar between the IT and NT patients, except for a greater proportion of black patients (P = .03), lower income families (P = .049), and rOAR (45.5% vs 31.4%; P = .001) for the IT patients. The overall mortality rates were similar between the NT (30.2%) and IT (27.3%) groups (P = .46). The subgroup analysis revealed that the operative mortality rates after rEVAR were similar between the NT and IT patients, without significant differences among the hospital quartiles. After rOAR, however, the operative mortality rates were lower for the IT patients, largely owing to improved outcomes in the Q4 hospitals (Q4 vs Q1-Q3, P = .001). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that age (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.06; P = .02) and treatment at a low-volume hospital (Q1-Q3; HR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.51; P = .04) were predictors of mortality. The total charges were similar (IT, $286,727; vs NT, $265,717; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have shown that <30% of rAAA patients deemed a candidate for repair will be transferred. We found that IT did not affect the mortality rates after rEVAR, irrespective of the hospital volume. For rOAR candidates, however, regionalization of care with prompt transfer to a high-volume center could improve the survival benefits without increased healthcare costs.

Physician-modified endografts are associated with a survival benefit over parallel grafting in thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Physician-modified endografts (PMEG) and parallel grafting (PG) are important techniques for endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms using off-the-shelf devices. However, there are few data regarding the relative efficacy and outcomes of these techniques in thoracoabdominal extent aneurysms. This study sought to compare the outcomes of PG and PMEG across different extents of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) for which they can be used. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair/complex endovascular aortic repair module was queried for all patients undergoing repair of an unruptured, TAAA (extents I-IV) from 2012 to 2020; aneurysm types were defined by repair extent as determined by proximal and distal seal zones. Patients were differentiated based on whether they underwent repair with a PMEG or PG. The primary outcomes for this study were overall survival and freedom from aneurysm- or procedure-related mortality at 1 year determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Cox hazard regression analysis conducted to examine the independent association of repair modality with primary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 813 patients who met the inclusion criteria (TAAA I-III, n = 362; TAAA IV, n = 451; PG, n = 426; PMEG, n = 387). PMEG repairs were performed at centers with a nearly two- to three-fold higher annual volume of endovascular TAAA repairs. Type Ia endoleaks were reduced with PMEG repair, most significantly in TAAA IV (TAAA I-III, 2.2% PMEG vs 10% PG [P = .2]; TAAA IV, 1.2% PMEG vs 21.6% PG [P < .001]). Thoracoabdominal repairs demonstrated improved survival at 1 year with PMEG devices, significant for TAAA I to III repairs (TAAA I-III, PMEG 85% vs PG 74% [P = .01]; TAAA IV, 84% PMEG vs PG 78% [P = .08]). Freedom from aneurysm- or procedure-related mortality was also improved with PMEG repairs, remaining significant at 1 year in the case of TAAA IV (TAAA I-III:, PMEG 94% vs PG 86% [P = .06]; TAAA IV, PMEG 94% vs PG 88% [P = .02]). PMEG demonstrated decreases in several measures of postoperative morbidity, including stroke, death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and postoperative complications. In the multivariate analysis, repair modality was not associated with either primary outcome; rather, several perioperative complications conveyed the greatest hazard for both primary outcomes across repair extents. CONCLUSIONS: Survival after endovascular TAAA repair is improved with the use of PMEG compared with PG. Several key factors of this study demonstrate the shortcomings of PG in complex aneurysm repair, namely, high rates of critical endoleaks, the need for adjunctive access sites, and an increase in perioperative complications that influence longer term outcomes.

Outcomes of great vessel debranching to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: With the expanding application of endovascular technology, the need to deploy into zone 0 has been encountered on occasion. In the present study, we evaluated the outcomes of great vessel debranching (GVD) as a method of extending the proximal landing zone to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all patients who had undergone GVD followed by TEVAR between May 2013 and December 2020. The primary outcome was primary patency of all targeted vessels, with all-cause perioperative mortality as a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to account for censoring of mortality and primary patency. The extent of hybrid aortic repairs was characterized into type I (GVD plus TEVAR without ascending aorta or aortic arch reconstruction, type II (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta reconstruction), and type III (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta and aortic arch reconstruction with an elephant trunk (soft [surgical] or frozen [endovascular]]). RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (23 men [54.8%]; mean age, 62.2 ± 11.2 years) had undergone GVD, with 122 vessels revascularized (42 innominate, 42 left common carotid, and 38 left subclavian arteries). The indication for TEVAR was aneurysmal degeneration from aortic dissection in 32 patients (76.2%), a thoracic aneurysm in 9 patients (21.4%), and a perforated aortic ulcer in 1 patient (2.4%). The median duration between GVD and TEVAR was 82 days. The mean follow-up period was 25.7 ± 23.5 months. Type I repair was performed in 4, type II in 16, and type III in 22 patients. The perioperative mortality, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. Neither the extent of repair (P = .80) nor a history of aortic repair (P = .90) was associated with early mortality. Of the 38 patients who had survived the perioperative period, 6 had died >30 days postoperatively. At 36 months, the survival estimate was 68.6% (95% confidence interval, 45.7%-83.4%). The overall primary patency of the innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery was 100%, 89.5%, and 94.1%, respectively. The primary-assisted patency rate was 100% for all the vessels. CONCLUSIONS: We found GVD to be a safe and effective method of extending the proximal landing zone into zone 0 with outstanding primary patency rates. Further studies are required to confirm the safety and longer term durability for these patients.

Effect of intravascular ultrasound on clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) can be complicated by inaccurate aortic measurements at the initial computed tomography angiography secondary to hypovolemic shock. The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been proposed for more accurate aortic sizing, with prior data demonstrating larger aortic sizes measured by IVUS, potentially altering the vast majority of chosen endograft sizes. At present, and to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined whether IVUS affects the clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of IVUS on the clinical outcomes after TEVAR for BTAIs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the VQI registry. The cohorts were defined by the use of IVUS. The primary outcomes were mortality and reintervention at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 919 patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs were included in the present analysis. The IVUS patients had presented with higher injury severity scores (36.2 vs 42; P = .0004) largely because of more extremity and external trauma. IVUS was more often used for patients with grade III injuries (49.1% vs 56.9%; P = .02) and less often for patients with rupture (21.1% vs 12.4%; P = .001). A trend toward a delay in TEVAR was seen for the patients for whom IVUS was used (1.8 vs 3.5 days; P = .38), with additional trends toward reduced intraoperative resuscitation and blood loss. The hemodynamic status of the patients and differences in aortic or endograft sizes could not be assessed with the available data. IVUS use was not associated with any differences in survival or reintervention rates in-hospital or at 1 year (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates: 0.91 no IVUS vs 0.92 IVUS; P = .46). Fifteen aortic-related reinterventions occurred across the entire patient cohort for all-available follow-up with comparable rates of type I endoleaks (1 no IVUS vs 2 IVUS), with no recorded cases of sizing-related complications such as device rupture, migration, or dissection. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS usage during TEVAR for BTAIs was associated with clinical scenarios in which patients were more stable and interventions to address BTAIs can be delayed. Despite this, the overall clinical outcomes were similar between cases in which IVUS was used and for which it was not.

Persistent disseminated intravascular coagulation despite correction of endoleaks after thoracoabdominal endovascular aneurysm repair.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a rare complication of endovascular aortic repair, commonly associated with type I or type III endoleaks. DIC is also known as consumption coagulopathy because excessive thrombin formation and secondary fibrinolysis leads to consumption of coagulation factors with hyperfibrinolysis and activation of platelets, which can lead to excessive bleeding. We present the case of an 80-year-old woman who had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair for a type B aortic dissection that was complicated by a series of recurrent endoleak-induced DICs requiring multiple thoracic endovascular aortic repair extensions to cover the entire thoracoabdominal aorta. The DIC persisted despite the resolution of the endoleaks.