Trauma bypass performed by vascular surgeons demonstrate excellent long-term outcomes and limb preservation.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes in civilian trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization is poorly studied secondary to limitations of certain large databases and the nature of the patients in this specific vascular subset. This study reports on the experience and outcomes of a Level 1 trauma center that serves both an urban and a large rural population over a 20-year period to identify bypass outcomes and surveillance protocols. METHODS: Database of a single vascular group at an academic center was queried for trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2022. Patient demographics, indications, operative details, operative mortality, 30-day nonoperative morbidity, revisions, subsequent major amputations, and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 223 revascularizations were performed, 161 (72%) lower and 62 (28%) upper extremities. One hundred sixty-seven patients (74.9%) were male, with a mean age of 39 years (range, 3-89 years). Comorbidities included hypertension (n = 34; 15.3%), diabetes (n = 6; 2.7%), and tobacco use (n = 40; 17.9%). Mean follow-up time was 23 months (range, 1-234 months), with 90 patients (40.4%) lost to follow-up. Mechanisms included blunt trauma (n = 106; 47.5%), penetrating trauma (n = 83; 37.2%), and operative trauma (n = 34; 15.3%). Bypass conduit was reversed vein (n= 171; 76.7%), prosthetic (n = 34; 15.2%), and orthograde vein (n = 11; 4.9%). Bypass inflow artery was superficial femoral (n = 66; 41.0%), above-knee popliteal (n = 28; 17.4%), and common femoral (n = 20; 12.4%) in the lower extremity, and brachial (n = 41; 66.1%), axillary (n = 10; 16.1%), and radial (n = 6; 9.7%) in the upper extremity. Lower extremity outflow artery was posterior tibial (n = 47; 29.2%), below-knee popliteal (n = 41; 25.5%), superficial femoral (n = 16; 9.9%), dorsalis pedis (n = 10; 6.2%), common femoral (n = 9; 5.6%), and above-knee popliteal (n = 10; 6.2%). Upper extremity outflow artery was brachial (n = 34; 54.8%), radial (n = 13; 21.0%), and ulnar (n = 13; 21.0%). Total operative mortality was nine patients (4.0%), all involving lower extremity revascularization. Thirty-day non-fatal complications included immediate bypass occlusion (n = 11; 4.9%), wound infection (n = 8; 3.6%), graft infection (n = 4; 1.8%), and lymphocele/seroma (n = 7; 3.1%). All major amputations (n = 13; 5.8%) were early and in the lower extremity bypass group. Late revisions in the lower and upper extremity groups were 14 (8.7%) and four (6.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization for extremity trauma can be performed with excellent limb salvage rates and has demonstrated long-term durability with low limb loss and bypass revision rates. The poor compliance with long-term surveillance is concerning and may require adjustment in patient retention protocols; however, emergent returns for bypass failure are extremely low in our experience.

Outcomes for carotid endarterectomy in nonagenarians.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established procedure with prospective randomized data demonstrating the benefit of stroke prevention. With the aging of the population, there are limited data published for nonagenarians, especially for asymptomatic stenosis. This study investigated 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as late survival in symptomatic and asymptomatic nonagenarians with severe carotid stenosis undergoing CEA. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of a single vascular surgery group's registry involving multiple hospitals between November 1994 and June 2017 for all primary CEAs of patients ≥90 years old at the time of surgery. The exclusion criterion was redo surgery or bilateral CEAs. Demographic data, sex, symptoms, risk factors, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Survival analysis was conducted using SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for the specific end point 30-day morbidity or mortality and late survival. RESULTS: There were 77 patients (44 male [57%]) who underwent CEA for symptomatic (44 [57%]) and asymptomatic (33 [43%]) internal carotid artery stenosis with a median age of 92 years; 23 women were symptomatic compared with 21 men, and 23 men were asymptomatic compared with 10 women. Symptomatic patients included amaurosis fugax (n = 3), stroke (n = 16), and transient ischemic attack (n = 25). CEAs were performed using the eversion technique under cervical block with selective shunting. The 30-day morbidity included one (2.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarction and one (2.3%) ischemic stroke in the symptomatic group compared with one (3%) patient having a nonfatal myocardial infarction and none with ischemic stroke in the asymptomatic group. One patient of the symptomatic group required return to the operating room for hematoma evacuation. The 30-day mortality was 2.3% in the symptomatic group compared with 6.1% in the asymptomatic group. There was no statistical difference in survival based on sex (P = .444). The symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had similar median survival of 27.7 months and 29.4 months (P = .987), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The aging population adds increasing difficulty in decision-making for surgical intervention on carotid stenosis. CEA in nonagenarians is associated with reasonably low 30-day rates of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in our small study. However, enthusiasm for asymptomatic CEA in this population must be tempered by low survival rates.

Effects of endovascular first strategy on spliced vein bypass outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive endovascular interventions for patients without adequate full-length venous conduit have gained popularity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of spliced vein bypass (SVB) as primary treatment versus treatment after failed endovascular intervention (endovascular SVB [ESVB]) for infrainguinal revascularization. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a single vascular group's database of all SVBs was queried for demographics, indications, intraoperative details, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria included acute ischemia, aneurysm, dual outflow, bypass revisions, and patients lost to immediate follow-up. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five infrainguinal SVBs were performed between January 2011 and March 2017. There were 182 SVB (77%) and 53 ESVB (23%) with a mean follow-up of 488 days (range, 1-2140). Demographics between the SVB and ESVB groups were similar in all categories recorded: diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease (P = .29). Indications for bypass were not statistically significant between SVB and ESVB (P = .48). The study included Rutherford class 3 (14 vs 2), class 4 (51 vs 20), class 5 (67 vs 18), and class 6 (50 vs 13). Inflow was grouped into iliac (2.6%), femoral (88%), and popliteal (9.8%). Outflow arteries were grouped into below knee popliteal (14.9%) and infrapopliteal (85.1%). Inflow and outflow arteries, as well as number of spliced pieces per bypass were not different between groups. Major amputation rates were not different between SVB and ESVB for the entire study period. There was no statistical difference with patency outcomes based on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive endovascular first strategy for treatment of patients without adequate autogenous conduit seems to offer benefit without negatively affecting future bypass options. SVB patency and major amputation rates in this series were not affected by a prior endovascular treatment.

Long-term patency of venous and prosthetic conduits for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass has been used successfully to treat aneurysms, infection, tumor, and occlusive disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of autogenous and prosthetic conduits used for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-institution registry was performed to identify patients with ipsilateral carotid artery bypass. Demographics, complications, and patency were recorded and compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, and log-rank analysis. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2016, 105 patients underwent ipsilateral carotid artery bypass (86 prosthetic, 19 veins). The venous bypass group and prosthetic bypass group were different in terms of gender (8 males and 11 females vs 58 males and 28 females; P = .038), but similar in age (mean in the venous bypass group, 63 years [range, 18-80 years] vs mean in the prosthetic bypass group 68 years [range, 33-88 years], P = .052). The mean follow-up was 53 months (range, 1 month to 15 years). Diabetes, pulmonary disease, hypercholesterolemia, and tobacco use were not statistically different between the groups. Indications were different between the groups, with a prosthetic bypass being used more often for occlusive disease and a venous bypass used more often for infection, aneurysm, trauma, and tumor (Fisher's exact test, P = .004). Perioperative complications were few and similar between groups (restenosis, immediate occlusion, and neurologic morbidity). Patency rates, as determined by duplex ultrasound examination, were similar at 1 year (100% venous bypass group vs 99% prosthetic bypass group; P = .434). The 10-year follow-up with an estimated patency based on extrapolated survival curves to be 84% for the venous bypass group vs 88% for the prosthetic bypass group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass performed for a variety of indications using prosthetic and venous conduits have demonstrated excellent short-term results. Both types of conduits in this series have trended toward continued durability over long-term follow-up.

Percutaneous axillary artery access for endovascular interventions.

BACKGROUND: As endovascular therapy becomes increasingly complex, adjunct techniques such as upper extremity arterial access facilitate visceral branch interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the viability of axillary artery percutaneous access in endovascular repair. METHODS: Records of all patients undergoing axillary artery percutaneous access as part of an endovascular intervention from December 2015 to December 2016 were examined. Demographics of the patients (age, sex, medical comorbidities, smoking status, and anticoagulation) were documented. Each case was examined for technical success and perioperative complications, including hematoma, brachial plexus injury, and return to the operating room. Early functional outcomes were assessed using clinic follow-up documentation. RESULTS: During the study interval, 25 axillary artery punctures in a total of 19 patients were performed for endovascular intervention. The mean age was 72 years; most patients were male (68%), and the cohort had a typical vascular comorbidity profile (hypertension in 84%, hyperlipidemia in 90%, diabetes in 21%, coronary artery disease in 58%, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 47%; 90% were active or former smokers). Axillary access was obtained as part of complex endovascular aneurysm repair in 13 patients, mesenteric vessel intervention in 3 patients, and iliac intervention in 3 patients. Sheath size was most frequently 6F (6 punctures) or 7F (15 punctures). Closure devices included Perclose (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) in 36% and Angio-Seal (Terumo Interventional Systems, Somerset, NJ) in 64%. There were two perioperative deaths and one instance of return to the operating room for hematoma. There was no perioperative stroke, axillary occlusion, or severe brachial plexus injury. One patient had transient ipsilateral postoperative thumb numbness, and one patient had residual bleeding after closure requiring manual pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous axillary artery access is a viable strategy to facilitate complex endovascular interventions. This technique avoids the need for brachial or axillary artery exposure and allows larger sheath sizes because of the caliber of the axillary artery. There were no major neurologic or ischemic complications. This technique is a relatively safe and practical alternative to approaches involving exclusively femoral and brachial access.

Carotid interventions (CEA and CAS) in acute stroke patients: which procedure on which patient.

Treatment of carotid bifurcation disease in patients presenting with acute stroke has been a controversial issue over the past four decades. Classically, patients were asked to wait four to six weeks before intervention was entertained in order for the brain to stabilize and the risks of intervention to be minimized. Unfortunately, up to 20% of patients will have a secondary event after their index event and the window of opportunity to save potentially salvageable ischemic tissue will be missed. Early reports had demonstrated poor results with intervention. However, more recently, institutions such as ours have demonstrated excellent results with early intervention in patients who present with stable mild to moderate stroke with an NIH stroke scale less than 15 and preferably less than 10, present with stroke and ipsilateral carotid artery lesion of 50% or greater. Also more recently, we have been aggressively treating patients with larger ulcerative plaques even if the stenosis approaches 50%. In our and others experiences, patients who are treated at institutions that have comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) where they have a multidisciplinary system that consists of vascular surgeons, neuro interventionalists, stroke neurologists, specifically trained stroke nursing staff and a neuro intensive ICU have had optimal results. Early assessment, diagnosis of stroke with recognition of cause of embolization is mandatory but patient selection is extremely important; finding those patients who will benefit the most from urgent intervention. Most studies have demonstrated the benefit of carotid endarterectomy in these patients. More recent studies have demonstrated acceptable results with carotid stenting, especially in smaller lesions, those less than 1.2 centimeters. Early intervention should be avoided in most patients who are obtunded or with an NIH stroke scale greater than 15 or who do not have any "brain at risk" to salvage. These patients may be better served by being treated medically and the small group of patients that do have some improvement may benefit from interval intervention.

Strategies to improve spinal cord ischemia in endovascular thoracic aortic repair: Outcomes of a prospective cerebrospinal fluid drainage protocol.

PURPOSE: Although endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm has been shown to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates, spinal cord ischemia remains a persistent problem. We evaluated our experience with spinal cord protective measures using a standardized cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage protocol in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic repair. METHODS: From 2004 to 2006, 121 patients underwent elective (n = 52, 43%) and emergent (n = 69, 57%) endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n = 94, 78%), symptomatic penetrating ulceration (n = 11, 9%), pseudoaneurysms (n = 5, 4%) and traumatic aortic transactions (n = 11, 9%). In 2005, routine use of a CSF drainage protocol was established to minimize the risks of spinal cord ischemia. The CSF was actively drained to maintain pressures <15 mm Hg and the mean arterial blood pressures were maintained at >/=90 mm Hg. Data was prospectively collected in our vascular registry for elective and emergent endovascular thoracic aortic repair and the patients were divided into 2 groups (+CSF drainage protocol, -CSF drainage protocol). A chi(2) statistical analysis was performed and significance was assumed for P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients with thoracic stent graft placement, the mean age was 72 years, 62 (51%) were male, and 56 (46%) underwent preoperative placement of a CSF drain, while 65 (54%) did not. Both groups had similar comorbidities of coronary artery disease (24 [43%] vs 27 [41%]), hypertension (44 [79%] vs 50 [77%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18 [32%] vs 22 [34%]), and chronic renal insufficiency (10 [17%] vs 12 [18%]). None of the patients with CSF drainage developed spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and 5 (8%) of the patients without CSF drainage developed SCI within 24 hours of endovascular repair (P< .05). All patients with clinical symptoms of SCI had CSF drain placement and augmentation of systemic blood pressures to >/=90 mm Hg, and 60% (3 of 5 patients) demonstrated marked clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: Perioperative CSF drainage with augmentation of systemic blood pressures may have a beneficial role in reducing the risk of paraplegia in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement. However, selective CSF drainage may offer the same benefit as mandatory drainage.