Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Five-year outcomes of endovascular repair of complicated acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the standard of care for acute complicated type B aortic dissections, but long-term single-device outcomes are limited. METHODS: Fifty patients were treated with the Valiant Captivia thoracic stent graft (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif) for acute complicated type B aortic dissections in this prospective, nonrandomized Dissection Trial. All-cause mortality, secondary procedures, and serious adverse events were assessed, and a core lab evaluated images for aortic remodeling. RESULTS: Compliance for both clinical and imaging follow-up was 78% (18 out of 23) for the available patients at 5 years. Notable baseline characteristics were 86% of patients (43 out of 50) had malperfusion, 20% (10 out of 50) had ruptures, and 94% (46 out of 49) had DeBakey class IIIB dissections. The 5-year freedom from dissection-related mortality, secondary procedures related to the dissection, and endoleaks was 83%, 86%, and 85%, respectively. After 5 years, 89% of patients (16 out of 18) had a completely thrombosed false lumen in the stented segment of the aorta and the true lumen diameter over the length of stent graft was stable or increased for 94% of patients (16 out of 17) while the false lumen diameter was stable or decreased in 77% (13 out of 17) after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: In the Dissection Trial, patients experienced positive and sustained measures of aortic remodeling. Survival outcomes, need for secondary procedures, and adverse event rates were consistent with previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair studies. Although limitations exist with the follow-up compliance, the Valiant Captivia thoracic stent graft system was effective in the long-term management of acute complicated type B aortic dissections in this patient population with a challenging condition.

Five-Year Outcomes From the United States Pivotal Trial of Valiant Captivia Stent Graft for Blunt Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical PeRformancE of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft with Capitvia Delivery System for the EndovaSCUlar treatment of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries (RESCUE) study evaluating thoracic endovascular repair using the Valiant Captivia endograft for blunt thoracic aortic injury reported promising 30-day outcomes. We now describe 5 years of follow-up of this cohort. METHODS: Fifty patients (mean age 40.7 ± 17.4 years, 76% male, mean injury severity score 38 ± 14.4) were treated for blunt thoracic aortic injury (2010 to 2012) with this endograft. Seventy percent (n = 35) of blunt thoracic aortic injury extent was grade III or higher. Extent of arch repair required full (40%) or partial (18%) left subclavian artery coverage. At 5 years, clinical and imaging compliance was 90.3% (28 of 31) and 67.7% (21 of 31), respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 8%. Three additional patients died of non-device-related causes (respiratory failure, infection, metastatic cancer) through 5-year follow-up, yielding a Kaplan-Meier survival of 85.2% through 5 years. Neither stroke nor spinal cord ischemia was observed at 5 years. Two type II endoleaks seen at 30 days resolved spontaneously, and no additional endoleaks were described in the study cohort through 5 years. No secondary endovascular procedures or conversion to open surgery were reported through 5 years. Four subjects underwent left subclavian revascularization for symptomatic indications. Finally, complete exclusion of the traumatic injury was maintained with no incidences of stent graft kinking, fracture, loss of patency, or migration through 5 years in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter clinical trial describes excellent 5-year outcomes and durable exclusion of blunt thoracic aortic injury using a novel stent graft system. Thoracic endovascular repair with this endograft appears to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters Study: Design of a unique safety and effectiveness study of inferior vena cava filters in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Death from venous thromboembolism remains a significant cause of death worldwide. Although anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use has increased exponentially over the last decade driven predominantly by the prophylactic use in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism despite limited evidence supporting this practice. The Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE) Study is being implemented by the Society for Vascular Surgery, Society of Interventional Radiology, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and several IVC filter manufactures to better understand the safety, effectiveness, and current patterns of real-world use of IVC filters. METHODS: The PRESERVE Study includes IVC filters from seven manufacturers: ALN (ALN ± hook), Argon (Option Elite), B. Braun (LP, Vena Tech Convertible), CR Bard (Denali), Cook (Gunther Tulip), Cordis (OptEase, TrapEase), and Philips Volcano (Crux). The indications for filter placement, filter brand, complications, stability, frequency and success of retrieval, and clinical effectiveness of each filter will be recorded. Approximately 2100 patients (300 for each filter brand included in the study) are intended to be enrolled at 60 U.S. centers. RESULTS: Men and women age 18 years or older requiring IVC filters for prevention of venous thromboembolism will be included in the study if no contrast allergy is present and they are willing to commit to the prescribed study follow-up. Participants will be evaluated at discharge, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after filter placement and/or 1 month after retrieval, which ever occurs first. Intravascular ultrasound examination or venography will be done before and after IVC filter placement, with abdominal plain film at 3 months, and contrast enhanced computed tomography scans at 12 and 24 months to evaluate filter stability. The primary safety end point is a composite of clinical end points, including freedom from perforation, embolization, thrombosis, recurrent DVT, and defined serious adverse events. Secondary end points include mechanical stability and procedure related complications at 3 months, major adverse events at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and filter tilt of more than 15° at any point. CONCLUSIONS: The PRESERVE Study represents the largest prospective study ever undertaken to investigate real-world outcomes with contemporary use of IVC filters. The investigators await results with the hope that it can improve patient care.

In Vivo Assessment of Ascending and Arch Aortic Compliance.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic compliance (Cd) of the adult thoracic ascending and arch aorta has had limited in vivo evaluation in patients with aortic disease. This study evaluates aortic compliance using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) across a range of thoracic aortic diseases. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients undergoing thoracic aortic endovascular procedures had Cd measurements of the ascending aorta proximal to the origin of the brachiocephalic trunk and distal to the origin of the left common carotid artery using IVUS before endograft deployment. Cd was calculated for each segment using the following equation, Cd = ΔD/(D • ΔP) where ΔD = change in aortic diameter, D = diameter in diastole, and ΔP = pulse pressure. RESULTS: Mean Cd of the ascending aorta in all patients (18.4%/mm Hg) and aortic arch (16.5 %/100 mm Hg) did not differ significantly. Compliance was significantly lower in patients being treated for thoracic aortic aneurysm and penetrating ulcer than in patients with traumatic rupture, acute and chronic dissection (P = 0.009). Compliance was significantly higher in patients with aortic transection compared with thoracic aneurysm or penetrating ulcer (P = 0.001). Compliance decreased with age by 0.44 ± 0.06 (P = 0.001) per year in the ascending aorta and 0.41 ± 0.05 (P = 0.001) per year in the aortic arch. Compliance did not increase with diameter when adjusted for age (P = 0.65). Compliance measured in the ascending aorta in 7 patients after descending thoracic aortic endograft repair decreased to 12.6%/100 mm Hg, although not significant (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Ascending and aortic arch compliance is significantly higher than reported for peripheral vessels. Thoracic aortic compliance decreases with age and is not related to aortic diameter. The results of the present study are important when considering the development of endoprosthesis devices and long-term effects on the thoracic aorta.

Thirty-day outcomes from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment. METHODS: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients.

Feasibility of endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies as part of an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of ascending aortic lesions has been reported, but to date, no FDA-approved studies have been conducted to define feasibility and the use of endografts in this particular location or to analyze the critical factors involved. METHODS: Patients were consented for entry into an FDA-approved physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to investigate the outcome of those with ascending aortic pathologies. These patients were suitable according to the instructions for use for endovascular repair with a Valiant Captivia (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) thoracic stent graft, a device designed specifically for deployment in the ascending aorta. All patients had sequential gated-cardiac computed tomography scans, with data being entered into the VQI Complex TEVAR software (West Lebanon, NH). All procedures were performed in a hybrid room, with the capability to convert to an open repair to ensure maximal patient protection. The first five patients constituted the feasibility study, with continued enrollment based on initial results and submission of an annual report to the FDA. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were screened, and six patients were entered into the physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study. Although there was no early mortality, there was one late death. All patients had sequential computed tomographies and cardiac echocardiograms with no evidence of migration, one type 1a endoleak, one postoperative stroke, and regression of the aortic lesions in the excluded aortic segment. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, the preliminary evaluation of endovascular treatment for ascending aortic pathologies demonstrates uniform accuracy of deployment and secure fixation up to 17.5 months of follow-up. There is positive remodeling of the excluded aortic segments similar to surveillance studies involving the descending aorta.

Comparison of Neurocognitive Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting.

Cognitive and emotional outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting with embolic protection device (CAS + EPD) are not clear. Patients were entered prospectively into a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved single-center physician-sponsored investigational device exemption between 2004 and 2010 and received either CEA or CAS + EPD. Patients underwent cognitive testing preprocedure and at 6, 12, and 60 months postprocedure. Cognitive domains assessed included attention, memory, executive, motor function, visual spatial functioning, language, and processing speed. Beck Depression and anxiety scales were also compared. There were a total of 38 patients that met conventional indications for carotid surgery (symptomatic with ≥50% stenosis or asymptomatic with ≥70% stenosis)-12 patients underwent CEA, whereas 26 patients underwent CAS + EPD. Both CEA and CAS + EPD patients showed postprocedure improvement in memory and executive function. No differences were seen at follow-up in regards to emotional dysfunction (depression and anxiety), attention, visual spatial functioning, language, motor function, and processing speed. Only two patients underwent neuropsychiatric testing at 60 months-these CAS + EPD patients showed sustained improvement in memory, visual spatial, and executive functions. In conclusion, cognitive and emotional outcomes were similar between CEA and CAS + EPD patients.

Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy in "normal-risk" patients from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Acceptable complication rates after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are drawn from decades-old data. The recent Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated improved stroke and mortality outcomes after CEA compared with carotid artery stenting, with 30-day periprocedural CEA stroke rates of 3.2% and 1.4% for symptomatic (SX) and asymptomatic (ASX) patients, respectively. It is unclear whether these target rates can be attained in "normal-risk" (NR) patients experienced outside of the trial. This study was done to determine the contemporary results of CEA from a broader selection of NR patients. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Registry was examined to determine in-hospital and 30-day event rates for NR, SX, and ASX patients undergoing CEA. NR was defined as patients without anatomic or physiologic risk factors as defined by SVS Carotid Practice Guidelines. Raw data and risk-adjusted rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were compared between the ASX and SX cohorts. RESULTS: There were 3977 patients (1456 SX, 2521 ASX) available for comparison. The SX group consisted of more men (61.7% vs 57.0%; P = .0045) but reflected a lower proportion of white patients (91.3% vs 94.4%; P = .0002), with lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (P < .0001), prior MI (P < .0001), peripheral vascular disease (P = .0017), and hypertension (P = .029), although New York Heart Association grade >3 congestive heart failure was equally present in both groups (P = .30). Baseline stenosis >80% on duplex imaging was less prevalent among SX patients (54.2% vs 67.8%; P < .0001). Perioperative stroke rates were higher for SX patients in the hospital (2.8% vs 0.8%; P < .0001) and at 30 days (3.4% vs 1.0%; P < .0001), which contributed to the higher composite death, stroke, and MI rates in the hospital (3.6% vs 1.8; P = .0003) and at 30 days (4.5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001) observed in SX patients. After risk adjustment, the rate of stroke/death was greater among SX patients in the hospital (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.58) although not at 30 days (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-2.17). No in-hospital or 30-day differences were observed for death or MI by symptom status. CONCLUSIONS: The SVS Vascular Registry results for CEA in NR patients are similar by symptom status to those reported for CREST and may serve as a benchmark for comparing results of alternative therapies for treatment of carotid stenosis in NR patients outside of monitored clinical trials. The contemporary perioperative risk of stroke after CEA in NR patients continues to be higher for SX than for ASX patients.

Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Acute Type B Aortic Dissection: Results From the Valiant United States Investigational Device Exemption Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute type B aortic dissection complicated by malperfusion or rupture carries a risk of death. We report 30-day and 12-month results of endovascular treatment with the Valiant Captivia Thoracic Stent Graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) in patients with acute, complicated type B aortic dissection. METHODS: The Medtronic DISSECTION Trial is a prospective, nonrandomized, United States Food and Drug Administration-regulated, pivotal trial that enrolled patients at 16 United States sites between June 2010 and May 2012. Follow-up examinations were at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually through 5 years. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled. Mean age was 57 years (range, 18 to 83 years). Rupture was present in 20% and malperfusion in 86%. Mean time from symptom onset to procedure was 4.7 days (range, 0 to 23 days). Successful deployment and coverage of the primary entry tear was achieved in all patients. Two patients (4%) underwent open repair 5 and 56 days postprocedure for retrograde aortic dissections. Thirty-day mortality was 8% (4 of 50) and 12-month mortality was 15% (7 of 48). Spinal ischemia was 6%. Serious adverse events occurred in 23 of 49 patients within 12 months. Four patients underwent secondary endovascular procedures. Through 12 months, true lumen diameter in the stented region remained stable or increased in 93.1% (27 of 29) of patients. False lumen diameter remained stable or decreased in 22 patients and was partially or completely thrombosed in 91% (30 of 33). CONCLUSIONS: The initial results of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft in the treatment of acute type B aortic dissection are encouraging, but longer-term outcomes are needed.

The influence of contralateral occlusion on results of carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Data on the influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are conflicting and are absent for carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study evaluated the influence of CCO on CEA and CAS. METHODS: We evaluated patients with and without CCO in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry. Primary outcome was a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and its individual components. Further analysis was done to identify the influence, if any, of symptom status on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 1128 CAS and 666 CEA patients with CCO. CAS patients were more often symptomatic with a greater incidence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and New York Heart Association class >III. Absolute risk of periprocedural MACE (2.7% for CAS vs. 4.2% for CEA), death (1.1% for CAS vs. 0.7% for CEA), stroke (2.1% for CAS vs. 3.1% for CEA), and MI (0.3% for CAS vs. 0.6% for CEA) was statistically equivalent for both. This equivalence was maintained when patients with CCO were segregated according to symptom status and after adjusting for periprocedural risk. There were 16,646 patients without contralateral occlusion (5698 CAS; 10,948 CEA). Patients without contralateral occlusion with CEA have better outcomes in periprocedural MACE (1.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 4.2% for patients with CCO), and stroke (1.1% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 3.1% for patients with CCO) (P < .0001 for both). In CAS patients, CCO did not significantly affect periprocedural MACE (3.2% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.7% for patients with CCO), death (0.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 1.0% for patients with CCO), stroke (2.3% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.1% for patients with CCO), or MI (0.6% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 0.3% for patients with CCO). In CEA patients, CCO increased MACE, primarily by increasing stroke rates in asymptomatic (0.7% vs. 2.0%; P = .0095) and symptomatic (1.7% vs. 4.9%; P = .0012) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA is preferred in patients without contralateral occlusion, regardless of symptom status, based on lower rates of periprocedural MACE, death, and stroke, the benefit of CEA is lost in patients with CCO because of increased stroke rates in CCO patients after CEA but not after CAS regardless of symptom status. The results of CAS and CEA in patients with CCO are equivalent and within acceptable American Heart Association guidelines.

Gender-specific 30-day outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.

Pathogenesis and management of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde type A aortic dissection is a feared complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The aim of this study was to review the incidence, etiology, and management of this life-threatening complication. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the literature in the last 10 years was performed. Data on retrograde type A aortic dissection from this literature search, along with authors' personal experience, provided the basis for this review. RESULTS: The incidence of retrograde type A aortic dissection ranges from 1.3% to 6.8%. In is most commonly associated with endografting of acute or chronic aortic dissection. Up to one third of patients will have this complication 3 months or later after the index procedure. Open surgical repair remains the "gold standard" for retrograde type A aortic dissection, although medical and endovascular approaches may be utilized in selected patients with prohibitive operative risk. Mortality remains high ranging from 20% to 57%. Potential etiologies of retrograde type A aortic dissection include aortic injury from catheter and wire or stent graft manipulation, poor perioperative antihypertensive control, inappropriate patient and device selection, aggressive balloon dilation, and stent graft oversizing. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde type A aortic dissection remains a deadly complication of thoracic aortic endografting. The high incidence of delayed type A aortic dissection underscores the importance of imaging follow-up in patients undergoing a thoracic endograft procedure.

The impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk criteria on outcome after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the SVS Vascular Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require high-risk (HR) criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS) reimbursement. The impact of these criteria on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS remains uncertain. Additionally, if these HR criteria are associated with more adverse events after CAS, then existing comparative effectiveness analysis of CEA vs CAS may be biased. We sought to elucidate this using data from the SVS Vascular Registry. METHODS: We analyzed 10,107 patients undergoing CEA (6370) and CAS (3737), stratified by CMS HR criteria. The primary endpoint was composite death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]) at 30 days. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes using univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: CAS patients were more likely to have preoperative stroke (26% vs 21%) or transient ischemic attack (23% vs 19%) than CEA. Although age ≥ 80 years was similar, CAS patients were more likely to have all other HR criteria. For CEA, HR patients had higher MACEs than normal risk in both symptomatic (7.3% vs 4.6%; P < .01) and asymptomatic patients (5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001). For CAS, HR status was not associated with a significant increase in MACE for symptomatic (9.1% vs 6.2%; P = .24) or asymptomatic patients (5.4% vs 4.2%; P = .61). All CAS patients had MACE rates similar to HR CEA. After multivariable risk adjustment, CAS had higher rates than CEA for MACE (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5), death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), and stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI,1.0-1.7), whereas there was no difference in MI (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). Among CEA patients, age ≥ 80 (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.02-1.8), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.03-2.8), EF <30% (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7), angina (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9), contralateral occlusion (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.1-4.7), and high anatomic lesion (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.33-5.6) predicted MACE. Among CAS patients, recent MI (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-7.0) was predictive, and radiation (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and restenosis (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96) were protective for MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Although CMS HR criteria can successfully discriminate a group of patients at HR for adverse events after CEA, certain CMS HR criteria are more important than others. However, CEA appears safer for the majority of patients with carotid disease. Among patients undergoing CAS, non-HR status may be limited to restenosis and radiation.

Intravascular ultrasound.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has an interesting history that parallels that of many of the advancements that have led to the endovascular era. The use of IVUS in conjunction with standard cross-sectional imaging and three-dimensional reconstructions offers a powerful tool in both the diagnosis and treatment of complex vascular pathology. The use of IVUS has increased over the years and is currently in the process of being incorporated into several modalities that will offer more in the way of real-time information in both the aortic arena and the treatment of increasingly complex peripheral vascular disease. Currently, we use IVUS as a powerful adjunct in combination with other modalities to increase our understanding of vessel architecture and assist in the management of complex vascular pathology.