Surgical management for retained distal embolic protection device and fractured guidewire after carotid artery stenting.

Entrapment and fracture of carotid angioplasty and stenting hardware is a rare complication of percutaneous stenting procedures. We describe a case of a retained distal filter embolic protection device and guidewire in a 57-year-old male in Beijing, China. After unsuccessful attempts at removal via interventional methods, a second stent was deployed to secure the original hardware in situ, and the patient was discharged. He later experienced guidewire fragmentation in the carotid artery and aortic arch, with subsequent thrombus formation. We report partial removal of the guidewire and stent via carotid artery cutdown and open thoracotomy without complication. When efforts to retrieve stenting hardware are unsuccessful, it is never a suitable choice to leave them within the artery. We advocate for early surgical management of retained materials after unsuccessful carotid artery stenting. Furthermore, improved quality monitoring and assurance programs are needed to prevent such complications in the future.

Best-practice algorithms for the use of a bilayered living cell therapy (Apligraf) in the treatment of lower-extremity ulcers.

Tissue-engineered skin substitutes such as Apligraf have emerged over the past 20 years as among the most carefully studied and efficacious of the advanced wound modalities. These products have been proven as effective enhancements to general wound care, promoting wound closure particularly in instances where conventional wound care fails. Marketed for hard-to-heal wounds since 1998, Apligraf has become part of standard wound care in many wound centers across the United States. Despite this situation, few general wound care guidelines incorporate advanced and active wound-healing technologies, such as tissue-engineered skin products. Because of this deficiency, appropriate patient selection and proper use of these product remain largely unaddressed within the general wound care community. Here, we describe the development of guidelines surrounding optimal use of the bilayered living cell therapy, Apligraf, in the treatment of the two types of lower extremity ulcers for which the product is FDA approved: venous leg ulcer and diabetic foot ulcer. The guidelines detailed in this article focus on the identification and selection of patients who are at risk for failure of standard wound care therapy and thus appropriate for Apligraf treatment. The intended audience for these guidelines is the general wound care practitioner, for whom the developed treatment algorithms and accompanying figure legends should provide practical, user-friendly direction simplifying both patient selection and appropriate use of Apligraf within the context of good wound-healing practice.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with challenging anatomy: utility of the hybrid endograft.

Commercially available aortic stent grafts differ in construction and clinical advantage such that creating hybrid endografts by combining components from different manufacturers is sometimes useful. We describe a multicenter experience using hybrid endografts to treat patients with challenging anatomy. Hospital records and office charts were reviewed from four institutions. Hybrid endografts were defined as those with two types of covered stents in continuity to treat an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Indications for hybrid grafts were defined by type of endoleak and whether an endoleak was expected or unexpected as determined by the preoperative radiographic evaluation. Endpoints include intraoperative endoleaks, late endoleaks, change in aneurysm size, and rupture. Hybrid endografts were used to treat AAA (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in 90 patients, representing 7.9% of the total multicenter experience. In 7 patients (7.8%), a hybrid graft construction as a secondary procedure successfully corrected a type 1 endoleak. In the remaining 83 patients (92.2%), hybrid grafts were created at the time of original EVAR to treat expected challenging anatomy or unexpected endoleaks. Hybrid endografts corrected 88 (97.8%) type 1 endoleaks, but 2 patients (2.2%) persisted with a proximal type 1 leak requiring conversion. During follow-up of 1 to 24 months, computed tomography and ultrasound surveillance, available for 73 patients (81.1%), detected one unresolved distal type 1 (1.1%) and seven type 2 (7.8%) endoleaks. Aneurysm size decreased at least 0.5 cm in 23 of 50 patients (46.0%) at 6 months and in 19 of 31 patients (61.3%) at 12 months. Aneurysm size increased at least 0.5 cm in 4 of 50 patients (8.0%) at 6 months and in 1 of 31 patients (3.2%) at 12 months. There were no ruptures. Hybrid endografts have favorable early and intermediate results in the treatment of AAA. Long-term follow-up will be needed to confirm the absence of significant adverse biomaterial interaction and the effect on AAA exclusion. We advocate the use of hybrid endografts as endovascular therapy for patients whose anatomy may be unsuitable for a single endograft type.

Early results of lower extremity infrageniculate revascularization with a new polytetrafluoroethylene graft.

When an autologous vein is not available for lower extremity revascularization, prosthetic grafts are often required. However, prosthetic bypass grafts have limited patency for infrageniculate reconstruction. To potentially improve patency, a new geometric modification of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft, Distaflo (Impra, Tempe, AZ), has been developed for lower extremity bypass. We reviewed our early experience with the Distaflo graft in patients who required infrageniculate bypass for lower extremity ischemia when no suitable autologous saphenous vein was available. All patients were maintained on warfarin anticoagulation postoperatively. All grafts were followed at 6- to 12-week intervals with duplex ultrasound evaluation. Patient characteristics, operative procedures, and graft surveillance information were maintained on a computerized registry. Thirty-two patients with limb-threatening ischemia underwent 35 infrageniculate reconstructions with a Distaflo graft between February 26, 1999, and August 24, 2000. Thirty-two of 35 bypasses were performed on extremities that had previously undergone a surgical procedure. Forty-eight previous revascularization procedures were done on these 25 extremities. Thirty grafts were constructed to the tibial outflow sites, whereas the remaining five grafts were placed to the below-knee popliteal artery. One patient died on the second postoperative day secondary to unrelated causes, and only one graft (3%) failed during the same hospitalization. Fifteen of 35 grafts (43%) remained patent 1 to 30 months later. Four patent grafts (6%) were ligated between 2 and 14 months for infectious indications. When considering the 20 failed grafts, 9 patients underwent major amputation, 5 patients remain with chronically ischemic limbs, and 6 patients underwent additional bypass grafts. Twenty-three patients (72%) maintained limb salvage. The Distaflo PTFE graft achieves promising early patency for complex infrageniculate revascularization and may be used as an alternative conduit in patients with critical limb ischemia who do not have an adequate vein for lower extremity revascularization.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms in "high-risk" surgical patients: comparison of open and endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early results of endovascular grafting for high-risk surgical candidates in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since the approval of endoluminal grafts for treatment of AAA, endovascular repair of AAA (EVAR) has expanded to include patients originally considered too ill for open AAA repair. However, some concern has been expressed regarding technical failure and the durability of endovascular grafts. METHODS: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Computerized Vascular Registry identified all patients who underwent abdominal aneurysm repair between January 1, 2000, and June 12, 2002. Patients were stratified by type of repair (open AAA vs. EVAR) and were classified as low risk or high risk. Patients with at least one of the following classifications were classified as high risk: age more than 80 years, chronic renal failure (creatinine > 2.0), compromised cardiac function (diminished ventricular function or severe coronary artery disease), poor pulmonary function, reoperative aortic procedure, a "hostile" abdomen, or an emergency operation. Death, systemic complications, and length of stay were tabulated for each group. RESULTS: During this 28-month period, 404 patients underwent AAA repair at UAB. Eighteen patients (4.5%) died within 30 days of their repair or during the same hospitalization. Two hundred seventeen patients (53%) were classified as high risk. Two hundred fifty-nine patients (64%) underwent EVAR repair, and 130 (50%) of these were considered high-risk patients (including four emergency procedures). One hundred forty-five patients (36%) underwent open AAA repair, including 15 emergency operations. All deaths occurred in the high-risk group: 12 (8.3%) died after open AAA repair and 6 (2.3%) died after EVAR repair. Postoperative length of stay was shorter for EVAR repair compared to open AAA. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk and low-risk patients can undergo EVAR repair with a lower rate of short-term systemic complications and a shorter length of stay compared to open AAA. Despite concern regarding the durability of EVAR, high-risk patients should be evaluated for EVAR repair before committing to open AAA repair.

Determining patient preference for treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis: carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.

Revascularization of extracranial carotid artery stenosis (ECAS) continues to be the subject of spirited academic debate. Conflicting studies in the literature have fostered uncertainty among patients choosing between CEA and CAS. We obtained preference-based utilities from prospective patients being evaluated for ECAS and incorporated them into a decision analytic model. Patients being evaluated for ECAS in an outpatient setting were interviewed prior to their initial visit with a vascular surgeon. Patient preference data were elicited using probability trade-off (PTO) assessment and time trade-off (TTO) method. Decision analysis was performed to compare CEA with CAS. Morbidity and mortality rates were obtained from recent literature reports from the same institution. Our results showed that when patients are informed, they prefer and will more often choose CEA over CAS for revascularization of ECAS. Among patients preferring CAS, they expect no more than a 46% increase in the rate of stroke and/or death. Future clinical studies on true stroke rates for CAS will be required to further refine this analysis.

Use of hybrid aortic stent grafts for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: indications and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Only two aortic stent grafts (Ancure-Guidant, Menlo Park, CA, and AneuRx-Medtronic, Sunnyvale, CA) have been FDA-approved for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EndoAAA). These grafts differ significantly in construction and clinical advantage, and combining components of these grafts (hybrid graft) is occasionally necessary. The role and outcome of hybrid aortic stent grafts is unknown. METHODS: All EndoAAA procedures during an 18-month period (10/99-4/01) were reviewed using the hospital record and a computer registry. Endografts were classified as hybrid if components from more than one type of stent graft were used or standard if constructed from only one stent graft type. Hybrid grafts were further classified as "anticipated" or "unanticpated." Outcomes were compared between hybrid and standard grafts using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five EndoAAA repairs were performed (AneuRx, 67; Ancure, 70; and custom-made, 8) of which 14 (9.6%) were hybrid grafts. The majority of hybrid grafts (11) were constructed by adding AneuRx aortic or iliac cuffs to Ancure grafts. In most cases, the need for a hybrid graft was unanticipated (10) and related to an intraoperative proximal type I endoleak (7). Conversion to open operation was avoided in six patients by constructing hybrid grafts. When anticipated (4), hybrid grafts were constructed to treat complex iliac aneurysms. Outcomes in all categories were similar (P > 0.05) for hybrid vs standard grafts: technical success (93 vs 99%), conversion toopen AAA (7.1 vs 2.3%), vascular complications (7.1 vs 7.6%), systemic complications (21 vs 11%), endoleak (15 vs 14%), and rupture (0 vs 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term safety and effectiveness of hybrid grafts are similar to those of standard grafts. Combining graft components to create hybrid grafts may increase the ability to treat complex iliac aneurysmal disease and may reduce conversions to open AAA repair. Thus, access to multiple graft types may be an important factor in the success and safety of EndoAAA repair.

High-risk carotid endarterectomy: challenges for carotid stent protocols.

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting is under investigation in clinical trials as an alternative to endarterectomy. Some clinicians have hypothesized that stenting would be applicable for patients at high risk who need carotid revascularization. To further test this hypothesis, we stratified our carotid endarterectomy procedures according to current carotid stent protocols. METHODS: We reviewed our computerized registry and the clinical charts of patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy. Each procedure was categorized as high risk or low risk, according to the following six separate high-risk factors: 1, severe cardiac dysfunction; 2, the requirement for combined coronary and carotid vascularization; 3, severe pulmonary dysfunction; 4, contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion; 5, previous ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy; and 6, anatomically limited access for carotid endarterectomy. Rates of stroke at 30 days, cardiac complications, and death were tabulated. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2000, 415 carotid endarterectomies were performed on 389 patients. Ninety-eight procedures (23.6%) were classified as high risk on the basis of the following factors: 1, severe cardiac dysfunction (n = 30); 2, requirement for combined coronary and carotid revascularization (n = 14); 3, severe pulmonary dysfunction (n = 8); 4, contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 31); 5, previous ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (n = 25); and 6, anatomically limited access (n = 4). Seven patients had ipsilateral postoperative strokes (1.7%), with two additional patients having contralateral hemispheric strokes. One patient died from exacerbation of congestive heart failure 9 days after undergoing a second carotid endarterectomy. The total stroke and death rate was 2.6% for all the patients. Two of the 98 procedures in the high-risk group were complicated with ipsilateral stroke (2.0%) as compared with six of the 317 low-risk procedures (1.9%; P = 1). Six procedures were complicated with cardiac dysfunction after surgery, including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or the new onset of atrial fibrillation. Three cardiac complications occurred in the low-risk group (1%), and three occurred in the high-risk group (3.1%; P =.15). CONCLUSION: This series shows that patients at high risk can undergo carotid endarterectomy with stroke rates equivalent to the rates of patients at low risk. The cardiac morbidity rate may be increased in the high-risk group. Carotid stenting is unlikely to offer any improvement in stroke risk as compared with carotid endarterectomy, but stenting may reduce non-stroke morbidity rates associated with some high-risk cases.