Real-World Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are comparable to those of carotid endarterectomy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis, but real-world outcomes are not well-known. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the real-world clinical outcomes of CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide retrospective registry study of 156 centers between January 2015 and December 2019. We enrolled consecutive patients with CAS managed by certified specialists from the Japanese Society of Neuroendovascular Therapy. Outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause death at 30 days after CAS. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, all-cause death, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and procedural complications. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,792 patients (symptomatic, n = 5,351; asymptomatic, n = 4,441). The mean age was 73.5 years, and men were dominant (86.4%). Embolism protection devices were used in 99% of patients. The primary outcome was not significantly different between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups (120 [2.2%] vs 65 [1.5%]; adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.92-1.83). The incidences of symptomatic ICH, any ICH, acute in-stent occlusion, and hyperperfusion syndrome were significantly more prevalent in the symptomatic group (47 [0.9%] vs 8 [0.2%], aOR: 4.41 [95% CI: 1.68-11.6]; 73 [1.4%] vs 12 [0.3%], aOR: 3.56 [95% CI: 1.71-7.39]; 45 [0.8%] vs 19 [0.4%], aOR: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.08-4.40]; and 102 [1.9%] vs 36 [0.8%], aOR: 1.78 [95% CI: 1.17-2.71], respectively). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate after specialist-involved CAS at 30 days was low in real-world practice.

Physician-modified versus chimney endografting for pararenal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the existing published evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of the endovascular aortic repair with chimney technique (ch-EVAR) and physician-modified stent-grafts (PMSGs) for the treatment of pararenal aortic aneurysm repair. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search of all relevant studies reported until October 2023 according to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines was performed. The pooled 30-day mortality, peri- and postoperative complication rates were estimated using fixed or random effect methods. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 679 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 16 were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 1094 patients (ch-EVAR N.=861 and PMSG N.=233) (90% male) were identified. The pooled 30-day mortality rate was 3.4% for ch-EVAR and 2.6% for PMSG. The major adverse events (MAE) in the early period was 14.7% for ch-EVAR and 18.5% PMSG, respectively. Higher occlusion rate was observed of the chimney stents grafts (8.2%) than the bridging stents (1.4%) during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Ch-EVAR and physician-modified technology are safe with low 30-day mortality in elective settings for pararenal aortic aneurysms repair. No significant differences were seen between the two surgical methods regarding the early major adverse events rate. However, higher occlusion rate for the chimneys can be expected over time.

Endovascular aneurysm repair under local anesthesia through bilateral percutaneous femoral access is a safe strategy to improve early outcomes and reduce hospital stay.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the impact of anesthetic conduct, alone and in combination with the type of femoral access, on early results after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis on patients undergoing elective standard EVAR at four academic centers was performed. Patients undergoing the procedure through either local or general anesthesia were compared. Comparative subanalyses of the two groups were performed for the type of femoral access to evaluate further impact on outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-four patients underwent elective standard EVAR, of which 207 (39.5%) under general anesthesia and 317 (60.5%) under local anesthesia. Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher 30-day mortality rates (3.4% vs. 0.3%, P=0.005), as well as slightly worse 30-day major systemic complication rates (8.2% vs. 5.4%, P=0.195). There were no differences in terms of reinterventions (2.1% vs. 2.5%, P=0.768) and aneurysm-related mortality (0% vs. 0.4%, P=0.422) at one year. Total intervention times were significantly longer in the general anesthesia group (126 vs. 89 minutes, P=0.001), as well as the total length of hospital stay (7.6 vs. 5.3 days, P=0.007). At subanalyses, the combination of local anesthesia with bilateral percutaneous femoral access further improved 30-day outcomes and determined an additional reduction in total intervention times and ICU stays. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR performed under local anesthesia has a significantly better impact on early results when compared to general anesthesia. Combining percutaneous bilateral femoral access to local anesthesia reduced procedural times, ICU stays and consequently improved early results.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, indications, and outcomes of early open conversions after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to report incidence, indications, and outcomes of early open conversions (EOC) after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), defined as surgical conversion performed within 30 days from the initial EVAR. EVIDENCE AQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed (database searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library; last search April 2023). Articles reporting EOC after EVAR comprising at least five patients were included. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using a random-effects model. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventeen non-randomized studies, published between 1999 and 2022, were included. A total of 35,970 patients had previously undergone EVAR, of these 438 patients underwent EOC. Estimated incidence of EOC was 1.4% (95% CI 1.1-1.4; I2=81.66%). Specifically, in the works published before 2010 the incidence was 1.8% (95% CI 1.3-2.4; I2=74.25) while for subsequent ones it was 0.9% (95% CI 0.6-1.1; I2=69.82). Weighted mean age was 74.91 years (95% CI 72.42-77.39; I2=83.11%). Estimated rate of cause determining EOC were: access issue in 27.7% of patients (95% CI 13.8-41.6; I2=88.14%), incorrect placement of the endograft in 20.1% (95% CI 10.2-30.0; I2=76,9%), problems with "delivery system" in 9.0% (95% CI 4.9-13.1; I2=0%), aorto-iliac rupture in 8.6% (95% CI 4.5-12.6; I2=0%), endoprosthesis migration in 7.9% of cases (95% CI 3.3-12.4; I2=22.96%), failure in engaging the contralateral gate in 4.8% (95% CI 1.6-8; I2=0%), "kinking" or "twisting" of endoprosthesis in 3.3% (95% CI 0.6-5.9; I2=0%), graft thrombosis in 3.2% (95% CI 0.6-5.7; I2=0%), type Ia endoleak in 2.9% (95% CI 0.4-5.4; I2=0%), type III endoleak in 2.8% (95% CI 0.3-5.3; I2=0%) and endograft infection in 2.7% (95% CI 0.3-5.2; I2=0%). Intraoperative conversion rate was 91.1% (95% CI 85.8-96.4; I2=66.01%). Early mortality rate after EOC was 14.5% (95% CI 9.1-19.9; I2=48.31%). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 11.94 days (95% CI 6.718-17.172; I2=92.34%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of EOC seems to decrease over time. Causes of EOC were mainly related to access problems and incorrect positioning of the endograft. Most of the EOC were performed intraoperatively carrying a high mortality rate.

The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI.

Feasibility and Intermediate Results of Transcarotid Revascularization with a Prosthetic Conduit.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid technique with excellent initial outcomes. The technical success and safety of TCAR is heavily dependent on an anatomically suitable common carotid artery (CCA). Many patients do not meet anatomic criteria and therefore are not eligible for this therapy. We sought to extend the eligibility of TCAR to patients with unfavorable CCA anatomy via the adoption of a prosthetic arterial conduit. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of patients with critical carotid artery stenosis who underwent TCAR via a prosthetic conduit between June 2019 and October 2021 was performed. All patients in the study were considered high-risk for carotid endarterectomy based on anatomic features, such as restenosis post-carotid endarterectomy and neck radiation. Unfavorable CCA anatomy was defined as a clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance <5 cm, a CCA diameter <6 mm, and/or significant atherosclerotic disease at the intended arterial access site. The primary outcome of interest was technical success. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, intermediate and long-term patency, intermediate and long-term stroke and/or mortality and in-hospital length of stay. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 29 months. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent 10 TCAR procedures via a prosthetic conduit. A total of 2 procedures (20%) were performed on female patients and 8 procedures (75%) were performed on male patients. The mean age was 65 years old (standard deviation 11 years). Technical success was 100%. The 30-day ipsilateral stroke rate was 0%. The 30-day patency was 90%. There was no re-exploration for hemorrhage and 30 day mortality was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: TCAR is an excellent option for carotid artery revascularization. Unfavorable CCA anatomy has limited its applicability. TCAR via a prosthetic conduit has the potential to expand eligibility for this promising therapy.

Reconsidering the Impact of Endovascular Repair on Short-Term and Mid-Term Outcomes in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to compare the short-term and medium-term outcomes in patients who underwent open repair (OR) or endovascular repair (ER) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) also including stratifications based on severity and year of the first intervention. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective single-center cohort study. We evaluated patients with PAD that primarily underwent ER, OR, minor, and major amputations in a single center from 2005 to 2020. The patients were then subdivided according to the type of intervention (OR versus ER), and stratified according to the International Classification of Diseases 9 code reported in the operating documents and to the year intervention. Mortality, minor, and major amputation rates occurring at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years after the first intervention were evaluated as primary outcomes and compared between patient groups in both stratifications. Moreover, Kaplan-Maier curves were analyzed for these outcomes. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred ninety two patients (67.0% males) with PAD were evaluated. Their clinical presentations were intermittent claudication in 51.4% of cases, rest pain in 16.8%, ulcers in 10.3%, and gangrene in 21.5%. Nine hundred ninety seven (66.8%) underwent OR and 495 (33.2%) ER as first intervention for PAD. No statistical differences were observed in terms of mortality in the 2 groups (OR versus ER, P = 1,000, P = 0.357, and P = 0.688 at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively). The rate of minor amputations was significantly higher (P < 0.012, P < 0.002, and P < 0.007 at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively) for ER group in any of the observed follow-up periods. Also, we have observed that OR and ER do not have any significant short-term and medium-term major amputation rate differences. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the impact of ER does not significantly change short-term and mid-term major outcomes in patients with PAD.

Five-year outcomes for bell bottom, iliac branch endoprosthesis, and coil and cover approaches from the GREAT registry.

OBJECTIVE: There are a variety of methods used today to treat common iliac aneurysms with endovascular techniques. Of these approaches, little is known about whether a particular limb strategy influences endoleak, reintervention, or aneurysm regression rates. We present 5-year data comparing endoleak, stent graft migration, fracture, aneurysm sac dynamics, and aortic rupture rates among patients treated with bell bottom limbs (BB), iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE), and coil and cover (CC) approaches from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment registry. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, stroke, reintervention, and paraplegia. METHODS: Subjects from the GORE Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment were enrolled over a 5-year period from October 2017 to August 2022. We included 924 subjects in this study. Statistical data was generated on R software and limb groups were compared using the Pearson's χ2 test and the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test. RESULTS: We found no statistical difference in endoleak rates, stent graft migration, fracture, or aortic rupture when stratified by limb strategy. There was no difference between limb approaches with regard to aneurysm sac dynamics among those with abdominal aortic aneurysms and common iliac aneurysms. Similarly, no statistical difference between limb strategies was found in all-cause mortality, stroke, paraplegia, or reintervention rates. Among patients that required an additional graft during reintervention, the highest rates were found within the IBE group 8.6%, compared with BB group 2.2% and CC group 1.3% (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no difference among limb strategies in endoleak rates, stent graft migration, aneurysm sac dynamics, aortic rupture rates, or our secondary end points. Increased rates of reintervention requiring an additional graft within the IBE group is noteworthy and must be weighed against the adverse effects of hypogastric sacrifice with the CC approach or potentially less advantageous seal zones in the BB approach. This finding suggests that all limb approaches have equivalent effectiveness in managing the aneurysmal common iliac artery; thus, the choice of limb strategy should be individualized and remain at physician discretion. Future research should include a more robust sample size to reproduce these findings.

Clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy from a large single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been practiced as an alternative for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting, specifically in high-risk patients. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients if done within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR surveillance project. A few registry studies (primarily from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) compared the early and up to 1-year outcomes of TCAR vs CEA or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. There is no large single-center study that reported late clinical outcomes. The present study compares intermediate clinical outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed collected data from TCAR surveillance project patients enrolled in our institution and compare it with CEA patients done by the same providers at the same time period. The primary outcome was combined perioperative stroke/death and late stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included combined stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and bleeding. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from stroke, stroke/death, and ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 646 procedures (637 patients) (404 CEA, 242 TCAR). There was no significant difference in the indications for carotid intervention. However, TCAR patients had more high-risk criteria, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. There was no significant differences between CEA vs TCAR in 30-day perioperative stroke (1% vs 2%), stroke/death rate (1% vs 3%; P = .0849), or major hematomas (2% vs 2%). The rate of CNI was significantly different (5% for CEA vs 1% for TCAR; P = .0138). At late follow-up (2 years), the rate of stroke was 1% vs 4% (P = .0273), stroke/death 8% vs 15% (P = .008), ≥80 % restenosis 0.5% vs 3% (P = .0139) for CEA patients vs TCAR patients, respectively. After matching 242 CEAs and 242 TCARs, the perioperative stroke rate was 1% for CEA vs 2% for TCAR (P = .5037), the stroke/death rate was 2% vs 3% (P = .2423), and the CNI rate was 3% vs 1% (P = .127). At late follow-up, rates of stroke were 1% for CEA vs 4% for TCAR (P = .0615) and stroke/death were 8% vs 15% (P = .0345). The rate of ≥80% restenosis was 0.9% for CEA vs 3% for TCAR (P = .099). The rates of freedom from stroke at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for CEA vs TCAR were 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99% vs 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively (P = .0806); stroke/death were 94%, 90%, 87%, and 86% vs 93%, 87%, 76%, and 75%, respectively (P = .0529); and ≥80% restenosis were 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98% vs 97%, 95%, 93%, and 93%, respectively (P = .1132). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar perioperative clinical outcomes. However, CEA was superior to TCAR for the rates of late stroke/death and had a somewhat lower rate of ≥80% restenosis at 2 years, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing endovascular or open repair of juxtarenal or pararenal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this cohort study was to report the proportion of patients who develop periprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) after endovascular repair (ER) and open surgery (OS) in patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and to assess potential risk factors for AKI. The study also aimed to report the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with and without AKI. METHODS: This was a multicenter cohort study of five European academic high-volume centers (>50 OS or 50 ER infrarenal AAA repairs, plus >15 complex AAA repairs per year). All consecutively treated patients were extracted from a prospective vascular surgical registry and the data were scrutinized retrospectively. The primary end point for this study was the development of AKI. AKI was diagnosed when there is a two-fold increase of serum creatinine or decrease of glomerular filtration rate of >50% within 1 week of AAA repair. Secondary end points included long-term mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). RESULTS: AKI occurred in 16.6% of patients in the ER group vs 30.3% in the OS group (P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher among patients with AKI in both ER (15.4% vs 3.1%; P = .006) and OS (13.2% vs 5.3%; P = .001) groups. Age, chronic kidney disease, presence of significant thrombus burden in the pararenal region, >1000 mL blood loss in ER group were associated with development of AKI. Age, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, presence of significant thrombus burden in the pararenal region, and a proximal clamping time of >30 minutes in the OS group were associated with the development of AKI, whereas renal perfusion during clamping was the protective factor against AKI development. After a median follow-up of 91 months, AKI was associated with higher mortality rates in both the ER group (58.9% vs 29.7%; P < .001) and the OS group (61.5% vs 27.3%; P < .001). After the same follow-up period, AKI was associated with a higher incidence of ESRD in both the ER group (12.8% vs 3.6%; P = .009) and the OS group (9.9% vs 2.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified important pre and postoperative factors associated with AKI after juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients with postoperative AKI had significantly higher short- and long term mortality and higher incidence of ESRD than patients without AKI.

Relevance of BEST-CLI trial endpoints in a tertiary care limb preservation program.

OBJECTIVE: Major adverse limb event-free survival (MALE-FS) differed significantly by initial revascularization approach in the BEST-CLI randomized trial. The BEST-CLI trial represented a highly selected subgroup of patients seen in clinical practice; thus, we examined the endpoint of MALE-FS in an all-comers tertiary care practice setting. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive, unique patients who underwent technically successful infrainguinal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (2011-2021). MALE was major amputation (transtibial or above) or major reintervention (new bypass, open bypass revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). RESULTS: Among 469 subjects, the mean age was 70 years, and 34% were female. Characteristics included diabetes (68%), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (16%), Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) stage 4 (44%), Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) stage 3 (62%), and high pedal artery calcium score (pMAC) (22%). Index revascularization was autogenous vein bypass (AVB) (30%), non-autogenous bypass (NAB) (13%), or endovascular (ENDO) (57%). The composite endpoint of MALE or death occurred in 237 patients (51%) at a median time of 189 days from index revascularization. In an adjusted Cox model, factors independently associated with MALE or death included younger age, ESRD, WIfI stage 4, higher GLASS stage, and moderate-severe pMAC, whereas AVB was associated with improved MALE-FS. Freedom from MALE-FS, MALE, and major amputation at 30 days were 90%, 92%, and 95%; and at 1 year were 63%, 70%, and 83%, respectively. MALE occurred in 144 patients (31%) and was associated with ESRD, WIfI stage, GLASS stage, pMAC score, and index revascularization approach. AVB had superior durability, with adjusted 2-year freedom from MALE of 72%, compared with 66% for ENDO and 51% for NAB. Within the AVB group, spliced vein conduit had higher MALE compared with single-segment vein (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .008 after inverse propensity weighting), but there was no statistically significant difference in major amputation. Of the 144 patients with any MALE, the first MALE was major reintervention in 47% and major amputation in 53%. Major amputation as first MALE was associated with non-AVB index approach. Indications for major reintervention were symptomatic stenosis/occlusion (54%), lack of clinical improvement (28%), asymptomatic graft stenosis (16%), and iatrogenic events (3%). Conversion to bypass occurred after 6% of ENDO cases, two-thirds of which involved distal bypass targets at the ankle or foot. CONCLUSIONS: In this consecutive, all-comers cohort, disease complexity was associated with procedural selection and MALE-FS. AVB independently provided the greatest MALE-FS and freedom from MALE and major amputation. Compared with the BEST-CLI randomized trial, MALE after ENDO in this series was more frequently major amputation, with relatively few conversions to open bypass.

Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Stratified by Institutional Designation: Academic Versus Community Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The extent of practice setting's influence on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) outcomes is not yet established. This study seeks to assess and compare TCAR outcomes in academic and community-based healthcare settings. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively maintained, systemwide TCAR databases from 2 institutions was performed between 2015 and 2022. Patients were stratified based on the setting of surgical intervention (i.e., academic or community-based hospitals). Relevant demographics, medical conditions, anatomic characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative courses, and adverse events were captured for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 973 patients who underwent TCAR, 570 (58.6%) were performed at academic and 403 (41.4%) at community-based hospitals. An academic facility was defined as a designated teaching hospital with 24/7 service-line coverage by a trainee-led surgical team. Baseline comorbidity between cohorts were similar but cases performed at academic institutions were associated with increased complexity, defined by high cervical stenosis (P < 0.001), prior dissection (P < 0.01), and prior neck radiation (P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, academic hospitals were associated with longer operative time (67 min vs. 58 min, P < 0.001), higher blood loss (55 mLs vs. 37 mLs, P < 0.001), and longer flow reversal time (9.5 min vs. 8.4 min, P < 0.05). Technical success rate was not statistically different. In the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no significant difference with respect to reintervention (1.5% vs. 1.5%, P ≥ 0.9) or ipsilateral stroke (2.7% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.51). Additionally, no difference in postoperative myocardial infarction (academic 0.7% vs. community 0.2%, P < 0.32), death (academic 1.9% vs. community 1.4%, P < 0.57), or length of stay (1 day vs. 1 day, P < 0.62) was seen between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Cases performed at academic centers were characterized by more challenging anatomy, more frequent cardiovascular risk factors, and less efficient intraoperative variables, potentially attributable to case complexity and trainee involvement. However, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes and adverse events between the cohorts, suggesting TCAR can be safely performed regardless of practice setting.

Safety and Efficacy of Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortoiliac Artery Occlusive Disease: A Multicenter Study of Short-Term and Medium-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of stent-graft compared with bare stents for treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). METHODS: One hundred eighty three patients diagnosed with AIOD who received stent implantation at 3 vascular centers in north China between January 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled. Patients were divided into those undergoing stent-graft (Group A; n = 67) or bare stent (Group B; n = 116) implantation for retrospective cohort analysis. Efficacy was assessed as surgical success rate and rate of freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention at each follow-up time point. Safety was assessed by the rate of perioperative complication, major limb amputation, and aortoiliac artery-related mortality. RESULTS: There were no preoperative baseline differences between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The surgical success was 91.04% for Group A, significantly higher than that for Group B (79.31%; P < 0.05). Incidence of perioperative complications was 2.98% for Group A, significantly lower than that for Group B (9.48%, P < 0.05), as was the rate of major limb amputation (A: 1.49% vs. B: 5.17%) and aortoiliac artery-related mortality (A: 1.49% vs. B: 4.31%), although these 2 indicators were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Follow-up rates were 91.8% for the total follow-up time of 3 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis gave significantly higher 1-year and 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention for Group A (98.51% and 95.52%) than for Group B (95.69% and 89.66%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stent-graft is more effective and safer than bare stent in the treatment of AIOD.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Comparison of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: The role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in chronic limb-threatening ischemia after revascularization is unknown. Current evidence-based guidelines do not provide clear guidance on the role of anticoagulation or the selection of anticoagulant. Current practice is highly varied and based on provider and patient preference. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of different anticoagulants on the incidence of major adverse limb events (MALEs) after revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for major bleeding events. METHODS: This was a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study. Subjects were eligible if they were 18 years or older; underwent endovascular or open revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, rest pain, or tissue loss; and were subsequently prescribed apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. The primary end point was the incidence of MALEs, including above-ankle amputation or major index-limb reintervention, within 1 year of index event. Secondary end points included the rate of all-cause mortality, MACEs, and incidence of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding. RESULTS: From January 1, 2017, to September 20, 2022, 141 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed. The median age was 67 years, with 92 patients prescribed apixaban or rivaroxaban and 49 patients prescribed warfarin. Of these, 42 patients were prescribed triple antithrombotic therapy, 88 dual antithrombotic therapy, and 13 anticoagulant monotherapy. The primary outcome of 1-year MALEs occurred in 36.7% of the warfarin group and 33.7% of the DOAC group (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.53-2.25; P = .72). Secondary outcomes of 1-year MACEs (10.2% vs 4.3%; RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 0.60-9.18; P = .18) and 1-year all-cause mortality (26.5% vs 16.3%; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.70-3.78; P = .15) did not differ between the groups. The secondary safety outcome of 1-year ISTH major bleeding occurred in 16.3% of the warfarin group and 4.3% of the DOAC group (RR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.07-13.19; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who were revascularized and prescribed anticoagulation with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin on discharge, no difference in MALEs, MACEs, or all-cause mortality was found. However, 1-year admissions for ISTH major bleeding were significantly higher among patients prescribed warfarin. A randomized trial may confirm these findings.

Outcomes of post-implantation syndrome after endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between post-implantation syndrome (PIS) and long-term prognosis in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: This retrospective study included 547 consecutive patients diagnosed with TBAD who underwent TEVAR at our institution between January 2014 and December 2019. Patients were categorized into two groups: the PIS group (patients with post-TEVAR PIS) and the non-PIS group (patients without post-TEVAR PIS). In-hospital and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: The incidence of PIS was 28.9% (158/547 patients). No baseline differences were observed between the PIS (n = 158) and the non-PIS (n = 389) groups. The proportion of emergency surgery in the PIS group was higher than that in the non-PIS group (44.9% vs 26.0%; P < .001), the operation time was longer (median, 65.0; interquartile range [IQR], 56.0-75.0 minutes vs 56.0; IQR, 45.0-66.0 minutes; P < .001), the volume of contrast medium used (median, 65.0; IQR, 56.0-75.0 mL vs 56.0; IQR, 45.0-66.0 mL; P < .001), and the average number of trunk stents (1.85 ± 0.4 vs 1.34 ± 0.5 pieces; P < .001) and branch stents (0.7 ± 0.7 vs 0.2 ± 0.5 pieces; P < .001) used were more in the PIS group than in the non-PIS group. The incidence of supra-aortic branch procedures was higher in the PIS group than in the non-PIS group. There was no significant difference in device-related complications (DRCs) or 30-day mortality between the two groups (2.5% vs 4.4%; P = .442 and 1.3% vs 1.3%; P = .688, respectively). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that emergency surgery, number of trunk stents >1, operation time >58.5 minutes, and contrast medium volume >75 mL were risk factors for PIS, and the odds ratios of emergency operation, number of trunk stents >1 piece, operation time >58.5 minutes, and contrast medium volume >75 mL were 2.526 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.530-4.173), 4.651 (95% CI, 2.838-7.624), 3.577 (95% CI, 2.201-5.815), and 7.356 (95% CI, 4.111-13.160), respectively. Follow-up was completed in 98.5% (532/540) of the patients, with a median follow-up of 67 months (IQR, 50-86 months). There was no significant difference in survival between the PIS and non-PIS groups (12.4% vs 10.3%; P = .476) during follow-up. The incidences of DRCs (7.8% vs 11.6%; P = .200) and aortic false lumen thrombosis (75.8% vs 79.2%; P = .399) were comparable between the PIS and non-PIS groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that PIS had no effect on long-term follow-up mortality, DRCs, entry flow, or aortic false lumen thrombosis rate. CONCLUSIONS: PIS is relatively common after TEVAR and emergency surgery; number of trunk stents >1, operation time >58.5 minutes, and contrast medium volume >75 mL are of high predictive value for the assessment of PIS after TEVAR. However, PIS had little effect on early and late postoperative mortality or DRCs.

Preoperative proteinuria is independently associated with mortality after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has become a mainstay in treating complex aortic aneurysms, though baseline patient factors predicting long-term outcomes remain poorly understood. Proteinuria is an early marker for chronic kidney disease and associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but its utility in patients with aortic aneurysms is unknown. We aimed to determine whether preoperative proteinuria impacts long-term survival after FEVAR. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of all elective FEVAR was performed. Preoperative proteinuria was assessed by urinalysis: negative (0-29 mg/dL), 1+ (30-100 mg/dL), 2+ (101-299 mg/dL), and 3+ (≥300 mg/dL). The cohort was stratified by patients with proteinuria (≥30 mg/dL) vs those without (<30 mg/dL). Baseline, perioperative, and long-term outcomes were compared. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and independent predictors with Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Among 181 patients who underwent standard FEVAR from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up 33 months), any proteinuria was noted in 30 patients (16.6%). Patients with proteinuria were more likely to be Black (10.0% vs 1.3%) with a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (52.7 ± 24.7 vs 67.7 ± 20.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), higher Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score (10.9 ± 4.3 vs 8.2 ± 4.7) and calcium channel blocker therapy (50.0% vs 29.1%), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (67.2 ± 16.9 vs 59.8 ± 9.8 mm) (all P < .05). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the proteinuria group (10.0% vs 1.3%; P = .03). Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was significantly lower for those with proteinuria (71.5% vs 92.3% and 29.5% vs 68.1%; log-rank P < .001). On multivariable analysis, preoperative proteinuria was independently associated with over threefold higher hazard of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66-6.20; P < .001), whereas preoperative eGFR was not predictive (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; P = .28). Additional significant predictors included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR: 2.04), older age (HR: 1.05), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (HR: 1.03; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In our 10-year experience with FEVAR, preoperative proteinuria was observed in 17% of patients and was significantly associated with worse survival. In this cohort, proteinuria was independently associated with all-cause mortality, whereas eGFR was not, suggesting that urinalysis may provide an additional simple metric for risk-stratifying patients before FEVAR.

Prognostic factors after open and endovascular repair for infected native aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and common iliac artery.

OBJECTIVE: Infected native aneurysms (INAs) of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries are uncommon, but potentially fatal. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has recently been introduced as a durable treatment option, with outcomes comparable to those yielded by conventional open repair. However, owing to the rarity of the disease, the strengths and limitations of each treatment remain uncertain. The present study aimed to separately assess post-open repair and post-EVAR outcomes and to clarify factors affecting the short-term and late prognosis after each treatment. METHODS: Using a nationwide clinical registry, we investigated 600 patients treated with open repair and 226 patients treated with EVAR for INAs of the abdominal aorta and/or common iliac artery. The relationships between preoperative or operative factors and postoperative outcomes, including 90-day and 3-year mortality and persistent or recurrent aneurysm-related infection, were examined. RESULTS: Prosthetic grafts were used in >90% of patients treated with open repair, and in situ and extra-anatomic arterial reconstruction was performed in 539 and 57 patients, respectively. Preoperative anemia and imaging findings suggestive of aneurysm-enteric fistula were independently associated with poor outcomes in terms of both 3-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.62; P = .046, and HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.46; P = .022, respectively) and persistent or recurrent infection (odds ratio [OR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.04-4.49; P = .039, and OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 1.81-13.55; P = .002, respectively) after open repair, whereas omental wrapping or packing and antibiotic impregnation of the prosthetic graft for in situ reconstruction contributed to improved 3-year survival (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; P = .019, and HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.88; P = .014, respectively). Among patients treated with EVAR, abscess formation adjacent to the aneurysm was significantly associated with the occurrence of persistent or recurrent infection (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.72; P = .034), whereas an elevated preoperative white blood cell count was predictive of 3-year mortality (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.00-3.13; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Profiles of prognostic factors differed between open repair and EVAR in the treatment of INAs of the abdominal aorta and common iliac artery. Open repair may be more suitable than EVAR for patients with concurrent abscess formation.