Vascular interventions in head and neck cancer patients as a marker of poor survival.

OBJECTIVE: Head and neck cancer can involve the surrounding vasculature and require technically challenging vascular interventions. These interventions can be complicated by tumor invasion, history of prior surgery, and history of radiation therapy. Our aim was to examine patients with vascular interventions in association with head and neck cancer to determine outcomes and best practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cancer patients treated by head and neck surgery and vascular surgery between 2007 and 2014. Data concerning previous cancer treatment, operative details of head and neck surgery and vascular surgery, perioperative outcomes, and survival data were collected. Statistical analyses were performed using the χ2 test, Student t-test, and binomial regression. Patency and survival data were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients with head and neck cancer requiring vascular interventions were identified. Of these, 44 patients had squamous cell carcinoma, 4 had thyroid cancer, 3 had sarcoma, 2 had Merkel and basal cell carcinoma, and 1 each had a parotid tumor, paraganglioma, extrarenal rhomboid tumor, and malignant spindle cell neoplasm. The majority of the interventions (n = 36 [63%]) were performed on patients with recurrent or persistent malignancy despite prior treatment. The most common previous treatment was radiation therapy (n = 44 [77%]). Tumor resection and vascular intervention were performed concurrently in 26 patients (46%). The mean time between cancer treatment and vascular intervention was 37 months (range, 18 days-18 years). The most common indication for vascular intervention was bleeding (n = 21 [37%]), which included vessel rupture (n = 14), tumor bleeding (n = 5), and intraoperative bleeding (n = 2). The remaining indications for intervention included invasion/encasement of major vasculature (n = 25), stenosis/occlusion (n = 12), and aneurysm (n = 1). The most common intervention was stenting (n = 22 [41%]), followed by resection (n = 20 [35%]), exposure/dissection (n = 12 [22%]), bypass (n = 8 [15%]), and embolization (n = 3 [6%]). Of the 22 patients who were stented, 12 (55%) were placed electively (11 for stenosis and 1 for aneurysm) and 10 (45%) were placed emergently (6 for blowout and 4 for tumor bleeding). A total of six patients (11%) required reintervention after their index vascular procedure. There were no intraoperative mortalities. The 30-day mortality was 9% (n = 5). The 30-day stroke rate was 7% (n = 4; one s/p common carotid artery-internal carotid artery bypass and three with emergent intervention for vessel rupture). Primary patency at 1 year was 66% for stents and 71% for bypass (P = .604). Survival in those patients operated on emergently for bleeding at 1 year was 38%, with a trend toward worse survival compared with the 77% survival at 1 year for all other indications (P = .109). The overall survival in the cohort at 1 and 2 years was 62% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular involvement in head and neck cancer is a marker for poor survival. Any intervention performed in light of mass resection, persistent disease, and previous radiation complicates management. Minimally invasive techniques can be used with emergent bleeding but the survival benefits are marginal. Vascular interventions, including reconstruction, are feasible but should be approached with adequate expectations and multidisciplinary support.

A novel anatomic severity grading score for acute Type B aortic dissections and correlation to aortic reinterventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: We introduce a novel preoperative anatomic severity grading system for acute type B aortic dissections and validate the system in a cohort of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients who received thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection from 2008 to 2014. We developed an anatomic severity grading score (ASG) to measure attributes of aortic anatomy that we hypothesized may affect difficulty or durability of repair. Measurements were made using computed tomography angiography images and based on hypothesized severity, giving a potential score range of 0-38. RESULTS: We analyzed the computed tomography angiography images on a cohort of 30 patients with acute type B aortic dissection who underwent TEVAR. We created an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) using anatomic severity grading to predict aortic-related reinterventions. The AUROC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.1). Guided by the AUROC, we divided patients into two groups: a low-score group with anatomic severity grading scores <23 (n = 22), and a high-score group with scores ≥23 (n = 8). With this cutoff, anatomic severity grading exhibited 80% sensitivity and 84% specificity in predicting aortic-related reinterventions, with reinterventions in 50% of high-score patients and 4.5% of low-score patients (P = 0.011). The high score group also had significantly greater blood loss (200 vs 100 mL, P = 0.038), fluoroscopy time (36.0 vs 16.6 min; P = 0.022), and a trend for increased procedure time (164 vs 95 min; P = 0.083) than the low-risk group. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the high-score group had a significantly decreased freedom from aortic-related reinterventions than the low-score group (38% vs 100% at 12-month followup; log rank P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative anatomic severity grading score for acute type B aortic dissections consists of analysis of the proximal landing zone, curvature and tortuosity of the aorta, dissection anatomy, aortic branch vessel anatomy, and supraceliac aorta anatomy. Anatomic severity grading scores ≤23 are an excellent predictor of aortic-related reinterventions.

The effect of demographic factors and lesion severity on iliac stent patency.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to perform a large multivariate analysis to identify demographic, anatomic, or procedural factors that affect iliac artery stent primary patency (PP). METHODS: Patients receiving iliac stents from 2007 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis assessed cohort characteristics and their effect on PP. Variables considered significant (P < .05) were brought forward in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients underwent primary iliac artery stenting, and 307 limbs were analyzed. The average age was 66 years (range, 38-93 years), 54% were male, and 55% were Caucasian. Indications for procedure were claudication in 68%, rest pain in 20%, and tissue loss in 12%. All TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classifications were included: 51% TASC II A, 25% TASC II B, 13% TASC II C, and 11% TASC II D. The treated anatomic locations were 27% isolated external iliac artery (EIA), 56% isolated common iliac artery, and 17% combined common iliac artery and EIA. Multivariate analysis found three factors were correlated with decreased PP: non-Caucasian race (hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-3.13; P = .025), younger age (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .006), and presence of EIA occlusion (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.05-3.89; P = .036). Overall, Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1 and 3 years revealed a PP of 86% and 53%, assisted PP of 98% and 89%, and secondary patency of 99% of 98%. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed PP at 1 year for was 91% Caucasian patients vs 77% for non-Caucasian (P = .001). PP was 75% in patients aged <60 years, 86% in patients aged 60-70 years, and 96% in patients aged >70 years, with a significant difference between all groups (P < .001). PP was significantly different for those with and without EIA occlusion (P = .002), with 1-year PP of 71% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience with a large number of iliac interventions, younger age, non-Caucasian race, and EIA occlusion were strong predictors for loss of PP.