Open repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) is associated with substantial morbidity. Alternative strategies, such as hybrid operations combining proximal thoracic ...endovascular aortic repair with either staged open distal TAAA repair or visceral debranching (hybrid), as well as fenestrated/branched endografts (FEVAR), have been increasingly reported; however, benefits of these approaches compared with direct open surgery remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these three different strategies in the management of extent II/III TAAA.
All extent II/III TAAA repairs (2002-2018) for nonmycotic, degenerative aneurysm or chronic dissection at a single institution were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), complications, unplanned re-operation, 90-day readmission, and out-of-hospital survival. To mitigate impact of covariate imbalance and selection bias, intergroup comparisons were made using inverse probability weighted-propensity analysis. Cox regression was used to estimate survival while cumulative incidence was used to determine reoperation risk.
One hundred ninety-eight patients (FEVAR, 92; hybrid, 40; open, 66) underwent repair. In unadjusted analysis, compared with hybrid/open patients, FEVAR patients were significantly older with more cardiovascular risk factors, but less likely to have a connective tissue disorder or dissection-related indication. Unadjusted 30-day mortality and complication rates were: 30-day mortality, FEVAR 4%, hybrid 13%, open 12% (P = .01); and complications, FEVAR 36%, hybrid 33%, open 50% (P = .11). Permanent SCI was not different among groups (FEVAR 3%, hybrid 3%, open 6%; P = .64). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality risk was greater for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = .01) with no difference for hybrid vs open/FEVAR. There was significantly lower risk of any SCI for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.96; P = .04); however, no difference in risk of permanent SCI was detected among the three groups. There was no difference in complications or unplanned reoperation, but open patients had the greatest risk of unplanned 90-day readmission. There was a time-varying effect on survival probability, with open repair having a significant survival disadvantage in the first 1 to 6 months after the procedure compared with hybrid/FEVAR patients (Cox model P = .03), but no difference in survival at 1 and 5 years (1- and 5-year survival: FEVAR, 86 ± 3%, 55 ± 8%; hybrid, 86 ± 5%, 60 ± 11%; open 69 ± 7%, 59 ± 8%; Cox-model P = .10).
Extent II/III TAAA repair, regardless of operative strategy, is associated with significant morbidity risk. FEVAR is associated with the lowest 30-day mortality risk compared with hybrid and open repair when estimates are adjusted for preoperative risk factors. These data support greater adoption of FEVAR as first-line therapy to treat complex TAAA disease in anatomically suitable patients who present electively.
Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can cause permanent neurologic deficits and poor long-term survival. Targeted treatment of new SCI symptoms after TEVAR ...(rescue therapy RT) might improve/resolve neurologic symptoms but few data characterize the association of specific interventions with SCI outcomes. We evaluated the effectiveness of post-TEVAR RT at our tertiary aortic center.
Our institutional TEVAR database was reviewed for SCI incidence and details of RT. This included cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), medical therapy, and optimization of spinal cord oxygen delivery. SCI outcomes were categorized at discharge as paralysis/paraparesis and temporary/permanent.
Nine hundred forty-three TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Post-TEVAR SCI occurred in 7.8% (n = 74) with permanent paraplegia in 1.5%. Older patient age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous abdominal aortic surgery were predictive of SCI. Half (n = 37) of SCI episodes resulted in only temporary paralysis/paraparesis. Rescue postoperative cerebrospinal fluid drains were implanted in 3.7% (n = 35) of procedures and was predicted by higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, lower serum hemoglobin level, elevated international normalized ratio, bilateral iliac artery occlusion, nonelective procedures, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer/intramural hematoma indication. The most commonly used RTs were emergent placement of or increased drainage from an existing cerebrospinal fluid drain (87.8%), induced/permissive hypertension (77.0%), corticosteroid bolus (36.5%), and naloxone infusion (33.8%). Neurologic improvement occurred in 68.9% (n = 51/74). New/increased drainage was associated with improved SCI outcome.
Permanent paraplegia from post-TEVAR SCI is rare (1.5%). Older patients with comorbidities carry greater post-TEVAR SCI risk. SCI symptoms improved/resolved with CSFD and multimodal RT in 68.9% of patients, but no intervention was independently associated with improvement. TEVAR centers should have robust protocols for timely and safe CSFD placement to augment RT strategies for SCI.
Display omitted
Secondary aortoenteric fistulas (SAEFs) are rare but represent one of the most challenging and devastating problems for vascular surgeons. Several issues surrounding SAEF treatment remain unresolved, ...including optimal surgical reconstruction and conduit choice. We performed an audit of our experience with SAEFs and highlight aspects of care that have affected outcomes over time with the intent to identify factors associated with best outcomes.
We performed a single center, retrospective review of all consecutive SAEF repairs (1999-2019), defined as presence of a false communication between an enteric structure and pre-existing aortic graft. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included incidence of complications and overall survival. Time-dependent outcome comparison was performed. Cox proportional hazards modeling and life-table analysis estimated risk and freedom from endpoints.
A total of 57 patients (63% male; n = 36) presented with SAEF (median age, 69 years; interquartile range IQR, 61-74 years). Median follow-up time was 10 months (interquartile range, 3-21 months. The most common presenting symptoms were gastrointestinal bleeding (60%; n = 34) and abdominal pain (56%; n= 3 2). For the overall cohort, 30% (n = 17) underwent extra-anatomic bypass with aortic ligation, 30% (n = 17) rifampin-soaked Dacron graft, 26% (n = 15) femoral vein (eg, neoaortoiliac system), and 14% (n = 8) cryopreserved aortic allograft. The enteric communication involved the duodenum in 85% (n = 48), and a double-layer hand-sewn primary repair was most commonly employed (61%; n = 35). Thirty-day mortality was 35% (n = 20) with no significant difference between 90 days (39%; n = 22) and 180 days (42%; n = 24). Morbidity was 70% (n = 40), with gastrointestinal (30%; n = 17; leak 9%), pulmonary (25%; n = 14), and renal (21%) complications being most common. Incidence of reoperation for any vascular and/or gastrointestinal-related complication was 56% (n = 32). One-year and 3-year survival was 54% ± 6% and 48% ± 8%, respectively. Over time, 30- and 90-day mortality improved (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.5; P = .002) despite no change in patient factors, operative strategy, conduit choice, or morbidity rate. Prehospital history of gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.9; P = .06); however, reconstruction strategy (in-situ vs extra-anatomic bypass), postoperative gastrointestinal and/or vascular complication, omental flap use, and preoperative endovascular aneurysm repair history were not associated with outcome.
In conclusion, we observed improved short-term mortality despite no significant change in patient presentation or postoperative complications. This highlights increasing institutional experience in selecting the optimal surgical strategy and improved ability to rescue patients experiencing adverse postoperative events. An individualized approach to reconstruction and conduit choice can lead to best outcomes after SAEF management when patients are treated at a high-volume aortic surgery center.
Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is ...proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI.
All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death.
A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 33%; P-OMB, n = 97 67%) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 81%; prior OMB, n = 9 19%). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio HR, 7.4, 95% confidence interval CI, 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death.
The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research ...productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.
In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles.
There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects.
NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.
Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reintervention is common, conversion to open repair (EVAR-c) occurs less frequently but can be associated with significant technical complexity and ...perioperative risk. There is a paucity of data highlighting the evolution of periprocedural results surrounding EVAR-c and change in practice patterns, especially for referral centers that increasingly manage EVAR failures. The purpose of this analysis was to perform a temporal analysis of our EVAR-c experience and describe changes in patient selection, operative details, and outcomes.
A retrospective single-center review of all open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs was performed (2002-2019), and EVAR-c procedures were subsequently analyzed. EVAR-c patients (n = 184) were categorized into two different eras (2002-2009, n = 21; 2010-2019, n = 163) for comparison. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used for risk-adjusted comparisons.
A significant increase in EVAR-c as an indication for any type of open aneurysm repair was detected (9% to 27%; P < .001). Among EVAR-c patients, no change in age or individual comorbidities was evident (mean age, 71 ± 9 years); however, the proportion of female patients (P = .01) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >3 declined (P = .05). There was no difference in prevalence (50% vs 43%; P = .6) or number (median, 1.5 interquartile range (IQR), 0-5) of preadmission EVAR reinterventions; however, time to reintervention decreased (median, 23 IQR, 6-34 months vs 0 IQR, 0-22 months; P = .005). In contrast, time to EVAR-c significantly increased (median, 16 IQR, 9-39 months vs 48 IQR, 20-83 months; P = .008). No difference in frequency of nonelective presentation (mean, 52%; P = .9 or indication was identified, but a trend toward increasing mycotic EVAR-c was observed (5% vs 15%; P = .09). Use of retroperitoneal exposure (14% vs 77%; P < .0001), suprarenal cross-clamp application (6286%; P = .04), and visceral-ischemia time (median, 0 IQR, 0-11 minutes vs 5 IQR, 0-20 minutes; P = .05) all increased. In contrast, estimated blood loss (P trend = .03) and procedure time (P = .008) decreased. The unadjusted elective 30-day mortality rate improved but did not reach statistical significance (elective, 10% vs 5%; P = .5) with no change for non-elective operations (18% vs 16%; P = .9). However, a significantly decreased risk of complications was evident (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, .8-.9; P = .01). One- and 3-year survival was similar over time.
EVAR-c is now a common indication for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Patients frequently present nonelectively and at increasingly later intervals after their index EVAR. Despite increasing technical complexity, decreased complication risk and comparable survival can be anticipated when patients are managed at a high-volume aortic referral center.
Health literacy is a crucial aspect of informed decision-making, and limited health literacy has been associated with worse health care outcomes. To date, health literacy has not been examined in ...vascular surgery patients. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study to determine the prevalence and factors associated with poor health literacy in vascular surgery patients.
The Newest Vital Sign (Pfizer, New York, NY), a validated instrument, was used to appraise the health literacy of 150 patients who visited the outpatient vascular clinic at UF Health Shands Hospital between April 2022 and August 2022. Patients who scored a 4 (out of 6) or higher were classified as having adequate health literacy. Each study participant also completed a sociodemographic questionnaire.
In total, 82 out of the 150 (54%) patients we screened had limited health literacy. The prevalence of limited health literacy varied and was independently associated with increased age (odds ratio 1.06; 95% 1.02 to 1.10, P = .004), having not attended college (high school diploma versus college+ odds ratio 3.5; 95% 1.26 to 10.1, P = .018), and African American race (odds ratio 5.3; 95% 1.59 to 22.3, P = .012). A total of 83% of African American patients had limited health literacy, compared to 49% of Asian and White patients.
Most vascular surgery patients have limited health literacy. Increased age, fewer years of education, and African American race were associated with limited health literacy. Physicians caring for patients with lower health literacy should investigate and use communication strategies tailored to patients with limited health literacy.
The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved and is now firmly established as a mainstay of therapy for acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBAD). However, several ...important issues remain unresolved including the optimal timing, sizing, graft selection, coverage length and utilization of adjunctive therapies to address false lumen perfusion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to provide a contemporary perspective on the management and results for TEVAR of acTBAD.
All TEVAR patients (N.=159) with acTBAD from a single high-volume, academic medical center were analyzed. Comparative results across time-dependent cohorts (2005-2009 N.=43 vs. 2010-2014 N.=56 vs. 2015-2020 N.=60) are presented.
30-day mortality was 13%(N.=21) with a trend towards improvement over time (2005-2009, 18% vs. 2010-2020, 12%; P=0.1). Similarly, incidence of postoperative complications also declined: 2005-2009, 70% vs. 2010-2020, 36%(P-trend=0.08). One and 2-year freedom from aorta-related reintervention was 78±7% and 73±9% and did not differ across cohorts (log-rank P=0.5). Respective one and 5-year survival was 75±3% and 64±7%, but significantly improved with time (log-rank P<0.001). The corresponding one and five-year freedom from aorta-related mortality was 82±4% and 78±7% but did not change during the study interval (log-rank P=0.3).
Outcomes for TEVAR of acTBAD continue to improve over time. This time-dependent analysis delineates how results have changed due to increasing experience, technologic evolution, and maturation of the peer reviewed evidence. These results along with the evidence-based review provided herein, provide an update on the management and results of TEVAR of acTBAD while highlighting specific controversies unique to the management of this challenging clinical problem.
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and ...persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival.
All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors.
TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% n = 128; chronic, 51% n = 130). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% 28; chronic, 32% 42; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 0-12 vs 7 0-91 months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% P = .6; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% P = .8; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% P = 1). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% 13/128; chronic, 15% 20/130; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% 7/128; chronic, 4% 5/130; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% P = .3; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% P = .7). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI.
SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.
PDF
