The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on follow-up after vascular surgery arterial procedures

Inferior Mid-term Durability with Comparable Survival for Younger Patients Undergoing Elective Endovascular Infrarenal versus Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in younger patients for elective, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) remains unclear due to limited follow-up.

METHODS

We identified all patients <70 years of age who underwent elective, de novo EVAR or OSR for infrarenal AAA from 2003 to 2013 in a multihospital, single institution. Baseline patient clinical and aneurysmal characteristics were adjusted for using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

We identified 253 patients: 204 underwent EVAR (80.6%) and 49 OSR (19.4%). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar across groups. There were no deaths in the immediate perioperative period. The rate of new arrhythmia (EVAR: 1.0%, OSR: 10.2%; P = 0.004), median hospital length of stay (EVAR: 1 day, OSR: 5 days; P < 0.001), and discharge to a facility (EVAR: 2.9%, OSR: 12.2%; P = 0.016) were significantly increased for OSR. In both groups, median follow-up time was 4.5 years, in which survival did not differ between groups. The hazard of composite of freedom from death and any reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR] 4.3, P = 0.009), freedom from any reintervention (relative risk [RR] 4.08, P = 0.030), and freedom from any endovascular reintervention (RR 4.83, P = 0.038) were each higher for OSR when compared to EVAR. EVAR of the standard instruction for use (IFU) for neck length was more likely to die or undergo a reintervention (HR 4.90, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective review of younger patients undergoing elective AAA repair demonstrated no significant differences in perioperative mortality or survival over time between EVAR and OSR. EVAR required more total reinterventions and endovascular reintervention when compared to OSR.

Perfusion Assessment in Critical Limb Ischemia: Principles for Understanding and the Development of Evidence and Evaluation of Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

There are >12 million patients with peripheral artery disease in the United States. The most severe form of peripheral artery disease is critical limb ischemia (CLI). The diagnosis and management of CLI is often challenging. Ethnic differences in comorbidities and presentation of CLI exist. Compared with white patients, black and Hispanic patients have higher prevalence rates of diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease and are more likely to present with gangrene, whereas white patients are more likely to present with ulcers and rest pain. A thorough evaluation of limb perfusion is important in the diagnosis of CLI because it can not only enable timely diagnosis but also reduce unnecessary invasive procedures in patients with adequate blood flow or among those with other causes for ulcers, including venous, neuropathic, or pressure changes. This scientific statement discusses the current tests and technologies for noninvasive assessment of limb perfusion, including the ankle-brachial index, toe-brachial index, and other perfusion technologies. In addition, limitations of the current technologies along with opportunities for improvement, research, and reducing disparities in health care for patients with CLI are discussed.

Comparison of Bypass and Endovascular Intervention for Popliteal Occlusion with the Involvement of Trifurcation for Critical Limb Ischemia

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to analyze the technical aspects and outcomes of the treatment of occlusion of the popliteal artery with the involvement of the trifurcation treated with a bypass (open) and endovascular (endo) approach.

METHODS

Overall, 108 consecutive procedures were enrolled retrospectively. Patients were evaluated in 2 groups: the endo group (65 patients) and the open group (43 patients). Primary outcome were MALE (major adverse limb events), amputation-free survival, and early mortality (until 30 days). Secondary outcome was overall survival in 3 years. Inclusion criteria were Rutherford 4 and 5 and occlusion of the popliteal artery with the involvement of trifurcation and, at least, 1 infrapopliteal artery of runoff.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 100% of patients in the open and 96.9% of patients in the endo group. Freedom from MALE was 73.5% and 68.5% for 1 and 3 years respectively for the endo group, and 84.3% and 77.2% respectively for the open group (P = 0.413). Considering the total number of major reinterventions executed until 3 years, the reinterventions was statistically more performed in the endo compared to the open group (P = 0.0459). Amputation-free survival for the endo group in 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years was 93.7%, 79.3%, and 66.0%, respectively, and the amputation-free survival for the open group was 88.4%, 77.4%, and 64.3% (P = 0.726). Early mortality was 9.3% for the open group and 1.5% for the endo group (P = 0.060). In 3 years, the overall survival was 75.1% in the open group and 84.3% in the endo group.

CONCLUSIONS

In 3 years, follow-up endovascular treatment of occlusion of the popliteal artery with the involvement of the trifurcation has similar time freedom from MALE compared to open approach. Overall and amputation-free survival was not different between the groups besides more reinterventions in patients who underwent endovascular approach.

Five-year reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Patients who undergo endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) remain at risk for reintervention and rupture. We sought to define the 5-year rate of reintervention and rupture after EVR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).

METHODS

We identified all patients in the VQI who underwent EVR from 2003 to 2015. We linked patients in the VQI to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We stratified patients on baseline clinical and procedural characteristics to identify those at risk for reintervention. Our primary outcomes were 5-year rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture after EVR. We assessed these with Kaplan-Meier survival estimation.

RESULTS

We studied 12,911 patients who underwent EVR. The mean age was 75.5 years, 79.9% were male, 3.9% were black, and 89.1% of operations were performed electively. The 5-year rate of reintervention for the entire cohort was 21%, and the 5-year rate of late aneurysm rupture was 3%. Reintervention rates varied across categories of EVR urgency. Patients who underwent EVR electively had the lowest 5-year rate of reintervention at 20%. Those who underwent surgery for symptomatic aneurysms had higher rates of reintervention at 25%. Patients undergoing EVR emergently for rupture had the highest rate of reintervention, 27% at 4 years (log-rank across the three groups, P < .001). Black race and aneurysm size of 6.0 cm or greater were associated with significantly elevated reintervention rates (black, 31% vs white, 20% [log-rank, P < .001]; aneurysm size 6.0 cm or greater, 27% vs all others, <20% [log-rank, P < .001]). There were no significant associations between age or gender and the 5-year rate of reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one in five Medicare patients undergo reintervention within 5 years after EVR in the VQI; late rupture remains low at 3%. Black patients, those with large aneurysms, and those who undergo EVR urgently and emergently have a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes and should be the focus of diligent long-term surveillance.

Predictor of false lumen thrombosis after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of type B aortic dissection initiates thrombosis in the false lumen, which eventually results in aortic remodeling. We aimed to determine whether the false lumen thrombosis rate (FLTR) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair can be accurately predicted by an index that expresses the degree of aortic arch angulation.

METHODS

The geometry of 48 patients with acute type B aortic dissection (mean age, 48 years) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair was reconstructed from postoperative computed tomography images. We introduced a novel angle-the degree of question mark (φ)-to indicate the aortic morphology. Moreover, how aortic angulation influenced the FLTR was investigated based on hemodynamic parameters. Finally, a predicted mathematical model relating FLTR to aortic angulation was proposed, and 10 patients were chosen to validate the model.

RESULTS

The degree of question mark shape was shown to negatively correlate with FLTR (n = 38; P < .001; R = -0.661), and the linear relationship model was created as follows: FLTR (%) = -1.955 × φ + 168.24 (R² = 0.437; P < .001). In addition, the net flow rate to the false lumen significantly increased with the increase of the degree of the question mark shape of the aorta. Furthermore, the difference and concordance of the proposed prediction model were perfectly validated in the remaining 10 patients using paired-sample t test and the concordance correlation coefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The size of the question mark shape may be a good predictor for FLTR of acute type B aortic dissection following thoracic endovascular aortic repair. The higher the degrees of the question mark, the less likely it was to form a complete thrombus.

Loss to follow-up 1 year after lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention is associated with worse survival

Loss to follow-up (LTF) has been associated with worse outcomes after procedures. We sought to identify differences in lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) patients with and without LTF, and to determine if LTF impacted survival. Patients in the PVI registry of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) were included (n = 39,342), where t-test and chi-squared analysis were used to compare those with and without LTF. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with LTF while Cox regression analysis was applied to compare survival among those with and without LTF. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 91.6%. LTF patients were more often male, Hispanic, of black race, and had a higher rate of diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and dialysis. LTF patients had a higher prevalence of critical limb ischemia, underwent popliteal or distal intervention, and were intervened upon urgently. There was also a higher rate of postoperative complications, and a lower rate of technical success for LTF patients. After controlling for center effects, the independent variables associated with LTF included male sex, age, diabetes, dialysis dependence, ASA class 3 or greater, as well as complications requiring admission. Preoperative aspirin, preadmission home living status, prior carotid intervention, and discharge aspirin were protective against LTF. Adjusted survival analysis showed decreased survival in LTF, with those returning face-to-face surviving longer than those with phone follow-up. Efforts should be focused on understanding these differences to improve follow-up rates and help improve overall survival.

Lower extremity critical limb ischemia: A review of clinical features and management

Lower extremity critical limb ischemia (CLI) represents symptoms related to end-stage atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease manifested by rest pain and tissue loss. It is associated with increased risk of limb amputation and cardiovascular-related mortality. The prevalence and cost of CLI are expected to increase with both the aging of the U.S. population and continued influence of smoking and diabetes. Treatments encompass measures to reduce cardiovascular risk and preserve limb viability. Despite increasing popularity of endovascular modalities, revascularization with either surgical bypass or endovascular intervention is the cornerstone of therapy. Adequate Level I data to guide decisions regarding optimal strategies to treat CLI, particularly in patients who are candidates for both open and percutaneous approaches, are currently lacking. Ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to resolve the clinical equipoise.