Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on the outcomes of open repair of descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysms

ObjectiveTo discern the impact of depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on the outcomes of open descending thoracic aneurysm (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) repair.MethodsRestricted cubic spline analysis was used to identify a threshold of LVEF, which corresponded to an increase in operative mortality and major adverse events (MAE: operative death, myocardial infarction, stroke, spinal cord injury, need for tracheostomy or dialysis). Logistic and Cox regression were performed to identify independent predictors of MAE, operative mortality, and survival.ResultsDTA/TAAA repair was performed in 833 patients between 1997 and 2018. Restricted cubic spline analysis showed that patients with LVEF <40% (n = 66) had an increased risk of MAE (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-3.87; P < .01) and operative mortality (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.21-6.12; P = .02) compared with the group with LVEF ≥40% (n = 767). The group with LVEF <40% had a worse preoperative profile (eg, coronary revascularization, 48.5% vs 17.3% [P < .01]; valvular disease, 82.8% vs 49.39% [P < .01]; renal insufficiency, 45.5% vs 26.1% [P < .01]; respiratory insufficiency, 36.4% vs 21.2% [P = .01]) and worse long-term survival (35.5% vs 44.7% at 10 years; P = .01). Nonetheless, on multivariate regression, depressed LVEF was not an independent predictor of operative mortality, MAE, or survival.ConclusionsLVEF is not an independent predictor of adverse events in surgery for DTA.     

Outcomes after endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A population-based study

ObjectiveWe sought to determine the early and late outcomes of endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.MethodsWe performed a multicenter population-based study across the province of Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2017. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were time to first event of a composite of mortality, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, and stroke, the individual end points of the composite, patient disposition at discharge, hospital length of stay, myocardial infarction, and secondary procedures at follow-up.ResultsA total of 664 adults undergoing surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (endovascular: n = 303 [45.5%] vs open: n = 361 [54.5%]) were identified using an algorithm of administrative codes validated against the operative records. Propensity score matching resulted in 241 patient pairs. Endovascular repairs increased during the study and currently comprise more than 50% of total repairs. In the matched sample, open repair was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital death (17.4% vs 10.8%, P = .04), complications (26.1% vs 17.4%, P = .02), discharge to rehabilitation facilities (18.7% vs 10.0%, P = .02), and longer length of stay (12 [7-21] vs 6 [3-13] days, P < .01). Long-term mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.50), nor were the other secondary end points, with the exception of secondary procedures, which were higher in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.55). At 8 years, overall survival was 41.3% versus 44.6% after endovascular and open repair (P = .62).ConclusionsEndovascular repair was associated with improved early outcomes but higher rates of secondary procedures after discharge. Long-term survival after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is poor and independent of repair technique.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta.MethodsA comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates.ResultsA total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n = 578) and open repair in 71% (n = 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 ± 14 years vs 44.1 ± 14 years; P = .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 ± 11.1 days vs 12.6 ± 8 days [P = .35] and 27.5 ± 14.6 days vs 25.9 ± 11 days [P = .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P = .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P = .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P = .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.20; P = .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P = .04).ConclusionsTEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.     

Sex differences in perioperative outcomes after complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveFemale sex is associated with worse outcomes after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, the impact of female sex on complex AAA repair is poorly characterized. Therefore, we compared outcomes between female and male patients after open and endovascular treatment of complex AAA.MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent complex aneurysm repair between 2011 and 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Complex repairs were defined as those for juxtarenal, pararenal, or suprarenal aneurysms. We compared rates of perioperative adverse events between female and male patients stratified by open AAA repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted logistic regression to identify independent associations between female sex and our outcomes.ResultsWe identified 2270 complex aneurysm repairs, of which 1260 were EVARs (21.4% female) and 1010 were open repairs (30.7% female). After EVAR, female patients had higher rates of perioperative mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .001) and major complications (15.9% vs 7.6%; P < .001) compared with male patients. In contrast, after open repair, perioperative mortality was not significantly different (7.4% vs 5.6%; P = .3), and the rate of major complications was similar (29.4% vs 27.4%; P = .53) between female and male patients. Furthermore, even though perioperative mortality was significantly lower after EVAR compared with open repair for male patients (2.4% vs 5.6%; P = .001), this difference was not significant for women (6.3% vs 7.4%; P = .60). On multivariable analysis, female sex remained independently associated with higher perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.9; P = .007) and major complications (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.2; P = .002) in patients treated with EVAR but showed no significant association with mortality (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6; P = .69) or major complications (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5; P = .74) after open repair. However, the association of female sex with higher perioperative mortality in patients undergoing complex EVAR was attenuated when diameter was replaced with aortic size index in the multivariable analysis (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .091).ConclusionsFemale sex is associated with higher perioperative mortality and more major complications than for male patients after complex EVAR but not after complex open repair. Continuous efforts are warranted to improve the sex discrepancies in patients undergoing endovascular repair of complex AAA.     

Female sex is associated with comparable 5-year outcomes after contemporary endovascular aneurysm repair despite more challenging anatomy

BackgroundWomen with abdominal aortic aneurysms less often meet anatomic criteria for endovascular repair and experience worse perioperative and long-term survival.MethodsWe compared long-term survival, aneurysm-related mortality, and rates of endoleaks and reinterventions between male and female patients in the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE) using 2:1 propensity score matching.ResultsThere were 1130 male patients and 133 female patients, yielding 399 patients after matching (266 male patients, 133 female patients). Female patients were older, with smaller aneurysms, smaller iliac arteries, and shorter, more angulated necks, and they were more often treated outside the device instructions for use (all P < .001). Through 5 years, female patients experienced overall mortality comparable to that of well-matched male patients (34% vs 38%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89 [0.61-1.29]; P = .54) and lower aneurysm-related mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .047). Female patients experienced higher rates of any postoperative type IA endoleak through 5 years (10% vs 1%; P < .001) but comparable rates of secondary endovascular procedures (14% vs 16%; P = .40). Female sex was independently associated with significantly higher risk of long-term type IA endoleaks (hazard ratio, 4.8 [1.2-20.8]; P = .04), even after accounting for anatomic factors. No female patient experienced aneurysm rupture during follow-up, and only one female patient underwent conversion to open repair.ConclusionsDespite more challenging anatomy, female patients in the ENGAGE registry had long-term outcomes comparable to those of male patients. However, female patients experienced higher rates of type IA endoleaks. Although standard endovascular aneurysm repair remains a viable solution for most women, whether high-risk patients may be better served with open surgery, custom-made devices, EndoAnchors (Aptus Endosystems, Sunnyvale, Calif), or chimneys is worthy of further study.     

Comparative outcomes of open,hybrid, and fenestrated branched endovascular repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveOpen 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.MethodsAll 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.ResultsOne 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).ConclusionsExtent 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.     

Renal perfusion with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate compared with Ringer's solution in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic open repair

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of renal perfusion with Custodiol (Dr Franz-Kohler Chemie GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) versus enriched Ringer's solution for renal protection in patients undergoing open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair.MethodsNinety consecutive patients scheduled for elective open TAAA repair were enrolled between 2015 and 2017 in a single-center, phase IV, prospective, parallel, randomized, double-blind trial (the CUstodiol versus RInger: whaT Is the Best Agent [CURITIBA] trial), and randomized to renal arteries perfusion with 4°C Custodiol (Dr Franz-Kohler Chemie GmbH, Bensheim, Germany; n = 45) or 4°C lactated Ringer's solution (n = 45). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing TAAA open surgery using Custodiol renal perfusion versus an enriched Ringer's solution was the primary end point.ResultsNinety patients completed the study (45 patients in each group). The incidence of postoperative AKI was significantly lower in the Custodiol group (48.9% vs 75.6%; P = .02). In the multivariable model, only the use of Custodiol solution resulted as protective from the occurrence of any AKI (odds ratio, 0.230; 95% confidence interval, 0.086-0.614; P = .003), whereas TAAA type II extent was associated with the development of severe AKI (odds ratio, 4.277; 95% confidence interval, 1.239-14.762; P = .02). At 1-year follow-up, serum creatinine was not significantly different from the preoperative values in both groups.ConclusionsThe use of Custodiol during open TAAA repair was safe and resulted in significantly lower rates of postoperative AKI compared with Ringer's solution. These findings support safety and efficacy of Custodiol in this specific setting, which is currently off-label.     

Risk factors for early and late mortality after fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aneurysms

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes after fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) performed in high-risk patients to treat pararenal (PR) aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) and to identify those patients likely to benefit from this treatment.MethodsA prospective single-center review of patients treated electively for PR aneurysm and TAAA using F-BEVAR between 2004 and 2016 was performed. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors associated with 30-day morbidity and mortality during follow-up were determined using multivariate statistical techniques and a Cox regression model including all variables that were significant on univariate analysis (P < .05).ResultsThere were 468 patients (median age, 71.6 years) identified, with American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 in 94.7%. There were 221 (47.2%) type I to type III TAAAs and 247 (52.8%) type IV and type V TAAAs and PR aneurysms, with a median diameter of 58 mm. Technical success for target vessel stenting was 99.1% (1493/1506). The 30-day mortality rate was 4.9% (23 patients). The spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.8% (18 patients). Twenty patients (4.3%) required postoperative dialysis and four patients (0.8%) long-term dialysis after discharge. Median follow-up was 29 months. Survival at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years was 86.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.1-89.6), 73.3% (95% CI, 68.3-77.6), and 59.6% (95% CI, 53.4-65.2), respectively. Freedom from any target vessel occlusion and freedom from secondary procedures were 96.2% (95% CI, 93.8-97.7) and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.8-90.9) at 1 year and 90.0% (95% CI, 84.5-91.9) and 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-75.6) at 5 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, early mortality was associated with procedure time (hazard ratio [HR], 1.007 per minute; 95% CI, 1.003-1.010; P < .001), TAAA preoperative diameter (HR, 1.053 per millimeter; 95% CI, 1.020-1.087; P = .001), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 3.139; 95% CI, 1.369-7.196; P = .007). Mortality during the first 24 months of follow-up was associated with Crawford types I to III (HR, 1.526; 95% CI, 1.061-2.196; P = .023) compared with infradiaphragmatic repairs, chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.874; 95% CI, 1.294-2.712; P < .001), and TAAA preoperative diameter (HR, 1.027 per millimeter; 95% CI, 1.010-1.044; P = .002). In addition to these risk factors, mortality after 24 months of follow-up was also associated with age at repair (HR, 1.055 per year; 95% CI, 1.021-1.090; P = .001).ConclusionsF-BEVAR performed in high-risk patients is associated with favorable outcomes. Judicious selection of patients should take into consideration the reported risk factors associated with early and late mortality.     

Chronic kidney disease impacts outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveChronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study stratifies outcomes of AAA repair by approach, CKD severity, and dialysis dependence.MethodsAll patients undergoing elective infrarenal open aneurysm repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: CKD stages 1 and 2, CKD stage 3a, CKD stage 3b, CKD stages 4 and 5, and dialysis. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of survival were identified by Cox multivariate regression models.ResultsIn total, 53,867 elective AAA repairs were identified: 5396 (10%) OARs and 48,471 (90%) EVARs. Most patients were White (90%) and male (81%), with a mean age of 73 ± 9 years. Patients who underwent EVAR were older and had more comorbidities. The use of elective EVAR for AAA increased from 52% in 2003 to 91% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications and short-term mortality. The CKD 1 and 2 group had the highest 1-year survival compared with the other groups after both OAR and EVAR. On Cox regression analysis, after EVAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.68; P = .13; CKD 3b: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.45; P < .050; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.13-4.88; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.90-10.6; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates. After OAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96-1.20; P = .20; CKD 3b: HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.41-1.81; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.39-3.41; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.01-4.76; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates.ConclusionsRegardless of the treatment approach, CKD severity is an important predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality rates after infrarenal AAA repair and may reflect the natural history of CKD. Open repair is associated with high perioperative mortality risk in patients with CKD stages 4 and 5, as well as end-stage renal disease. Individualization of patient decision-making is especially important in patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 45 and perhaps consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in these patients. Further studies focusing on appropriate size threshold for repair in these patients may be warranted.     

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

BackgroundThoracic 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.MethodsAll 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.ResultsTEVAR 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.ConclusionsSAI 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.     

Nationwide comparison of long-term survival and cardiovascular morbidity after acute aortic aneurysm repair in patients with and without type 2 diabetes

ObjectiveEpidemiologic data indicate decreased risk for development, growth, and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). We therefore evaluated mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after acute repair of AAA in diabetic and nondiabetic patients.MethodsIn this nationwide observational cohort study of patients registered in the Swedish Vascular Registry and the Swedish National Diabetes Register, we compared mortality and morbidity after acute open (n = 1357 [61%]) or endovascular (n = 860 [39%]) repair of ruptured (n = 1469 [66%]) or otherwise symptomatic (n = 748 [34%]) AAAs in 363 patients with and 1854 patients without DM with propensity score-adjusted analysis.ResultsFollow-up was 3.91 years for patients with DM and 3.18 years for those without. In propensity-adjusted analysis, diabetic patients showed lower total mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.95; P = .016) and cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50; P = .01) than those without DM, whereas there were no differences in rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42; P = .42), acute myocardial infarction (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.70-2.63; P = .37), or stroke (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.84-2.03; P = .23).ConclusionsPatients with type 2 DM had lower rates of both total and cardiovascular mortality after acute AAA repair than those without DM, whereas rates of cardiovascular events, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke did not differ between groups. This might be explained by putative protective effects of DM on the aortic wall.     

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThe Zenith Fenestrated Endovascular Graft (ZFEN; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) has expanded the anatomic eligibility of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Current data on ZFEN mainly consist of single-institution experiences and show conflicting results. Therefore, we compared perioperative outcomes after repair using ZFEN with open complex AAA repair and infrarenal EVAR in a nationwide multicenter registry.MethodsWe identified all patients undergoing elective AAA repair using ZFEN, open complex AAA repair, and standard infrarenal EVAR between 2012 and 2016 within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Open complex AAA repairs were defined as those with a juxtarenal or suprarenal proximal AAA extent in combination with an aortic cross-clamping position that was above at least one renal artery. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality, defined as death within 30 days or within the index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included postoperative renal dysfunction (creatinine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative value or new dialysis), occurrence of any complication, procedure times, blood transfusion rates, and length of stay. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability-weighted logistic regression.ResultsWe identified 6825 AAA repairs—220 ZFENs, 181 open complex AAA repairs, and 6424 infrarenal EVARs. Univariate analysis of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair demonstrated lower rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 8.8%; P = .001), postoperative renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 7.7%; P = .002), and overall complications (11% vs 33%; P < .001). In addition, fewer patients undergoing ZFEN received blood transfusions (22% vs 73%; P < .001), and median length of stay was shorter (2 vs 7 days; P < .001). After adjustment, open complex AAA repair was associated with higher odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-18), postoperative renal dysfunction (OR, 13; 95% CI, 3.6-49), and overall complication rates (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.3-7.5) compared with ZFEN. Compared with infrarenal EVAR, ZFEN presented comparable rates of perioperative mortality (1.8% vs 0.8%; P = .084), renal dysfunction (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .19), and any complication (11% vs 7.7%; P = .09). Furthermore, after adjustment, there was no significant difference between the odds of perioperative mortality, postoperative renal dysfunction, or any complication between infrarenal EVAR and ZFEN.ConclusionsZFEN is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open complex AAA repair, and outcomes are comparable to those of infrarenal EVAR. Long-term durability of ZFEN compared with open complex AAA repair warrants future research.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical versus endovascular thrombectomy of thrombosed arteriovenous grafts in hemodialysis patients

BackgroundThe major pitfall of arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) for hemodialysis patients is thrombosis and occlusion. Prompt intervention with either surgical or endovascular therapy to salvage the vascular access is crucial in maintaining effective hemodialysis. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare the efficacy of open surgical vs wholly endovascular therapy for the treatment of thrombosed AVGs.MethodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relative risks **(RRs) and pooled proportions for both primary and secondary outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of eight randomized, controlled trials and two retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 806 (63%) and 466 (37%) participants in the surgical and wholly endovascular treatment arms respectively. There were no significant differences between endovascular and surgical therapy in the 30-, 60-, and 90-day primary nonpatency rates. However, endovascular therapy reported a significantly higher 1-year primary nonpatency rate (rate ratio [RR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.33; P < .01) and the 2-year primary nonpatency rate (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.45; P < .01) as compared with surgical therapy. Similarly, the endovascular arm had a higher pooled proportion of primary nonpatency of 87.7% (95% CI, 81.5%-92.9%; P = .297), as compared with the surgical arm (72.1%; 95% CI, 66.4%-77.4%; P = .289). In terms of secondary nonpatency rates, there were no significant differences between endovascular and surgical procedures at 30, 60, and 90 days. Endovascular procedures reported a significantly higher technical failure rate as compared with surgical thrombectomy (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.06-2.37; P = .03). There was no significant difference in terms of minor and major complications.ConclusionsOur data suggest that, for thrombectomy of AVGs, wholly endovascular therapy seems to be inferior to open surgery plus adjuncts based on the long-term patency and technical failure rates. However, further research in the form of a well-conducted randomized trial is warranted to establish a firmer conclusion.     

Two-year evaluation of fenestrated and parallel branch endografts for the treatment of juxtarenal,suprarenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms at a single institution

ObjectiveDespite numerous recent pivotal and small-scale trials, real-world endovascular management of juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA), suprarenal aneurysms (SRA), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) remains challenging without consensus best practices. This study evaluated the mortality, graft patency, renal function, complication, and reintervention rates for fenestrated and parallel endografts in complex aortic aneurysms repairs.MethodsThis retrospective review of consecutive included patients with JRA, SRA, or TAAA who underwent complex endovascular repair from August 2014 to March 2017 at one high-volume institution. Treatment modality was a single surgeon decision based on patients anatomy and the urgency of the repair. Patient demographics, hospital course, and follow-up visits inclusive of imaging were analyzed. Ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Survival rates and outcomes were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.ResultsSeventy complex endovascular aortic repairs were performed; 38 patients with TAAA were treated with snorkel/sandwich parallel endografts (21 celiac, 28 superior mesenteric arteries, 58 renal arteries) and 32 patients with JRA/SRA were treated by fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with 94 total fenestrations (2 celiac, 30 SMA, 62 renal). The mean patient age was 74.8 ± 10.0 years. Sixty percent were male, and the mean aortic aneurysm diameter was 6.0 ± 1.4 cm. Perioperative mortality was 3.1% (1/32) for FEVAR compared with 2.6% (1/38) for parallel endografts (P = .9). All-cause reintervention rates were 15.6% in FEVAR (5/32) vs 23.6% with parallel endografts (9/38; P = .4). Branch reintervention rates per each branch endograft were 4.3% for FEVAR (4/94; 2 renal stent occlusions, 1 colonic ischemia without technical issue found on reintervention, 1 perinephric hematoma) vs 3.7% for parallel endografts (4/107; 2 renal and 1 celiac stent thromboses, and 1 renal stent kink; P = .41). The endograft branch thrombosis rate was 2.1% in FEVAR (2/94) vs 2.7% in parallel endografts (3/109; P = .77). Reinterventions owing to endoleaks were performed in five patients (2 type I, 2 type III, and 1 gutter endoleak; 13.1%) with parallel grafts vs no endoleak reinterventions in FEVAR. The overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related mortality at 24 months was 78% and 96.9% in FEVAR vs 73% and 93.4% for parallel endografts (P = .8 and P = .6). The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 1-32 months).ConclusionsParallel and fenestrated endografts have acceptable and comparable mortality and patency rates in endovascular treatment of JRA, SRA, and TAAA. This study reaffirms that parallel endografts are a safe and viable alternative to fenestrated devices for complex aortic aneurysmal disease despite often treating more urgent patients and more complicated anatomy unable to be treated with FEVAR.     

Effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on thirty-day outcomes following total hip arthroplasty: A matched-pair cohort analysis

Study objectiveIt has not yet been established whether total hip arthroplasty complications are associated with anesthetic technique (spinal versus general). This study assessed the effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on health care resource utilization and secondary endpoints following total hip arthroplasty.DesignPropensity-matched cohort analysis.SettingAmerican College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participating hospitals from 2015 to 2021.PatientsPatients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (n = 223,060).InterventionsNone.MeasurementsThe a priori study duration was 2015 to 2018 (n = 109,830). The primary endpoint was 30-day unplanned resource utilization, namely readmission and reoperation. Secondary endpoints included 30-day wound complications, systemic complications, bleeding events, and mortality. The impact of anesthetic technique was investigated with univariate analyses, multivariable analyses, and survival analyses.Main resultsThe 1:1 propensity-matched cohort included 96,880 total patients (48,440 in each anesthesia group) from 2015 to 2018. On univariate analysis, spinal anesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of unplanned resource utilization (3.1% [1486/48440] vs 3.7% [1770/48440]; odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90]; P < .001), systemic complications (1.1% [520/48440] vs 1.5% [723/48440]; OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.80]; P < .001), and bleeding events requiring transfusion (2.3% [1120/48440] vs 4.9% [2390/48440]; OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.49]; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, spinal anesthesia remained an independent predictor of unplanned resource utilization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90]; c = 0.646), systemic complications (AOR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81]; c = 0.676), and bleeding events (AOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.49]; c = 0.686). Hospital length of stay was also shorter in the spinal anesthesia cohort (2.15 vs 2.24 days; mean difference, −0.09 [95% CI, −0.12 to −0.07]; P < .001). Similar findings were observed in the cohort from 2019 to 2021.ConclusionsTotal hip arthroplasty patients receiving spinal anesthesia experience favorable outcomes compared to propensity-matched general anesthesia patients.     

Open surgery versus endovascular approach in treatment of extracranial carotid artery aneurysms

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate and to compare the early and long-term results of open surgery with endovascular intervention in the treatment of extracranial carotid artery aneurysms (ECCAs).MethodsA retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ECCAs who underwent open surgical or endovascular treatment from 1997 to 2017 was performed. Clinical characteristics, aneurysm profile, and treatment outcomes were recorded. Early results (<30 days) were evaluated in terms of mortality, perioperative stroke or transient ischemic attack, and cranial nerve injury. Late results were analyzed in terms of both overall and stroke-free survival and freedom from reinterventions.ResultsA total of 48 patients with ECCAs including 34 (70.8%) true aneurysms and 14 (29.2%) pseudoaneurysms were treated. The median age was 51 years, and 19 patients (39.6%) were men; 41 patients (85.4%) had symptoms, whereas 7 (14.6%) were asymptomatic. Among 48 patients, 32 patients (66.7%) underwent open surgery; endovascular repair was performed on 16 patients (33.3%). The 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack rate was not significantly different between the open group (6.3% [2/32]) and the endovascular group (0% [0/16]; P = .307). Cranial nerve injuries occurred in eight patients in the open group (25%) and in no patient in the endovascular group (0%; P = .029). Median length of stay was significantly longer in the open group than in the endovascular group (20 vs 14 days, respectively; P = .013). Median follow-up was 46 months (range, 0-20 years), and no aneurysm-related death occurred during this period. Overall survival rates at 5 years were 88.7% (standard error [SE], 0.08) in the open group and 91.7% (SE, 0.08) in the endovascular group (P = .319; log-rank, .992). For the same time interval, stroke-free survival rates were 85.2% (SE, 0.10) in the open group and 92.2% (SE, 0.07) in the endovascular group (P = .653; log-rank, .201). One patient (1/28 [3.6%]) in the open group and two patients (2/16 [12.5%]) in the endovascular group underwent endovascular reinterventions because of restenosis during the follow-up period. Reintervention-free survival rates were 90.9% in the open group (SE, 0.09) and 69.2% in the endovascular group (SE, 0.21; P = .082; log-rank, 3.016).ConclusionsIn this single-institutional experience, both operative and endovascular interventions for ECCAs provided acceptable early and 5-year results. The endovascular approach had significantly less cranial nerve injury and shorter length of hospital stay.     

Long-term results after standard endovascular aneurysm repair with the Endurant and Excluder stent grafts

ObjectiveMany endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts.MethodsPatients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points.ResultsThe study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (β-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39).ConclusionsThis study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.     

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair

BackgroundThe use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR.MethodsThe data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes.ResultsA total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010).ConclusionsThe results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.     

Early repair of complete atrioventricular septal defect has better survival than staged repair after pulmonary artery banding: A propensity score–matched study

ObjectivesComplete atrioventricular septal defect (cAVSD) repair is usually performed between 3 and 6 months of age. However, some children present with early heart failure requiring intervention. It is unclear whether primary complete repair or initial pulmonary artery banding (PAB) provides better outcomes.MethodsAll patients (n = 194) who underwent surgery for cAVSD younger than 3 months of age between 1990 and 2019 were included. Propensity score matching was performed on risk factors for mortality.ResultsPrimary complete repair was performed in 77.8% (151/194), whereas PAB was performed in 22.2% (43/194). Children who had PAB were younger (P < .01), had lower weight (P < .001), and less trisomy 21 (P = .04). Interstage mortality for PAB was 18.6% (8/43), whereas early mortality for primary repair was 3.3% (5/151). Survival at 20 years was 92.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.6%-95.7%) for primary repair and 63.2% (95% CI, 42.5%-78.1%) for PAB (P < .001). There was no difference in left atrioventricular valve (LAVV) reoperation rates (P = .94). Propensity score matching produced 2 well-matched groups. Survival at 20 years was 94.2% (95% CI, 85.1%-98.8%) for primary repair, and 58.4% (95% CI, 33.5%-76.7%) for PAB (P = .001). There was no difference in LAVV reoperation rates (P = .71). Neonatal repair was achieved with no early deaths and 100% survival at 10 years.ConclusionsIn children younger than 3 months of age, complete repair of cAVSD is associated with better survival than PAB. Both strategies have similar rates of LAVV reoperation. Neonatal repair of cAVSD can be achieved with excellent results. Primary repair of cAVSD should be the preferred strategy in children younger than 3 months of age.     

Mortality analysis of endovascular aneurysm sealing versus endovascular aneurysm repair

BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR.MethodsWe compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.ResultsAfter weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46).ConclusionsWithin the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.