Search

Background: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been proposed as a alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients. Recently Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR to include standard surgical risk patients within the Society of Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Few single centers compared the clinical outcome of TCAR with CEA. This study compares 30-day perioperative clinical outcomes between TCAR and CEA., Study Design: This is retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the TCAR Surveillance Project of TCAR patients enrolled in our institution and compared with CEAs done in the same time/with the same providers. The primary outcome was stroke and/or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death, MI, cranial nerve injury, bleeding, and others. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcomes., Results: The study analyzed 501 patients (347 CEA, 154 TCAR). There were no significant differences in symptomatic status (43% for CEA vs 38% for TCAR, p = 0.303). TCAR had more patients with hypertension (p = 0.04), coronary artery disease (p = 0.028), and congestive heart failure (p = 0.039). The 30-day perioperative complication rates for CEA vs TCAR were as follows: stroke 1% vs 3% (p = 0.142), stroke/death 1% vs 3% (p = 0.185), MI 0.6% vs 0.7% (p = 1), death 0.6% vs 0% (p = 1), stroke/death/MI 2% vs 4% (p = 0.233), cranial nerve injury 4% vs 2% (p = 0.412), and major hematoma (requiring reintervention) 2% vs 3% (p = 1). After matching 154 CEA patients and 154 TCAR, 30-day perioperative complication rates were as follows: stroke 2% vs 3% (p = 0.723), stroke/death 3% vs 3% (p = 1), death 1.3% vs 0% (p = 0.498), MI 0.7% vs 0.7% (p = 1), and stroke/death/MI 3% vs 4% (p = 0.759)., Conclusions: This study showed that using propensity match analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar 30-day perioperative outcomes. Further long-term data are needed., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) endoleaks and the need for reintervention are challenging. Additional endovascular treatment is advised for type Ia endoleaks detected on post-EVAR completion angiogram. This study analyzed management and late outcomes of these endoleaks., Study Design: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from EVAR patients during a 10-year period. All post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks on completion angiogram were identified (group A) and their early (30-day) and late outcomes were compared with outcomes of patients without endoleaks (group B). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis, sac expansion, late type Ia endoleak, and reintervention., Results: Seventy-one of 565 (12.6%) patients had immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleak. Early intervention (proximal aortic cuffs and/or stenting) was used in 56 of 71 (79%) in group A vs 31 of 494 (6%) in group B (p < 0.0001). Late type Ia endoleak was noted in 9 patients (13%) in group A at a mean follow-up of 28 months vs 10 patients (2%) in group B at a mean follow-up of 32 months (p < 0.0001). Late sac expansion and reintervention rates were 9% and 10% for group A vs 5% and 3% for group B (p = 0.2698 and p = 0.0198), respectively. Freedom rates from late type Ia endoleaks at 1, 3, and 5 years for group A were 88%, 85%, and 80% vs 98%, 98%, and 96% for group B (p < 0.001); and for late intervention, were 94%, 92%, and 77% for group A, and 99%, 97%, and 95% for group B (p = 0.007), respectively. Survival rates were similar., Conclusions: Immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks are associated with higher rates of early interventions, late endoleaks and reintervention, which will necessitate strict post-EVAR surveillance., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A significant number of patients undergo endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU). This study will examine various aortic neck features and their predictors of clinical outcomes., Study Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on EVAR patients. Neck features outside IFU were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses were used to predict their effect as single features, or in combination, on outcomes., Results: Fifty-two percent of 526 patients had 1 or more features outside the IFU. The overall technical success rate was 99%, and perioperative complication rates were 7% and 12% for IFU vs outside IFU use, respectively (p = 0.04). Type I early endoleak and early intervention rates were 7% and 10% for IFU vs 18% and 24% for outside IFU (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001). At a mean follow-up of 30 months, freedom from late type I endoleak and late reintervention at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 99.5%, 99.5%, and 98.4%, and 99.4%, 98%, and 96.8%; vs 98.9%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, and 97.5%, 96.2%, and 95.2% for outside IFU (p = 0.049 and 0.799), respectively. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 97%, 93.5%, and 89.8%; vs 93.7%, 88.8%, and 86.3% for outside IFU (p = 0.035). Multivariate analysis showed that a neck angle > 60 degrees had odds ratios for death, sac expansion, and early intervention of 6, 2.6, and 3.3, respectively; neck length < 10 mm had odds ratios of 2.8 for deaths, 3.4 for early intervention, 4.6 for late reintervention, and 4.3 for late type I endoleak., Conclusions: Patients with neck features outside IFU can be treated with EVAR; however, they have higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, early intervention, and late death., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)