Bradley B. Hill

Type-II Endoleaks Following Endovascular AAA Repair: Preoperative Predictors and Long-term Effects

Purpose: To determine the significance of persistent type-II endoleaks and whether they can be predicted preoperatively in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Methods: The charts of all AAA patients treated with the AneuRx stent-graft at a single center from 1996 to 1998 were reviewed. Patients with <12-month follow-up or type-I endoleaks were excluded. The presence or absence of type-II endoleaks was determined from duplex imaging and computed tomographic angiography. Three groups were identified and compared: 16 patients with persistent type-II endoleaks (PE), 14 patients with transient type-II endoleaks (TE), and 16 patients with no endoleak (NE). Results: The groups did not differ with regard to age, preoperative comorbidities, follow-up time, and AAA neck diameter and length. AAA diameters were 57.1 ± 9.0 mm for NE, 63.4 ± 11.4 mm for TE, and 55.6 ± 4.2 mm for PE. The inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) was patent in 5 (31%) NE patients, 6 (43%) TE patients, and 13 (81%) PE patients (p < 0.01). The number of patent lumbar arteries visualized preoperatively was 0.5 ± 1.0 in NE, 1.3 ± 0.8 in TE, and 2.4 ± 0.6 in PE (p < 0.0001). Patent IMAs (RR 0.82, p<0.01) and >2 lumbar arteries (RR 0.40, p < 0.0001) were identified as independent preoperative risk factors for persistent endoleaks. There were no changes in mean diameter or volume in aneurysms with persistent endoleaks. Conclusions: No adverse clinical events were related to the presence of type-II endoleaks, but there was no decrease in aneurysm size in patients with persistent type-II leaks. Patients with a large, patent IMA, or >2 lumbar arteries on preoperative CT angiography are at higher risk for persistent type-II endoleaks.

Reoperation for carotid stenosis is as safe as primary carotid endarterectomy

PURPOSE Patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis are sometimes referred for carotid angioplasty and stenting because of reports that carotid reoperation has a higher complication rate than primary carotid endarterectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a difference exists between outcomes of primary carotid endarterectomy and reoperative carotid surgery. METHODS Medical records were reviewed for all carotid operations performed from September 1993 through March 1998 by vascular surgery faculty at a single academic center. The results of primary carotid endarterectomy and operation for recurrent carotid stenosis were compared. RESULTS A total of 390 operations were performed on 352 patients. Indications for primary carotid endarterectomy (n = 350) were asymptomatic high-grade stenosis in 42% of the cases, amaurosis fugax and transient ischemic symptoms in 35%, global symptoms in 14%, and previous stroke in 9%. Indications for reoperative carotid surgery (n = 40) were symptomatic recurrent lesions in 50% of the cases and progressive high-grade asymptomatic stenoses in 50%. The results of primary carotid endarterectomy were no postoperative deaths, an overall stroke rate of 1.1% (three postoperative strokes, one preoperative stroke after angiography), and no permanent cranial nerve deficits. The results of operations for recurrent carotid stenosis were no postoperative deaths, no postoperative strokes, and no permanent cranial nerve deficits. In the primary carotid endarterectomy group, the mean hospital length of stay was 2.6 +/- 1. 1 days and the mean hospital cost was

Will Endovascular Repair Replace Open Surgery for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

9700. In the reoperative group, the mean length of stay was 2.6 +/- 1.5 days and the mean cost was

Transient ventricular asystole using adenosine during minimally invasive and open sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting

13,700. The higher cost of redo surgery is accounted for by a higher preoperative cerebral angiography rate (90%) in redo cases as compared with primary endarterectomy (40%). CONCLUSION In this series of 390 carotid operations, the procedure-related stroke/death rate was 0.8%. There were no differences between the stroke-death rates after primary carotid endarterectomy and operation for recurrent carotid stenosis. Operation for recurrent carotid stenosis is as safe and effective as primary carotid endarterectomy and should continue to be standard treatment.

Ten-year results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from a large multicenter registry

ObjectiveTo evaluate of the impact of endovascular aneurysm repair on the rate of open surgical repair and on the overall treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). MethodsAll patients with AAA who were treated during two consecutive 40-month periods were reviewed. During the first period, only open surgical repair was performed; during the subsequent 40 months, endovascular repair and open surgical repair were treatment options. ResultsA total of 727 patients with AAA were treated during the entire period. During the initial 40 months, 268 patients were treated with open surgical repair, including 216 infrarenal (81%), 43 complex (16%), and 9 ruptured (3%) aortic aneurysms. During the subsequent 40 months, 459 patients with AAA were treated (71% increase). There was no significant change in the number of patients undergoing open surgical repair and no significant difference in the rate of infrarenal (238 [77%]) and complex (51 [16%]) repairs. A total of 353 patients were referred for endovascular repair. Of these, 190 (54%) were considered candidates for endovascular repair based on computed tomography or arteriographic morphologic criteria. Analyzing a subgroup of 123 patients, the most common primary reasons for ineligibility for endovascular repair were related to morphology of the neck in 80 patients (65%) and of the iliac arteries in 35 patients (28%). A total of 149 patients underwent endovascular repair. Of these, the procedure was successful in 147 (99%), and 2 (1%) patients underwent surgical conversion. The hospital death rate was 0%, and the 30-day death rate was 1%. During a follow-up period of 1 to 39 months (mean 12 ± 9), 21 secondary procedures to treat endoleak (20) or to maintain graft limb patency (1) were performed in 17 patients (11%). There were no aneurysm ruptures or aneurysm-related deaths. ConclusionsEndovascular repair appears to have augmented treatment options rather than replaced open surgical repair for patients with AAA. Patients who previously were not candidates for repair because of medical comorbidity may now be safely treated with endovascular repair.

Early and Late Functional Outcome Assessments Following Endovascular and Open Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND The emergence of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting and recent off-pump open sternotomy clinical reports have refocused attention on the technical aspects and outcome of grafting on the beating heart. METHODS To optimize the surgical field we report a method using adenosine for induction of controlled intervals of ventricular asystole to produce a transiently still cardiac field that facilitates anastomotic accuracy. RESULTS Adenosine was used in 57 patients, 31 included off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (27 by minimally invasive technique, 4 by open sternotomy). In a further 26 patients adenosine pauses were used for suture placement to control anastomotic bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass. Average adenosine boluses per anastomosis were 9 (6-14), mean dose of adenosine per bolus (mg/kg) was 0.24 (0.15-0.35), mean duration of pause (seconds) was 6 (3-19), and mean time for arterial blood pressure (mean) to return to baseline (seconds) was 35 (13-48). Presence of repolarization arrhythmias was noted in 1 patient. There were no deaths. Two patients had recurrent myocardial ischemia shown on angiography to be the result of technical problems. CONCLUSIONS This report describes our experience with the emerging procedure of minimally invasive coronary operations and off-pump grafting with the adenosine technique. The method also includes mechanical devices and other pharmacological therapy to optimize the surgical field, and the technique has now become a standard component of our off-pump revascularization methods.

The First 150 Endovascular AAA Repairs at a Single Institution: How Steep Is the Learning Curve?

OBJECTIVE To assess outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in an integrated health care system. METHODS Between 2000 and 2010, 1736 patients underwent EVAR at 17 centers. Demographic data, comorbidities, and outcomes of interest were collected. EVAR in patients presenting with ruptured or symptomatic aneurysms was categorized as urgent; otherwise, it was considered elective. Primary outcomes were mortality and aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Secondary outcomes were change in aneurysm sac size, endoleak status, major adverse events, and reintervention. RESULTS Overall, the median age was 76 years (interquartile range, 70-81 years), 86% were male, and 82% were Caucasian. Most cases (93.8%) were elective, but urgent use of EVAR increased from 4% in the first 5 years to 7.3% in the last 5 years of the study period. Mean aneurysm size was 5.8 cm. Patients were followed for an average of 3 years (range, 1-11 years); 8% were lost to follow-up. Intraoperatively, 4.5% of patients required adjunctive maneuvers for endoleak, fixation, or flow-limiting issues. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.2%, and the perioperative morbidity rate was 6.6%. Intraoperative type I and II endoleaks were uncommon (2.3% and 9.3%, respectively). Life-table analysis at 5 years demonstrated excellent overall survival (66%) and freedom from ARM (97%). Postoperative endoleak was seen in 30% of patients and was associated with an increase in sac size over time. Finally, the total reintervention rate was 15%, including 91 instances (5%) of revisional EVAR. The overall major adverse event rate was 7.9% and decreased significantly from 12.3% in the first 5 years to 5.6% in the second 5 years of the study period (P < .001). Overall ARM was worse in patients with postoperative endoleak (4.1% vs 1.8%; P < .01) or in those who underwent reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Results from a contemporary EVAR registry in an integrated health care system demonstrate favorable perioperative outcomes and excellent clinical efficacy. However, postoperative endoleak and the need for reintervention continue to be challenging problems for patients after EVAR.

Open versus Endovascular AAA Repair in Patients Who are Morphological Candidates for Endovascular Treatment

Purpose: To compare early and late functional outcomes, as well as survival and recovery, following endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods: Between 1996 and 2000, 294 patients underwent AAA repair (141 open and 153 endovascular); 57 patients from each group had 12-month follow-up for functional outcome assessment. Recovery was measured as hospital length of stay, skilled nursing requirement, and hospital readmission within 1 year to determine cumulative hospital utilization. Early (<6 months) functional outcomes were measured by activity level and convalescence days following surgery. Late (>6 months) functional outcomes were measured as ambulation, independent living, and employment status pre- and postoperatively. Results: Operative mortality for open repair was 5 (3.5%) compared to 1 (0.6%) after an endovascular procedure (p<0.05). The endovascular group had a shorter hospital stay (2.8±2.8 versus 8.3±4.5 days) and fewer skilled nursing requirements (0% versus 26%; p<0.001). Cumulative hospital utilization over 12 months was 3.8 days for endovascular patients and 13.8 days for open repair (p<0.001). Recovery time was 99.3±84.1 days (range 14–365) in conventionally treated patients and 32.1 ±43.5 days (range 7–180) in the stent-graft group (p<0.001). At 6 months, 43 (75%) open and 54 (95%) endovascular patients had full recovery (p<0.01). Activity levels decreased in 13 (23%) open and 3 (5%) endovascular patients after surgery (p<0.01). There were no differences in ambulation, independent living, or employment status before and after treatment. Conclusions: Periprocedural survival following aneurysm repair is improved with endovascular grafting compared to open surgery, and recovery is more rapid, with a 78% reduction in total hospital days. Early functional outcomes are markedly improved with endovascular repair, while there is no difference in late functional outcomes between the procedures.

Type II endoleak with or without intervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair does not change aneurysm-related outcomes despite sac growth

Purpose: To determine whether increasing experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in a single institution will result in improved outcome. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of 150 consecutive cases of endovascular AAA repairs performed using the AneuRx device between October 1996 and April 2000 in a university-based medical center. The population was divided into early and late groups of 75 patients each. Endpoints included technical success; complications; early (≤30-day) morbidity, mortality and rupture; endoleak at discharge and at 1 month; early secondary intervention; proximal neck and iliac tortuosity; extender cuff placement; femoral reconstructions beyond primary repair; total fluoroscopy time; and contrast load. Results: Baseline patient and aneurysm characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Technical success was 98.7%; 2 cases were converted intraprocedurally owing to difficult iliac access (early group) and a severely angulated proximal neck (late group). There was a tendency toward more frequent use of intraoperative proximal extender cuffs in the early group (12% versus 4% in the late group, p=0.13). Femoral reconstructions were more frequent in the early group (36% versus 19%, p<0.025). While total contrast volume was similar (111 ± 56 versus 105 ± 45 mL, p=NS), total fluoroscopy time was significantly reduced (p<0.05) between the early and late groups. Conclusions: With attention to detail and careful patient selection, successful endovascular AAA repair can be achieved with very few conversions and low perioperative mortality even during the centers early experience. Evidence indicates, however, that a learning curve definitely exists, as shown by fewer access site problems, more accurate device deployments, and decreased fluoroscopy times as proficiency is attained.

A Randomized Trial of Exercise Training in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Disease.

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a cohort of patients who fulfill morphological criteria for endovascular repair. Methods: A retrospective review of 229 consecutive AAA patients treated over a 3-year period identified 149 patients who were candidates for endovascular repair based on preoperative computed tomography and angiography. Of the 149 patients, 79 (68 men; mean age 74 ± 8 years) underwent endovascular repair with the AneuRx stent-graft; the remaining 70 (56 men; mean age 72 ± 8 years) had open repair. Short-term outcome measures were 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity, length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, intraoperative blood loss, interval to oral diet, and time to ambulation. Long-term outcome measures included death and secondary procedures. Results: There was no difference in the 30-day mortality between endovascular repair (2, 2.5%) and open repair (2, 2.9%), even though endovascular patients had more comorbidities (p<0.05). Overall length of stay was reduced for endovascular patients (3.9 ± 2.4 days versus 7.7 ± 3.1 days for surgical patients, p<0.0001). Fewer endograft patients had complications (24% versus 40% for open repair, p<0.05), and the severity of these complications was less, as evidenced by the shorter hospital stays for endovascular patients with complications compared to conventionally treated patients with complications (6.7 ± 2.4 days versus 22.5 ± 35.2 days, p<0.05). There were no aneurysm ruptures or late surgical conversions in either group. Conclusions: Patients with AAA who were endograft candidates but who were treated with open repair experienced more morbidity and had more complications than patients treated with stent-grafts. Despite increased comorbidities in the endograft patients, there was no increase in mortality compared to open repair. Both treatments required secondary procedures and appeared to be equally effective in preventing aneurysm rupture up to 3 years.