Douglas W. Jones

Growing Impact of Restenosis on the Surgical Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease

Background Patients with peripheral arterial disease often experience treatment failure from restenosis at the site of a prior peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) or lower extremity bypass (LEB). The impact of these treatment failures on the utilization and outcomes of secondary interventions is poorly understood. Methods and Results In our regional vascular quality improvement collaborative, we compared 2350 patients undergoing primary infrainguinal LEB with 1154 patients undergoing secondary infrainguinal LEB (LEB performed after previous revascularization in the index limb) between 2003 and 2011. The proportion of patients undergoing secondary LEB increased by 72% during the study period (22% of all LEBs in 2003 to 38% in 2011, P<0.001). In‐hospital outcomes, such as myocardial infarction, death, and amputation, were similar between primary and secondary LEB groups. However, in both crude and propensity‐weighted analyses, secondary LEB was associated with significantly inferior 1‐year outcomes, including major adverse limb event‐free survival (composite of death, new bypass graft, surgical bypass graft revision, thrombectomy/thrombolysis, or above‐ankle amputation; Secondary LEB MALE‐free survival = 61.6% vs primary LEB MALE‐free survival = 67.5%, P=0.002) and reintervention or amputation‐free survival (composite of death, reintervention, or above‐ankle amputation; Secondary LEB RAO‐free survival = 58.9% vs Primary LEB RAO‐free survival 64.1%, P=0.003). Inferior outcomes for secondary LEB were observed regardless of the prior failed treatment type (PVI or LEB). Conclusions In an era of increasing utilization of PVI, a growing proportion of patients undergo LEB in the setting of a prior failed PVI or surgical bypass. When caring for patients with peripheral arterial disease, physicians should recognize that first treatment failure (PVI or LEB) affects the success of subsequent revascularizations.

Assessing the Perioperative Safety of Common Femoral Endarterectomy in the Endovascular Era

Introduction: Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has historically been the preferred treatment for atherosclerotic lesions involving the common femoral artery. The objectives of this study are to delineate the safety of this open procedure in the endovascular era, establish contemporary benchmarks for morbidity and mortality after CFE, and identify the subgroup of patients at increased risk of postoperative adverse events. Methods: Patients undergoing elective CFE in the 2007 to 2010 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database were examined. Univariate analyses were used to identify the factors associated with major morbidity and mortality. Significant variables by univariate analysis were used to create multivariate logistic regression models for morbidity and mortality. Results: A total of 1513 patients underwent elective CFE. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.5%. Postoperative morbidities included cardiac (1.0%), pulmonary (1.9%), renal (0.4%), urinary tract infection (1.7%), thromboembolic (0.5%), neurologic (0.4%), sepsis (2.7%), superficial (6.3%), and deep surgical site complications (2.0%). At least 1 complication, including major and minor, was seen in 7.9% of the patients. By multivariate analysis, partial- and total-dependent functional status (odds ratio [OR] 9.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-28.4 and OR 21.3, 95% CI 3.3-139.4) and dyspnea at rest (OR 8.2, 95% 1.2-58.8) predicted mortality. Independent predictors of morbidity include steroid use (OR 2.4, 95% 1.4-4.1), diabetes (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4), and obesity (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4). Discussion: Overall, CFE is tolerated well by the majority of patients with peripheral arterial disease. These results affirm the safety of CFE and can still be used as standard first-line therapy in most patients. Long-term results for endovascular interventions need to be studied to see whether high-risk patients that we identified for CFE would benefit more from an endovascular approach.

Risk Factors for Protracted Postoperative Length of Stay after Lower Extremity Bypass for Critical Limb Ischemia

BACKGROUND Compared with other common chronic conditions, admissions for management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are associated with prolonged hospitalizations. Length of stay (LOS) is one of many metrics receiving increased attention in the current focus on efficient healthcare delivery. Our objective was to characterize LOS among patients with severe PAD, those undergoing surgical bypass for critical limb ischemia (CLI), and identify risk factors for protracted postoperative LOS. METHODS Patient data from the 2007 to 2009 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were used to develop a database consisting of patients undergoing bypass surgery for CLI (n = 4,894). Protracted postoperative LOS was defined as the top quartile of days hospitalized from surgery to discharge. Preoperative risk factors with significant association (Pearson chi-squared test; P < 0.05) were used to develop a logistic regression model for protracted postoperative LOS. RESULTS Average postoperative LOS was 7.5 days (median 6 days). The top quartile of postoperative LOS, >8 days, was used to define protracted LOS. Independent preoperative risk factors for protracted postoperative LOS included demographic characteristics (advanced age and non-Caucasian race), comorbidities, and medical history (e.g., obesity, dialysis dependence, severe cardiac and pulmonary disease, and bleeding disorders). Indicators of PAD severity (e.g., distal target sites, open wounds or gangrene, and prior arterial surgery) were also independent predictors of protracted LOS after surgery. The greatest predictors of extended postoperative LOS were prolonged preoperative hospitalization (OR 2.2 [95% CI: 1.8-2.6], P < 0.001) and preoperative dependent functional status (OR 2.0 [95% CI: 1.7-2.3], P < 0.001 for partial dependence; OR 2.8 [95% CI: 1.8-4.3], P < 0.001 for totally dependent status), where OR and CI stand for odds ratio and confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS Here, we identify preoperative risk factors for protracted postoperative LOS after infrainguinal bypass for CLI. These findings provide an important evidence basis for ongoing efforts to reduce healthcare spending and facilitate provision of efficient health care. Future efforts will include prospective identification of patients at high risk for protracted postoperative LOS and targeted multidisciplinary efforts to reduce associated costs without sacrificing healthcare quality.

Congenital esophageal stenosis: the differential diagnosis and management.

Congenital esophageal stenosis (CES) is a rare congenital abnormality that is difficult to diagnose and often masquerades as other types of structural esophageal disease. We report three cases of CES with different presenting symptoms. We advocate for balloon dilation as the preferred first approach to therapeutic intervention. CES is an important clinical entity in the evaluation of pediatric esophageal disorders and should be suspected in young infants with dysphagia.

Adventitial cystic disease of the femoral vein in a 5-year-old boy mimicking deep venous thrombosis

Adventitial cystic disease of the vein is a rare vascular anomaly with 32 reported cases. A 5-year-old boy initially presented with painless leg swelling. He was misdiagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and treated with 3 months of warfarin. When swelling failed to improve, a magnetic resonance venogram showed a mural cystic lesion of the left common femoral vein. In the operating room, the cyst was excised, relieving the obstructive effect and restoring flow. The swelling resolved within days. This is the first reported case of adventitial cystic disease of the vein occurring in a pediatric patient.

Determinants of Outcome after Endovascular Therapy for Critical Limb Ischemia with Tissue Loss

BACKGROUND In this study we examine outcomes of endovascular therapy for critical limb ischemia with tissue loss and identify risk factors for failure of endovascular therapy across a panel of outcome metrics. METHODS A retrospective review (2006-2010) of patients undergoing endovascular therapy for critical limb ischemia with tissue loss provided data for multivariate models of overall survival, amputation-free survival, limb salvage (LS), and wound healing. RESULTS One hundred six patients underwent endovascular therapy for Rutherford class 5 (88%) or class 6 (12%) ischemia with ulceration and/or gangrene of the heel (15%), forefoot (16%), toe(s) (43%), calf/ankle (11%), or multiple locations (15%). Sustained limb salvage at 1 year was 87%. One-year overall survival and amputation-free survival were 65% and 49%, respectively. Multivariate regression models identified independent risk factors for reduced primary patency: Rutherford 6 ischemia (P = 0.008; HR 4.7 [95% confidence interval 1.5-14.8]) and infrapopliteal intervention (P = 0.03; HR 2.58 [95% CI 1.08-6.14]). Rutherford class 6 ischemia was independently associated with reduced assisted patency (P = 0.004; HR 5.39 [95% CI 1.74-16.73]). Wound healing was adversely affected by diabetes (P = 0.02; HR 7.0 [95% CI 1.4-36.2]), continued smoking (P = 0.04; HR 5.3 [95% CI 1.1-26.3]), and patency loss (P = 0.04; HR 4.8 [95% CI 1.1-22.30]). Rutherford class 6 ischemia was independently associated with reduced limb salvage (P < 0.0001; HR 35.1 [95% CI 5.4-231.2]) and amputation-free survival (P = 0.007; HR 3.61 [95% CI 1.4-9.18]), in addition to COPD (P = 0.01; 3.58 [95% 1.28-9.55]). Independent predictors of poor overall survival included end-stage renal disease (P = 0.03; HR 2.99 [95% CI 1.1-8.05]), history of angina (P = 0.02; HR 5.08 [95% CI 1.28-20.29]), and COPD (P = 0.001; HR 3.77 [95% CI 1.76-8.34]). CONCLUSIONS Both increasing severity of tissue loss as well as the presence of severe medical comorbidities are associated with poorer outcomes of endovascular therapy in these patients. Although sustained limb salvage in patients with tissue loss may be achieved with endovascular therapy, this is due to poor overall survival and a competing mortality hazard.

Risk factors of nonretrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

BACKGROUND Optimal use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is an important health care issue, and despite an exponential rise in the use of retrievable IVC filters, national trends suggest that most of these filters are not removed. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors associated with nonretrieval of retrievable IVC filters at our institution. METHODS A retrospective institutional review of all patients undergoing IVC filter placement from June 2010 to June 2012 was performed. A number of patient parameters were studied, including relevant demographics, indication for filter placement, clinical history, related hospitalization, and whether filter retrieval was performed. Patient parameters were compared by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS There were 605 retrievable IVC filters placed over a 24-month period by vascular surgery, intervention radiology, and interventional cardiology. The follow-up retrieval rate was 25%. By indication, 272 (45%), 53 (9%), and 280 (46%) filters were placed for absolute, relative, and prophylactic indications, respectively. Independent predictors for nonretrieval by multivariate analysis were age >80 years (hazard ratio [HR], 5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-20; P < 0.001), acute bleed (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-5; P < 0.001), current malignancy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; P = 0.011), postfilter anticoagulation (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.28-0.9; P = 0.017), and history of pulmonary embolism and/or venous thromboembolism (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < 0.001). Filter placement team and indication were not identified as independent predictors of nonretrieval of IVC filters. CONCLUSIONS Patient variables identified by univariate and multivariate analyses as risk for nonretrieval of retrievable IVC filters have several implications: first, some of these patients may represent a group of patients with a low life expectancy or unresolvable underlying condition in which filter retrieval has diminishing returns and may indicate the clinical option for permanence of the filter; second, identification of risk factors for nonretrieval in patients before filter placement will help to optimize use of retrievable IVC filters and enhance retrieval rates.

Restenosis and symptom recurrence after endovascular therapy for claudication: Does duplex ultrasound correlate with recurrent claudication?

After endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasound surveillance to detect restenosis guides clinical decisions and defines treatment failure. However, the correlation between duplex ultrasound and symptom recurrence remains unclear. We reviewed our institutional experience (2007–2010) to identify patients undergoing endovascular therapy for claudication. The association between post-intervention systolic velocity ratio and patient-reported symptom recurrence was determined. We analyzed 183 follow-up visits following treatment in 88 limbs (femoropopliteal (56%) or iliac (44%) arteries). After femoropopliteal intervention, median systolic velocity ratio was higher in patients with symptom recurrence (2.99 symptomatic vs. 1.69 asymptomatic; p < 0.001). Elevated systolic velocity ratio or occlusion correlated with symptom recurrence (area under receiver operator characteristic curve = 0.82 [95% CI 0.74–0.83]), and systolic velocity ratio >2.5 was 71% sensitive and 72% specific for symptom recurrence. After femoropopliteal endovascular therapy for claudication, duplex ultrasound-detected restenosis is highly associated with clinical deterioration. This validates objective criteria for treatment failure in claudicants and suggests that symptom status can serve as a primary indicator of anatomic restenosis.

Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Focal Aortic Pathology with Limited Aortic Coverage

BACKGROUND Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for degenerative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) requires complete aortic exclusion to prevent ongoing aneurysmal degeneration in a diseased aorta. Focal infrarenal aortic pathology, such as penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), saccular aneurysm, and/or intramural hematoma (IMH) may not necessitate complete aortic coverage. Here, we review our experience with endovascular management of focal aortic pathology with limited aortic coverage. METHODS A prospectively maintained institutional database of patients undergoing EVAR was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients treated with a nonbifurcated device (Current Procedural Terminology code: 34,800). Patients without a diagnosis of PAU, saccular aneurysm, IMH, or iatrogenic pseudoaneurysm were excluded. Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed for confirmation of focal aortic pathology. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative details were reviewed. Outcome measures included technical success, symptom-free survival, and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS Eight patients were identified who underwent repair of a focal aortic defect with an endovascular tube graft from 2004-2011. Six patients underwent surgery for 7 saccular pseudoaneurysms and 2 patients had iatrogenic infrarenal pseudoaneurysms. Six saccular aneurysms were associated with PAU. Seven patients (88%) were men; the median age was 76 years (range: 50-85 years). Four patients (50%) had symptoms attributable to their aneurysm (2 abdominal pain, 1 gastrointestinal symptoms, 1 lower extremity emboli). Aneurysm repair was classified as urgent in 2 patients (25%). Six patients (75%) required placement of a single aortic component, the other 2 patients (25%) required 2 components. All devices used were Zenith (Cook, Inc., Bloomington, IN) ancillary components. The median device diameter was 22 mm (range: 18-28 mm), while the median device length was 56.5 mm (range: 39-80 mm). The technical success rate was 100%. There were no early graft-related complications. All symptomatic patients experienced improvement or resolution of symptoms. In all cases, radiologic follow-up at 1 month showed stable or decreasing aneurysm size. No endoleaks were detected and no patients have required reintervention to date. CONCLUSIONS The optimal management of many focal infrarenal aortic defects, particularly those that are incidentally discovered, remains unclear. Our experience with endovascular repair of focal aortic pathology with limited aortic coverage suggests this approach is technically feasible and associated with excellent early results.

Regional use of combined carotid endarterectomy/coronary artery bypass graft and the effect of patient risk

INTRODUCTION Although carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease often coexist, many debate which patients are best served by combined concurrent revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA]/coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]). We studied the use of CEA/CABG in New England and compared indications and outcomes, including stratification by risk, symptoms, and performing center. METHODS Using data from the Vascular Study Group of New England from 2003 to 2009, we studied all patients who underwent combined CEA/CABG across six centers in New England. Our main outcome measure was in-hospital stroke or death. We compared outcomes between all patients undergoing combined CEA/CABG to a baseline CEA risk group comprised of patients undergoing isolated CEA at non-CEA/CABG centers. Further, we compared in-hospital stroke and death rates between high and low neurologic risk patients, defining high neurologic risk patients as those who had at least one of the following clinical or anatomic features: (1) symptomatic carotid disease, (2) bilateral carotid stenosis >70%, (3) ipsilateral stenosis >70% and contralateral occlusion, or (4) ipsilateral or bilateral occlusion. RESULTS Overall, compared to patients undergoing isolated CEA at non-CEA/CABG centers (n = 1563), patients undergoing CEA/CABG (n = 109) were more likely to have diabetes (44% vs 29%; P = .001), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (11% vs 5%; P = .007), and congestive heart failure (23% vs 10%; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA/CABG were also more likely to take preoperative beta-blockers (94% vs 75%; P < .001) and less likely to take preoperative clopidogrel (7% vs 25%; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA/CABG had higher rates of contralateral carotid occlusion (13% vs 5%; P = .001) and were more likely to undergo an urgent/emergent procedure (30% vs 15%; P < .001). The risk of complications was higher in CEA/CABG compared to isolated CEA, including increased risk of stroke (5.5% vs 1.2%; P < .001), death (5.5% vs 0.3%; P < .001), and return to the operating room for any reason (7.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001). Of 109 patients undergoing CEA/CABG, 61 (56%) were low neurologic risk and 48 (44%) were high neurologic risk but showed no demonstrable difference in stroke (4.9% vs 6.3%; P = .76), death, (4.9 vs 6.3%; P = .76), or return to the operating room (10.2% vs 4.3%; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS Although practice patterns in the use of CEA/CABG vary across our region, the risk of complications with CEA/CABG remains significantly higher than in isolated CEA. Future work to improve patient selection in CEA/CABG is needed to improve perioperative results with combined coronary and carotid revascularization.