The management options of an isolated celiac artery dissection include medical, open surgical, and endovascular techniques. Which strategy is chosen depends on the severity of the dissection, collateral circulation to the liver, the patient's hemodynamic status, and the surgeon's expertise. We describe an unusual case of celiac artery dissection involving splenic and hepatic arteries complicated by hemorrhage. The patient was successfully treated by coil embolization of the splenic and gastric branches. Hepatic arterial blood flow was preserved with a stent graft extending from the origin of the gastroduodenal artery to the orifice of the celiac artery.

Long-term follow-up of EVAR (mean, 7.5 years) revealed that approximately one in four patients will require intervention at some point during follow-up. First-time interventions were necessary in 22% of all patients in the first 5 years and in 6% of patients after 5 years, highlighting the need for continued graft surveillance beyond 5 years. All patients who had a first-time intervention after 5 years underwent an endoleak repair; none of these patients had a thrombosed limb or a rupture as a result of the endoleak.

Traditionally, the surgical management of acute type B aortic dissections was reserved for patients with signs of malperfusion, rapid expansion, retrograde dissection or rupture. The adjunct of endovascular techniques has brought a paradigm shift, leaning towards preventing long term dissection complications. Multiple risk factors have been proposed to identify patients at risk for long term aortic complications. The patients, who are offered a prophylactic endovascular therapy for uncomplicated aortic dissection, should be selected carefully, and offered intervention by an experienced team in a high-volume center. (This is a review article based on the invited lecture of the 57th Annual Meeting of Japanese College of Angiology.)

To compare outcomes of outpatient tibial artery procedures between an office endovascular center and a hospital angiography suite. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 204 outpatient tibial interventions performed on 161 patients (mean age 72±11.5 years; 81 men) in either an office (n=100) or hospital (n=104) angiography suite from April 2011 through September 2013. Patients who had an existing ipsilateral bypass that was completely proximal to the tibial trifurcation were eligible, as were patients with prior proximal endovascular interventions. Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral bypass involving the infrapopliteal vessels, in-patient status at the time of the procedure, planned admission after the procedure, and infrapopliteal stenting. Treatment included percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) or PTA with atherectomy. Primary outcomes were unplanned admission, emergency room visits, acute complications, and patency. Results: There were no significant differences in demographics or baseline Rutherford category between patients treated in an office endovascular suite vs a hospital angiography suite. Factors more prevalent in the hospital group included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16% vs 8%, p=0.045), renal insufficiency (37% vs 25%, p=0.017), and previous proximal bypass (12% vs 4%, p=0.045). Of the 100 office procedures, 25 involved PTA and 75 were PTA with atherectomy, while in the 104 hospital procedures, PTA was applied in 68 patients and PTA with atherectomy in 36. Thirtyday local complication rates (7% vs 11%, p=0.368), systemic complication rates (4% vs 8%, p=0.263), and mortality (1% vs 2%, p=0.596) in the office vs hospital setting were not statistically different. Unplanned postprocedure hospital admission rates for medical reasons were lower in the office group (2% vs 11%, p=0.01). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 1-year follow-up data were better in the office group for primary patency (69% vs 53%, p=0.050), assisted primary patency (90% vs 89%, p=0.646), and amputation-free survival (89% vs 83%, p=0.476), but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Efficacy and safety of outpatient endovascular tibial artery interventions between office and hospital settings were similar, with lower unplanned admission rates and better patency. With appropriate patient selection, the office endovascular suite can be a safe alternative to the hospital angiography suite.

Objective: Head and neck cancer can involve the surrounding vasculature and require technically challenging vascular interventions. These interventions can be complicated by tumor invasion, history of prior surgery, and history of radiation therapy. Our aim was to examine patients with vascular interventions in association with head and neck cancer to determine outcomes and best practice. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of cancer patients treated by head and neck surgery and vascular surgery between 2007 and 2014. Data concerning previous cancer treatment, operative details of head and neck surgery and vascular surgery, perioperative outcomes, and survival data were collected. Statistical analyses were performed using the c 2 test, Student t-test, and binomial regression. Patency and survival data were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 57 patients with head and neck cancer requiring vascular interventions were identified. Of these, 44 patients had squamous cell carcinoma, 4 had thyroid cancer, 3 had sarcoma, 2 had Merkel and basal cell carcinoma, and 1 each had a parotid tumor, paraganglioma, extrarenal rhomboid tumor, and malignant spindle cell neoplasm. The majority of the interventions (n ¼ 36 [63%]) were performed on patients with recurrent or persistent malignancy despite prior treatment. The most common previous treatment was radiation therapy (n ¼ 44 [77%]). Tumor resection and vascular intervention were performed concurrently in 26 patients (46%). The mean time between cancer treatment and vascular intervention was 37 months (range, 18 days-18 years). The most common indication for vascular intervention was bleeding (n ¼ 21 [37%]), which included vessel rupture (n ¼ 14), tumor bleeding (n ¼ 5), and intraoperative bleeding (n ¼ 2). The remaining indications for intervention included invasion/encasement of major vasculature (n ¼ 25), stenosis/occlusion (n ¼ 12), and aneurysm (n ¼ 1). The most common intervention was stenting (n ¼ 22 [41%]), followed by resection (n ¼ 20 [35%]), exposure/dissection (n ¼ 12 [22%]), bypass (n ¼ 8 [15%]), and embolization (n ¼ 3 [6%]). Of the 22 patients who were stented, 12 (55%) were placed electively (11 for stenosis and 1 for aneurysm) and 10 (45%) were placed emergently (6 for blowout and 4 for tumor bleeding). A total of six patients (11%) required reintervention after their index vascular procedure. There were no intraoperative mortalities. The 30-day mortality was 9% (n ¼ 5). The 30-day stroke rate was 7% (n ¼ 4; one s/p common carotid artery-internal carotid artery bypass and three with emergent intervention for vessel rupture). Primary patency at 1 year was 66% for stents and 71% for bypass (P ¼ .604). Survival in those patients operated on emergently for bleeding at 1 year was 38%, with a trend toward worse survival compared with the 77% survival at 1 year for all other indications (P ¼ .109). The overall survival in the cohort at 1 and 2 years was 62% and 44%, respectively. Conclusions: Vascular involvement in head and neck cancer...