No abstract

Carotid endarterectomy results across a spectrum of Veterans Affairs and private sector hospitals compare favorably to contemporary studies. These data will assist in selecting patients who are at an increased risk for adverse outcomes. Use of regional anesthetic significantly reduced perioperative complications in a risk-adjusted model, thus suggesting that it is the anesthetic of choice when CEA is performed in high-risk patients.

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. (J Vasc Surg 2013;58:324–32.)

Objective There is considerable controversy about the significance and appropriate treatment of type II endoleaks (T2Ls) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We report our long-term experience with T2L management in a large multicenter registry. Methods Between 2000 and 2010, 1736 patients underwent EVAR, and we recorded the incidence of T2L. Primary outcomes were mortality and aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Secondary outcomes were change in aneurysm sac size, major adverse events, and reintervention. Results During the follow-up (median of 32.2 months; interquartile range, 14.2–52.8 months), T2L was identified in 474 patients (27.3%). There were no late abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures attributable to a T2L. Overall mortality (P = .47) and ARM (P = .26) did not differ between patients with and without T2L. Sac growth (median, 5 mm; interquartile range, 2–10 mm) was seen in 213 (44.9%) of the patients with T2L. Of these patients with a T2L and sac growth, 36 (16.9%) had an additional type of endoleak. Of all patients with T2L, 111 (23.4%) received reinterventions, including 39 patients who underwent multiple procedures; 74% of the reinterventions were performed in patients with sac growth. Reinterventions included lumbar embolization in 66 patients (59.5%), placement of additional stents in 48 (43.2%), open surgical revision in 14 (12.6%), and direct sac injection in 22 (19.8%). The reintervention was successful in 35 patients (31.5%). After patients with other types of endoleak were excluded, no difference in overall all-cause mortality (P = .57) or ARM (P = .09) was observed between patients with T2L-associated sac growth who underwent reintervention and those in whom T2L was left untreated. Conclusions In our multicenter EVAR registry, overall all-cause mortality and ARM were unaffected by the presence of a T2L. Moreover, patients who were simply observed for T2L-associated sac growth had aneurysm-related outcomes similar to those in patients who underwent reintervention. Our future work will investigate the most cost-effective ways to select patients for intervention besides sac growth alone.

Objective Prior reports have suggested unfavorable outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed outside of the recommended instructions for use (IFU) guidelines. We report our long-term EVAR experience in a large multicenter registry with regard to adherence to IFU guidelines. Methods Between 2000 and 2010, 489 of 1736 patients who underwent EVAR had preoperative anatomic measurements obtained from the M2S, Inc, imaging database (West Lebanon, NH). We examined outcomes in these patients with regard to whether they had met the device-specific IFU criteria. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were endoleak status, adverse events, reintervention, and aneurysm sac size change. Results The median follow-up for the 489 patients was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 1.6–5.0 years); 58.1% (n = 284) had EVAR performed within IFU guidelines (IFU-adherent group), and 41.9% (n = 205) had EVAR performed outside of IFU guidelines (IFU-nonadherent group). Preoperative anatomic data showed that 62.4% of the IFU-nonadherent group had short neck length, 10.2% had greater angulation than recommended, 7.3% did not meet neck diameter criteria, and 20% had multiple anatomic issues. A small portion (n = 49; 10%) of the 489 patients were lost to follow-up because of leaving membership enrollment (n = 28), moving outside the region (n = 10), or discontinuing image surveillance (n = 11). There was no significant difference in any of the primary or secondary outcomes between the IFU-adherent and IFU-nonadherent groups. Aneurysm sac size change at any time point during follow-up also did not differ significantly between the two groups. A Cox proportional hazard model showed that IFU nonadherence was not predictive of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.0; P = .91). Similarly, IFU nonadherence was not identified as a risk factor for aneurysm-related mortality or adverse events in stepwise Cox proportional hazards models. Conclusions In our cohort of EVAR patients with detailed preoperative anatomic information and long-term follow-up, overall mortality and aneurysm-related mortality were unaffected by IFU adherence. In addition, rates of endoleak and reintervention after initial EVAR were similar, suggesting that lack of IFU-based anatomic suitability was not a driver of outcomes.