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.

Objective Imaging surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical. In this study we analyzed compliance with imaging surveillance after EVAR and its effect on clinical outcomes. Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 565 EVAR patients (August 2001-November 2013), who were followed using duplex ultrasound and/or computed tomography angiography. Patients were considered noncompliant (NC) if they did not have any follow-up imaging for 2 years and/or missed their first post-EVAR imaging over 6 months. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare compliance rates in EVAR patients with hostile neck (HN) vs favorable neck (FN) anatomy (according to instructions for use). A multivariate analysis was also done to correlate compliance and comorbidities. Results Forty-three percent were compliant (7% had no follow-up imaging) and 57% were NC. The mean follow-up for compliant patients was 25.4 months (0-119 months) vs 31.4 months for NC (0-140 months). The mean number of imaging was 3.5 for compliant vs 2.6 for NC (P< .0001). Sixty-four percent were NC for HN patients vs 50% for FN patients (P = .0007). The rates of compliance at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years for all patients were 78%, 63%, 55%, 45%, and 32%; and 84%, 68%, 61%, 54%, and 40% for FN patients; and 73%, 57%, 48%, 37%, and 25% for HN patients (P = .009). The NC rate for patients with late endoleak and/or sac expansion was 58% vs 54% for patients with no endolcak (P = .51). The NC rate for patients with late reintervention was 70% vs 53% for patients with no reintervention (P = .1254). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that patients with peripheral arterial disease had an odds ratio of 1.9 (P = .0331), patients with carotid disease had an odds ratio of 2 (P = .0305), and HN patients had an odds ratio of 1.8 (P = .0007) for NC. Age and residential locations were not factors in compliance. Conclusions Overall, compliance of imaging surveillance after EVAR was low, particularly in HN EVAR patients, and additional studies are needed to determine if strict post-EVAR surveillance is necessary, and its effect on long-term clinical outcome.

In patients with known or suspected disease involving the great vessels, a subclavian artery flow velocity exceeding 240 cm/s seems to be predictive of significant subclavian stenosis. Thus, we propose new SDUS VC, for predicting subclavian artery stenosis. However, because of the use of a convenience sample, it is possible that the current proposed cutoff point might need to be adjusted for other populations.

Purpose: To report the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for de novo carotid stenosis vs patients treated for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all 385 patients (mean age 68.6±9.6 years; 231 men) who underwent 435 CAS procedures at a large tertiary care center between January 1999 and December 2013. For analysis, patients were stratified based on their lesion type [de novo (dn) vs post-CEA restenosis (res)] and subclassified by symptoms status [symptomatic (Sx) or asymptomatic (Asx)], creating 4 groups: (1) CAS-dn Asx, (2) CAS-dn Sx, (3) CAS-res Asx, and (4) CAS-res Sx. For the CAS-res group, the mean elapsed time from CEA to CAS was 72.4±63.6 months. Outcomes included target vessel reintervention (TVR) and in-stent restenosis (ISR), the latter defined by a carotid duplex ultrasound velocity >275 cm/s. Results: The main indication for initial carotid angiography with possible revascularization was severe carotid stenosis (≥70%-99% on duplex) in both CAS-dn and CAS-res groups (83.6% vs 83.7%, p=0.999). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with postintervention residual stenosis (<30%; 100% each arm) or complications between CAS-res vs CAS-dn: in-hospital stroke (1.4% vs 1.8%, respectively), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0%), or death (0.9% vs 0%). Mean follow-up was 62.4±45.6 months (median 53.5, range 1–180). Average clinical/TVR follow-up was greater for the CAS-res group (71.9±48.6 months) compared with 53.3±40.5 months for the CAS-dn group (p<0.001). Across the 4 study groups, there were no differences in freedom from ISR (p=0.174) or TVR (p=0.856). Multivariate analysis found peripheral vascular disease (PVD) as the sole ISR independent predictor [hazard ratio (HR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.62, p=0.041], while significant predictors for TVR were age <65 years at the time of the procedure (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.18, p=0.039) and PVD (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.87, p=0.043). Conclusion: The current study suggests that CAS is a feasible and durable therapeutic option for recurrent restenosis after CEA. Long-term outcomes were similar for patients treated for de novo lesions or post-CEA restenosis. Age and PVD appear to influence long-term CAS durability.