| 1. |
- Bath, Jonathan, et al.
(author)
-
Contemporary outcomes after treatment of aberrant subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 77:5, s. 1339-1348.e6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) are rare vascular anomalies that may be associated with lifestyle-limiting and life-threatening complications. The aim of this study is to report contemporary outcomes after invasive treatment of ASA/KD using a large international dataset.Methods: Patients who underwent treatment for ASA/KD (2000-2020) were identified through the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration to investigate uncommon vascular disorders. We report the early and mid-term clinical outcomes including stroke and mortality, technical success, and other operative outcomes including reintervention rates, patency, and endoleak.Results: Overall, 285 patients were identified during the study period. The mean patient age was 57 years; 47% were female and 68% presented with symptoms. A right-sided arch was present in 23%. The mean KD diameter was 47.4 mm (range, 13.0-108.0 mm). The most common indication for treatment was symptoms (59%), followed by aneurysm size (38%). The most common symptom reported was dysphagia (44%). A ruptured KD was treated in 4.2% of cases, with a mean diameter of 43.9 mm (range, 18.0-100.0 mm). An open procedure was performed in 101 cases (36%); the most common approach was ASA ligation with subclavian transposition. An endovascular or hybrid approach was performed in 184 patients (64%); the most common approach was thoracic endograft and carotid-subclavian bypass. A staged operative strategy was employed more often than single setting repair (55% vs 45%). Compared with endovascular or hybrid approach, those in the open procedure group were more likely to be younger (49 years vs 61 years; P < .0001), female (64% vs 36%; P < .0001), and symptomatic (85% vs 59%; P < .0001). Complete or partial symptomatic relief at 1 year after intervention was 82.6%. There was no association between modality of treatment and symptom relief (open 87.2% vs endovascular or hybrid approach 78.9%; P = .13). After the intervention, 11 subclavian occlusions (4.5%) occurred; 3 were successfully thrombectomized resulting in a primary and secondary patency of 95% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 39 months. Among the 33 reinterventions (12%), the majority were performed for endoleak (36%), and more reinterventions occurred in the endovascular or hybrid approach than open procedure group (15% vs 6%; P = .02). The overall survival rate was 87.3% at a median follow-up of 41 months. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 4.2% and 4.9%, respectively. Urgent or emergent presentation was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 19.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-116.6), overall mortality (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-11.2) and intraoperative complications (OR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.8-25.1). Females had a higher risk of reintervention (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.5). At an aneurysm size of 44.4 mm, receiver operator characteristic curve analysis suggested that 60% of patients would have symptoms.Conclusions: Treatment of ASA/KD can be performed safely with low rates of mortality, stroke and reintervention and high rates of symptomatic relief, regardless of the repair strategy. Symptomatic and urgent operations were associated with worse outcomes in general, and female gender was associated with a higher likelihood of reintervention. Given the worse overall outcomes when symptomatic and the inherent risk of rupture, consideration of repair at 40 mm is reasonable in most patients. ASA/KD can be repaired in asymptomatic patients with excellent outcomes and young healthy patients may be considered better candidates for open approaches versus endovascular or hybrid modalities, given the lower likelihood of reintervention and lower early mortality rate.
|
|
| 2. |
- Moffatt, Clare, et al.
(author)
-
International Multi-Institutional Experience with Presentation and Management of Aortic Arch Laterality in Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Kommerell's Diverticulum
- 2023
-
In: Annals of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0890-5096 .- 1615-5947. ; 95, s. 23-31
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch.METHODS: Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions.RESULTS: 288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change.CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Janko, Matthew R., et al.
(author)
-
In-situ bypass is associated with superior infection-free survival compared with extra-anatomic bypass for the management of secondary aortic graft infections without enteric involvement
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 76:2, s. 546-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The optimal revascularization modality following complete resection of aortic graft infection (AGI) without enteric involvement remains unclear. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the revascularization approach associated with the lowest morbidity and mortality using real-world data in patients undergoing complete excision of AGI. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of AGI from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standardized database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was infection-free survival. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results: A total of 241 patients at 34 institutions from seven countries presented with AGI during the study period (median age, 68 years; 75% male). The initial aortic procedures that resulted in AGI were 172 surgical grafts (71%), 66 endografts (27%), and three unknown (2%). Of the patients, 172 (71%) underwent complete excision of infected aortic graft material followed by in situ (in-line) bypass (ISB), including antibiotic-treated prosthetic graft (35%), autogenous femoral vein (neo-aortoiliac surgery) (24%), and cryopreserved allograft (41%). Sixty-nine patients (29%) underwent extra-anatomic bypass (EAB). Overall median Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 5.8 years. Perioperative mortality was 16%. When stratified by ISB vs EAB, there was a significant difference in Kaplan-Meier estimated infection-free survival (2910 days; interquartile range, 391-3771 days vs 180 days; interquartile range, 27-3750 days; P <.001). There were otherwise no significant differences in presentation, comorbidities, or perioperative variables. Multivariable Cox regression showed lower infection-free survival among patients with EAB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.6; P <.001), polymicrobial infection (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5; P = .001), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7; P = .02), as well as the protective effect of omental/muscle flap coverage (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P = .02). Conclusions: After complete resection of AGI, perioperative mortality is 16% and median overall survival is 5.8 years. EAB is associated with nearly a two and one-half-fold higher reinfection/mortality compared with ISB. Omental and/or muscle flap coverage of the repair appear protective.
|
|
| 6. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(author)
-
A scoping review of the rationale and evidence for cost-effectiveness analysis of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for intact complex aortic aneurysms
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 72:5, s. 1772-1782
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis of new interventions is increasingly required by policymakers. For intact complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs), fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative option for patients who are physically ineligible for open surgical repair (OSR). Thus, F/B-EVAR is increasingly used, but whether it represents a cost-effective treatment option remains unknown.Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted from the PubMed, Ovid Embase, and Scopus databases. They were searched to identify relevant English-language articles published from inception to December 31, 2019. All costs in the identified literature were transformed to U.S. dollar values by the following exchange rate: 1 GBP = 1.3 USD; 1 EUR = 1.1 USD.Results: At this literature search, no randomized clinical trials assessing cost-effectiveness of F/B-EVAR vs OSR for intact CAAs were found. Also, no health economic evaluation studies were found regarding use of F/B-EVAR in patients unfit for OSR. A Markov model analysis based on seven observational center- or registry-based studies published from 2006 to 2014 found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for F/B-EVAR vs OSR was $96,954/quality-adjusted life-year. In the multicenter French Medical and Economical Evaluation of Fenestrated and Branched Stent-grafts to Treat Complex Aortic Aneurysms (WINDOW) registry (2010-2012), F/B-EVAR had a higher cost than OSR for a similar clinical outcome and was therefore economically dominated. At 2 years, costs were higher with F/B-EVAR for juxtarenal/pararenal aneurysms and infradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms but similar for supradiaphragmatic thoracoabdominal aneurysms. The higher costs were related to a $24,278 cost difference of the initial admission (95% of the difference at 2 years) due to stent graft costs. Both these studies, however, included a highly varying center experience with complex endovascular aortic repair, and their retrospective design is subject to selection bias for chosen treatment, which could affect the studied outcome. In contrast, in amore recent U.S. database analysis (879 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, 45% OSRs), the unadjusted total hospitalization cost of OSR was significantly higher compared with F/B-EVAR (median, $44,355 vs $36,612; P = .004). In-hospital mortality as well as major complications were two to three times higher after OSR, indicating that endovascular repair might be the economically dominant strategy.Conclusions: The literature regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of F/B-EVAR for intact CAAs is scarce and ambiguous. Based on the limited nonrandomized available evidence, stent grafts are the main driver for F/B-EVAR expenses, whereas cost-effectiveness in relation to OSR may vary by health care setting and selection of patients.
|
|
| 7. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(author)
-
Center volume and failure to rescue after open or endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 76:6, s. 1565-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The correlation between center volume and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes is well established; however, these effects for either endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open aneurysm repair (OAR) of ruptured AAA (rAAA) remains unclear. Notably, the capacity to either avert or manage complications associated with postoperative mortality is an important cause of outcome disparities after elective procedures; however, there is a paucity of data surrounding nonelective presentations. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to describe the association between annual center volume, complications, and failure to rescue (FtR) after EVAR and OAR of rAAA.Methods: All consecutive endovascular and open rAAA repairs from 2010 to 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were examined. Annual center volume (procedures/year per center) was grouped into quartiles: EVAR-Q1 (<14), 3.4%; Q2 (14-23), 12.8%; Q3 (24-37), 24.7%; and Q4 (>38), 59.1%; OAR-Q1 (<3), 5.4%; Q2 (4-6), 12.8%; Q3 (7-10), 22.7%; and Q4 (>10), 59.1%. The primary end point was FtR, defined as in-hospital death after experiencing one of six major complications (cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke, bleeding, colonic ischemia). Risk-adjusted analyses for intergroup comparisons were completed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: The unadjusted in-hospital death rate was 16.5% and 28.9% for EVAR and OAR, respectively. Complications occurred in 45% of EVAR (n = 1439/3188) and 70% of OAR (n = 1366/1961) patients with corresponding FtR rates of 14% (EVAR) and 26% (OAR). For OAR, Q4-centers had a 43% lower FtR risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.9; P =.017) compared with Q1 centers. Centers performing fewer than five OARs/year had a 43% lower risk (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P <.001) of FtR and this decreased 4% for each additional five procedures performed annually (95% CI, 0.93-0.991; P =.013). However, there was no significant relationship between center volume and FtR after EVAR. The risk of FtR was strongly associated with a greater number of complications for both procedures (OR multiplied by 6.5 for EVAR and 1.5 for OAR for each additional complication; P <.0001). Among OAR patients with a single recorded complication, return to the operating room for bleeding had highest risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P =.034), whereas no specific type of complication increased FtR risk after EVAR.Conclusions: FtR occurs commonly after EVAR and OAR of rAAA within Vascular Quality Initiative centers. Importantly, increasing center volume was associated with decreased FtR risk after OAR, but not EVAR. Complication pattern and frequency predicted FtR after either repair strategy. For stable patients, especially those deemed anatomically ineligible for EVAR, these findings emphasize the need to improve the coordination of regional referral networks that centralize rAAAs to high-volume centers. Moreover, hospitals that treat rAAA should invest in resources that develop protocols targeting specific complications to mitigate risk of preventable postoperative death.
|
|
| 8. |
- D'Oria, Mario, et al.
(author)
-
Outcomes of "Anterior Versus Posterior Divisional Branches of the Hypogastric Artery as Distal Landing Zone for Iliac Branch Devices" : The International Multicentric R3OYAL Registry
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Endovascular Therapy. - : Sage Publications. - 1526-6028 .- 1545-1550. ; 31:2, s. 282-294
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of "anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL)."Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability.Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups (P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001).Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.Clinical Impact: The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.
|
|
| 9. |
- D'Oria, M, et al.
(author)
-
The "Vascular Surgery COVID-19 Collaborative" (VASCC)
- 2020
-
In: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-2165. ; 60:3, s. 489-490
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 10. |
- Janko, Matthew, et al.
(author)
-
Contemporary Outcomes After Partial Resection of Infected Aortic Grafts
- 2021
-
In: Annals of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0890-5096 .- 1615-5947. ; 76, s. 202-210
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Aortic graft infection remains a considerable clinical challenge, and it is unclear which variables are associated with adverse outcomes among patients undergoing partial resection.METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of patients who underwent partial resection of infected aortic grafts from 2002 to 2014 was performed using a standard database. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, operative, and postoperative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis, and Cox regression analysis were performed.RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients at 22 medical centers in 6 countries underwent partial resection of an infected aortic graft. Seventy percent were men with median age 70 years. Ninety-seven percent had a history of open aortic bypass graft: 88 (77%) patients had infected aortobifemoral bypass, 18 (16%) had infected aortobiiliac bypass, and 1 (0.8%) had an infected thoracic graft. Infection was diagnosed at a median 4.3 years post-implant. All patients underwent partial resection followed by either extra-anatomic (47%) or in situ (53%) vascular reconstruction. Median follow-up period was 17 months (IQR 1, 50 months). Thirty-day mortality was 17.5%. The KM-estimated median survival from time of partial resection was 3.6 years. There was no significant survival difference between those undergoing in situ reconstruction or extra-anatomic bypass (P = 0.6). During follow up, 72% of repairs remained patent and 11% of patients underwent major amputation. On univariate Cox regression analysis, Candida infection was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 2.4; P = 0.01) as well as aortoenteric fistula (HR 1.9, P = 0.03). Resection of a single graft limb only to resection of abdominal (graft main body) infection was associated with decreased risk of mortality (HR 0.57, P = 0.04), as well as those with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification less than 3 (HR 0.35, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any factors significantly associated with mortality. Persistent early infection was noted in 26% of patients within 30 days postoperatively, and 39% of patients were found to have any post-repair infection during the follow-up period. Two patients (1.8%) were found to have a late reinfection without early persistent postoperative infection. Patients with any post-repair infection were older (67 vs. 60 years, P = 0.01) and less likely to have patent repairs during follow up (59% vs. 32%, P = 0.01). Patients with aortoenteric fistula had a higher rate of any post-repair infection (63% vs. 29%, P < 0.01)CONCLUSION: This large multi-center study suggests that patients who have undergone partial resection of infected aortic grafts may be at high risk of death or post-repair infection, especially older patients with abdominal infection not isolated to a single graft limb, or with Candida infection or aortoenteric fistula. Late reinfection correlated strongly with early persistent postoperative infection, raising concern for occult retained infected graft material.
|
|
