Malas, Mahmoud B.

Importance Vascular injuries require urgent repair to minimize loss of limb and life. Standard revascularization relies on autologous vein or synthetic grafts, but alternative options are needed when adequate vein is not feasible and when clinical conditions preclude safe use of synthetic materials. Objective To evaluate the performance of the acellular tissue engineered vessel (ATEV) in the repair of extremity arterial injuries. Design, Setting, and Participants Two open-label, single-arm, nonrandomized clinical trials, including 1 prospective civilian study (CLN-PRO-V005 [V005]) and 1 retrospective observational study in a war zone (CLN-PRO-V017 [V017]), were conducted from September 2018 to January 2024 (follow-up ongoing) at 19 level 1 trauma centers in the US and Israel and 5 frontline hospitals in Ukraine. Patients had vascular injury, no autologous vein available for emergent revascularization, and risk factors for wound infection. Data include the subset of patients with extremity injuries and were analyzed from September 2023 to January 2024. Intervention The ATEV is a bioengineered vascular conduit grown from human vascular cells, available off the shelf, and implantable without immunosuppression. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary patency at day 30 was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included limb salvage, graft infection, and patient survival. A systematic literature review identified synthetic graft benchmarks in the treatment of arterial trauma for the same end points. Results The arterial extremity injury subset included 51 of 69 participants in V005 and 16 of 17 participants in V017. The majority were male (V005, 38 [74.5%]; V017, 16 [100%]), the mean (SD) ages were similar (V005, 33.5 [13.6] years; V017, 34.2 [9.0] years), and the mean (SD) Injury Severity Scores were similar (V005, 20.8 [10.5]; V017, 20.1 [18.9]). Penetrating injuries dominated (V005, 29 patients [56.9%]; V017, 14 patients [87.5%]). At day 30 for the V005 and V017 trials, respectively, ATEV primary patency was 84.3% (95% CI, 72.0%-91.8%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 71.7%-98.9%); secondary patency was 90.2% (95% CI, 79.0%-95.7%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 71.7%-98.9%); amputation rate was 9.8% (95% CI, 4.3%-21.0%) and 0% (95% CI, 0.0%-19.4%); ATEV infection rate was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.4%-10.3%) and 0% (95% CI, 0.0%-19.4%); and death rate was 5.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-15.9%) and 0% (95% CI, 0.0%-19.4%) (no deaths attributed to the ATEV at day 30). Day 30 synthetic graft benchmarks were as follows: secondary patency, 78.9%; amputation, 24.3%; infection, 8.4%; and death, 3.4%. Conclusions and Relevance Results of analysis in the subset of patients with vascular extremity injuries in 2 single-arm trials in civilian and real-world military settings suggest that the ATEV provides benefits in terms of patency, limb salvage, and infection resistance. Comparing ATEV outcomes with synthetic graft benchmarks demonstrated improved outcomes in the treatment of acute vascular injuries of the extremities. The analyses reported herein are limited to the subset of 67 patients with vascular extremity injuries out of 86 patients enrolled in 2 trials and excluded 19 patients with iatrogenic and torso injuries. Had these 19 patients been included in these analyses, the efficacy and safety findings could have been attenuated. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03005418 , NCT05873959

Objective: To compare the perioperative risk of any stroke, death and MI and the long-term risk of re-stenosis and stroke following CEA with patching (a prosthetic or vein patch sutured to the arterial opening to widen the closure) versus CEA with primary closure in CREST. Methods: We included patients who were randomized and underwent CEA in CREST. We compared peri-procedural and 4-year event rates and 2-year restenosis rates, in addition to rates of reoperation between the two groups. Re-stenosis was defined as elevated peak systolic velocity ≥3.0 m/s on carotid duplex US. Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazard models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results: There were 1,148 patients who underwent CEA (755 {66%} patch; 328 {29%} primary closure). We excluded 43 patients who underwent eversion CEA and 24 patients missing CEA data (5%). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to age, sex, race and comorbidities (Table 1). There were significant reductions in the risk of any periprocedural stroke and death (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.82, P<0.02), in re-operation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.80, P<0.01), in the 4-year risk of stroke (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.97, P<0.04) and in the 2-year risk of re-stenosis (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.45, P<0.0001) in the patch compared to the primary closure group (Table 2). Conclusion: Patch closure should be considered for all CEAs because of the association of patch closure with reductions in risk of periprocedural stroke and death, re-operation, and long-term clinical and anatomic durability.

Objectives The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) showed no difference in the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS). We compared restenosis or occlusion, and repeat revascularization, between CAS and CEA over 2 years of follow-up. Methods Restenosis, occlusion, and repeat revascularization were assessed at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months post-randomization. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70% diameter reduction) was defined by a peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥300 cm/second on standardized duplex ultrasonography (DUS), occlusion by an absence of flow within the target artery on DUS, and repeat revascularization by any additional procedure (CEA, angioplasty or CAS) performed on the index artery. Studies were performed in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted in the CREST Ultrasound Core Lab. Patients included in this report were those who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization and had an ultrasound reviewed at the Core Lab (n=2191). Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results In the analytic cohort, 1086 patients received CAS and 1105 received CEA. Over 2 years 113 patients developed restenosis, 56 (rate 5.8%) in the CAS group and 57 (rate 5.8%) in the CEA group; and 8 developed an occlusion, 3 (rate 0.3 %) in the CAS group and 5 (rate 0.5%) in the CEA group. The combined restenosis-occlusion rate was 6.0% (n=58) for CAS and 6.3% (n=62) for CEA (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.63-1.29, p=0.58). Forty-three patients of the 2191 underwent repeat revascularization (20 CAS, 23 CEA, p=0.69) of which 28 had restenosis by our criteria and so were included ( Figure ). Stroke occurred in 13 (4 CAS; 9 CEA) of the 120 patients with restenosis or occlusion; 1 of the 4 CAS strokes occurred after restenosis was detected, and 5 of 9 CEA strokes occurred after restenosis was detected. Conclusions This analysis of carotid restenosis is the largest reported to date from any randomized clinical trial. Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and similar up to 2 years following CAS or CEA among 2191 patients. The rates of revascularization likewise did not differ between CAS and CEA. Follow-up out to 10 years is ongoing. Figure. Kaplan-Meier curves of restenosis and occlusion over 2 years.

Background and Purpose— This analysis was performed to assess the association between perioperative and clinical variables and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods— Individual patient-level data from the 5 largest randomized controlled carotid trials were pooled in the Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration database. A total of 4181 patients who received carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic stenosis per protocol were included. Determinants of outcome included carotid endarterectomy technique, type of anesthesia, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, shunting, antiplatelet medication, and clinical variables. Stroke or death within 30 days after carotid endarterectomy was the primary outcome. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated in multilevel multivariable analyses using a Poisson regression model. Results— Mean age was 69.5±9.2 years (70.7% men). The 30-day stroke or death rate was 4.3%. In the multivariable regression analysis, local anesthesia was associated with a lower primary outcome rate (versus general anesthesia; aRR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.50–0.99]). Shunting (aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.05–1.95]), a contralateral high-grade carotid stenosis or occlusion (aRR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.02–2.47]), and a more severe neurological deficit (mRS, 3–5 versus 0–2: aRR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.30–4.83]) were associated with higher primary outcome rates. None of the other characteristics were significantly associated with the perioperative stroke or death risk. Conclusions— The current results indicate lower perioperative stroke or death rates in patients operated upon under local anesthesia, whereas a more severe neurological deficit and a contralateral high-grade carotid stenosis or occlusion were identified as potential risk factors. Despite a possible selection bias and patients not having been randomized, these findings might be useful to guide surgeons and anesthetists when treating patients with symptomatic carotid disease.