Schermerhorn, Marc L.

ImportanceFenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repairs (F/BEVAR) have been adopted by many centers. However, national trends of F/BEVAR use remain unclear, particularly at sites who perform them without an US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA)–approved investigational device exemption (IDE).ObjectiveTo quantify the use of F/BEVAR in the US and to determine if mortality was different at IDE vs non-IDE sites.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study examined 100% fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2023. Participants were patients who underwent endovascular treatment of the visceral aorta incorporating 2 or more visceral artery endoprostheses. Hospitals with vs without an IDE were identified using hospitals’ Employer Identification Number as a time varying exposure.ExposureF/BEVAR.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTrends in the center-level F/BEVAR case volume stratified by IDE status were assessed using cumulative incidence curves. Mortality outcomes at 30 days and 3 years were compared using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for baseline patient characteristics.ResultsFrom 2016 to 2023, 8017 patients were treated with F/BEVAR at 549 hospitals. The median (IQR) age was 75.8 (71.3-80.8) years; 5795 patients (72.3%) were male and 2222 (27.7%) female. A total of 2226 F/BEVAR (27.8%) were performed at 22 hospitals with an IDE. The number of patients treated with F/BEVAR increased from 771 in 2016 to 1251 in 2023. The median (IQR) annual case volume per hospital was significantly higher at IDE sites (22.3 [11.0-30.4] vs 1.2 [1.0-2.0] cases/y; P < .001); 18 IDE sites (90.0%) and 20 non-IDE sites (3.7%) completed 9 or more cases per year. The 30-day mortality (3.0% vs 4.9%) but not 3-year mortality (26.0% vs 27.1%) was lower for patients treated at hospitals with vs without an IDE. After risk adjustment, both 30-day (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69) and midterm mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) were lower for patients treated at IDE sites.Conclusions and RelevanceThe use of F/BEVAR is increasing across the United States, with the majority of cases being performed outside of IDE studies and at low-volume centers. F/BEVAR performed at non-IDE centers are associated with higher adjusted 30-day and midterm mortality. Transparent outcome reporting and identification of process measures from IDE sites may help achieve more equity in patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68–79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6–50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Objective: A significant cohort of patients who have undergone carotid artery stenting (CAS) will have in-stent restenosis (ISR). The optimal management of symptomatic or severe ISR remains poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to describe the indications, treatment, and mid- to long-term outcomes of patients undergoing CAS explantation for ISR. Methods: All patients undergoing internal carotid artery stent explantation with carotid artery reconstruction at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 2003 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Isolated common carotid artery stents were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, indications for explantation, operative details, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. Results: Over the study interval, a total of 971 patients underwent carotid stenting across the 3 centers. Of these, 8 patients ultimately underwent CAS explantation with carotid artery reconstruction. Mean age was 69 years and 5 patients were male. Index stent placement was for symptomatic stenosis in 4 patients, asymptomatic restenosis after endarterectomy in 2 patients, asymptomatic high lesion in 1 patient, and asymptomatic critical stenosis in 1 patient. Indications for explantation were symptomatic ISR in 4 patients and asymptomatic severe ISR in 4 patients. Method of repair was stent explantation and patch angioplasty in 5 and en bloc carotid resection with bypass in 3 patients. There were no perioperative neurologic events or cranial nerve injuries. At a mean follow-up of 38.7 months, there were 2 late disabling ipsilateral strokes (14.4 months and 19.1 months). Conclusion: A significant cohort of patients who have undergone CAS will have ISR. Although excellent perioperative results after surgical explantation can be obtained, this patient subgroup remains at risk for late neurologic events. Appropriate patient selection and diligent long-term follow-up are mandated to obtain optimal outcomes.