Late erosion of a prophylactic Celect IVC filter into the aorta, right renal artery, and duodenal wall

We present the case of a patient with retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter-related pseudoaneurysms of the infrarenal aorta and right renal artery, with associated erosion into the duodenal wall. The patient was seen 10 months following multiorgan trauma and placement of a prophylactic retrievable IVC filter (R-IVCF). Management required autogenous aortic reconstruction, caval repair, and subsequent right nephrectomy. This case demonstrates that R-IVCFs may be associated with significant risks, which is concerning, as a majority of prophylactic R-IVCFs placed after multisystem trauma are not removed

Influence of computed tomography angiography reconstruction software on anatomic measurements and endograft component selection for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThree-dimensional (3D) centerline reconstruction of computed tomography angiography (CTA) images permits detailed anatomic characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms and facilitates planning of endovascular repair. Although several programs for 3D CTA reconstruction and measurement are available, direct comparisons have not been published, and reliability between software platforms has not been characterized. We evaluated agreement between anatomic measurements obtained from 3D CTA reconstructions using three commercially available software programs and characterized concordance between the programs for endograft component selection.MethodsImages from 92 CTA studies performed before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were reconstructed and measured using three different software programs: independent reconstruction with proprietary software (Preview; M2S Inc, Lebanon, NH), surgeon-based reconstruction with proprietary software (AquariusNet Thin Client; TeraRecon Inc, San Mateo, Calif), and surgeon-based reconstruction with open-source software (Osirix MD; Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland). Agreement between outer wall diameter and length measurements obtained from centerline reconstructions created with each program was evaluated using scatter plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. Concordance between aortic and iliac endograft component diameters selected from measurements with each program based on published instructions for use was examined using weighted κ statistics.ResultsDiameter measurements were generally similar between programs. Mean diameters at all locations were within ≤1 mm of one another, and mean length measurements were within ≤10 mm of one another for all pairwise comparisons. Intraclass correlations coefficients between programs for diameter measurements were comparable between programs (≥0.82 for all diameter comparisons and ≥0.88 for all length comparisons) and indicated good correlation. Pair-wise comparisons indicated similar rates of identical and adjacent size endograft component selection without an obvious trend toward superior agreement for any two programs. Rates of identical proximal endograft diameter selection ranged from 46% to 59%, whereas 89% to 100% of proximal endograft diameters selected between programs were within one adjacent (smaller or larger) size of each other. For iliac endograft selection, rates of identical component diameter selection between programs ranged from 36% to 69%, and 58% to 99% of selected iliac endograft diameters were within one adjacent size.ConclusionsOuter wall diameter and centerline length measurements obtained from 3D CTA reconstructions demonstrated good correlation between imaging analysis software programs, and graft diameter selections based on these measurements were reasonably similar. Comparable 3D CTA reconstruction measurements can be generated from independent and surgeon-based approaches using proprietary and open-source software, and the selection of a method to interpret images for endograft planning can be individualized according to operator experience and available resources while retaining sufficient accuracy

Results of surgical management of acute thromboembolic lower extremity ischemia

ObjectiveAcute lower extremity ischemia secondary to arterial thromboembolism is a common problem. Contemporary data regarding this problem are sparse. This report examines a 10-year single-center experience and describes the surgical management and outcomes observed.MethodsProcedural codes were used to identify consecutive patients treated surgically for acute lower extremity embolization from January 2002 to September 2012. Patients presenting >7 days after onset of symptoms, occlusion of grafts/stents, and cases secondary to trauma or iatrogenic injury were excluded. Data collected included demographics, medical comorbidities, presenting clinical characteristics, procedural specifics, and postoperative outcomes. Results were evaluated using descriptive statistics, product-limit survival analysis, and logistic regression multivariable modeling.ResultsThe study sample included 170 patients (47% female). Mean age was 69.1 ± 16.0 years. Of these, 82 patients (49%) had a previous history of atrial fibrillation, and four (2%) were therapeutically anticoagulated (international normalized ratio ≥2.0) at presentation. Presentation for 83% was >6 hours after symptom onset, and 9% presented with a concurrent acute stroke. Femoral artery exploration with embolectomy was the most common procedural management and was used for aortic, iliac, and infrainguinal occlusion. Ten patients (6%) required bypass for limb salvage during the initial operation. Local instillation of thrombolytic agents as an adjunct to embolectomy was used in 16%, fasciotomies were performed in 39%, and unexpected return to the operating room occurred in 24%. Ninety-day amputation above or below the knee was required during the index hospitalization in 26 patients (15%). In-hospital or 30-day mortality was 18%. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was 8 days (4, 16 days), and 36% of patients were discharged to a nursing facility. Recurrent extremity embolization occurred in 23 patients (14%) at a median interval of 1.6 months. The 5-year amputation freedom and survival estimates were 80% and 41%, respectively. Predictors of 90-day amputation included prior vascular surgery, gangrene, and fasciotomy. Predictors of 30-day mortality included age, history of coronary artery disease, prior vascular surgery, and concurrent stroke.ConclusionsDespite advances in contemporary medical care, lower extremity arterial embolization remains a condition that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the condition is resource-intensive to treat and is likely preventable (initially or in recurrence) in a substantial subset of patients

Outcomes of acute intraoperative surgical conversion during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

PurposeOutcomes and predictors of acute surgical conversion during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) were examined using the American College of Surgeons-National Safety and Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) Database (2005 to 2008).MethodsAcute intraoperative surgical conversions occurring during elective EVAR were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Nonemergent EVAR and primary open surgical repairs of infrarenal aneurysms were examined for comparison. Perioperative morbidity was categorized as wound, pulmonary, venous thromboembolic, genitourinary, cardiovascular, operative, and septic. Mortality, overall morbidity, and length of stay (LOS) were examined.ResultsWe identified 72 acute conversions, 2414 open repairs, and 6332 EVAR without acute conversion. Demographics and comorbidities were generally similar among operative groups. Mean operative time was 274 minutes for acute conversion vs 226 minutes for primary open repair and 162 minutes for EVAR (conversion vs EVAR and open repair vs EVAR P < .0001 for each; conversion vs open repair P = .0014; analysis on rank operative time). Blood transfusion was required in 69% of acute conversions (mean volume, 6.0 units) vs 73% of open repairs (mean volume, 3.3 units) and 12% of EVARs (mean volume, 2.6 units; P < .0001 for each pair-wise comparison; analysis on rank number of units among those transfused). Major morbidity was 28% for acute conversions, 28% for open repairs, and 12% for EVARs. Mortality was 4.2% for acute conversions, 3.2% for open repairs, and 1.3% for EVARs. Median (quartile 1, quartile 3) LOS was 7 (5, 9) days for acute conversion and open repair, and 2 (1, 3) days for EVAR. Morbidity and mortality were significantly higher for acute conversion and open repair vs EVAR. The OR (95% confidence interval) for morbidity was 2.9 (1.7-4.8) after conversion and 2.8 (2.5-3.2) after open repair (P < .0001 for both) and for mortality was 3.4 (1.0-10.9; P = .0437) for conversion and 2.5 (1.9-3.5; P < .0001) for open repair. Morbidity and mortality were similar between acute conversion and open repair. A similar pattern among repair groups was demonstrated for LOS, with similar LOS for acute conversions and open repair, which were significantly longer than those observed for EVAR. No significant demographic or medical risk factor predictors of acute conversion during EVAR were identified.ConclusionAcute surgical conversion was a rare complication affecting 1.1% of EVAR cases, with no broadly identifiable at-risk population. When conversion did occur, morbidity and mortality rates paralleled those observed for elective open repair

Left subclavian artery coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and risk of perioperative stroke or death

IntroductionLeft subclavian artery (LSA) coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is often necessary due to anatomic factors and is performed in to up to 40% of procedures. Despite the frequency of LSA coverage during TEVAR, reported associations with risk of periprocedural stroke or death are inconsistent in reported literature. We examined the 2005-2008 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data file to determine associations between LSA coverage during TEVAR and risk of perioperative stroke or death.MethodsCurrent procedural terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify patients undergoing TEVAR, LSA coverage, and subclavian revascularization. Patients undergoing coronary bypass, ascending aortic repair, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, or nonvascular intra-abdominal procedures during the same operation were excluded. Perioperative stroke and mortality associations with LSA coverage were examined using logistic regression models for each outcome. Significance was assessed at α = 0.05, with univariable P < .05 required for multivariable model entry.ResultsEight hundred forty-five TEVAR procedures were identified, of which 52 patients were excluded due to additional major procedures performed with TEVAR. Seven hundred thirty-three of the remaining 793 procedures included CPT codes indicating primary placement of an initial thoracic endograft and form the basis of this analysis. LSA coverage occurred in 279 procedures (38%). Thirty-day stroke and mortality rates were 5.7% and 7.0%, respectively. LSA coverage was associated with increased 30-day risk of stroke in multivariable modeling (odds ratio [OR], 2.17 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-4.14; P = .019). Other significant multivariable risk factors for stroke included proximal aortic cuff placement during TEVAR (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.30-5.16; P = .007) and emergency procedure status (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.87-6.94; P < .001). No significant association between LSA coverage and perioperative mortality was identified (univariable OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.98-2.93; P = .0578).ConclusionLSA coverage during thoracic endovascular repair is associated with increased risk of perioperative stroke following TEVAR. Further evidence is needed to determine whether procedural modifications, including LSA revascularization, reduce the incidence of stroke associated with TEVAR

Characterization of resident surgeon participation during carotid endarterectomy and impact on perioperative outcomes

IntroductionThe impact of resident surgeon participation during vascular procedures on postoperative outcomes is incompletely understood. We characterized resident physician participation during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedures within the 2005-2009 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant Use Datafile and evaluated associations with procedural characteristics and perioperative adverse events.MethodsCEAs were identified using primary current procedural terminology codes; those performed simultaneously with other major procedures or unknown resident participation status were excluded. Group-wise comparisons based on resident participation status were performed using χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and t tests or nonparametric methods for continuous variables. Associations with perioperative adverse events (major = stroke, death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest; minor = peripheral nerve injury, bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical site infection, or wound disruption) were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for other known risk factors.ResultsA total of 25,280 CEA procedures were analyzed, of which residents participated in 13,705 (54.2%), while residents were absent in 11,575 (45.8%). Among CEAs with resident physician participation, resident level was categorized as junior (postgraduate year [PGY] 1-2) in 21.9%, senior (PGY 3-5) in 52.7%, and fellow (PGY ≥6) in 25.3%. Major adverse event rates with and without resident participation were 1.9% versus 2.1%, and minor adverse event rates with and without resident participation were 0.9% versus 1.0%, respectively. In multivariable models, resident physician participation was not associated with perioperative risk for major adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.08) or minor adverse events (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.21).ConclusionsResident surgeon participation during CEA is not associated with risk of adverse perioperative events

Variation in thromboembolic complications among patients undergoing commonly performed cancer operations

ObjectiveThere is widespread evidence that cancer confers an increased risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). This risk is thought to vary among different cancer types. The purpose of this study is to better define the incidence of thrombotic complications among patients undergoing surgical treatment for a spectrum of prevalent cancer diagnoses in contemporary practice.MethodsAll patients undergoing one of 11 cancer surgical operations (breast resection, hysterectomy, prostatectomy, colectomy, gastrectomy, lung resection, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, and nephrectomy) were identified by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2007-2009). The study endpoints were DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and overall postoperative venous thromboembolic events (VTE) within 1 month of the index procedure. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to calculate adjusted odds ratios for each endpoint.ResultsOver the study interval, 43,808 of the selected cancer operations were performed. The incidence of DVT, PE, and total VTE within 1 month following surgery varied widely across a spectrum of cancer diagnoses, ranging from 0.19%, 0.12%, and 0.28% for breast resection to 6.1%, 2.4%, and 7.3%, respectively, for esophagectomy. Compared with breast cancer, the incidence of VTE ranged from a 1.31-fold increase in VTE associated with gastrectomy (95% confidence interval, 0.73-2.37; P = .4) to a 2.68-fold increase associated with hysterectomy (95% confidence interval, 1.43-5.01; P = .002). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that inpatient status, steroid use, advanced age (≥60 years), morbid obesity (body mass index ≥35), blood transfusion, reintubation, cardiac arrest, postoperative infectious complications, and prolonged hospitalization were independently associated with increased risk of VTE.ConclusionsThe incidence of VTE and thromboembolic complications associated with cancer surgery varies substantially. These findings suggest that both tumor type and resection magnitude may impact VTE risk. Accordingly, such data support diagnosis and procedural-specific guidelines for perioperative VTE prophylaxis and can be used to anticipate the risk of potentially preventable morbidity