To determine in a chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) population who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) how many patients would have been categorized as preferred for bypass surgery according to the Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) and ascertain their surgical risk.
The current study analyzed 1043 CLTI patients who presented WIfI (wound, ischemia, and foot infection) stage ≥2 and underwent EVT between April 2010 and December 2017. Of these, 176 were excluded for lack of angiographic or other data, leaving 867 CLTI patients (mean age 74±10 years; 523 men) for stratification according to the GVG into bypass-preferred, indeterminate, or EVT-preferred groups. The GVG recommend bypass as the first-line treatment when the wound is severe (WIfI stage ≥3) and lesions are complex (GLASS stage III). Surgical risk was estimated using the modified PREVENT III risk score. To further stratify the bypass-preferred population according to mortality risk, a survival decision tree was constructed using recursive partitioning.
The bypass-preferred group accounted for 55% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51% to 58%] of the overall population. The decision tree analysis extracted a low-mortality risk subgroup with a survival rate of 99% (95% CI 98% to 100%) at 1 month and 80% (95% CI 73% to 87%) at 2 years. According to the PREVENT III score, 34% (95% CI 27% to 42%) of the low mortality risk subgroup were classified as high surgical risk.
A high proportion of patients undergoing EVT were considered bypass preferred based on the GVG, and the survival of these patients was not significantly different whether they were high or low surgical risk.

BACKGROUND: Femoral-popliteal (F-P) bypass is the standard treatment for lower extremity peripheral artery disease with severe femoropopliteal (FP) artery lesions. However, in clinical settings, these patients are treated with endovascular therapy (EVT) because of frailty and difficulties with general anesthesia. We compared the clinical outcomes of F-P bypass and EVT for severe FP artery lesions and investigated the types of patients for whom EVT would be as appropriate as F-P bypass.
METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study included 452 Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II C and D FP artery lesions in 352 patients. A total of 350 lesions in 260 patients (74 ± 9 years, 66% male, 60% claudication) were treated with EVT with nitinol self-expandable stents, and 102 lesions in 92 patients (71 ± 9 years, 75% male, 40% claudication) were treated with F-P bypass. The primary outcome measure was primary patency, and the influence of baseline characteristics on its association with the treatment strategy (EVT versus F-P bypass) was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.
RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the 3-year primary patency rate was significantly lower for EVT than F-P bypass (60% vs. 74%, P < 0.01). The body mass index (BMI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels significantly interacted with the treatment strategy for restenosis (P < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratios of EVT versus F-P bypass for restenosis were 0.77 (P = 0.46) in cases with a low BMI (≤18 kg/m2) or an elevated CRP level (≥1 mg/dL) and 3.35 (P < 0.01) in other cases. The 3-year primary patency rate was not significantly different between the EVT and F-P bypass groups in patients with BMI ≤ 18 kg/m2 or CRP ≥ 1 mg/dL (57% vs. 45%, P = 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: In TASC II C and D lesions, EVT appears to yield patency comparable to that of F-P bypass in patients with a low BMI or an elevated CRP level, but lower patency in other patients.

Decision-making related to the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is complex. Aneurysms present with varying risks of rupture, and patient-specific factors influence anticipated life expectancy, operative risk, and need to intervene. Careful attention to the choice of operative strategy along with optimal treatment of medical comorbidities is critical to achieving excellent outcomes. Moreover, appropriate postoperative surveillance is necessary to minimize subsequent aneurysm-related death or morbidity.
The committee made specific practice recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Three systematic reviews were conducted to support this guideline. Two focused on evaluating the best modalities and optimal frequency for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). A third focused on identifying the best available evidence on the diagnosis and management of AAA. Specific areas of focus included (1) general approach to the patient, (2) treatment of the patient with an AAA, (3) anesthetic considerations and perioperative management, (4) postoperative and long-term management, and (5) cost and economic considerations.
Along with providing guidance regarding the management of patients throughout the continuum of care, we have revised a number of prior recommendations and addressed a number of new areas of significance. New guidelines are provided for the surveillance of patients with an AAA, including recommended surveillance imaging at 12-month intervals for patients with an AAA of 4.0 to 4.9 cm in diameter. We recommend endovascular repair as the preferred method of treatment for ruptured aneurysms. Incorporating knowledge gained through the Vascular Quality Initiative and other regional quality collaboratives, we suggest that the Vascular Quality Initiative mortality risk score be used for mutual decision-making with patients considering aneurysm repair. We also suggest that elective EVAR be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality and conversion rate to open surgical repair of 2% or less and that perform at least 10 EVAR cases each year. We also suggest that elective open aneurysm repair be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality of 5% or less and that perform at least 10 open aortic operations of any type each year. To encourage the development of effective systems of care that would lead to improved outcomes for those patients undergoing emergent repair, we suggest a door-to-intervention time of <90 minutes, based on a framework of 30-30-30 minutes, for the management of the patient with a ruptured aneurysm. We recommend treatment of type I and III endoleaks as well as of type II endoleaks with aneurysm expansion but recommend continued surveillance of type II endoleaks not associated with aneurysm expansion. Whereas antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients with an aortic prosthesis before any dental procedure involving the manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended before respiratory tract procedures, gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, and dermatologic or musculoskeletal procedures unless the potential for infection exists or the patient is immunocompromised. Increased utilization of color duplex ultrasound is suggested for postoperative surveillance after EVAR in the absence of endoleak or aneurysm expansion.
Important new recommendations are provided for the care of patients with an AAA, including suggestions to improve mutual decision-making between the treating physician and the patients and their families as well as a number of new strategies to enhance perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing elective and emergent repair. Areas of uncertainty are highlighted that would benefit from further investigation in addition to existing limitations in diagnostic tests, pharmacologic agents, intraoperative tools, and devices.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate duplex ultrasound arterial mapping (DUAM) as the sole imaging modality when planning for bypass surgery (BS) and endovascular revascularization (EvR) in patients with critical limb ischemia for TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II C/D infrainguinal lesions.
METHODS: This was a retrospective review evaluating the accuracy of DUAM as the sole imaging tool in determining patient suitability for BS vs EvR. Primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of DUAM compared with intraoperative digital subtraction angiography. Secondary outcomes were procedural, hemodynamic, and clinical outcomes, amputation-free survival, and freedom from major adverse clinical events.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2012, a total of 4783 patients with peripheral arterial disease were referred, of whom 622 critical limb ischemia patients underwent revascularization for TASC C and D lesions (EvR: n = 423; BS: n = 199). Seventy-four percent of EvR and 82% of BS were performed for TASC D (P = .218). The DUAM showed sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 98% in identifying lesions requiring intervention. Of the 520 procedures performed with DUAM alone, there was no difference regarding the number of procedures performed for occlusive or de novo lesions (EvR: 65% and 71%; BS: 87% and 78%; P = .056). Immediate clinical improvement to the Rutherford category ≤3 was 96% for EvR and 97% for BS (P = .78). Hemodynamic success was 79% for EvR and 77% for BS (P = .72). Six-year freedom from binary restenosis was 71.6% for EvR and 67.4% for BS (P = .724). Six-year freedom from target lesion revascularization was 81.1% for EvR and 70.3% for BS (P = .3571). Six-year sustained clinical improvement was 79.5% for EvR and 66.7% for BS (P = .294). Six-year amputation-free survival was 77.2% for EvR and 74.6% for BS (P = .837). There was a significant difference in risk of major adverse clinical events between EvR and BS (51% vs 70%; P = .034). Only 16.4% of patients required magnetic resonance angiography, which tended to overestimate lesions with 84% agreement with intraoperative findings. Six-year binary restenosis was 71% for DUAM procedures compared with 55% for magnetic resonance angiography procedures (P = .001), which was solely based on the prospective modality.
CONCLUSIONS: The DUAM epitomizes a minimally invasive, economically proficient modality for road mapping procedural outcome in BS and EvR. It allows for high patient turnover with procedural and clinical success without compromising hemodynamic outcome. The DUAM is superior to other available modalities as the sole preoperative imaging tool in a successful limb salvage program.

Cystic adventitial disease (CAD) is a well described disease entity that commonly affects the popliteal artery, presenting as a rare cause of non-atherosclerotic claudication. The traditional surgical approaches are cyst resection and bypass, or cyst evacuation or aspiration. We report the case of a 58-year-old female with CAD of the popliteal artery treated successfully with cyst resection and bypass using an autologous graft. We reviewed the literature over the last 25 years on management and outcomes of CAD of the popliteal artery. We identified a total of 123 cases; most cases were treated using a traditional repair, while 3 cases used an endovascular approach. The overall success rate using bypass was 93.3%, compared to 85% in the evacuation/aspiration cohort. All cases treated endovascularly resulted in failure. While no consensus exists regarding the preferred modality to treat CAD, we believe that resection of the cyst and bypass affords the best outcomes.