Introduction: The use of flow arrest as a means of providing cerebral protection during carotid angioplasty offers the advantages of improved efficiency of debris removal and the ability to provide protection under unfavorable (tortuous) anatomic circumstances. However, in contrast to the filtration methods of cerebral protection, this modality requires complete interruption of antegrade carotid artery flow during balloon angioplasty and stent deployment. Methods: We report our experience with 9 patients undergoing carotid angioplasty with the Mo.Ma device, which utilizes common and external carotid artery balloon occlusion during the angioplasty procedure. We assessed the clinical outcomes and intraprocedural hemodynamic data. Results: The average duration of carotid occlusion was 8.3 minutes. Of the 9 patients, 2 patients (22%) experienced cerebral intolerance. No stroke occurred in this patient cohort. There appeared to be a poor relationship between procedure intolerance and the presence of significant contralateral stenosis or low carotid back pressure. Furthermore, the incidence of postangioplasty hypotension was not clearly related to cerebral intolerance. Conclusion: Carotid angioplasty with stenting can be safely conducted with flow arrest as an alternative to filter-type cerebral protection devices. However, because cerebral intolerance is not an infrequent occurrence with this approach, clinicians must be cognizant of management strategies for transient cerebral intolerance.

Objectives: Moderate (body mass index [BMI]>= 30) and morbid obesity (BMI >= 35) is increasing at an alarming rate in vascular surgery patients. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of obesity on perioperative and long-term clinical outcomes following open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: This review includes patients that underwent open AAA repair (n - 403) or EVAR (n - 223) from 1999 to 2009. Specific patient characteristics such as comorbid diseases, medications, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed. Specific perioperative outcomes such as length of stay, myocardial infarctions, and mortality were reviewed. In addition, long-term outcomes such as rates of reintervention, permanent renal dysfunction, and mortality beyond 30 days were also assessed. Results: The incidence of obesity in open AAA patients was 25.3% (documented incidence 1.5%) and for EVAR was 24.6% (documented incidence 4%). Moderate and morbid obesity was associated with longer intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for both open AAA or EVAR patients (P < .05). However, no significant differences in perioperative outcomes in terms of overall length of stay, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, wound infections, or mortality were noted between obese and nonobese patients underoing open AAA repair or EVAR (P > .05). Similarly, moderate and morbid obesity was not associated with significant differences in rates of reintervention, permanent renal dysfunction, and mortality beyond 30 days for patients undergoing open AAA repair or EVAR (P > .05). Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that moderate and morbid obesity are not independently associated with adverse perioperative and long-term clinical outcomes for patients undergoing open AAA repair or EVAR. Therefore, either open AAA repair or EVAR can be accomplished safely in moderately obese and morbidly obese patients.

Carotid angioplasty requires early placement of a cerebral protection device in an effort to minimize cerebral embolization during the conduct of the subsequent angioplasty and stenting procedure. In patients who exhibit a very critical internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis (∼99%), initial passage of the lesion may not be possible with a standard 0.014-inch wire system. In this report, the authors describe an approach using a 0.012-inch hydrophilic system to overcome this technical obstacle.

Objectives: Significant hypotension after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has been correlated with adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors that predict hypotension after patients undergo CEA and CAS.Methods: The review included 1474 CEA patients and 157 CAS patients who underwent procedures from 2002 to 2008. Specific patient characteristics, such as comorbid diseases, degree of carotid stenosis, presence of neurologic symptoms, and preprocedure medications, were assessed. Also reviewed were specific postprocedural clinical outcomes, including hypotension requiring pressors, myocardial infarction, stroke, death, and hospital length of stay.Results. The incidence of clinically significant hypotension was 12.6% in CEA patients and 35% in CAS patients (P < .001). Clinically significant hypotension was correlated with increased postprocedural myocardial infarction (2.1% vs 0.5%, P = .022), increased mortality (2.1% vs 0.1%, P < .001), and length of stay >2 days (46.3% vs 27.4%, P = .01). potension was not associated with increased postprocedural strokes (0.8% vs 0.6%, P = .75) or recurrent neurologic symptoms (0.4% vs 0.3%, P = .55). Preoperative nitrate use predicted a greater incidence of postprocedural hypotension (P = .043). A history of tobacco use was correlated with postprocedure hypotension (P = .033). Preprocedural strokes, the use of calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, prior myocardial infarction, degree of preprocedural carotid stenosis, type of stent, previous ipsilateral and contralateral interventions, and female gender did not correlate with postprocedural hypotension (P > .05).Conclusions. Postprocedural hypotension occurs more commonly with CAS than CEA and is associated with increased postprocedural myocardial infarction and length of stay, and death. Nitrates and tobacco use predict a higher incidence of postprocedural hypotension. High-risk patients should be aggressively managed to prevent the increased morbidity and mortality due to postprocedural hypotension. (J Vasc Surg 2009;50:526-33.)

Introduction To determine if gender influences clinical outcomes and durability of repair after carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) or carotid endartercetomy (CEA), an analysis of patient records was performed. Methods This study included 89 CAS patients (47 men and 42 women) and 93 CEA patients (53 men and 40 women). Patients underwent duplex scans 6, 12, 24 months postprocedure. The outcomes of periprocedural mortality, major adverse events, strokes, and myocardial infarctions were assessed. Incidence of critical restenosis and recurrence of symptoms was also assessed. Results No significant differences were noted between men and women who had undergone either CAS or CEA ( P > .05) for clinical outcomes and durability of repair. No differences for periprocedural mortality, major adverse events, critical restenosis, recurrent neurologic symptoms, and adverse event free survival were found. Conclusions These results do not indicate substantial gender influences on clinical outcomes or durability of repair following CAS and CEA.

Background: Recently, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has evolved as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. Some concerns have arisen regarding the high cost of stents and neuroprotection devices, which may inflate the overall procedural costs relative to CEA. We report here a review and analysis contrasting the clinical outcomes and associated hospital costs incurred for patients treated with either CAS or CEA.Methods. Ninety-four consecutive patients with surgically amenable carotid stenosis were offered CAS or CEA. Forty-six patients elected CAS, and 48 patients underwent CEA. CAS was performed with the Smart Precise or Acculink stents, and all procedures included neuroprotection (Filter Wire or Accunet). CEA was performed with patients under general anesthesia with routine shunting and with Dacron or bovine pericardium patches. Clinical outcomes such as perioperative mortality, major adverse events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and death), length of stay, and the incidence of hemodynamic instability were analyzed. Total costs, indirect costs, and direct procedural costs associated with hospitalization were also reviewed.Results: CAS was associated with a shorter length of stay compared with CEA (1.2 vs 2.1 days; P =.02). Differences in perioperative mortality (0% vs 2%; P = NS), major adverse events (2% vs 10%; P =.36), strokes (2% vs 4%; P = NS), myocardial infarctions (0% vs 4%; P =.49), and hypotension necessitating pressor support (21% vs 18%; P = NS) were not statistically significant. By using cost to charge ratio methodology according to the Medicare report, CAS was associated with higher total procedural costs ($17,402 vs $12,112; P =.029) and direct costs ($10,522 vs $7227; P =.017). The differences in indirect costs were not significant ($6879 vs $4885; P =.063).Conclusions. CAS with neuroprotection was associated with clinical outcomes equivalent to those with CEA but had higher total hospital costs. These higher costs reflect the addition of expensive devices that have improved the technical success and the clinical outcomes associated with CAS.

BACKGROUND:Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. We report a retrospective review of our institution's experience with CAS versus CEA. METHODS:Postprocedure surveillance duplex, recurrent symptoms, postprocedure strokes, progression of lesions, and rates of re-operation were analyzed in 46 patients who underwent CAS and 48 patients who underwent CEA. The mean length of follow-up evaluation was 13 months. All CAS procedures included neuroprotection devices. RESULTS:Statistically significant differences in progression to critical restenosis (2% vs 2%, P = 1.0), rate of subsequent symptoms or stroke (2% vs 10%, P = .1), or rate of re-interventions were not observed between CAS and CEA groups (2% vs 4%, P = .98). Total mortality (0% vs 2%, P = .33), and the occurrence of major adverse events (2% vs 10%, P = .18) also were not significantly different in the CAS compared with the CEA patients. The average rate of increase in internal carotid velocity at 6 to 12 months (-1% vs 1.1%, P = NS) and 12 to 24 months (-5% vs -6.5%, P = NS) also were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS:Our observed results indicate that CAS may be performed with comparable clinical outcomes and durability of repair comparable with CEA.

IntroductionAlthough carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become established as the preferred approach to the management of critical carotid stenosis, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has arisen as a competitive modality. We report here a nonindustry-supported experience using CAS in a nonselected patient population suffering from critical carotid stenosis.MethodsAll patients suffering from carotid stenosis (>50% symptomatic or >80% asymptomatic) were offered CAS or CEA. The first 36 patients who underwent attempted CAS over this last year are reported here. CAS was performed with the SMART PRECISE (Cordis, Inc, Miami Lakes, FL) or ACCULINK (Guidant, Inc, St Paul, MN) stents. All procedures were performed with cerebral protection.ResultsThe planned procedure success rate was 97%, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate was 3.0% in 35 patients who underwent successful CAS. This included a minor stroke and a subendocardial myocardial infarction in the same individual. Both events were attributed to sustained postprocedure hypotension. The most frequent intraprocedure complications observed were bradycardia and hypotension. Persistent postprocedure hypotension requiring vasopressor support complicated 23% of cases. The average duration of vasopressor support in this group was 21 hours.ConclusionCAS can be accomplished with an MAE comparable to CEA and will likely become the dominant alternative to CEA for the management of carotid stenosis. Management of periprocedural cardiovascular instability represents one of the most important elements in the safe conduct of CAS.

Venous access has dramatically increased in importance over the last two decades and will be expected to remain an important component in the delivery of healthcare. The primary areas of healthcare that increasingly rely on venous access include hemodialysis, oncology for the administration of antineoplastic agents, infectious diseases for the provision of extended antibiotic courses, and multiple specialties that depend on the use of parenteral nutrient support. It is to be expected that as the sophistication of medicine progresses, reliance on methods of providing vascular access will continue to carry great importance while simultaneously serving as an Achilles’ heel to medical practice. This latter characteristic results from the rising prevalence of patients suffering from chronic conditions who require intensive or long-term parenteral services and exhibit access site “exhaustion.” Consequently, access site preservation should be a constant concern attendant to the placement of venous access devices. The importance of venous access is exemplified in the very extensive review provided by Vanek 1 in Part 1 in this issue and Part 2 in the June issue of NCP. The financial impact of this area alone amounts to well over a billion dollars annually when the collateral relationship that venous access has with other specialties and healthcare providers, including specialized nursing, radiology, surgery for the implantation, and care and long-term maintenance of these vascular access devices is considered. The current review provides a broad and detailed description of venous access including anatomical considerations and device options and their associated complications. Furthermore, the author tailors his presentation to the timeline required for venous access use (short-term versus long-term access) and to the specific therapeutic goals desired in various patient populations. Possibly, the most important aspect of his review is the emphasis that Vanek 1 places on complications associated with the various techniques used to gain vascular access. In this regard, catheter-related sepsis and venous thrombosis probably remain the most serious and challenging complications of venous access devices in clinical practice. Intravascular catheter-related infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. These infections result in substantially increased hospital costs, duration of hospitalization, and patient morbidity. The major risk factors, which influence development of infection, include patient-significant factors, site of catheter placement, associated connections of these devices, and pathogenicity of various microorganisms. For example, the mortality attributed to catheter-related Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (8.2%) substantially exceeds the mortality attributed to coagulase-negative staphylococcal catheter-related bacteremia (0.7%). 2 Identification of these various factors and establishment of guidelines for the definition of catheter-related bloodstream infections has resulted in increased research efforts designed to reduce the incidence of these complications. Results of these efforts include protocols for the prevention of catheter-related infections during placement and algorithms for the management of these infections when they occur. 3 Additionally,

It is known that alterations in insulin metabolism following injury and infection result in depression of insulin levels and the development of insulin resistance. In order to further study insulin during septic and traumatic stress, we estimated insulin production in control (Group 1, n = 6), postoperative (Group 2, n = 5), and postoperative-septic (Group 3, n = 8) human subjects by measuring the 24-hour urinary C-peptide excretion. In addition, basal and peak glucose and insulin levels in response to a standard (0.5 gm/kg) intravenous glucose stimulus were measured immediately thereafter to determine if insulin levels reflected insulin production. Basal insulin for Groups 1, 2, and 3 (16 +/- 8.4, 10 +/- 3.4, 9.5 +/- 4.4 microU/ml +/- SD, respectively) were not substantially different. Peak insulin response to glucose infusion declined from Groups 1 to 3 (51 +/- 14, 42.4 +/- 31, 20.4 +/- 6.8 microU/ml, respectively) with Group 3 exhibiting a significantly decreased mean peak level compared to the other groups. Corresponding C-peptide excretion rates increased from Groups 1 to 3 (28.3 +/- 15.3, 63.7 +/- 27.6, 121.3 +/- 95.2 micrograms/day, respectively) with Group 3 exhibiting a significantly (p less than 0.05) higher level than Group 1. These data suggest that low insulin levels which may be evident in injured or septic patients not in shock reflect increased clearance and not decreased production.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Kirkpatrick, John R. M.D., F.A.C.S.; Hershey, Stephen M.D.; Dahn, Michael M.D. Author Information