Objective: Examine the possible beneficial effects of early, D-dimer driven anticoagulation in preventing thrombotic complications and improving the overall outcomes of COVID-19 intubated patients.Methods: To address COVID-19 hypercoagulability, we developed a clinical protocol to escalate anticoagulation based on serum D-dimer levels. We retrospectively reviewed all our first 240 intubated patients with COVID-19. Of the 240, 195 were stratified into patients treated based on this protocol (ON-protocol, n = 91) and the control group, patients who received standard thromboprophylaxis (OFF-protocol, n = 104). All patients were admitted to the Stony Brook University Hospital intensive care units (ICUs) between February 7th, 2020 and May 17, 2020 and were otherwise treated in the same manner for all aspects of COVID-19 disease.Results: We found that the overall mortality was significantly lower ON-protocol compared to OFF-protocol (27.47 vs. 58.66%, P < 0.001). Average maximum D-dimer levels were significantly lower in the ON-protocol group (7,553 vs. 12,343 ng/mL), as was serum creatinine (2.2 vs. 2.8 mg/dL). Patients with poorly controlled D-dimer levels had higher rates of kidney dysfunction and mortality. Transfusion requirements and serious bleeding events were similar between groups. To address any possible between-group differences, we performed a propensity-matched analysis of 124 of the subjects (62 matched pairs, ON-protocol and OFF-protocol), which showed similar findings (31 vs. 57% overall mortality in the ON-protocol and OFF-protocol group, respectively).Conclusions: D-dimer-driven anticoagulation appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19 infection and is associated with improved survival.What This Paper Adds: It has been shown that hypercoagulability in patients with severe COVID-19 infection leads to thromboembolic complications and organ dysfunction. Anticoagulation has been variably administered to these patients, but it is unknown whether routine or escalated thromboprophylaxis provides a survival benefit. Our data shows that escalated D-dimer driven anticoagulation is associated with improved organ function and overall survival in intubated COVID-19 ICU patients at our institution. Importantly, we found that timely escalation of this anticoagulation is critical in preventing organ dysfunction and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

The abdominal aorta is the most common site of an aortic aneurysm. The visceral and most proximal infrarenal segment (aneurysm neck) are usually spared and considered more resistant to aneurysmal degeneration. However, if an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is left untreated, the natural history of the aortic neck is progressive dilatation and shortening. This may have significant implications for patients undergoing endovascular repair of AAAs (EVAR) as endograft stability and integrity of the repair are dependent on an intact proximal seal zone. Compromised seal zones, caused by progressive diameter enlargement and foreshortening of the aortic neck, may lead to distal endograft migration, type Ia endoleak, aortic sac repressurization, and, ultimately, aortic rupture.

Hostile aortic neck anatomy challenges the outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Besides reverting to open surgical repair (OSR), thoughtful endograft selection and a number of advanced endovascular techniques have been suggested as potential solutions for preventing proximal seal zone complications, improving EVAR durability, and preventing aneurysm-related death. Each technique is associated with advantages and limitations and there has not been a credible direct comparison amongst them in the form of a well-designed prospective trial. The not infrequent presence of multiple hostile anatomic characteristics further complicates decision making and challenges the surgeon’s skills. This paper serves as an overview of hostile neck anatomy and its implications on EVAR. We provide a concise literature review with the purpose of outlining the treatment modalities and outcomes in this patient population.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate potential factors affecting patient non-compliance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Method: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular repair for thoracic, abdominal aorta, or iliac artery aneurysm at a single institution from November 2007 to March 2014. Compliance to follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months was assessed. Factors evaluated included patient demographics, size of aneurysm, distance between the patient’s residence and outpatient clinic, urgency of surgery, and time of year in which the follow-up visits were scheduled. Results: During the study period, 205 patients (75% male and 25% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One-month mortality was 1.1% for elective procedures and 16.1% for emergency procedures (p = 0.001). Overall mortality at 12 months was 6.3% and 32.3% for elective and emergency procedures, respectively (p = 0.0002). Highest compliance was observed at 1 month, with 184 patients (93%) attending. A significant decrease was seen at 6 (n = 102, 54%) and 12 (n = 89, 48%) months. At the 12-month mark, a larger proportion of minority patients were non-compliant compared with Caucasian patients. Confounders for non-compliance were analyzed using multivariate analysis, and statistical significance was found for widowed marital status (p = 0.008), travel distance >25 miles to the outpatient clinic (p = 0.032), and emergency repair of aneurysms (p = 0.022). Conclusion: Despite emphasizing the importance of follow-up after endovascular aortic procedures, almost half of the treated patients were non-compliant. Our study identified travel distance, marital status, and urgency of surgery as factors that may affect patients’ compliance to scheduled follow-up visits.