Endovascular Treatment as an Alternative to Bypass Surgery for Juxtarenal Aortic Occlusion: Results from the CHAOS (CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Juxtarenal aortic occlusion (JRAO), in which the occlusion of the aorta extends to just below the renal artery, is often treated by bypass surgery because of concerns about the risk of procedural failure and fatal embolization to abdominal organs when treated with endovascular treatment (EVT). This study assessed the outcome of EVT for JRAO compared with aorto-biiliac /aorto-bifemoral (AOB) or axillo-bifemoral (AXB) bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of an international database created by 30 centers in Asia (CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter registry) was performed for patients who underwent revascularization for chronic total occlusion of the infrarenal aorta from 2007 to 2017. Of the 436 patients, 130 with JRAO (Forty-seven AOBs, 32 AXBs, and 51 EVTs) from 25 institutions were included in this study. RESULTS: Patients were significantly older in the AXB and EVT groups and more malnourished in the EVT group than the AOB group. EVT was attempted but failed in 1 patient. Seven patients (1 [2.1%] in the AOB group, 1 [3.1%] in the AXB group, and 5 [9.8%] in the EVT group) died during hospitalization, but most of the causes in the EVT group were not related to the revascularization procedure. No visceral embolism was observed, which had been concerned, even though protection was performed only in 2 cases of the EVT group. At the latest follow-up (median duration 3.0 years), the ankle-brachial pressure index was significantly higher in the order of AOB, EVT, and AXB. At 4 years, the estimated primary and secondary patency rates of the AOB group (87.5% and 90.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than the AXB group (66.7% and 68.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AOB remains the gold standard and should be the first choice for acceptable risk patients. For frail patients, EVT is a good option and likely preferable as a first-line treatment compared to AXB.

Prognostic value of extraaortic-valvular cardiac damage in patients with moderate aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

PURPOSE: The extraaortic-valvular cardiac damage (EVCD) Stage has shown potential for risk stratification for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to examine the usefulness of the EVCD Stage in risk stratification of patients with moderate AS and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Clinical data from patients with moderate AS (aortic valve area, .60-.85 cm2/m2; peak aortic valve velocity, 2.0-4.0 m/s) and reduced LVEF (LVEF 20%-50%) were analyzed during 2010-2019. Patients were categorized into three groups: EVCD Stages 1 (LV damage), 2 (left atrium and/or mitral valve damage), and 3/4 (pulmonary artery vasculature and/or tricuspid valve damage or right ventricular damage). The primary endpoint included a composite of cardiac death and heart failure hospitalization, with non-cardiac death as a competing risk. RESULTS: The study included 130 patients (mean age 76.4 ± 6.8 years; 62.3% men). They were categorized into three groups: 26 (20.0%) in EVCD Stage 1, 66 (50.8%) in Stage 2, and 48 (29.2%) in Stage 3/4. The endpoint occurred in 54 (41.5%) patients during a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 1.4-5.1). Multivariate analysis indicated EVCD Stage 3/4 was significantly associated with the endpoint (hazard ratio 2.784; 95% confidence interval 1.197-6.476; P = .017) compared to Stage 1, while Stage 2 did not (hazard ratio 1.340; 95% confidence interval .577-3.115; P = .500). CONCLUSION: The EVCD staging system may aid in the risk stratification of patients with moderate AS and reduced LVEF.