The use of a low-profile stent graft with a polymer ring sealing technology combined with bare renal stent (vent technique) in patients with juxtarenal aneurysm not eligible for open surgery and fenestrated endograft.

OBJECTIVE: In cases of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (jAAA), endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) involves the use of custom-made fenestrated stent grafts, which usually need large-diameter access vessels, superior costs, and a certain time between graft planning and delivery. We report our preliminary experience using the bare renal stent technique (called vent) in combination with the ultralow-profile stent graft Ovation (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) to seal jAAAs in patients evaluated to be unfit for open surgery and not suitable for fenestrated endograft. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of jAAAs treated by Ovation vent technique from January 2015 to December 2018 was conduced. The vent procedure consisted of a modified, off-label deployment of the sealing ring of the ultralow-profile Ovation stent graft close to renal orifices in combination with short bare-metal stents. The exclusion criterion was a diameter >31 mm at the level of the lowest renal artery. Early technical and clinical results, estimated midterm survival, renal artery patency, freedom from type IA endoleak, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from neck enlargement (>2 mm) were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 38 patients had jAAA and were considered unfit for open repair and not eligible for fenestrated EVAR. The proximal neck was <5 mm in all cases (mean, 3.3 ± 1.2 mm). Vent renal stents were implanted bilaterally in 16 patients. Primary technical success was 94.7% (36/38), with satisfactory cannulation of all renal arteries and sealing of the aneurysm in all but two cases because of type IA endoleaks that were treated immediately with success. Primary clinical success at 1 month was 100%. During a median follow-up period of 22.4 ± 3.6 months (range, 1-46 months), no abdominal aortic aneurysm-related deaths occurred, and no patient was lost to follow-up. The survival curve at 1 year and 2 years was, respectively, 96.4% and 91.6% (standard error, 0.57%). There were no cases of neck dilation or endograft migration. Freedom from reintervention at 12 months and 24 months was 100% and 89.5%, respectively (standard error, 0.7%); freedom from type IA endoleak was 100% and patency of the renal artery was 100% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The described technique includes the use of a low-profile stent graft with a polymer ring sealing technology combined with bare renal stents that are not competing for the same room. This early experience shows that the vent technique is safe and feasible and increases the range of treatment of those patients with jAAA who are unfit for open repair and for fenestrated EVAR because of several anatomic constraints.

Restenosis after Coronary and Peripheral Intervention: Efficacy and Clinical Impact of Cilostazol.

Restenosis is one of the main complications in patients undergoing coronary or peripheral revascularization procedures and is the leading cause for their long-term failures. Cilostazol is the only pharmacotherapy that showed an adequate efficacy for preventing restenosis in randomized, controlled studies after coronary or peripheral revascularization procedures. The present review sums up the main clinical evidence supporting the use of cilostazol after revascularization interventions, focusing on all its benefits, warnings, and administration schedules.

Patient Discomfort during Carotid Artery Stenting: A Comparison Study between Iodixanol versus Iopamidol.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the adverse effects of iodixanol and iopamidol in terms of patient's discomfort in subjects undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of all successful CAS procedures performed in our department during a 15-year period study. All patients judged to be collaborative were included. From December 2000 to December 2005, we adopted iopamidol as contrast media (CM), thereafter iodixanol. Any transient unpleasant sensation of bitter taste or warmth perceived by the patient after intra-arterial injection of CM was recorded. Injection-associated discomfort was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) score. Comparison between the 2 CMs with regard to the overall discomfort was carried out by using the Mann-Whitney test. Spearman correlation was performed to assess the correlation among discomfort, age, and CM used. A univariate analysis was performed for slightly bitter taste and warmth sensation to compare these clinical outcomes and CM used; subsequently, a logistic multivariate analysis regression was performed with the "backward elimination." RESULTS: Data from 1,633 patients were evaluated. A total of 608 patients underwent CAS procedure using iopamidol, and 1,025 using iodixanol. The total amount of CM used during a single procedure was 85 ± 17 mL/patient (range 60-135). The median VAS value was statistically significantly lower in the iodixanol group than in the iopamidol group (P < 0.001). A significant Spearman correlation coefficient was found between age and discomfort for both CMs used (Spearman rho 0.18 for iodixanol, 0.17 for iopamidol). The univariate analysis showed that patients undergoing CAS with iopamidol had an odds ratio (OR) of 8.48 (P < 0.001) to perceive warmth sensation. When adjusted for age and gender, the multivariate analysis still showed an OR of 8.03. For slightly bitter taste sensation, the crude analysis showed an OR of 1.31 (P = 0.018); adjusting for age and gender, OR became 1.15 and the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.257). CONCLUSIONS: During CAS, less overall discomfort was reported in patients receiving iodixanol than iopamidol; in terms of warmth sensation, patients undergoing procedure using iopamidol as CM have a higher risk to perceive this clinical symptom than iodixanol. Slightly bitter taste seems to have a statistically significant relation with age and gender, and not with CM used.

Device selection for carotid stenting: reviewing the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently changed the status in the treatment of the extracranial carotid atheromasic disease. In recent years, evolution in both stents and protection devices as well as in carotid stenting techniques, has resulted in an important reduction in the rate of stroke in patients undergoing CAS procedures. Areas covered: The purpose of this article is reviewing the literature and summarizing the current evidence of the new available materials to underline the importance of the correct choice of the devices during the procedure. Expert commentary: Certainly a key issue in order to limit the periprocedural events to the lowest possible, is to select the appropriate device for the appropriate patient anatomy and clinical syndrome, the so called 'tailored approach'.

Endovascular correction in acute bleeding after femoro-popliteal bypass: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The endovascular correction (EC) has emerged in recent years as a possible alternative to surgical revision (SR) in case of bleeding complications after peripheral bypass (PB). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EC compared to SR in case of bleeding complications of PB. METHODS: From January 2004 to December 2014, we have submitted 32 patients to surgery for acute bleeding in previous PB (25 venous bypass, in situ or reversed, 6 PTFE bypass and 1 composite bypass). The cause of the bleeding was the dehiscence of proximal anastomosis in 14 patients, the dehiscence of distal anastomosis in 11 patients and the rupture of the graft in 7 patients. All patients postoperatively underwent anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy, antibiotic therapy and close ultrasound follow-up. Patency rate, limb salvage rate and survival rate in the short term were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients treated for acute bleeding in previous PB, 11 underwent endovascular correction with a technical success of 100% (no need for reintervention), while in 21 patients a surgical revision was performed. Among the latter, in 4 cases (19.1%) an early bleeding occurred, and endovascular correction was promptly performed solving the bleeding in the absence of sequelae (then a total of 15 patients were treated by endovascular correction). The 12-month patency, limb salvage and survival rates were respectively 71.4%, 88.2% and 88.2% in the SR group and 80%, 93.3% and 100% in the EC. CONCLUSIONS: This topic underlines that endovascular correction after peripheral bypass bleeding is an attractive alternative to surgery, but there are still a few data to change the gold standard treatment. Randomized clinical trials comparing the two treatment options are warranted.

The use of cilostazol in patients with peripheral arterial disease: results of a national physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Although international guidelines recommend cilostazol as first-line therapy for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) because it improves the symptoms and quality of life, it remains an underused agent for amputation-free survival. The objective of this study was to evaluate the practice among Italian physicians of the use of cilostazol in patients suffering from peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: For the present study, a cross-sectional survey was carried out. Physicians specialized in the medical and/or surgical treatment of PAD and who prescribe cilostazol regularly were invited to a phone interview. A nationally-representative probability sample of hospital-based physicians who diagnose and treat patients with PAD was randomly selected among the members of the Italian Physicians' Association. RESULTS: Out of a total of 641 physicians contacted, 250 of them (39%) accepted to take part in this survey. Reasons of survey refusal were the non-attitude to prescribe cilostazol (45%), or unspecified motivations (16%). Among the 250 physicians participating the survey: 120 were vascular surgeons, 80 internal medicine doctors, 50 angiologists. Cilostazol was suggested in 79% of patients with symptomatic intermittent claudication, and in 30% of patients who had undergone revascularization. The majority of physicians stated to prescribe cilostazol at recommended dosage of 100 mg bid (46.4%). The principal reason to suggest a reduced drug dosage was to limit early side effect at the time of treatment onset, but the increase to the full dose of cilostazol is suggested by 91.3% of interviewed within 4 weeks. Sixty-three percent of physicians affirmed to prescribe cilostazol as a continuous treatment for a mean of 4 months, while a lifelong treatment was suggested by 17.6% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians who habitually prescribe cilostazol adherence to the recommended drug dosage and length of treatment is high. The prescription of cilostazol is particularly appreciated in patients with symptomatic intermittent claudication, even before any non-invasive diagnosis of PAD, and before any invasive therapy. Finally a relevant number of physicians regularly prescribe cilostazol also after revascularization, advocating the anti-restenotic properties of the drug.

Carotid artery stenting renaissance: is it safe and effective using new materials?

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated significant differences between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of early neurological outcomes (from 0 to 30 days), although mid- and long-term neurological results are indistinguishable. CAS in symptomatic standard risk patients is coupled with a higher risk of any stroke, and death or any stroke at 30 days, while the rates of disabling or major stroke do not vary remarkably between treatments. Since the micro-embolization through the stent struts is the primary suspected cause of suspected early postoperative neurological complications (i.e., non-disabling stroke), surgical technology has focused on the production of a new generation of stents with a double layer of mesh to reduce the "free area" of the cells, and on new cerebral protection devices. Another major determinant of early negative outcomes is believed to be the intraluminal manipulation occurring during carotid engagement from the aortic arch, the crossing maneuvers at the level of the culprit lesion and vessel trauma during angioplasty. To address these subject matters, new embolic protection devices and innovative strategies have been developed, consequently. This review is designed to furnish the current status of CAS results, to update the ongoing RCTs comparing CAS vs. CEA outcomes, and to recapitulate the features and clinical outcomes for a new carotid stent design, the so called "mesh-stents", and new embolic protection tools.