RESUMEN
This review aimed to explore the therapeutic effect of bioabsorbable stents in the inferior genicular artery, from the emergence of absorbable bare metal stents to the latest technology in polymer and anti-proliferative eluting drugs mixed with coated bioresorbable vascular stents (BVSs). Currently, there are conflicting data regarding the safety and effectiveness of BVSs in infrapopliteal artery interventions, especially compared to the current generation of drug-eluting stents (DESs). This review will cover the existing data on BVSs in reconstructing the infrapopliteal arterial blood flow and active clinical trials for future iterations of BVSs. In terms of primary patency rate and target lesion revascularization rate, the available research on the effectiveness of BVSs in reconstructing the infrapopliteal arterial blood flow suggests that a BVS is compatible with current DESs within 3-12 months; long-term data have not yet been reported. The ABSORB BVS is the most studied BVS in cardiovascular disease (CAD). Initially, the ABSORB BVS showed promising results. Managing intricate regions in peripheral artery disorders, such as branching or lengthy lesions, continues to be a formidable undertaking. In contrast to the advanced narrowing of arteries seen in standard permanent stent procedures, bioabsorbable stents have the potential to promote the expansion and beneficial merging of blood channels in the latter stages. Furthermore, incorporating stents and re-establishing the endothelial function can diminish the probability of restenosis or thrombosis. Nevertheless, the extent to which bioabsorbable stents may simultaneously preserve arterial patency and guarantee their structural integrity remains uncertain. The powerful and intricate mechanical stresses exerted by the blood in the superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery can cause negative consequences on any implant inserted into the vessel, regardless of its composition, even metal. Furthermore, incorporating stents is advantageous for treating persistent occlusive lesions since it does not impact later treatments, including corrective bypass operations. Evidence is scarce about the use of bioabsorbable stents in treating infrapopliteal lesions. Utilizing bioabsorbable stents in minor infrapopliteal lesions can successfully maintain the patency of the blood vessel lumen, whereas balloon angioplasty cannot offer this benefit. The primary focus of testing these materials is determining whether bioabsorbable scaffolds can provide adequate radial force in highly calcified elongated lesions. Indeed, using "-limus" medication elution technology in conjunction with bioabsorbable stents has previously offered clinical benefits in treating the popliteal artery, as evidenced by limited trials.BVSs for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) show promise and have the potential to offer a less inflammatory and more vessel-friendly option compared to permanent metallic stents. However, current evidence does not yet allow for a universal recommendation for their use. Thus, ongoing, and future studies, such as those examining the newer generation of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) with improved mechanical properties and resorption profiles, will be crucial in defining the role of BRSs in managing PAD.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a widely prescribed and extensively investigated venoactive drug (VAD). The standard dosage for MPFF is 500 mg administered twice daily. However, a new daily dose of 1000 mg has just been introduced. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether a daily dose of 1000 mg MPFF could be implemented and embraced by the public and still has the same therapeutic effects as conventional pharmaceuticals. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science of Web, Cochrane, and PubMed databases and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and March 2023. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparison of different dosages of MPFF to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between them were included, without language or date restrictions. Due to the small sample size of the study included, we conducted a simple sensitivity test using a one-by-one exclusion method, and the results showed that the study did not affect the final consolidation conclusion. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Out of 232 studies, 99 were eligible and 39 RCTs had data, all with low to moderate bias. Overall, 1924 patients (experimental group: 967, control group: 957) in 3 RCTs met the criteria. There is no significant difference in patient compliance, efficacy, clinical adverse events, and quality of life scores between MPFF 1000 mg once daily and MPFF 500 mg twice daily (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.049 [0.048, 0.145], p=0.321, risk ratio [RR]: 0.981 [0.855, 1.125], p=0.904, and SMD: 0.063 [0.034, 0.160], p=0.203). INTERPRETATION: In symptomatic chronic venous disease patients, MPFF 1000 mg once daily and MPFF 500 mg twice daily improve patient compliance, lower limb discomfort, clinical adverse events, and quality of life scores similarly. Regular medical care should recommend MPFF 1000 mg daily more often. CLINICAL IMPACT: Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a popular venoactive medication (VAD) in modern medicine.MPFF is effective in treating lower extremity venous problems.Currently, besides conventional 500 mg tablets, there exist alternative dosage forms such as solutions, chewable tablets, and other novel formulations for MPFF.The excessive frequency and amount of medication may have a negative impact on patient adherence.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) to standard endovascular techniques like percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and bare metal stent (BMS) for treating infrapopliteal artery disease. METHODS: Including 8 DCB trials and 4 DES trials, this meta-analysis of 12 recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is comprehensive. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science of Web, Cochrane, and PubMed for this meta-analysis. We searched these databases for papers from their inception to February 2023. We also analyzed the references given in the listed studies and any future study that cited them. No language or publication date restrictions were applied to the 12 RCTs. The experimental group includes 8 DCB studies and 4 DES investigations, the DCB group is primarily concerned with the paclitaxel devices, whereas the DES group is preoccupied with the "-limus" devices. Key clinical outcomes in this study were primary patency and binary restenosis rates. This study's secondary outcomes are late lumen loss (LLL), clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), limb amputation, and all-cause mortality. The evidence quality was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias. The PROSPERO registration number for this study is CRD42023462038. FINDINGS: Only 108 of 1152 publications found satisfied qualifying criteria and contained data. All 13 RCTs have low to moderate bias. Drug-coated balloons and DESs were compared in the excluded study. The analysis comprised 2055 participants from 12 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, including 1417 DCB patients and 638 DES patients. Drug-coated balloons outperform traditional methods in short-term monitoring of primary patency, binary restenosis, and CD-TLR. The benefits fade over time, and the 2 techniques had similar major amputation rates, mortality rates, and LLL. Drug-eluting stents outperform conventional procedures in primary patency, binary restenosis, and CD-TLR during medium-term to short-term follow-up. Comparing the 2 methods, major and minor amputations, death rate, and LLL were similar. CONCLUSION: Comparison of DES and DCB with PTA or BMS shows that DES had better follow-up results. DCB has positive short-term results, but long-term effects differ, however, more research is needed to determine when DES and DCB should be used in medical procedures. CLINICAL IMPACT: The provision of additional evidence to substantiate the advancement of drug-coated balloon (DCB) therapy in the treatment of lower limb arteriosclerosis obliterans, particularly in the below-the-knee area characterized by high calcium load and significant occlusion, is comparable in efficacy to conventional procedures. This finding is advantageous for the progress of interventional revascularization. The advancement and efficacy of DCB have resulted in improved treatment outcomes for medical practitioners in clinical settings. Our research incorporates the most recent randomized experiments.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Subclavian aneurysms are rare in clinic; right subclavian artery aneurysms (SAAs) are more common than left SAAs in clinical practice. Although the causes and methods of treating subclavian aneurysms have been studied, it is still unknown how they form naturally. OBJECTIVE: While describing the uncommon subclavian aneurysm, examine the pertinent literature to discuss its etiology and treatment outcomes, and offer some recommendations for this patient's treatment plan. METHODS: In this case report, we describe a man patient who had a right subclavian proximal aneurysm that was discovered by accident. No clear clinical symptoms or signs were present in the patient. Upon admittance, an examination revealed an aneurysm in the vertebral artery but no peripheral embolization or compression symptoms. The patient refused operation, so we opted for follow-up instead. RESULT: The patient took an ultrasound examination at our first follow-up appointment 3 months after discharge, and the results showed no thrombosis or appreciable aneurysm enlargement. Follow-up appointments for 6 months and a year have begun. CONCLUSION: Follow-up is a good method to monitor the course of subclavian aneurysms without a clear indication for surgery when there is a clear operation mode and risk.