Covered Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in the Treatment of Aorto-iliac Disease: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative safety and efficacy of covered stents (CS) and bare metal stents (BMS) in the endovascular treatment of aorto-iliac disease in patients with peripheral arterial disease. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted adhering to the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA for Individual Participant Data 2015 guidelines. REVIEW METHODS: A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published by December 2023 was performed. The primary endpoint was primary patency. Certainty of evidence was assessed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Eleven studies, comprising 1 896 patients and 2 092 lesions, were included. Of these, nine studies reported on patients' clinical status, with 35.5% classified as Rutherford 4 - 6. Overall primary patency for CS and BMS at 48 months was 91.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.1 - 99.0%) (GRADE, moderate) and 83.5% (95% CI 70.9 - 98.3%) (GRADE, low). The one stage individual participant data meta-analyses indicated a significant risk reduction for primary patency loss favouring CS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.95) (GRADE, very low). The 48 month primary patency for CS and BMS when treating TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D lesions was 92.4% (95% CI 84.7 - 100%) (GRADE, moderate) and 80.8% (95% CI 64.5 - 100%) (GRADE, low), with CS displaying a decreased risk of patency loss (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.57) (GRADE, moderate). While statistically non-significant differences were identified between CS and BMS regarding technical success, 30 day mortality rate, intra-operative and immediate post-operative procedure related complications, and major amputation, CS displayed a decreased re-intervention risk (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.87) (GRADE, low). CONCLUSION: This review has illustrated the improved patency of CS compared with BMS in the treatment of TASC C and D lesions. Caution is advised in interpreting overall primary patency outcomes given the substantial inclusion of TASC C and D lesions in the analysis. Ultimately, both stent types have demonstrated comparable safety profiles.

A Greek Multicentre Study Assessing the Outcome of Late Rupture After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Late rupture after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an increasing complication associated with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to analyse the causes and outcomes in patients with AAA rupture after EVAR. METHODS: A multi-institutional Greek study of late ruptures after EVAR between 2008 - 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes were intra-operative and in hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients presented with late rupture after EVAR (proportion of ruptured EVARs among all EVARs, 0.6%; 69 males; mean age 77.2 ± 6.7 years). The mean time interval between EVAR and late rupture was 72.3 months (range 6 - 180 months). In all cases the cause of rupture was the presence of an endoleak (type I, 73%) with sac enlargement. Moreover, 34% of subjects with rupture after EVAR had been lost to follow up and 32% underwent a secondary intervention. Additionally, 57 patients (81%) were treated by conversion to open surgical repair (COSR) and the remainder by endovascular correction of endoleak (ECE). Eleven intra-operative deaths (16%) were recorded. The overall in hospital mortality rate was 41% (23% ECE vs. 46% COSR; p = .21). Of the patients who presented as initially haemodynamically stable, 23% died during hospitalisation, while the respective mortality rate for patients who presented as unstable was 78% (odds ratio [OR] 11.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6 - 39.1; p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that severity of haemodynamic shock was the most significant risk factor for intra-operative (OR 7.15, 95% CI 1.58 - 32.40; p = .010) and in hospital death (OR 9.53, 95% CI 2.79 - 32.58; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These data underline the devastating prognosis of late rupture after EVAR. Haemodynamic status at presentation was an important predictive factor for death both in the ECE and COSR groups. Rigorous follow up and prompt evaluation of an unstable patient in case of rupture after EVAR is recommended.

Is TEVAR an Effective Approach to Prevent Complications after Surgery for Aortic Dissection Type A? A Systematic Review.

Introduction: A residual false lumen after treatment for Aortic Dissection type A (AD) has been associated with early complications, such as A malperfusion or rupture and mid-term or delayed complications, such as aneurysm formation or dissection expansion. Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) is considered an effective solution by several surgical teams to prevent future complications. In this systematic review, all published data regarding the implementation of TEVAR after previous treatment for AD were collected in order to investigate indications, methods, clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling in these patients. Methods: The aim of this study was to investigate the indications, the methods and the efficacy of TEVAR usage after surgical treatment of AD. Data for this study were collected from four widely used medical databases (MEDLINE, SCIENCE DIRECT, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, OVID). All the results for each database were recorded and were analyzed with a systematic method. Techniques and clinical outcomes were investigated. Aortic remodeling was evaluated based on the following parameters in these studies: aortic diameter, true lumen diameter, false lumen diameter, false lumen thrombosis and false lumen patency. Results: The results obtained from the search among all databases comprised 1410 articles and of these articles 9 were included in the review. The majority of the studies were retrospective (seven out of nine studies), while no study was randomized. The total number of patients was 157 and 133 of them (84.7% of patients) were treated with TEVAR in zone 3 without extension below the diaphragm intraoperatively. Among 142 patients, the calculated mortality rate was 12.7% (18 of 142 patients), with 2.8% (4 of 142 patients) presenting with stroke. The percentage of patients with total or partial thrombosis combined was 65.9% (62 patients in a population of 92). The reintervention rate was 18.7%. Conclusions: TEVAR after AD surgery is an approach usually chosen in clinical practice, but the criteria of its usage are uncertain. This method is safe and enhances aortic remodeling with an acceptable reintervention rate. Definite guidelines in this field should be created in order to delineate whether TEVAR after AD surgery is beneficial as a preventive measure to aorta-related complications and to decide under which criteria this approach should be chosen.