Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy. METHODS: The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Challenges in Diagnosis of Non-A Non-B Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Non-A non-B (NANB) aortic dissections are uncommon and frequently unrecognized diseases. However, their proper identification is crucial given the unpredictable behavior of the dissected aorta with potential mortality and increased morbidity. We investigate the accuracy of radiological computed tomography angiography (CTA) reports in the diagnosis of acute NANB and the risk related to delayed recognition or misdiagnosis. METHODS: The pretreatment contrast CTA of all consecutive patients admitted with acute aortic dissection (AAD) in a University Hospital in London (UK) between January 2017 and May 2023 were reviewed to retrospectively verify the accuracy of CTA reports in the diagnosis of NANB AAD (B1-2D The risk related to the delayed diagnosis (morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmissions) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. The study was conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 588 aortic CTAs were reviewed for a total of n = 393 (66.8%) type A AADs, n = 171 (29%) type B AADs and n = 25 (4.3%) NANB AADs (n = 16, 64% men, mean age 60.56, standard deviation ± 14.6 years). While no case of misdiagnosis was identified in Type A or B AAD groups, in NANBs only about a third of cases (n = 9, 36%) were immediately indicated as "NANB" (n = 2, 8%) or "B with retrograde extension into the arch" (n = 7, 28%), n = 8 cases (32%) were described generically as "arch dissections" (n = 6, 24%) or "type A and B" AAD (n = 2, 8%). The remaining 32% of patients received a diagnosis that did not include mention of the arch, as n = 6 (24%) cases were reported to be "type A″ and n = 2 (8%) to be "type B″ AADs. Despite the heterogeneity of terms used to describe NANB AAD, no case of cardiac tamponade, new onset malperfusion nor neurological complications were reported, and no sudden death nor home-discharge and readmission while waiting for the proper diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of terms used to describe NANB aortic dissection highlights the need for increased awareness, adoption of in guideline based classification systems, and further education to better understand and correctly address this challenging entity, minimizing misdiagnosis in ambiguous or difficult cases.

Frozen Elephant Trunk procedure for Acute type A Aortic Dissection: analysis of distal aortic remodeling according to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS)/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reporting standard.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate impact of Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) on long-term distal aortic remodelling in acute AAD according to the latest recommended standards from the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS)/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). METHODS: Clinical data and imaging of patients undergone FET to treat acute AAD over the last 8 years were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if a pre- and post-operative Computed AngioTomographies at least 30-day from surgery was available for comparison. Contrasted postprocessed imaging were analysed with Aquarius iNtuition (TeraRecon Inc., Foster City, CA, USA) to analyse long-term positive aortic remodelling, FL thrombosis and aortic expansion according to the SVS/STS recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the rate of in-hospital and long-term mortality, spinal cord ischaemia and aortic-related reinterventions. RESULTS: Out of 75 patients who underwent FET for type A AAD, n=41(54.6%) were included. Significant positive aortic remodelling was reported in Ishimaru zone 1-4 but not in visceral/infrarenal aorta (p<0.001) and overall rate of FL thrombosis was 95.1% (n=39). Aortic expansion rates were: 4.9% in zones 1-4, 8.3% in zones 5-6 and 15% in zone 7. The rates of in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality were 7.3% (n=3) and 9.7% (n=4) respectively. At a median follow-up of 11 months (range 1-141, reintervention rate was 17.1%. CONCLUSIONS: We report positive aortic remodelling of the distal thoracic aorta in patients who underwent FET for acute AAD according to the SVS/STS reporting standards. The positive effect on the distal aorta is limited to the thoracic segments but not in the visceral aorta.

Systematic Review on Early and Follow-up Mortality Rate in Octogenarians Treated With a Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: Advanced age has been related to conflicting outcomes after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare 30-day mortality, technical success, and 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians who underwent F/BEVAR for complex aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was pre-registered to PROSPERO (CRD42022348659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until August 30, 2022, was executed. Randomized Control Trials and observational studies (2000-2022), with ≥5 patients, reporting on 30-day mortality and 1-year and 5-year survival rates among octogenarians and non-octogenarians after F/BEVAR were eligible. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary was 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A narrative presentation was selected in case of missing outcomes. RESULTS: The initial research isolated 3263 articles; 6 retrospective studies were finally included. A total of 7410 patients were managed with F/BEVAR; 1499 patients (20.2%) were ≥80 years old (75.5% males, 259/343). The estimated 30-day mortality was 6% among octogenarians vs 2% in younger patients, with a significantly higher 30-day mortality for patients ≥80 years old (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81; p=0.0.11; Ι2=36.01%). Technical success was similar between the groups (OR -0.83; 95% CI -1.74-0.07, p<0.0.001; Ι2=95.8%). Regarding survival, a narrative approach was decided due to missing data. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in 1-year survival between groups, with higher mortality in octogenarians (82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%), while 3 reported a similar 1-year survival rate in both groups (87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%). At 5 years, 3 studies reported a statistically significant lower survival for octogenarians (26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians treated with F/BEVAR presented higher 30-day mortality while a lower survival rate at 1 and 5 years was reported in the literature. Patient selection is thus mandatory among older patients. Further studies, especially on patient risk stratification, are needed to estimate the F/BEVAR outcomes on elder patients. CLINICAL IMPACT: Age may be a factor of increased early and long-term mortality within patients managed for aortic aneurysms. In this analysis, patients over 80 years old were compared to their younger counterparts when managed with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) . The analysis showed that early mortality was acceptable for octogenrains but significantly higher when compared to patients younger than 80 years. One-year survival rates are controversial. At 5-year follow-up, octogenarians present lower survival but data to provide metanalysis are lacking. Patient selection and risk stratification are mandatory in older candidates for F/BEVAR.

Effect of Sarcopenia on Mortality and Spinal Cord Ischaemia After Complex Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Sarcopenia has been related to higher mortality rates after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. This analysis aimed to assess sarcopenia related mortality and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) at 30 days, and mortality during the available follow up, in patients with complex aortic aneurysms, managed with open or endovascular interventions. DATA SOURCES: A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to 15 June 2022 was done. REVIEW METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022338079). Observational studies (2000 - 2022), with five or more patients, reporting on sarcopenia related mortality and SCI at 30 days, and midterm mortality after thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair (open or endovascular), were eligible. The ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions) was used for risk of bias, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for the assessment of evidence quality. The primary outcome was 30 day and midterm mortality, and the secondary outcome was SCI at 30 days, in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic patients. The outcomes were summarised as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Four retrospective studies (1 092 patients; 40.0% sarcopenic) were included. Thirty day mortality was similar, with low certainty between groups (6% [95% CI 1 - 11] in sarcopenic vs. 5% [95% CI 1 - 9] non-sarcopenic patients [OR 0.30, 95% CI -0.21 - 0.81; p = .94, Ι2 = 0%). The estimated midterm mortality was statistically significantly higher (very low certainty) in sarcopenic patients (25% [95% CI 0.19 - 0.31] vs. 13% [95% CI -0.03 - 0.29] in non-sarcopenic patients (1.11 OR 0.95, 95% CI -0.21 - 2.44; p < .001, Ι2 = 88.32%). SCI was significantly higher (very low certainty) in sarcopenic patients (19%, 95% CI 4 - 34) vs. 7% (95% CI 5 - 20) in non-sarcopenic patients (OR 1.80, 95% CI -0.17 - 3.78; Ι2 = 82.4%), despite an equal distribution of aneurysm type between the groups. CONCLUSION: Early mortality does not appear to be affected by sarcopenia in patients treated for thoraco-abdominal aneurysms. However, sarcopenia may be associated with higher peri-operative SCI and midterm mortality rates.

Outcome of different endovascular modalities to treat common iliac artery aneurysms, single center study.

INTRODUCTION: Iliac aneurysms occur in 10% of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). There are three different endovascular approaches to their treatment in the context of infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR): occlusion by coiling the internal iliac, incorporation using an iliac branch device, and delaying repair using a bell bottom limb. We sought to determine outcomes associated with these three strategies in our practice. METHODOLOGY: The study was a combined prospective cohort study with a retrospective arm: prospective patient recruitment was done for 1 year from September 2019 and ended by September 2020, and retrospective data was collected from 2017 to 2019. Demographic, procedural, and imaging data was collected. SPSS was used to analyze data as patients were classified by limbs in four groups: iliac branched, bell bottom, coil and cover technique, and standard treated limbs. RESULTS: There were 65 male and 4 female patients included in this study incorporating 137 limbs with a mean age of 78 years (SD ± 8 years). Two patients died after discharge (at 3 and 21 months postoperatively, without hospital admission) and five patients were lost to long-term follow-up. Three patients had operations that deviated from the plan: one was an IBD converted to bell bottom, one was an IBD that was converted to coil and cover, and one was a bell bottom that did not seal. Follow-up revealed late type IB endoleak in three bell bottom limbs and one limb treated with coil and cover. Common iliac occlusion occurred in one IBD, three bell bottom limbs, and two limbs treated with coil/cover technique. There were four additional ischemic events (buttock claudication in three and intestinal ischemia in one): all ischemic events occurred in the coil and cover group (p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Given the small population size examined in this study, there is no statistical difference between treatment groups; however, there was a trend toward bell bottom technique being associated with higher incidence of type IB endoleak. Coil and cover technique was associated with decreased IB endoleak; however, Buttock claudication and intestinal ischemia occurred more significantly in this group. Using IBD may be the best strategy to improve short- and long-term outcomes in patients with iliac aneurysms.

An observational assessment of aortic deformation during infrarenal and complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Real-time aortic deformation during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been reported. Successful EVAR relies on predicting intraoperative aortic-endograft deformation from preoperative imaging. Correct prediction is essential, because malalignment of endografts decreases patient survival. We describe intraoperative aortic deformation during infrarenal EVAR and complex fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR), relating deformation to preoperative anatomy and follow-up outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort of aortic aneurysm patients undergoing operation between January 2019 and February 2021, substratified by repair, infrarenal EVAR (n = 50), F/BEVAR (n = 80), and iliac branch graft with F/B/EVAR (IBG + F/B/EVAR; n = 27), were compared using software-based nonrigid two- and three-dimensional aortic deformational intraoperative assessment (CYDAR). Preoperative computed tomography reconstructions of aortic and iliac tortuosities were assessed against intraoperative deformation, the primary outcome, and related to perioperative and follow-up adverse outcomes. RESULTS: All treatment groups had low preoperative visceral aortic tortuosity; the EVAR group had higher iliac tortuosity (1.43 ± 0.05; P = .018). Intraoperative aortic visceral deformation was consistently cranial and anterior; IBG + F/B/EVAR patients had the largest magnitude deformation (superior mesenteric artery, EVAR 5.1 ± 0.9 mm; F/BEVAR 4.4 ± 0.4 mm; IBG 8.3 ± 1.2 mm; P = .004). Celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery, and bilateral renal artery deformations were correlated (R = 0.923-0.983). Iliac deformation was variable in magnitude and direction. Preoperative tortuosity was not correlated with the magnitude of intraoperative deformation nor was deformation magnitude related to endograft instability during follow-up, including endoleak development, reinterventions, or visceral vessel complications. CONCLUSIONS: The aorta deforms consistently during EVAR at the visceral aortic segment but unpredictably at the iliac bifurcation. Aortoiliac deformation is unrelated to adverse perioperative outcomes, branch instability, or reinterventions during short-term follow-up.

Survival and durability after endovascular aneurysm repair reflect era-related surgical judgement.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm management guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2020, based heavily on randomized controlled trials in an early era of infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), suggested that the long-term outcomes after EVAR jeopardize its use in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We hypothesized that, in a rapidly evolving surgical field, the era of aneurysm repair may have a significant influence on long-term patient outcomes. METHODS: Using a single-center retrospective cohort design, we identified two EVAR cohorts, the early cohort (n = 166) who underwent EVAR from 2008 to 2010, and a contemporary late cohort (n = 129) from 2015 to 2017. We assessed patient preoperative demographics and era of repair against the primary outcomes of reinterventions, reintervention-free survival, and mortality, addressing their relationships to anatomic selection criteria, graft durability, endoleak, and aneurysm diameter to 5 years after the procedure. RESULTS: Early cohort patients had decreased reintervention-free survival (early 80.1% vs late 93.3%) and decreased overall survival (early 71.3% vs late 81%) at 3 years and throughout follow-up. The preoperative anatomy judged suitable for EVAR in early cohort patients was more variable than for late cohort patients, including 104% larger proximal and 106% larger distal landing zone diameters, with a mean 11.6-mm shorter length infrarenal aortic and 13.3-mm shorter length iliac sealing zones in the early group. Early cohort patients had more complications during follow-up, including graft kinking and endoleaks, and 24.4% of early vs 8.5% of late patients underwent one or more reinterventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although technical skill in EVAR implantation may not evolve significantly after a threshold of cases, surgical judgement, relating to anatomic selection and device sizing, requires feedback from long-term sequalae and significantly impacted EVAR outcomes by era. EVAR patients from an early repair era had significantly worse outcomes, with more complications, reinterventions, and a decrease in survival.

Era of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is linked to preoperative anatomic severity and perioperative patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Varying opinions on optimal elective and emergent surgical management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are expressed by the most recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), European Society for Vascular Surgery, vs UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The UK National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence guidelines propose that open surgical repair serve as the default treatment for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. The rationale for this approach relied on data from the early era of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and are in contrast to the more balanced approaches of the SVS and European Society for Vascular Surgery. We hypothesize that significant differences in patient selection, management, and postoperative outcome are related to the era in which treatment was undertaken, contextualizing the outcomes reported in early-era EVAR randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Retrospectively, two cohorts representing all EVAR patients from "early" (n = 167; 2008-2010) and "late" (n = 129; 2015-2017) periods at a single treating institution were assembled. Primary outcomes of era-related changes in preoperative demographics, anatomy, and intraoperative events were assessed; anatomy was compared using the SVS anatomic severity grading system. These era-related differences were then placed in the context of early perioperative outcomes and at follow-up to 1 year. RESULTS: Choice of surgical strategy differed by era, despite the same patient preoperative comorbidities between EVAR groups. Preoperative anatomic severity was significantly worse in the early cohort (P < .001), with adverse proximal and distal seal zone features (P < .001). Technical success was 16.2% higher in the late cohort, with significantly fewer type 1A/B endoleaks perioperatively (P < .001). In-hospital complications, driven by higher acute kidney injury and surgical site complications in the early cohort, resulted in a 16.5% difference between cohorts (P < .05). At 1 year of follow-up, outcome differences persisted; late-era patients had fewer 1A endoleaks, fewer graft complications, and better reintervention-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: From a granular dataset of EVAR patients, we found an impact of EVAR repair era on early clinical outcomes; late cohort infrarenal EVAR patients had less severe preoperative anatomy and improved perioperative and follow-up outcomes to 1 year, suggesting that the results of early EVAR randomized controlled trials may no longer be generalizable to modern practice.

Coeliac Incorporation Strategy Impacts Visceral Branch Vessel Stability in Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: During fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), mesenteric vessels may be incorporated with a scallop or fenestration. The benefits/harms of techniques to incorporate the coeliac axis (CA) have not been assessed for their impact on procedural complexity vs. peri-operative and longer term outcomes; this assessment may instruct a balanced operative strategy for the CA and complex FEVAR, minimising adverse intra- or peri-operative events, and maximising durability. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing fenestrated or scalloped CA incorporation during FEVAR for a juxtarenal/pararenal/suprarenal aortic aneurysm (January 2015 - December 2019) were reviewed (n = 159) for demographics, intra-procedural/peri-operative outcomes, and re-interventions to five years. Mean follow up for all groups was 3.28 years. The primary outcome of CA instability (occlusion/stenosis/endoleak/re-intervention) was assessed. CA specific re-intervention, re-intervention free survival, and all cause mortality were assessed against incorporation strategy. Secondarily, the harm of CA stenting, comprising intra-operative harms and peri-operative adverse outcomes was interrogated. RESULTS: The CA was incorporated with a stented fenestration (n = 74), an unstented fenestration (n = 59), and a minority with scallop (n = 26). There were no between group differences in operative indication, or anatomical aneurysm/CA features. Fenestrated stented and unstented patients had longer aortic coverage but the same primary technical success. At follow up, three CA endoleaks occurred in stented fenestrated patients, although scallop patients more often had type 3 endoleaks at the SMA and renal fenestrations (23%). Elevated CA instability in fenestrated unstented patients was driven by CA occlusion (16.9%), but not associated with CA re-intervention, worse re-intervention free survival, or all cause mortality. Regression analysis for visceral branch instability revealed predictors of CA non-stenting and diminished aortic coverage. CONCLUSION: In the present authors' experience, the practice of not stenting a CA fenestration does not pose peri-operative or long term clinical harm. At follow up, not stenting the CA is associated with CA instability; however, both fenestration groups are preferable to a shorter (scalloped) endograft as increasing aortic coverage reduces non-CA branch vessel instability.

Reporting standards for endovascular aortic repair of aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries.

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of complex aortic aneurysms requires incorporation of side branches using specially designed aortic stent grafts with fenestrations, directional branches, or parallel stent grafts. These techniques have been increasingly used and reported in the literature. The purpose of this document is to clarify and to update terminology, classification systems, measurement techniques, and end point definitions that are recommended for reports dealing with endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms involving the renal and mesenteric arteries.

Women undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair differ significantly from their male counterparts preoperatively and postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE: A rational approach to the management of aortic aneurysm disease relies on weighing the risk of aneurysm rupture against the complications and durability of operative repair. In men, seminal studies of infrarenal aortic aneurysm disease and its endovascular management can provide a reasoned argument for the timing and modality of surgery, which is then extrapolated to the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). In contrast, there is less appreciation for the natural history of TAAA disease in women and its response to therapy. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort design of women, all men, and matched men, fit for complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair at two large aortic centers. We controlled for preoperative anatomic and comorbidity differences, and assessed technical success, postoperative renal dysfunction, spinal ischemia, and early mortality. Women and matched men were reassessed at follow-up for long-term durability and survival. RESULTS: Assessing women and all men undergoing complex endovascular aortic reconstruction, we demonstrate that these groups are dissimilar before the intervention with respect to comorbidities, aneurysm extent, and aneurysm size; women have a higher proportion of proximal Crawford extent 1, 2, and 3 aneurysms. Matching men and women for demographic and anatomic differences, we find persistent elevated perioperative mortality in women (16%) undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair compared with matched men (6%); however, at the 3-year follow-up, both groups have the same survival. Furthermore, women demonstrate more favorable anatomic responses to aneurysm exclusion, with good durability and greater aneurysm sac regression at follow-up, compared with matched men. CONCLUSIONS: Women and unmatched men with TAAA disease differ preoperatively with respect to aneurysm extent and comorbidities. Controlling for these differences, after complex endovascular aneurysm repair, there is increased early mortality in women compared with matched men. These observations argue for a careful risk stratification of women undergoing endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm treatment, balanced with women's good long-term survival and durability of endovascular aneurysm repair.

A prospective observational trial of fusion imaging in infrarenal aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Use of three-dimensional fusion has been shown to significantly reduce radiation exposure and contrast material use in complex (fenestrated and branched) endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Cydar software (CYDAR Medical, Cambridge, United Kingdom) is a cloud-based technology that can provide imaging guidance by overlaying preoperative three-dimensional vessel anatomy from computed tomography scans onto live fluoroscopy images both in hybrid operating rooms and on mobile C-arms. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiation dose reduction would occur with the addition of fusion imaging to infrarenal repair in all imaging environments. METHODS: All patients who consented to involvement in the trial and who were treated with EVAR in our center from March 2016 until April 2017 were included. A teaching session about radiation protection and Cydar fusion software use was provided to all operators before the start of the fusion group enrollment. This group was compared with a retrospective cohort of patients treated in the same center from March 2015 to March 2016, after a dedicated program of radiation awareness and reduction was introduced. Ruptured aneurysms and complex EVAR were excluded. Preoperative and perioperative characteristics were recorded, including parameters of radiation dose, such as air kerma and dose-area product. Results were expressed in median and interquartile range. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were prospectively enrolled and compared with 21 retrospective control patients. No significant differences were found in comparing sex, body mass index, and age at repair. The median operation time (wire to wire) and fluoroscopy time were 90 (75-105) minutes and 30 (22-34) minutes, respectively, without significant differences between groups (P = .56 and P = .36). Dose-area product was nonsignificantly higher in the control group, 21.7 (8.9-85.9) Gy cm2, compared with the fusion group, 12.4 (7.5-23.4) Gy cm2 (P = .10). Air kerma product was significantly higher in the control group, 142 (61-541) mGy, compared with 82 (51-115) mGy in the fusion group (P = .03). The number of digital subtraction angiography runs was significantly lower in the fusion group (8 [6-11]) compared with the control group (10 [9-14]); (P = .03). There were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events, endoleaks, or additional procedures required. CONCLUSIONS: When it is used in simple procedures such as infrarenal aneurysm repair, image-based fusion technology is feasible both in hybrid operating rooms and on mobile systems and leads to an overall 50% reduction in radiation dose. Fusion technology should become standard of care for centers attempting to maximize radiation dose reduction, even if capital investment of a hybrid operating room is not feasible.

The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making related to the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is complex. Aneurysms present with varying risks of rupture, and patient-specific factors influence anticipated life expectancy, operative risk, and need to intervene. Careful attention to the choice of operative strategy along with optimal treatment of medical comorbidities is critical to achieving excellent outcomes. Moreover, appropriate postoperative surveillance is necessary to minimize subsequent aneurysm-related death or morbidity. METHODS: The committee made specific practice recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Three systematic reviews were conducted to support this guideline. Two focused on evaluating the best modalities and optimal frequency for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). A third focused on identifying the best available evidence on the diagnosis and management of AAA. Specific areas of focus included (1) general approach to the patient, (2) treatment of the patient with an AAA, (3) anesthetic considerations and perioperative management, (4) postoperative and long-term management, and (5) cost and economic considerations. RESULTS: Along with providing guidance regarding the management of patients throughout the continuum of care, we have revised a number of prior recommendations and addressed a number of new areas of significance. New guidelines are provided for the surveillance of patients with an AAA, including recommended surveillance imaging at 12-month intervals for patients with an AAA of 4.0 to 4.9 cm in diameter. We recommend endovascular repair as the preferred method of treatment for ruptured aneurysms. Incorporating knowledge gained through the Vascular Quality Initiative and other regional quality collaboratives, we suggest that the Vascular Quality Initiative mortality risk score be used for mutual decision-making with patients considering aneurysm repair. We also suggest that elective EVAR be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality and conversion rate to open surgical repair of 2% or less and that perform at least 10 EVAR cases each year. We also suggest that elective open aneurysm repair be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality of 5% or less and that perform at least 10 open aortic operations of any type each year. To encourage the development of effective systems of care that would lead to improved outcomes for those patients undergoing emergent repair, we suggest a door-to-intervention time of <90 minutes, based on a framework of 30-30-30 minutes, for the management of the patient with a ruptured aneurysm. We recommend treatment of type I and III endoleaks as well as of type II endoleaks with aneurysm expansion but recommend continued surveillance of type II endoleaks not associated with aneurysm expansion. Whereas antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients with an aortic prosthesis before any dental procedure involving the manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended before respiratory tract procedures, gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, and dermatologic or musculoskeletal procedures unless the potential for infection exists or the patient is immunocompromised. Increased utilization of color duplex ultrasound is suggested for postoperative surveillance after EVAR in the absence of endoleak or aneurysm expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Important new recommendations are provided for the care of patients with an AAA, including suggestions to improve mutual decision-making between the treating physician and the patients and their families as well as a number of new strategies to enhance perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing elective and emergent repair. Areas of uncertainty are highlighted that would benefit from further investigation in addition to existing limitations in diagnostic tests, pharmacologic agents, intraoperative tools, and devices.

Defining the Key Competencies in Radiation Protection for Endovascular Procedures: A Multispecialty Delphi Consensus Study.

OBJECTIVES: Radiation protection training courses currently focus on broad knowledge topics which may not always be relevant in daily practice. The goal of this study was to determine the key competencies in radiation protection that every endovascular team member should possess and apply routinely, through multispecialty clinical content expert consensus. METHODS: Consensus was obtained through a two round modified Delphi methodology. The expert panel consisted of European vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, and interventional cardiologists/angiologists experienced in endovascular procedures. An initial list of statements, covering knowledge skills, technical skills and attitudes was created, based on a literature search. Additional statements could be suggested by the experts in the first Delphi round. Each of the statements had to be rated on a 5- point Likert scale. A statement was considered to be a key competency when the internal consistency was greater than alpha = 0.80 and at least 80% of the experts agreed (rating 4/5) or strongly agreed (rating 5/5) with the statement. Questionnaires were emailed to panel members using the Surveymonkey service. RESULTS: Forty-one of 65 (63.1%) invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The response rates were 36 out of 41 (87.8%): overall 38 out of 41(92.6%) in the first round and 36 out of 38 (94.7%) in the second round. The 71 primary statements were supplemented with nine items suggested by the panel. The results showed excellent consensus among responders (Cronbach's alpha = 0.937 first round; 0.958 s round). Experts achieved a consensus that 30 of 33 knowledge skills (90.9%), 23 of 27 technical skills (82.1%), and 15 of 20 attitudes (75.0%) should be considered as key competencies. CONCLUSIONS: A multispecialty European endovascular expert panel reached consensus about the key competencies in radiation protection. These results may serve to create practical and relevant radiation protection training courses in the future, enhancing radiation safety for both patients and the entire endovascular team.