Performance of drug-coated balloons in coronary and below-the-knee arteries: Anatomical, physiological and pathological considerations.

Below-the-knee (infrapopliteal) atherosclerotic disease, which presents as chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in nearly 50% of patients, represents a treatment challenge when it comes to the endovascular intervention arm of management. Due to reduced tissue perfusion, patients usually experience pain at rest and atrophic changes correlated to the extent of the compromised perfusion. Unfortunately, the prognosis remains unsatisfactory with 30% of patients requiring major amputation and a mortality rate of 25% within 1 year. To date, randomized multicentre trials of endovascular intervention have shown that drug-eluting stents (DES) increase patency rate and lower target lesion revascularization rate compared to plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents. The majority of these trials recruited patients with focal infrapopliteal lesions, while most patients requiring endovascular intervention have complex and diffuse atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, due to the nature of the infrapopliteal arteries, the use of long DES is limited. Following recent results of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of femoropopliteal and coronary arteries, it was hoped that similar effective results would be achieved in the infrapopliteal arteries. In reality, multicentre trials have failed to support the proposed hypothesis and no advantage was found in using DCBs in comparison to plain balloon angioplasty. This review aims to explore anatomical, physiological and pathological differences between lesions of the infrapopliteal and coronary arteries to explain the differences in outcome when using DCBs.

Impact of Target Visceral Vessel Anatomical Configuration on Early Complications Following Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (fEVAR-bEVAR) is a viable treatment option for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms but target visceral stent (TVS) endoleak and thrombosis remain a limiting factor. This study aims to evaluate TVS anatomy impact on 1-year risk of thrombosis and endoleak. METHODS: Patients treated with fEVAR-bEVAR for thoracoabdominal aneurysms between 2008 and 2020 in our centre were enrolled. We recorded comorbidities, operative details, 1-month postoperative CT scan (anatomical reference), and TVS behaviour: thrombosis and endoleak at 1-year follow-up. For each TVS, different points were identified using a centre-lumen-line: (A) TVS origin, (B) end of branch/fenestration, (C) visceral vessel entry, (D) end of TVS, (E) 1-cm distally. We analyzed TVS tortuosity ((centre-lumen-line/straight distance)-1, in %), image vector analysis of each segment in 2D (antero-posterior, left-right) and 3D (craneo-caudal displacement), and centre-lumen-line analysis (bending in ABC and CDE). Three independent observers performed a blind analysis, and anatomical differences between bEVAR/fEVAR, and cases with/without 1-year thrombosis and TVS endoleak, were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves (Log-Rank test), and t-test/Wilcoxon signed-ranks test respectively. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (72 ± 713 years mean age; 182 TVS: 50 branches, 132 fenestrations) met the inclusion criteria. bEVAR cases had longer stents, with more caudal 3D angulation, and greater ABC angulated segment. After excluding bEVAR cases (low case number), 97 fEVAR TVS were analyzed. Five thrombosis and 7 endoleaks were observed. While anatomical configuration showed no association to thrombosis, it was related to endoleak: these cases presented more tortuous stents (5.97% ± 0.10, 21.40% ± 0,22, P = 0.011), with more angulated centre-lumen-line at ABC segment (5.69° ± 15.77°, 7.18° ± 7.77°, P = 0.012), and more upward-pointing stents in the origin of the stent (AB: 89.07° ± 24.46°, 109.09° ± 16.56°, P = 0.012; BC: 87.86° ± 21.10°, 113.11° ± 22.23°, P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical configuration of the TVS is associated with type III endoleak, but not thrombosis, at 1-year following fEVAR. Cases with endoleak presented more tortuous stents, with a more angulated exit from the endograft, and upward-pointing of the origin of the stent.

The Initial Experience on Branched and Fenestrated Endografts in the Aortic Arch. A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Branched and fenestrated endografts (fEVAR/bEVAR) are complex techniques used to treat thoracic aorta pathologies involving the aortic arch. This systematic review aims to determine all the reported results regarding these techniques in the aortic arch, in order to describe their clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, considering all articles published until October 2019. PubMed, Cochrane database resources were used. The protocol of the study was previously registered in the Prospero database (CRD42020147037). Primary exclusion criteria included opinion articles, merely technique descriptions, articles without the follow-up of at least 1 month, studies conducted on animals, mixed treatments, and ongoing trials without published data. Included variables were study design, aortic pathology, type of endovascular technique (fEVAR/bEVAR), endograft manufacturing, number of fenestrations/branches and type of bridge stents. Technical success, complications during surgery and follow-up were also described. RESULTS: From a total of 164 articles, 29 (28 retrospective, 1 prospective) were analyzed with a total of 693 cases (341 fEVAR and 352 bEVAR). The most common indications for repair were aneurysm (54.8%) and dissection (40%). Only fEVAR and bEVAR were considered, but different endograft materials and techniques were used and, therefore, reported upon in the current review. Zenith Alpha Thoracic Endovascular Graft was the most representative (24% of cases). Custom made, off-the-shelf, physician modified and in situ fenestrated endografts were also used in 39%, 22.4%, 18.6% and 18.9% of cases, respectively. Bridge stents were implanted in the 50.5% of cases. Technical success rate was 96%. The main intraoperative complication was the endoleak (5.2%) followed by stroke (4.8%). The in-hospital mortality was 2.5%. The mean follow-up was 18.5 months. The mortality related to the main operation during follow-up was 3.2% and not directly related to the main operation was 11.3%. During the follow-up, 92 cases (13.3%) in total had to undergo through a reintervention, 46.7% with endovascular repair and 26.1% with open surgical repair (the rest were not specified). CONCLUSION: published experience with bEVAR and fEVAR in the aortic arch showed acceptable short-term effectiveness and safety. More well-conducted prospective clinical studies with long term follow-up, combined with comparative meta-analysis, are needed to elucidate the real benefit of those endovascular techniques in the aortic arch pathology.