Five Year Post-Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Aneurysm Sac Evolution in the GREAT Registry: an Insight in Diabetics Using Propensity Matched Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in the five year abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac regression rate after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: An international prospective registry (Europe, USA, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand) of patients treated with the GORE EXCLUDER endograft. All scheduled EVARs for infrarenal AAA between 2014 and 2016 with complete five year imaging follow up were included. Emergency procedures, ancillary proximal procedures, and inflammatory and infectious aetiologies were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics, and Cox proportional hazards survival models were used. A control group of patients without DM with similar age and comorbidities was selected using propensity scores, matched in a 1:2 scheme. RESULTS: A total of 2 888 patients (86.1% male; mean age 73.5 ± 8 years) was included, of whom 545 (18.9%) had DM. Patients with DM had higher rates of hypertension (89.2% vs. 78.4%), dyslipidaemia (76.0% vs. 60.7%), coronary artery disease (52.3% vs. 37.9%), and chronic renal impairment (20.9% vs. 14.0%) (all p < .001). The mean pre-procedural AAA diameter was 58.1 ± 10 mm. Five years post-EVAR, the type 1A endoleak rate was 1.1% (0.6% DM vs. 1.2% non-DM), the endograft related re-intervention rate was 7.3% (6.2% vs. 7.6%), the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 1.4% (1.1% vs. 1.5%), and aortic related mortality rate was 1.0% (0.6% vs. 1.2%), without statistically significant differences between groups. The overall five year mortality rate was higher in diabetics (36.3% vs. 30.5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 - 1.58; p = .001). No statistically significant differences were found in sac regression rate (≥ 5 mm) between diabetics and non-diabetics 70.0% vs. 73.1%; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.04; p = .131. These differences remained statistically non-significant after excluding patients performed out of instructions for use (p = .61) and patients with types 1, 2 or 3 endoleaks (p = .39). CONCLUSION: The paradoxical relationship between DM and AAA does not appear to result in differences in post-EVAR sac regression rates. However, even when controlling for other comorbidities, patients with DM undergoing EVAR may have a higher five year mortality rate.

Mid-term outcomes of the use of endoanchors during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in multicentre analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe mid-term outcomes of the use of EndoAnchors as an adjunct for arch and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: A retrospective multicentre series from nine centres using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA) at TEVAR over May 2014-May 2019 is presented. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT04100499. The primary outcome was freedom from Type I endoleak at EndoAnchors deployments; secondary outcomes included evaluation of aortic wall penetration (AWP) at first computed tomography scan, EndoAnchor-related issues and mortality. RESULTS: 54 high-risk patients (35 males/19 females, age 73 ± 11 years) with arch, thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysmal disease (3 chronic post-dissection and one patch pseudoaneurysm), with a mean neck length 19.7 ± 6.6 mm that were treated with multiple hybrid and endovascular techniques were included. A total of 329 EndoAnchors were used with a mean of 6.1 ± 2.5 per patient. Overall adequate AWP was 86%, whereas arch (Ishimaru's zones 0-2) deployments achieved 80.6% when compared to 87.3% in descending thoracic aorta (dTA); although there was no statistical significance. Freedom from type I endoleaks was 88% at 2 year follow-up, due to 4 type IA endoleaks, two of them successfully treated, one with conservative treatment due to complexity of repair and remaining patient died 1 year later due to endograft infection. There were reported five EndoAnchor-related issues; four losses and one renal stent-graft was crushed due to catheter deflection solved with balloon reinflation. None of the losses had clinical significance. Overall mortality is described for 7 (9.5%) patients, one of them aneurysm-related. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in TEVAR and complex TEVAR procedures achieved acceptable outcomes at midterm in a high-risk series with hostile seal zones. Still, they should be still judiciously used as there is lack of data to suggest a more liberal use; therefore, the landing zone should not be compromised in favour of their use.

[Prevalence, type of epilepsy and use of antiepileptic drugs in primary care]. / Prevalencia, tipo de epilepsia y uso de farmacos antiepilepticos en atencion primaria.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a disease with great social and economic impact. The prevalence should be used as the most important basis for planning the secondary and tertiary prevention. AIMS: To identify patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy in a primary care center and determine the prevalence, demographic characteristics, type of epileptic syndrome and the use of antiepileptic drugs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study. Included 196 patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy belonging to a primary care center and review the medical history, studying socio-demographic variables and clinical-pharmacological. RESULTS: The prevalence of epilepsy: 8.4/1000 inhabitants. Mean age: 50.3 years. Sex: 52.6% men. SCOPE: 79.6% urban. Family history of epilepsy: 14.8%. Type of epilepsy: symptomatic focal stroke (14.3%), idiopathic generalized (13.8%), focal cryptogenic (8.7%), not classified (31.1%). Average age at the beginning of seizures: 31.6 years. Neurological and/or psychiatric comorbidity: 62.8%. Last follow-up: 18.9% without antiepileptic treatment, 56.6% monotherapy and 24.5% polytherapy. Seizure-free: 76.5%. Drugs most frequently prescribed: valproic acid, carbamazepine, phenytoin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam. 78.6% without side effects. Exitus: 4.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of patients with epilepsy was 8.4/1000 inhabitants, most frequent etiology the symptomatic focal stroke. More than half of patients suffered neurological and/or psychiatric comorbidity. At the end of follow-up the great majority were seizure-free without adverse effects of the antiepileptic drug treatment.

TITLE: Prevalencia, tipo de epilepsia y uso de farmacos antiepilepticos en atencion primaria.Introduccion. La epilepsia es una enfermedad con gran repercusion social y economica. La prevalencia deberia ser usada como la base mas importante para planificar la prevencion secundaria y terciaria. Objetivos. Identificar los pacientes con diagnostico de epilepsia en un centro de atencion primaria y determinar la prevalencia, las caracteristicas demograficas, el tipo de sindrome epileptico y el uso de los farmacos antiepilepticos. Pacientes y metodos. Estudio descriptivo transversal retrospectivo. Incluyo 196 pacientes con diagnostico de epilepsia pertenecientes a un centro de salud y revision de la historia clinica hospitalaria, con el estudio de las variables sociodemograficas y clinicofarmacologicas. Resultados. Prevalencia de epilepsia: 8,4/1.000 habitantes. Edad media: 50,3 años. Sexo: 52,6%, hombres. Ambito: 79,6%, urbano. Antecedentes familiares de epilepsia: 14,8%. Tipo de epilepsia: focal sintomatica por ictus (14,3%), generalizada idiopatica (13,8%), focal criptogenica (8,7%), no clasificada (31,1%). Edad media al inicio de la crisis: 31,6 años. Comorbilidad neurologica o psiquiatrica: 62,8%. Ultima revision: el 18,9% sin tratamiento antiepileptico, el 56,6% en monoterapia y el 24,5% en politerapia. Libres de crisis: 76,5%. Farmacos mas prescritos: acido valproico, carbamacepina, fenitoina, lamotrigina y levetiracetam. Un 78,6% sin efectos secundarios. Fallecimiento: 4,1%. Conclusiones. La prevalencia de pacientes con epilepsia fue de 8,4/1.000 habitantes y predomina la focal sintomatica por ictus. Casi un tercio de los pacientes referia algun factor desencadenante de crisis, principalmente consumo de alcohol o fiebre. Predomina la monoterapia, los efectos secundarios son escasos y, en la ultima revision, la mayoria se hallaba libre de crisis.