Diagnostic criteria for Buerger's disease: International Consensus of VAS - European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine.

Buerger's disease (BD) remains a debilitating condition and early diagnosis is paramount for its effective management. Despite many published diagnostic criteria for BD, selective criteria have been utilized in different vascular centers to manage patients with BD worldwide. A recent international Delphi Consensus Study on the diagnostic criteria of BD showed that none of these published diagnostic criteria have been universally accepted as a gold standard. Apart from the presence of smoking, these published diagnostic criteria have distinct differences between them, rendering the direct comparison of patient outcomes difficult. Hence, the expert committees from the Working Group of the VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine critically reviewed the findings from the Delphi study and provided practical recommendations on the diagnostic criteria for BD, facilitating its universal use. We recommend that the 'definitive' diagnosis of BD must require the presence of three features (history of smoking, typical angiographic features and typical histopathological features) and the use of a combination of major and minor criteria for the 'suspected' diagnosis of BD. The major criterion is the history of active tobacco smoking. The five minor criteria are disease onset at age less than 45 years, ischemic involvement of the lower limbs, ischemic involvement of one or both of the upper limbs, thrombophlebitis migrans and red-blue shade of purple discoloration on edematous toes or fingers. We recommend that a 'suspected' diagnosis of BD is confirmed in the presence of a major criterion plus four or more minor criteria. In the absence of the major criterion or in cases of fewer than four minor criteria, imaging and laboratory data could facilitate the diagnosis. Validation studies on the use of these major and minor criteria are underway.

Fenestrated Endovascular Repair for Pararenal or Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to collect all available data on early and late outcomes in patients undergoing fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) for pararenal or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Studies reporting at least early mortality after F-EVAR in patients with pararenal or juxtarenal AAA were included. Thirty-day outcomes were defined as early, and outcomes reported after 30 days postoperatively were defined as late. Basic characteristics of all studies and demographics of patients were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 30 studies (17 retrospective and 13 prospective) including 23,385 patients in total were included. Out of 23,385 patients, a total of 2,271 patients were treated with F-EVAR for pararenal/juxtarenal AAA. Overall, 4,216 target vessels were to be treated (data from 24 studies). Pooled early mortality reached 2.55% (ranging from 0% to 6.74%), with a pooled technical success of 96.8% (ranging from 82.8% to 100%). Regarding late outcomes, pooled all-cause mortality reached 17% (ranging from 0% to 50%), 1-year primary patency was 94.6% (ranging from 91.8% to 97.1%) and reintervention rate was 10.4% (ranging from 0% to 57.4%). Mean/median follow-up ranged from 3 to 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: Early outcomes indicate that F-EVAR is a safe and efficient treatment for patients with pararenal/juxtarenal AAAs. Although long-term outcomes are acceptable, late-intervention rate remains high.

Open versus endovascular treatment of subclavian artery atherosclerotic disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare open and endovascular treatment of patients with subclavian artery atherosclerotic disease (SAAD) as far as early and late outcomes are concerned. METHODS: A systematic literature review conforming to established criteria was conducted to identify eligible articles published before January 2018. The following online search engines were used: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (search conducted between December 2017 and January 2018). Eligible studies compared early and late major outcomes between open and endovascular therapy for patients suffering from SAAD. RESULTS: Overall, seven clinical studies included 731 patients undergoing 760 procedures in total (297 endovascular and 463 open procedures). The majority of procedures (99.7%) referred to symptomatic patients, and more patients undergoing open surgery had an occlusion compared with patients undergoing endovascular repair, the majority of whom had a stenosis. Regarding early outcomes (30-day death, cardiac events, technical success, and central nervous system events), there was no difference between the two methods. Only peripheral nervous system complications were more prevalent in patients undergoing open repair (odds ratio [OR], 7.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.142-22.921; P = .001). Regarding late outcomes, open repair was associated with significantly higher 1-year (OR, 4.33; 95% CI, 1.954-9.619; P = .0003), 3-year (OR, 5.67; 95% CI, 2.881-11.167; P < .0001), and 5-year (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.906-9.567; P = .0004) primary patency rates compared with endovascular therapy. However, 5-year freedom from recurrent symptoms as well as 5-year overall survival showed no difference. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair and endovascular repair in patients with SAAD do not show any difference concerning the majority of early major outcomes, although more patients undergoing open repair had an occlusion. However, open surgery seems to prevail regarding long-term primary patency, although long-term survival and freedom from recurrent symptoms show no difference.

Hepatorenal Revascularization Enables Endovascular Aneurysm Repair on a Patient with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and an Ectopic Right Renal Artery.

In last 30 years, the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard method of treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Nevertheless, the method has limitations mainly based on the anatomic characteristics of the specific aneurysm. In these cases, a combination of endovascular and open techniques can be used. We describe a case of a patient with an infrarenal AAA and an ectopic right renal artery emerging from within the aneurysm sac. The patient was treated with a combination of endovascular and open techniques. In particular, he underwent a hepatorenal revascularization followed by a standard EVAR procedure, with a successful final outcome. For the treatment of AAA disease, the combination of open and endovascular procedures can overcome difficulties, where a standard EVAR cannot be an option.

Aortic Arch Reconstruction: Are Hybrid Debranching Procedures a Good Choice?

INTRODUCTION: Conventional open total arch replacement is the treatment of choice for surgical aortic arch pathologies. However, it is an invasive procedure, requiring cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic circulatory arrest leading to significant morbidity and mortality rates. Hybrid aortic arch debranching procedures without (type I) or with (type II) ascending aorta replacement seek to limit operative, bypass, and circulatory arrest times by making the arch repair procedure simpler and shorter. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis and detailed review of the literature published from January 2013 until December 2016, concerning hybrid aortic arch debranching procedures was conducted and data for morbidity and mortality rates were extracted. RESULTS: As far as type I hybrid aortic arch reconstruction is concerned, among the 122 patients included, the pooled endoleak rate was 10.78% (95%CI=1.94-23.40), 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 3.89% (95%CI=0.324-9.78), stroke rate was 3.79% (95%CI=0.25-9.77) and weighted permanent paraplegia rate was 2.4%. In terms of type II hybrid approach, among 40 patients, endoleak rate was 12.5%, 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was 5.3%, stroke rate was 2.5%, no permanent paraplegia was noticed and late mortality rate was 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid aortic arch debranching procedures are a safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and mid-term results. They extend the envelope of intervention in aortic arch pathologies, particularly in high-risk patients who are suboptimal candidates for open surgery.