The role of sealants for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: During vascular interventions, connections that link arteries, veins, or synthetic grafts, which are known as an 'anastomosis', may be necessary. Vascular anastomoses can bleed from the needle holes that result from the creation of the anastomoses. Various surgical options are available for achieving hemostasis, or the stopping of bleeding, including the application of sealants directly onto the bleeding vessels or tissues. Sealants are designed for use in vascular surgery as adjuncts when conventional interventions are ineffective and are applied directly by the surgeon to seal bleeding anastomoses. Despite the availability of several different types of sealants, the evidence for the clinical efficacy of these hemostatic adjuncts has not been definitively established in vascular surgery patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of sealants as adjuncts for achieving anastomotic site hemostasis in patients undergoing vascular surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register via the Cochrane Register of Studies; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid ; and CINAHL via EBSCO. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for clinical trials. Reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews were also searched. The latest search date was 6 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin or synthetic sealant use with alternative interventions (e.g. manual compression, reversal of anticoagulation) for achieving anastomotic-site hemostasis in vascular surgery procedures. We included participants who underwent the creation of an anastomosis during vascular surgery. We excluded non-vascular surgery patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We have used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were time to hemostasis, failure of hemostatic intervention, and intraoperative blood loss. Our secondary outcomes were operating time, death from bleeding complications up to 30 days, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications management up to 30 days, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found 24 randomized controlled trials that included a total of 2376 participants who met the inclusion criteria. All trials compared sealant use with standard care controls, including oxidized cellulose, gelatin sponge, and manual compression. All trials were at high risk of performance bias, detection bias, and other sources of bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias concerns, inconsistency, imprecision and possible publication bias. Combining data on time to hemostasis showed that sealant use may reduce the mean time to hemostasis compared to control (mean difference (MD) -230.09 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) -329.24 to -130.94; P < 0.00001; 7 studies, 498 participants; low-certainty evidence). Combining data on failure of hemostatic intervention showed that sealant use may reduce the rate of failure compared to control, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; 17 studies, 2120 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect any clear differences between the sealant and control groups for intraoperative blood loss (MD -32.69 mL, 95% CI -96.21 to 30.83; P = 0.31; 3 studies, 266 participants; low-certainty evidence); operating time (MD -18.72 minutes, 95% CI -40.18 to 2.73; P = 0.09; 4 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence); postoperative bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; P = 0.09; 9 studies, 1216 participants; low-certainty evidence), or unplanned return to the operating room (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; P = 0.16; 8 studies, 721 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported death from bleeding or quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-analysis of 24 trials with 2376 participants, our review demonstrated that sealant use for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery patients may result in reduced time to hemostasis, and may reduce rates of hemostatic intervention failure, although the evidence is very uncertain, when compared to standard controls. Our analysis showed there may be no differences in intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, and unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications up to 30 days. Deaths and quality of life could not be analyzed. Limitations include the risk of bias in all studies. Our review has demonstrated that using sealants may reduce the time required to achieve hemostasis and the rate of hemostatic failure. However, a significant risk of bias was identified in the included studies, and future trials are needed to provide unbiased data and address other considerations such as cost-effectiveness and adverse events with sealant use.

Review of the literature supporting international clinical practice guidelines on iliac venous stenting and their applicability to Australia and New Zealand practice.

BACKGROUND: The overall goal of this report is to provide a high-level, practical approach to managing venous outflow obstruction (VOO). METHODS: A group of vascular surgeons from Australia and New Zealand with specific interest, training, and experience in the management of VOO were surveyed to assess current local practices. The results were analyzed and areas of disagreement identified. After this, the group performed a literature review of consensus guidelines published by leading international organizations focused on the management of chronic venous disease, namely, the Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, European Society for Vascular Surgery, American Vein and Lymphatic Society, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, and American Heart Association. These guidelines were compared against the consensus statements obtained through the surveys to determine how they relate to Australian and New Zealand practice. In addition, selected key studies, reviews, and meta-analyses on venous stenting were discussed and added to the document. A selection of statements with >75% agreement was voted on, and barriers to the guideline's applicability were identified. The final recommendations were further reviewed and endorsed by another group of venous experts. RESULTS: The document addresses two key areas: patient selection and technical aspects of venous stenting. Regarding patient selection, patients with clinically relevant VOO, a Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic score of ≥3 or a Venous Clinical Severity Score for pain of ≥2, or both, including venous claudication, with evidence of >50% stenosis should be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ib). Patients with chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, postcoital pain affecting their quality of life, when other causes have been ruled out, should also be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ic). Asymptomatic patients should not be offered venous stenting (Level of Recommendation IIIc). Patients undergoing thrombus removal for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, in whom a culprit stenotic lesion of >50% has been uncovered, should be considered for venous stenting (Level of Recommendation Ib). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with VOO have been underdiagnosed and undertreated for decades; however, in recent years, interest from physicians and industry has grown substantially. International guidelines aimed at developing standards of care to avoid undertreating and overtreating patients are applicable to Australia and New Zealand practice and will serve as an educational platform for future developments.

Gene Therapeutic Strategies for Peripheral Artery Disease and New Opportunities Provided by Adeno-Associated Virus Vectors.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a vascular disorder caused by occlusive atherosclerosis, which commonly impairs blood flow to the lower extremities. The prevalence of PAD is increasing globally with >200 million people affected. PAD remains a growing global health problem as the population continues to age and diabetes incidence grows. Many patients with PAD, most notably those with critical limb ischemia, fail attempts at surgical and percutaneous intervention to improve blood flow and are at risk of amputation. Gene therapy provides an opportunity to change the clinical course of PAD in these patients via strategies that increase vascular supply through angiogenesis and arteriogenesis improving muscle perfusion and function in ischemic legs. This article discusses gene therapy approaches in the context of PAD, both intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia, and the promise of adeno-associated virus-based strategies delivering not just VEGFs (vascular endothelial growth factors) but a range of other mediators as potential new therapeutics. We also highlight challenges and failures in the clinical translation of gene therapy for PAD and how at least some of these obstacles may be overcome using adeno-associated virus.

RETRACTED: Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on venous outflow Obstruction of the femoral-iliocaval veins.

BACKGROUND: The overall goal of this report is to provide a high-level, practical approach to managing venous outflow obstruction (VOO) in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: A group of vascular surgeons from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery with specific interest, training, and experience in the management of VOO were surveyed to assess current local practice. The results were analyzed and areas of disagreement identified. Following this, the group performed a literature review of consensus guidelines published by leading international organizations focused on the management of chronic venous disease, namely the Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, European Society for Vascular Surgery, American Vein and Lymphatic Society, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, and American Heart Association. These guidelines were compared against the consensus statements obtained through the surveys to determine how they relate to Australian and New Zealand practice. In addition, selected key studies, reviews, and meta-analyses on venous stenting were discussed and added to the document. Finally, a selection of statements with >75% agreement was voted on, and barriers to the guideline's applicability were identified. RESULTS: The document addresses two key areas: patient selection and technical aspects of venous stenting. Regarding patient selection, patients with a CEAP (Clinical-Etiologic-Anatomic-Physiologic) score of ≥3 or a venous clinical severity score for pain of ≥2, or both, and evidence of >50% stenosis on venography, computed tomography venography, magnetic resonance venography, and/or intravascular ultrasound should be considered for venous stenting (level of recommendation Ib) Patients undergoing thrombus removal for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, in whom a culprit stenotic lesion has been uncovered, should be considered for venous stenting (level of recommendation Ib). Patients with chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, postcoital pain affecting their quality of life, when other causes have been ruled out, should be considered for venous stenting (level of recommendation Ic). Asymptomatic patients should not be offered venous stenting (level of recommendation IIIc). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with deep VOO have been underdiagnosed and undertreated for decades; however, in recent years, interest from physicians and industry has grown substantially. The advent of simpler and safer treatment options has revolutionized its management, but, unfortunately, formal training for venous disease has not grown at the same rate. Simplifying the technology and training required can result in inconsistent outcomes. These guidelines are aimed at developing standards of care and will serve as an educational platform for future developments.

Long-term Mortality and Reintervention After Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repairs in Australia, Germany, and the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term outcomes after endovascular (EVAR) and open repairs (OAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in Australia, Germany, and the United States, using a unified study design. BACKGROUND: Similarities and differences in long-term outcomes after EVAR versus OAR across countries remained unclear, given differences in designs across existing studies. METHODS: We identified patients aged >65 years undergoing intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs during 2010-2017/2018. We compared long-term patient mortality and reintervention after EVAR and OAR using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regressions. Propensity score matching was performed within each country to adjust for differences in baseline patient characteristics between procedure groups. RESULTS: We included 3311, 4909, and 145363 patients from Australia, Germany, and the United States, respectively. The median patient age was 76 to 77 years, and most patients were males (77%-84%). Patient mortality was lower after EVAR than OAR within the first 60 days and became similar at 3-year follow-up (Australia 14.7% vs 16.5%, Germany 18.2% vs 19.7%, United States: 24.4% vs 24.4%). At the end of follow-up, patient mortality after EVAR was higher than OAR in Australia [ hazard ratio (HR) 95% CI: 1.21 (0.96-1.54)] but similar to OAR in Germany [HR 95% CI: 0.92 (0.80-1.07)] and the United States [HR 95% CI: 1.02 (0.99-1.05)]. The risk of reintervention after EVAR was more than twice that after OAR in Australia [HR 95% CI: 2.60 (1.09-6.15)], Germany [HR 95% CI: 4.79 (2.56-8.98)], and the United States [HR 95% CI: 2.67 (2.38-3.00)]. The difference in reintervention risk appeared early in German and United States patients. CONCLUSIONS: This multinational study demonstrated important similarities in long-term outcomes after EVAR versus OAR across 3 countries. Variation in long-term mortality and reintervention comparisons indicates possible differences in patient profiles, surveillance, and best medical therapy across countries.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Elective Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Comparison Between Open Surgical and Endovascular Repair Using Linked Administrative and Clinical Registry Data.

OBJECTIVE: Compare long-term mortality, secondary intervention and secondary rupture following elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR). BACKGROUND: EVAR has surpassed OSR as the most common procedure used to repair abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but evidence regarding long-term outcomes is inconclusive. METHODS: We included patients in linked clinical registry and administrative data undergoing EVAR or OSR for intact AAA between January 2010 and June 2019. We used an inverse probability of treatment-weighted survival analysis to compare all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, secondary interventions and secondary rupture, and evaluate the impact of secondary interventions and secondary rupture on all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The study included 3460 EVAR and 427 OSR patients. Compared to OSR, the EVAR all-cause mortality rate was lower in the first 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.140.33], but higher between 1 and 4 years (HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.48) and after 4years (HR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.23-1.63). Secondary intervention rates were higher over the first 30 days (HR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.11-4.59), but lower between 1 and 4years (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.74). Secondary aortic intervention rates were higher across the entire follow-up period (HR = 2.52, 95% CI 2.06-3.07). Secondary rupture rates did not differ significantly (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.73-1.55). All-cause mortality beyond 1 year remained significantly higher for EVAR after adjusting for any secondary interventions, or secendary rupture. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has an early survival benefit compared to OSR. However, elevated long-term mortality and higher rates of secondary aortic interventions and subsequent aneurysm repair suggest that EVAR may be a less durable method of aortic aneurysm exclusion.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Outcomes for Major Contemporary Endograft Devices Used for Endovascular Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of mortality, rupture, and secondary intervention following endovascular repair (EVAR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using contemporary endograft devices from three major manufacturers. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using linked clinical registry (Australasian Vascular Audit) and all payer administrative data. Patients undergoing EVAR for intact AAA between 2010 and 2019 in New South Wales, Australia were identified. Rates of all cause death, secondary rupture, and secondary intervention (subsequent aneurysm repair; other secondary aortic intervention) were compared for patients treated with Cook, Medtronic, and Gore standard devices. Inverse probability of treatment weighted proportional hazards and competing risk regression were used to adjust for patient, clinical, and aneurysm characteristics, using Cook as the referent device. RESULTS: This study identified 2 874 eligible EVAR patients, with a median follow up of 4.1 (maximum 9.5) years. Mortality rates were similar for patients receiving different devices (ranging between 7.0 and 7.3 per 100 person years). There was no statistically significant difference between devices in secondary rupture rates, which ranged between 0.4 and 0.5 per 100 person years. Patients receiving Medtronic and Gore devices tended to have higher crude rates of subsequent aneurysm repair (1.5 per 100 person years) than patients receiving Cook devices (0.8 per 100 person years). This finding remained in the adjusted analysis, but was only statistically significant for Medtronic devices (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 - 2.47; HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.94 - 3.18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Major endograft devices have similar overall long term safety profiles. However, there may be differences in rates of secondary intervention for some devices. This may reflect endograft durability, or patient selection for different devices based on aneurysm anatomy. Continuous comparative assessments are needed to guide evidence for treatment decisions across the range of available devices.

Arteriovenous fistula formation with adjuvant endovascular maturation.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of the native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) has been limited by the prolonged time required for maturation, the low overall maturation rate, and subsequent abandonment. Endovascular intervention has been increasingly accepted as the first-line therapy for AVF stenosis. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the AVF formation outcomes when early endovascular intervention was selectively performed to bring about timely AVF maturation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study (February 2014 to February 2020) of 82 AVF consecutive patients (mean age, 62.5 ± 13.5 years; range, 17-83; 58 men [70.7%]) with end-stage renal failure who had undergone vascular access construction at a single institution. The 4-year AVF patency, vascular diameters, hemodialysis parameters, reintervention rate, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Radiocephalic AVF was the most common fistula constructed (71 patients; 88.6%). The evaluation at a mean of 46.2 ± 56.0 days (range, 5-343 days) after AVF formation revealed 33 immature AVFs (40.2%). Subsequently, 19 patients had undergone endovascular procedures, including angioplasty and/or stenting of the juxta-anastomosis, cannulation zones, and/or outflow segments to bring about timely maturation of the AVF. Hence, 93.9% of the AVFs had reached functional patency (maturation) by 6 months after formation, with a mean time to maturation of 67.8 ± 65.9 days (range, 5-320 days). After reaching maturation, the primary access functional patency was 82% ± 4.3% at 6 months, 58% ± 5.5% at 12 months, and 34% ± 6.8% at 48 months. The primary assisted access functional patency was 95% ± 2.4% at 6 months, 90% ± 3.3% at 12 months, and 83% ± 4.7% at 48 months. A total of 121 endovascular interventions were performed to maintain patency, equating to an endovascular reintervention rate of 0.37 procedure/patient year. The mean arterial, venous, and brachial flow rates did not change significantly after maturation with a mean AVF (primary assisted functional patency) survival time of 5.9 ± 0.26 years (range, 5.33-6.36 years) from maturation. Only 12 thromboses had occurred after the first follow-up review after AVF formation. These were all salvaged using endovascular techniques, leading to 100% total secondary functional patency at 4 years. The 5-year estimated all-cause mortality was 45.6% ± 12.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The AVF maturation rate and interval to maturation were improved when early endovascular intervention was selectively performed after AVF formation. This allowed for near universal maturation. In addition, once matured, the use of ongoing endovascular reinterventions allowed for a low reintervention rate and long-term patency, providing reliable long-term renal vascular access.

Infective thrombophlebitis after great saphenous vein cyanoacrylate embolization.

The use of cyanoacrylate embolization has increased in interest as a safe, effective, and minimally invasive method to treat symptomatic saphenous reflux. The procedure is generally well tolerated by patients, and complications such as phlebitis are minor and usually self-limiting. Postprocedural infections have been described but occur infrequently and usually in the early postoperative course. In the present case report, we have described a late-onset infective thrombophlebitis of the great saphenous vein after cyanoacrylate embolization, requiring surgical excision of the treated vein.

Twenty-Four-Month Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon in Diabetic Patients in the BIOLUX P-III Registry: A Subgroup Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in a large patient population under real-world conditions and, specifically, analyse the impact of diabetes mellitus on long term outcomes following DCB utilisation. METHODS: BIOLUX P-III is a prospective, international, multicentre, registry that was conducted at 41 centres. The present study is a 24-month subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus having infrainguinal lesions treated with the Passeo-18 Lux DCB. The primary endpoints were freedom from major adverse events (MAEs) within 6 months of intervention and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (CD-TLR) within 12 months of intervention. RESULTS: Of the 882 patients in the registry, 418 had diabetes (516 lesions). Most diabetics had concomitant hypertension (88.8%) and hyperlipidaemia (70.3%). Insulin dependence was observed in 48.8% of diabetics. Moreover, smoking (62.2%) and chronic renal insufficiency (41.9%) were also found to be common in this cohort. Chronic limb threatening ischemia (Rutherford class ≥4) was present in 53.1% of all patients. 22.9% of lesions were infrapopliteal, while 22.5% of lesions were treated for in-stent restenosis. The mean target lesion length was 85.6 ± 73.2 mm, and 79.4% of lesions were calcified (of which 17.9% were heavily calcified). Overall, device success was 99.7%. Freedom from MAEs was 90.5% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 87.2-93.0) at 6 months, 85.4% (95% CI: 81.5-88.6) at 12 months and 80% (95% CI: 75.5-83.8) at 24 months. Freedom from CD-TLR was 95.9% (95% CI: 93.8-97.4), 91.6% (95% CI: 88.7-93.8), and 87.1% (95% CI: 83.5-89.9) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. All-cause mortality at 24 months in diabetics was 16.0% (95% CI: 12.6-20.2), and major target limb amputation was 6.1% (95% CI: 4.1-8.9), which was significantly higher than in non-diabetics (8.4% (95% CI: 6.0-11.6), P = 0.0005 and 1.2% (95% CI: 0.5-2.9), P <0.0001, respectively). At 24 months, 82.0% of patients had improved by ≥1 Rutherford class. CONCLUSION: Treatment of a real-world diabetic patient population with the Passeo-18 Lux DCB resulted in high efficacy and low complication rates, despite the fact that diabetic patients usually suffer from a multitude of concomitant comorbidities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02276313.

Trends and outcomes in Australian carotid artery revascularization surgery: 2010-2017.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. The aim was to compare contemporary treatment trends and outcomes after CEA and CAS between states of Australia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from the Australasian Vascular Audit between 2010 and 2017. The primary endpoint was perioperative stroke or death (S/D). We also analysed stroke and death independently and revascularization rates per 100 000 population. RESULTS: A total of 15 413 patients underwent carotid revascularization (CEA 14 070; CAS 1343). S/D rates were similar for CEA and CAS (1.9% versus 1.8%; P = 0.37; symptomatic 2.1% versus 2.3%; P = 0.12; asymptomatic 1.5% versus 1.1%; P = 0.67). Patients ≥80 years (2.7% versus 1.7%; P = 0.01), those who had shunts (2.2% versus 1.7%; P = 0.03) or surgery in teaching hospitals (2.6% versus 1.4%; P = 0.02) had higher rates of S/D after CEA. Patients whose proceduralist used a cerebral protection device had lower S/D rates after CAS for symptomatic disease (4.8% versus 2.2%; P = 0.03). There was a wide variation in practice between states, where CAS as a proportion of total carotid procedures ranged from 0% to 17%, and a wide variation in outcomes, with rates of S/D varying between 1.4-6.6% for CEA and 0-6.7% after CAS. CONCLUSION: Outcomes after CAS are equivalent to CEA when performed by vascular surgeons, however significant variation exists for both choice of revascularization procedure and perioperative outcomes between states. Further investigation is needed to determine whether clinical care pathways should be revised to achieve consistency and quality of outcomes.

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome following open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a variant of cardiovascular autonomic disorder characterised by an excessive heart rate on standing and orthostatic intolerance. We present a rare case of a 38-year-old man who underwent open repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm for a chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection whose recovery was complicated by POTS. He received blood transfusions and was commenced on metoprolol, fludrocortisone and ivabradine with significant improvement in his symptoms. Correct assessment of postoperative tachycardia including postural telemetry is the key to identifying this condition and its successful management.

Update on paclitaxel for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease in the 15 months following a summary level meta-analysis demonstrated increased risk of late mortality and dose response to paclitaxel.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular devices (stents and balloons) coated with paclitaxel were developed to address suboptimal outcomes associated with percutaneous revascularization procedures of the femoral-popliteal arteries. In randomized controlled trials (RCT), paclitaxel-coated devices (PCD) provided increased long-term patency and a decreased need for repeat revascularization procedures compared with uncoated devices. This finding resulted in the adoption of their use for endovascular lower extremity revascularization procedures. However, in late 2018 a study-level meta-analysis showed increased all-cause mortality at 2 years or more after the procedure in patients treated with PCDs. This review examines the subsequent data evaluation following the publication of the meta-analysis. METHODS: We review the published responses of physicians, regulatory agencies, and patient advocates during 15-month period after the meta-analysis. We present the additional data gathered from RCTs that comprised the meta-analysis and safety outcomes from large insurance databases in both the United States and Europe. RESULTS: Immediately after the publication of the meta-analysis, concern for patient safety resulted in less PCD use, the suspension of large RCTs evaluating their use, and the publication of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration informing physicians that there was uncertainty in the benefit-risk profile of these devices for indicated patients and that the potential risk should be assessed before the use of PCDs. Review of the meta-analysis found that a mortality signal was present, but criticisms included that the evaluation was performed on study-level, not patient-level data, and the studies in the analysis were heterogenous in device type, paclitaxel doses, and patient characteristics. Further, the studies were not designed to be pooled nor were they powered for evaluating long-term safety. Clinical characteristics associated with a drug effect or causal relationship were also absent. Specifically, there was no dose response, no clustering of causes of death, and a lack of signal consistency across geographic regions. As more long-term data became available in the RCTs the strength of the mortality signal diminished and analysis of real-world use in large insurance databases, showed that there was no significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with PCD use. CONCLUSIONS: The available data do not provide definitive proof for increased mortality with PCD use. A key observation is that trial design improvements will be necessary to better evaluate the risk-benefit profile of PCDs.

Safety and feasibility report on nonimplantable endovenous valve formation for the treatment of deep vein reflux.

OBJECTIVE: Definitive treatment techniques for symptomatic deep venous reflux have been relegated to complex and invasive open surgery which is rarely performed today. The BlueLeaf System provides an endovenous method for the formation of deep venous valves without an implant, avoiding the complications associated with permanent foreign materials. The system has the adaptability to form valves within the femoral and popliteal veins at multiple levels in a single procedure. The aim was to determine the midterm safety and efficacy of this novel device in an early feasibility study. METHODS: Feasibility of endovenous deep venous valve formation was assessed in patients with chronic venous insufficiency (Clinical, Etiologic, Anatomic, Pathophysiologic [CEAP] 4-6). Follow-up was completed through 1 year, assessing vein patency and reflux time (RT) with duplex ultrasound examination. Venous clinical improvement was evaluated using the revised Venous Clinical Severity Scale. RESULTS: Of the 14 patients, 13 (93%) had successful formation of at least one monocuspid valve, with a mean number of 1.4 valves (range, 0-3 valves) per patient. There were no device-related serious adverse events during the index procedure. There were no deep venous thromboses reported at any time point, including 10 patients through the 1-year follow-up. In patients with at least one valve formed, site reported duplex ultrasound examination measured the average RT in the popliteal vein below valve formations, was 3.0 ± 1.0 seconds at baseline, 3.9 ± 3.1 seconds at 30 days, and 3.6 ± 2.1 seconds at 360 days. The revised Venous Clinical Severity Scale improved in all 13 successfully treated patients, decreasing from 15.0 ± 6.0 at baseline to 11.6 ± 5.5 at 30 days, 10.7 ± 5.3 at 210 days, and 9.4 ± 5.0 at 360 days (P = .0002; baseline to 360 days). Among the five patients with an ulcer who reached the 360-day follow-up visit, all (100%) healed at least one ulcer. Two patients (40%) healed all ulcers and three patients (60%) had a decrease in ulcers number but remained at C6 at 360 days. The five patients with a total of nine active ulcers at baseline had four active ulcers at 360 days. CONCLUSIONS: The BlueLeaf System holds promise as a minimally invasive means to safely form fully autogenous deep venous valves. Reconstructed deep veins remained patent, without deep venous thrombosis and symptomatic improvement was consistently observed; however, a decrease in the RT was not. Incremental device design improvements have been undertaken to improve valve function. The results of these iterations await further clinical evaluation.

The Relationship Between Operative Volume and Peri-operative Mortality After Non-elective Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital and surgeon operative caseload is thought to be associated with peri-operative mortality following the non-elective repair of aortic aneurysms; however, whether such an association exists within the Australian healthcare setting is unknown. METHODS: The Australasian Vascular Audit was interrogated to identify patients undergoing non-elective (emergency [EMG] or semi-urgent [URG]) aortic aneurysm repair between 2010 and 2016, as well as their treating surgeon and hospital. Hierarchal logistic regression modelling was used to assess the impact of caseload on outcomes after both endovascular (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR). RESULTS: Volume counts were determined from 14 262 patients (4 121 OSR and 10 141 EVAR). After exclusion of elective procedures and duplicates, 1 153 EVAR (570 EMG and 583 URG) and 1 245 OSR (946 EMG and 299 URG) non-elective cases remained for the analysis. Crude mortality was 24.0% following OSR (EMG 29.2%; URG 7.7%) and 7.5% following EVAR (EMG 12.6%; URG 2.4%). Univariable analysis demonstrated an association between OSR mortality and hospital volume (quintile [Q] 1: 25.3%, Q2: 27.8%, Q3: 23.9%, Q4: 27.0%, Q5: 16.2%; p = .030), but not surgeon (Q1: 25.2%, Q2: 27.4%, Q3: 26.0%, Q4: 21.4%, Q5: 19.5%, p = .32). Multivariable analysis confirmed this association (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]; Q1 vs 5: 1.91 [1.13-3.21], Q2 vs. 5: 2.01[1.24-3.25], Q3 vs. 5: 1.41 [0.86-2.29], Q4 vs. 5: 1.92 [1.17-3.15]; p = .020). The difference was most pronounced in the EMG OSR group [Q1 - 3 vs. 4-5] (OR 1.63 [1.07-2.48]; p = .020). Mortality after EVAR was not associated with either hospital (Q1: 6.3%, Q2: 10%, Q3: 6.8%, Q4: 4.5%, Q5: 10%; p = .14) or surgeon volume (Q1: 9.3%, Q2: 5.7%, Q3: 8.1%, Q4: 7.0%, Q5: 7.3%; p = .67). CONCLUSION: There is an inverse correlation between hospital volume and peri-operative mortality following EMG open repair of aortic aneurysm. These data support restructuring Australian pathways of care to direct suspected ruptured aneurysm to institutions that reach a minimum volume threshold.

Kounis Syndrome after Angioplasty of the Superficial Femoral Artery with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon.

Drug-coated balloons are used widely as a form of endovascular treatment for peripheral arterial disease, to improve patency by reducing neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis. We present a rare case of acute coronary syndrome secondary to anaphylaxis after inflation of a paclitaxel-coated balloon used to treat a recurrent superficial femoral artery stenosis.

Analysis of Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Octogenarians From the ENGAGE Registry.

PURPOSE: To assess periprocedural results and secondary endovascular procedure outcomes over 5 years in patients aged ≥80 vs <80 years undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global post-market registry (ENGAGE) were used for the analyses. A total of 1263 consecutive patients were enrolled in the prospective, observational, single-arm registry and divided into 2 groups according to age: ≥80 years (290, 22.9%) and <80 years (973, 77.1%). Baseline patient characteristics, risk scores according to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) reporting standards, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, quality of life assessments [EuroQol 5 (EQ5D) index], and treatment outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, major adverse events, secondary endovascular procedures, and endoleaks were compared between groups. RESULTS: Octogenarians were classified into the highest category of the SVS risk stratification system; however, this did not result in a significant difference in the 30-day mortality [1.4% (4/290) vs 1.2% (12/973) for controls; p=0.85] or major adverse event rates [5.2% (15/290) vs 3.6% (35/973), p=0.23]. Multivariable analysis confirmed that age ≥80 years, pulmonary disease, large aneurysm diameter, and renal insufficiency were significantly associated with all-cause mortality, whereas diameter was the only parameter associated with increased aneurysm-related mortality. The differences in freedom from secondary endovascular procedures over 5 years between octogenarians and controls did not reach statistical significance (88.5% vs 83.2%, p=0.07). CONCLUSION: EVAR can be performed in individuals aged ≥80 years with no statistically significant difference in midterm aneurysm-related deaths compared with younger patients. The findings in this elderly patient cohort show that EVAR can be safely performed with acceptable morbidity rates in octogenarians.