Mid-term Results of Chimney and Periscope Grafts in Supra-aortic Branches in High Risk Patients.

PURPOSE: Report mid-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) with chimney and periscope grafts (CPG) in supra-aortic branches (SAB). METHODS: Retrospective analysis, from October 2009 to May 2014, of patients with aneurysms requiring TEVAR with zone 0/1/2 proximal landing in association with at least one CPG in the SAB. All patients were considered at high risk for conventional surgery. Peri-operative mortality and morbidity, retrograde type A dissection, maximum aortic transverse diameter (TD) and its post-operative evolution, endoleak, survival, freedom from cardiovascular re-interventions, and CPG freedom from occlusion during the follow-up were analysed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (28.05% EuroScore II) with thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (17%), arch aneurysm (39%), descending aneurysm (34%), and aneurysm extending from the arch to the visceral aorta (10%) were included. Fifteen (37%) patients were treated non-electively. Fifty-nine SABs were treated with the CPG technique: one, two, three, and four CPG were employed in 71%, 19%, 5%, and 5% of patients, respectively. The proximal landing was in zone 0 in 49% of patients, zone 1 in 17%, and zone 2 in 34%. Technical success was 95%. Peri-operative complications and neurological events were registered in six (14.6%) patients and there were 5 deaths (12%). At a median follow-up of 21.2 (mean 22, SD 18; range 0-65) months, type I/III endoleaks were registered in three (7%) cases and re-intervention in six (15%) patients. A significant aneurysm sac shrinkage (p<.001) was reported at mean follow-up and no significant aneurysm sac increase (>5 mm). The estimated 2 year survival, freedom from re-intervention, freedom from endoleak, and freedom from branch occlusion were 75%, 77%, 86%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The chimney and periscope grafts technique was shown to be safe in aortic aneurysm disease involving the supra aortic branches, even in an emergency setting using off the shelf devices. Mid-term follow-up results in this high risk population are good, but longer follow-up is mandatory before this technique is used in intermediate-risk patients.

Mid- and Longer-term Follow up of Chimney and/or Periscope Grafts and Risk Factors for Failure.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to report on chimney and periscope grafts (CPGs) and their mid- and longer-term outcomes when they are used to preserve reno-visceral artery (RVA) perfusion in endovascular repair of pararenal (PRAAs) or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAAs). In addition, factors associated with CPG failure are presented. Limited data exist on the outcomes of CPGs, and mid- and long-term results are generally not reported. METHODS: This was a prospective study in a cohort of 100 patients with PRAA (69) or TAAA (31). A total of 224 (mean 2.24 per patient) RVAs were preserved with 136 (61%) chimney and 88 (39%) periscope grafts. CPGs were constructed mainly using self expandable stent grafts. Patients were followed by clinical examination, CTA (82%), and/or duplex (18%). Data were collected until February 2015. RESULTS: CPG immediate technical success was 99% (222/224 branches). Mean follow up was 29 months (range 0-65; SD 17); 59% patients were followed > 2 years, 30% > 3 years, and 16% > 4 years. Post-operatively, CPG occlusion was observed early (≤30 days) in three (1.3%) branches and during follow up in 10 (4.5%). At 36 and 48 months, the estimated primary patency was 93% and 93%. After corrective percutaneous (10) or surgical (3) re-interventions, the estimated secondary patency was 96% and 96%. Thirty day mortality was 2%; at 36 and 48 months the estimated patient survival was 79%. Significant shrinkage (72 [SD 23] vs. 62 [SD 24] mm; p < .001) was observed, with a substantial reduction (>5 mm) in 55 patients, and sac enlargement in four. Incomplete aneurysm sac sealing was treated successfully by a secondary intervention in 15 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Self expandable CPGs have proved to be a highly successful and durable treatment for RVA preservation up to 5 years. Incomplete CPG expansion, inadequate length, and CPG use in small and diseased target arteries were risk factors for occlusion. These mid- and longer-term results support CPG use to treat PRAAs or TAAAs in patients unfit for open surgery or fenestrated/branched stent grafts.

How to diagnose and treat abdominal compartment syndrome after endovascular and open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are frequently encountered in patients treated for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) and carry a high morbidity and mortality risk. Despite these facts, IAH/ACS are still overlooked by many physicians, timely diagnosis is missed and treatment often inadequate. All staff involved in the treatment of rAAA should be aware of the risk factors predicting IAH/ACS, the profound implications and derangements on all organ systems, the clinical presentation, the appropriate measurement of intra-abdominal pressure to detect IAH/ACS and the current treatment options for these detrimental syndromes. This comprehensive review provides contemporary knowledge that should help to improve patient survival and long-term outcome.

Comparison of cognitive function after carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.

The effect of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on cognitive function is unclear. Both cognitive improvement and decline have been reported after CAS and CEA. We aimed to compare the changes in postprocedural cognitive function after CAS versus CEA. A systematic qualitative review of the literature was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement for studies evaluating the changes in cognitive function after CAS compared with CEA. Thirteen studies (403 CEAs; 368 CAS procedures) comparing the changes in cognitive function after CEA versus CAS were identified. Most studies did not show significant differences in overall cognitive function or only showed a difference in a single cognitive test between the two procedures. A definitive conclusion regarding the effect of CAS versus CEA on cognitive function was not possible owing to heterogeneity in definition, method, timing of assessment, and type of cognitive tests. For the same reasons, performing a meta-analysis was not feasible. The lack of standardization of specific cognitive tests and timing of assessment of cognitive function after CAS and CEA do not allow for definite conclusions to be drawn. Larger, adequately-powered and appropriately designed studies are required to accurately evaluate the effect of CAS versus CEA on postprocedural cognitive function.

Critique of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST): flaws in CREST and its interpretation.

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) has been used to support the equivalence of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of carotid stenosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. This inclusion of two different forms of the disease decreased the power and significance of the CREST results and weakened the trial. Other flaws in CREST were the equal weighting of mostly minor myocardial infarctions (MIs) with strokes and death in the peri-procedural, composite 'end' point, but not in the 4-year, long-term 'end' point. Although CAS was associated with 50% fewer peri-procedural MIs compared with CEA, there were >2.5-fold more MIs after CAS than CEA at 4 years. The 4-year MI rate, however, was not a component of the primary 'end' point. Additionally, although the initial CREST report indicated that there was no difference in the outcomes of CAS and CEA according to symptomatic status or sex, subsequent subgroup analyses showed that CAS was associated with significantly higher stroke and death rates than CEA in symptomatic patients, in females and in individuals ≥ 65 years of age. The present article will examine these and other flaws and the details of CREST's results derived from the trial's preplanned subanalyses to show why the claims that CREST demonstrates equivalence of the two therapeutic procedures are unjustified.

Less invasive (common) femoral artery aneurysm repair using endografts and limited dissection.

OBJECTIVE: We report our experience with the treatment of femoral artery aneurysms (FAAs) under local anaesthesia with limited dissection, using endografts to facilitate the proximal anastomosis and some distal anastomoses. METHOD: Between January 2006 and December 2010, six males, mean age 72 years (range, 65-80 years) with FAAs were treated at the University Hospital of Zurich. All operations were performed under local anaesthesia with analgosedation, except for one performed under spinal anaesthesia. After limited dissection and puncture of the anterior wall of the FAA, a sheath and a self-expanding endograft were introduced over a guide wire and with fluoroscopy they were guided intraluminally into the proximal normal neck of the FAA and deployed. Proximal arterial control was achieved with a balloon catheter introduced through the endograft. Then the FAAs were opened and distal arterial control is obtained with balloon catheters. The distal end of the stent graft was then sutured to the normal-sized distal arteries or to stent grafts placed within them. RESULTS: Of the six FAAs, four were true and two were false anastomotic aneurysms. Mean FAA diameter was 5.0 cm (range, 3.0-6.5 cm). Four patients also had aneurysmal involvement of the external iliac artery, one patient also had deep femoral aneurysms, but deep femoral circulation was always preserved. In three of the patients, the distal anastomosis was created to the femoral artery bifurcation, in two patients to the deep femoral artery when the superficial femoral artery (SFA) was chronically occluded and in one patient to the SFA. Immediate technical success was achieved in all six patients, and graft patency was observed from 9 to 48 months (mean 29 months). There were no amputations, complications or deaths. CONCLUSION: This technique for repair of FAAs can be performed under local anaesthesia, minimises dissection and complications and simplifies exclusion of these lesions. It is of particular value in high-risk patients with large FAAs.

Complete replacement of open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms by endovascular aneurysm repair: a two-center 14-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: To present the combined 14-year experience of 2 university centers performing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on 100% of noninfected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) over the last 32 months. BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair for RAAA feasibility is reported to be 20% to 50%, and EVAR for RAAA has been reported to have better outcomes than open repair. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively gathered data on 473 consecutive RAAA patients (Zurich, 295; Örebro, 178) from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2011, treated by an "EVAR-whenever-possible" approach until April 2009 (EVAR/OPEN period) and thereafter according to a "100% EVAR" approach (EVAR-ONLY period).Straightforward cases were treated by standard EVAR. More complex RAAA were managed during EVAR-ONLY with adjunctive procedures in 17 of 70 patients (24%): chimney, 3; open iliac debranching, 1; coiling, 8; onyx, 3; and chimney plus onyx, 2. RESULTS: Since May 2009, all RAAA but one have been treated by EVAR (Zurich, 31; Örebro, 39); 30-day mortality for EVAR-ONLY was 24% (17 of 70). Total cohort mortality (including medically treated patients) for EVAR/OPEN was 32.8% (131 of 400) compared with 27.4% (20 of 73) for EVAR-ONLY (P = 0.376). During EVAR/OPEN, 10% (39 of 400) of patients were treated medically compared with 4% (3 of 73) of patients during EVAR-ONLY. In EVAR/OPEN, open repair showed a statistically significant association with 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.5; P = 0.004). For patients with no abdominal decompression, there was a higher mortality with open repair than EVAR (adjusted OR = 5.6; 95% CI, 1.9-16.7). In patients with abdominal decompression by laparotomy, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted OR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.3-3.7). CONCLUSIONS: The "EVAR-ONLY" approach has allowed EVAR treatment of nearly all incoming RAAA with low mortality and turndown rates. Although the observed association of a higher EVAR mortality with abdominal decompression needs further study, our results support superiority and more widespread adoption of EVAR for the treatment of RAAA.

The coronary technique for complex carotid artery stenting in the setting of complex aortic arch anatomy.

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains a viable option for treating carotid artery lesions in high surgical risk patients. We retrospectively reviewed our experience in performing CAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy. The ''coronary technique'' uses an AL1 guiding catheter to engage the origin of the common carotid artery permitting delivery of protection device and stent. In total, 12 patients had complex arch anatomy which precluded access using the standard technique as determined on preoperative imaging. A total of 8 patients with such anatomy underwent femoral artery catheterization with placement of an Amplatz AL1 guide catheter into the common carotid artery. All were able to be successfully treated, with no dissection, neurovascular deficit, or other major complication. Based on this case series, we describe the coronary technique as a safe and viable method for CAS in the setting of complex anatomy which might otherwise preclude CAS.

Access complications during endovascular aortic repair.

Endovascular repair is becoming the mainstay of treatment for aneurysmal disease of the abdominal and thoracic aorta. Access related issues comprise a major reason for failure or conversion to open repair and can contribute to a significant amount of morbidity and mortality. This article will discuss a multitude of access related complications and their treatment. Preoperative imaging is paramount to the success of endovascular procedures. Intraoperative adjuncts, such as iliac artery angioplasty/stenting, the "pull-down" technique, and aorto mono iliac/femoral systems will be discussed. Occasionally, challenging iliac or femoral anatomy may preclude access through these vessels and the endovascular specialist may need to gain direct access through the aorta or via the carotid artery. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of an entirely percutaneous technique will be discussed. Finally, peri-operative complications such as rupture, dissection, pseudoaneurysm and infection will be discussed and various treatment modalities reviewed. As stent graft technology and our own skill sets and experience continue to improve, fewer patients will be refused an endovascular repair based on access issues alone.

Experience and technique for the endovascular management of iatrogenic subclavian artery injury.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent subclavian artery catheterization during attempted central venous access is a well-known complication. Historically, these patients are managed with an open operative approach and repair under direct vision via an infraclavicular and/or supraclavicular incision. We describe our experience and technique for endovascular management of these injuries. METHODS: Twenty patients were identified with inadvertent iatrogenic subclavian artery cannulation. All cases were managed via an endovascular technique under local anesthesia. After correcting any coagulopathy, a 4-French glide catheter was percutaneously inserted into the ipsilateral brachial artery and placed in the proximal subclavian artery. Following an arteriogram and localization of the subclavian arterial insertion site, the subclavian catheter was removed and bimanual compression was performed on both sides of the clavicle around the puncture site for 20 min. A second angiogram was performed, and if there was any extravasation, pressure was held for an additional 20 min. If hemostasis was still not obtained, a stent graft was placed via the brachial access site to repair the arterial defect and control the bleeding. RESULTS: Two of the 20 patients required a stent graft for continued bleeding after compression. Both patients were well excluded after endovascular graft placement. Hemostasis was successfully obtained with bimanual compression over the puncture site in the remaining 18 patients. There were no resultant complications at either the subclavian or the brachial puncture site. CONCLUSION: This minimally invasive endovascular approach to iatrogenic subclavian artery injury is a safe alternative to blind removal with manual compression or direct open repair.

Choice of treatment for the patient with urgent AAA: practical tips.

Since the first successful attempts of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for patients with ruptured AAAs in the mid 1990s, surgeons have had to decide whether to treat patients by conventional open surgery or by minimally invasive but technically more demanding eEVAR. To date, selection of patients for eEVAR is still heavily debated and factors like hemodynamic instability, fear of treatment delay for patient transfer or imaging procedures and logistic issues often lead to the exclusion of anatomically suitable patients from eEVAR. However, these adverse factors may be overcome by adherence to an appropriate (intention-to-treat) protocol employing the use of a hypotensive hemostatic approach, transfemoral aortic balloon occlusion technique (when needed), different types of devices and an appropriate plan to resolve logistic issues, leaving anatomic suitability as the single most important determinant of suitability for EVAR.