Fusion Imaging to Guide Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR): A Randomized Comparison of Two Methods, 2D/3D Versus 3D/3D Image Fusion.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) image fusion for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) image guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2016 and March 2018, all eligible patients who underwent TEVAR were prospectively included in a single-center study. Image fusion methods (2D/3D or 3D/3D) were randomly assigned to guide each TEVAR and compared in terms of accuracy, dose area product (DAP), volume of contrast medium injected, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were prospectively included; 18 underwent 2D/3D and 14 underwent 3D/3D TEVAR. The 3D/3D method allowed more accurate positioning of the aortic mask on top of the fluoroscopic images (proximal landing zone error vector: 1.7 ± 3.3 mm) than was achieved by the 2D/3D method (6.1 ± 6.1 mm; p = 0.03). The 3D/3D image fusion method was associated with significantly lower DAP than the 2D/3D method (50.5 ± 30.1 Gy cm2 for 3D/3D vs. 99.5 ± 79.1 Gy cm2 for 2D/3D; p = 0.03). The volume of contrast medium injected was significantly lower for the 3D/3D method than for the 2D/3D method (50.6 ± 22.9 ml vs. 98.4 ± 47.9 ml; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Higher image fusion accuracy and lower contrast volume and irradiation dose were observed for 3D/3D image fusion than for 2D/3D during TEVAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Randomized trial.

[Radiation-induced carotid stenosis: A personnalized approach]. / Sténose carotidienne post-irradiation cervicale : une approche personnalisée.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of radio-induced carotid stenosis (RICS) is challenging and burdened by an elevated risk of local complications. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be a suitable alternative. The best approach is yet to be defined. We reviewed the results of both techniques following selection based on better-suitability characteristics (anatomic and clinical). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 38 patients treated for 43 RICS from a group of 1230 patients who had carotid interventions between 2008 and 2015 (5 bilateral). Primary endpoints were morbidity and mortality at 30 days (transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death). Secondary endpoints were technical success, wound complications, cranial nerve injury (CNI), restenosis (≥50%) and recurrent symptoms. RESULTS: RICS was symptomatic in 6 patients in the OR group and 3 in the CAS group. Lesions in the OR group were longer (P=0.02) and more calcified (P=0.08). Technical success rate was 100%. Cranial nerve injury rate was 14.2% (3/21). All injuries were completely resolved within several weeks. In the CAS group, technical success rate was 95% (21/22) with the one failure due to a residual stenosis exceeding 30%. Periprocedural stroke rates were 0% and 4.5% in the OR and CAS groups respectively (0/21 vs 1/22, P=0.32). There were no early deaths. Mean follow-up was 19.1 months (3-75). The restenosis rate was 9.5% (2/21) in the OR group and 9% (2/22) in the CAS group. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support a preferred treatment strategy. The choice of treatment should be considered on an individual basis.