The outcomes of aortic arch repair between open surgical repair and debranching endovascular hybrid surgical repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: At present, open surgical aortic arch repair (OAR) and debranching hybrid surgical aortic arch repair (HAR) serve as significant therapeutic approaches for aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. It remains unclear which technique is preferable. Our study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two procedures. METHODS: To identify comparison studies of debranching HAR and OAR, a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 2002 to April 2022. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218080). RESULTS: Sixteen publications (1316 patients), including six propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis papers, were included in this study. Compared with the HAR group, the patients who underwent OAR were younger (OAR vs HAR: 67.53 ± 12.81 vs 71.29 ± 11.0; P < .00001), had less coronary artery disease (OAR vs HAR: 22.45% vs 32.6%; P = .007), less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OAR vs HAR: 16.16% vs 23.92%; P = .001), lower rates of previous stroke (OAR vs HAR: 12.46% vs 18.02%; P = .05), and a lower EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) score (OAR vs HAR: 6.27 ± 1.04 vs 6.9 ± 3.76; P < .00001). HAR was associated with less postoperative blood transfusion (OAR vs HAR: 12.23% vs 7.91%; P = .04), shorter length of intensive care unit stays (OAR vs HAR: 5.92 ± 7.58 days vs 4.02 ± 6.60 days; P < .00001) and hospital stays (OAR vs HAR: 21.59 ± 17.54 days vs 16.49 ± 18.45 days; P < .0001), lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding complications (OAR vs HAR: 8.07% vs 3.96%; P = .01), fewer postoperative pulmonary complication (OAR vs HAR: 14.75% vs 5.02%; P < .0001), and acute renal failure (OAR vs HAR: 7.54% vs 5.17%; P = .03). In the PSM subgroup, the rates of spinal cord ischemic (OAR vs HAR: 5.75% vs 11.49%; P = .02), stroke (OAR vs HAR: 5.1% vs 17.35%; P = .01), and permanent paraplegia (OAR vs HAR: 2.79% vs 6.08%; P = .006) were lower in the OAR group than that in the HAR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year survival rates (HAR vs OAR: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.54; P = .10), the 3-year and 5-year survivals were significantly higher in the OAR group than that in the HAR group (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.69; P = .01; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.68; P = .01). In the PSM subgroup, the OAR group was also significantly superior to the HAR group in terms of 3-year and 5-year survivals (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.73; P = .04; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.67; P = .04). The reintervention rate in the HAR group was significantly higher than that in the OAR group (OAR vs HAR: 8.24% vs 16.01%; P = .01). The most common reintervention was postoperative bleeding (8.07%) in the OAR group and endoleak (9.67%) in the HAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis revealed that debranching HAR was associated with fewer perioperative complications than the OAR group, except for postoperative permanent paraplegia, reintervention, and stroke events. The OAR group demonstrated better 3-year and 5-year survivals than the debranching HAR group. However, patients in the OAR group had fewer comorbid factors and were younger than those in the HAR group. High-quality studies and well-powered randomized trials are needed to further evaluate this evolving field.

Comparison of the treatment strategies for symptomatic chronic internal carotid artery occlusion.

OBJECTIVE: The best management of symptomatic chronic internal carotid artery occlusion (CICAO) has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies for symptomatic CICAO. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted a search of articles on the treatment of CICAO published between January 2000 and October 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Twenty-two articles were eligible for meta-analysis using a random effects model to combine and analyze the data for the pooled rates of stroke and death, and the rates of procedural success and significant restenosis/occlusion. RESULTS: A total of 1193 patients from 22 publications were included in this study. Six of them had bilateral internal carotid artery occlusion. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-4.4%) in the best medical treatment (BMT) group, 4.1% (95% CI, 0.7%-9.3%; I2 = 71.4%) in the extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass group, 4.4% (95% CI, 2.4%-6.8%; I2 = 0%) in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) group, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0%-3.4%; I2 = 0%) in the combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CEA + CAS) group. During follow-up of 16.5 (±16.3) months, the stroke and death rates were 19.5%, 1.2%, 6.6%, and 2.4% in the BMT, EC-IC, CAS, and CEA + CAS groups respectively. The surgical success rate was 99.7% (95% CI, 98.5%-100%; I2 = 0%) in the EC-IC group, 70.1% (95% CI, 62.3%-77.5%; I2 = 64%) in the CAS group, and 86.4% (95% CI, 78.8%-92.7%; I2 = 60%) in the CEA + CAS group. The rate of post-procedural significant restenosis or occlusion was 3.6% in the EC-IC group, 18.7% in the CAS group, and 5.7% in the CEA + CSA group. The surgical success rate was negatively associated by the length of internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Surgical success rate was significantly higher in the patients with occlusive lesion within C1 to C4 segments, compared with those with occlusion distal to C4 segment (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% CI, 5.0-25.53; P < .001). A proximal stump of ICA is a favorable sign for CAS. The success rate of CAS was significantly higher in the patients with an ICA stump than that in the patients without (odds ratio, 11.36; 95% CI, 4.84-26.64; P < .01). However, the success rate of CEA + CAS was not affected by the proximal ICA stump. CONCLUSIONS: For the management of symptomatic CICAO, BMT alone is associated with the highest risk of mid- and long-term stroke and death. EC-IC bypass surgery and CEA + CAS should be considered as the choice of treatment based on operator's expertise and patient's anatomy. CAS may be employed as an alternative option in high surgical risk patients, especially when proximal ICA stump exists.

Clinical Guidelines on Compression Therapy in Venous Diseases.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, compression therapy has attracted gradually increasing clinical attention in lower extremity venous diseases. However, basic concepts and clear nomenclature, standard treatment methods, and consistent product standards for pressure equipment are lacking. Therefore, developing clinical guidelines for compression therapy is essential to improving the treatment of venous diseases. METHODS: Our panel generated strong (Grade I), moderate (Grade IIa and IIb), and weak (Grade III) recommendations based on high quality (Class A), moderate quality (Class B), and low quality (Class C) evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) grading system. RESULTS: The panels made 30 recommendations from current evidence, focusing on seven fields of lower extremity venous disease (venous thromboembolism, post-thrombotic syndrome, chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, hemangioma and vascular malformations, lymphedema, and venous ulcers) and 18 topics. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 30 recommendations made across the 18 topics, 7 were strong (Grade I) and 17 were based on high quality (Class A) evidence, highlighting the need for further research of the use of compression therapy for .

Recanalization of superficial femoral artery chronic total occlusion through retrograde popliteal approach recanalization of superficial femoral artery chronic total occlusion.

Purpose: This retrospective study aims to evaluate the safety, practicality, and efficacy of the independent retrograde popliteal approach for recanalization superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions when the bilateral common femoral artery approach is unavailable, such as after endovascular aneurysm repair or common iliac artery stenting. Methods: This treatment was considered for patients with contralateral iliac artery occlusion, severe iliac tortuosity, or those who had previously undergone endovascular aneurysm repair or common iliac stenting. Patients with SFA lesions extending into the P1-P2 segment of the popliteal artery or with calcification in the P3 segment were excluded. Angioplasty and stenting were conducted via the popliteal artery approach, with hemostasis at the puncture site achieved using an EXOSEAL vascular closure device. Patients were routinely followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Results: Forty-eight consecutive patients with SFA occlusion who underwent endovascular treatment via the retrograde popliteal artery approach were included in this study. Retrograde puncture of the popliteal artery was successful in all cases. Six-French sheaths were utilized in all procedures. The EXOSEAL vascular closure device was successfully applied in all 48 cases. No instances of pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, major bleeding, or embolic complications were observed. The technical success rate for SFA recanalization was 100 %. All patients experienced clinical improvement. The ankle-brachial index significantly increased from an initial 0.33 ± 0.11 at admission to 0.81 ± 0.19 at discharge (P < 0.001). The mean follow-up period was 25.1 ± 11.7 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed primary patency rates of 82.5 % at 12 months and 71.8 % at 24 months. No patients required major amputation during the follow-up period. Conclusion: The endovascular treatment of SFA occlusions via the independent retrograde popliteal approach is a viable alternative, demonstrating a low incidence of puncture-related complications and a high success rate of recanalization.

Principles of Optimal Antithrombotic Therapy for Iliac VEnous Stenting (POATIVES): A national expert-based Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing venous stents has not yet reached consensus, and there are not any recommendations from published guidelines. We undertook a Delphi consensus from Chinese experts to develop recommendations regarding the preferred antithrombotic therapy in patients following venous stenting. METHODS: The phase 1 questionnaire was comprised of three clinical scenarios of venous stenting for non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions (NIVL), acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and was sent to venous practitioners across China. In phase 2, the results of phase 1 were distributed to a panel of experts for evaluation along with a questionnaire encompassing a series of statements produced during phase 1. A modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus on recommendations through two rounds of surveys. RESULTS: The phase 1 questionnaire was completed by 283 respondents. In phase 2, an expert panel consisting of 28 vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists was assembled and voted 17 statements relating to antithrombotic management after venous stenting for NIVL (4 statements), DVT (6 statements), and PTS (7 statements). The majority of the statements about the antithrombotic agent selection received a high consensus strength. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the national Delphi consensus of Chinese experts regarding antithrombotic therapy following iliac venous stenting in three common scenarios, most of the statements could be used to guide antithrombotic management following venous stenting. Further studies are required to clarify controversial issues including the dose and duration of anticoagulants, the role of antiplatelet agents, especially in patients with NIVL.