Use of EndoAnchors during index endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy.

PURPOSE: Standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is sometimes the only treatment option for patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, but it carries an increased risk of both early and late procedure-related complications. The aim of this study was to report on single-center experience with the Heli-FX EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) as an adjunctive procedure to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for prevention and perioperative treatment of proximal neck complications in patients with hostile neck anatomy.  MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating 24 consecutive patients treated with EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure between November 2018 and August 2021. EndoAnchor implantation was indicated for cases with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy characterised by the presence of at least one of the following parameters: length of 28 mm, angle of >60°, circumferential thrombus/calcification involving ≥50%, and reverse taper. RESULTS:  Median follow-up period was 22.5 months (IQR 2-31.5 months) with no aneurysm-related death, rupture, or conversion to open surgical repair during the follow-up. The procedural success rate was 100%, with no type Ia endoleak at the completion angiography. A mean of 7 EndoAnchors was used per patient (range 4-12). There were no EndoAnchor fractures and dislocations or stent graft fabric damage due to anchor implants. Twenty-three patients (95.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and migration on follow-up imaging. Aneurysm sac regression was observed in 13 patients (54.1%), while in 8 patients (33.3%) the sac remained stable. Sac enlargement was present in 1 patient (4.2%) due to late type Ia endoleak. Two patients were lost to the follow-up immediately after the procedure. Between two groups of patients (sac regression versus failure to regress), the larger initial diameter of the proximal neck was the only significant independent factor associated with a lower possibility of sac regression (p= 0,021). CONCLUSIONS:  The use of EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure in cases with challenging aortic neck anatomy with or without perioperative type Ia endoleak was associated with good midterm results and led to sac regression in most of the patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 3, Ref. 31).

Safety and efficacy of simple training protocol in patients after mild traumatic brain injury.

AIMS: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) is the most common type of craniocerebral injury. Proper management appears to be a key factor in preventing post-concussion syndrome. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the effect and safety of selected training protocol in patients after mTBI. METHODS: This was a prospective study that included 25 patients with mTBI and 25 matched healthy controls. Assessments were performed in two sessions and included a post-concussion symptoms questionnaire, battery of neurocognitive tests, and magnetic resonance with tractography. Participants were divided into two groups: a passive subgroup with no specific recommendations and an active subgroup with simple physical and cognitive training. RESULTS: The training program with slightly higher initial physical and cognitive loads was well tolerated and was harmless according to the noninferiority test. The tractography showed overall temporal posttraumatic changes in the brain. The predictive model was able to distinguish between patients and controls in the first (AUC=0.807) and second (AUC=0.652) sessions. In general, tractography had an overall predictive dominance of measures. CONCLUSION: The results from our study objectively point to the safety of our chosen training protocol, simultaneously with the signs of slight benefits in specific cognitive domains. The study also showed the capability of machine learning and predictive models in mTBI patient recognition.

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.

Percutaneous thrombectomy in the management of early rethrombosis in venous thoracic outlet syndrome: two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Venous thoracic outlet syndrome resulting in the upper limb deep venous thrombosis is known as Paget-Schroetter syndrome or effort thrombosis. A general treatment algorithm includes catheter-directed thrombolysis followed by surgical thoracic outlet decompression. There are limited data regarding endovascular treatment of rethrombosis presenting early after the surgery. CASE PRESENTATION: Two cases of early rethrombosis successfully treated with percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy by two different techniques are described. In both cases, rethrombosis was diagnosed soon after thrombolysis and first rib resection with scalenectomy. After 12 months, both patients remain symptom-free, with patent subclavian veins confirmed by duplex ultrasonography. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy devices may offer a safe treatment option for patients with recurrent thrombosis after thoracic outlet surgery, even when thrombolytic therapy is contraindicated.