Redefining postoperative hypertension management in carotid surgery: a comprehensive analysis of blood pressure homeostasis and hyperperfusion syndrome in unilateral vs. bilateral carotid surgeries and implications for clinical practice.

Background: This study evaluates the implications of blood pressure homeostasis in bilateral vs. unilateral carotid surgeries, focusing on the incidence of postoperative hypertension, hyperperfusion syndrome, and stroke as primary outcomes. It further delves into the secondary outcomes encompassing major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Methods: Spanning two decades (2002-2023), this comprehensive retrospective research encompasses 15,369 carotid referrals, out of which 1,230 underwent carotid interventions. A subset of 690 patients received open carotid procedures, with a 10-year follow-up, comprising 599 unilateral and 91 bilateral surgeries. The Society for Vascular Surgery Carotid Reporting Standards underpin our methodological approach for data collection. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with postoperative hypertension using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22 (SPSS®, IBM® Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Results: A marked acute elevation in blood pressure was observed in patients undergoing both unilateral and bilateral carotid surgeries (p < 0.001). Smoking (OR: 1.183, p = 0.007), hyperfibrinogenemia (OR: 0.834, p = 0.004), emergency admission (OR: 1.192, p = 0.005), severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis (OR: 1.501, p = 0.022), and prior ipsilateral interventions (OR: 1.722, p = 0.003) emerged as significant factors that correlates with postoperative hypertension in unilateral surgeries. Conversely, in bilateral procedures, gender, emergency admissions (p = 0.012), and plaque morphology (p = 0.035) significantly influenced postoperative hypertension. Notably, 2.2% of bilateral surgery patients developed hyperperfusion syndrome, culminating in hemorrhagic stroke within 30 days. Intriguingly, postoperative stage II hypertension was identified as an independent predictor of neurological deficits post-secondary procedure in bilateral CEA cases (p = 0.004), attributable to hyperperfusion syndrome. However, it did not independently predict myocardial infarction or mortality outcomes. The overall 30-day stroke rate stood at 0.90%. Lowest incidence of post operative hypertension or any complications were observed in eversion carotid endartrertomy. Conclusion: The study identifies postoperative hypertension as a crucial independent predictor of perioperative stroke following bilateral carotid surgery. Moreover, the study elucidates the significant impact of bilateral CEA on the development of post-operative hyperperfusion syndrome or stroke, as compared to unilateral CEA. Currently almost 90% of our carotid practice is eversion carotid endartrerectomy.

An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of a Comprehensive Aortic Service in a Tertiary Center over One Year.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is an established and attractive alternative to open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) due to its superior short-term safety profile. However, opinions are divided regarding its long-term cost-effectiveness. We compared the total yearly cost of running endovascular and OSR services in a single tertiary center to determine whether fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) represents a clinically efficacious, affordable treatment option. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed on 109 patients undergoing a procedure related to index or previous abdominal aortic repair, with 1 year follow-up. Data was collected from the National Vascular Registry and hospital records. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and morbidity, reintervention rates, length of hospital stay, aneurysm, and all-cause mortality at 1 year for elective index procedures. RESULTS: The average cost per patient of all FEVAR was £16,041.53 (±8,857.54), £13,893.51 (±£21,425.25) for standard EVAR, and £15,357.22 (±£15,904.49) for OSR (FEVAR versus EVAR P = 0.55, FEVAR versus OSR P = 0.83, OSR versus EVAR P = 0.76). Of the secondary outcomes, significant findings included increased length of stay and respiratory morbidity for patients undergoing open versus endovascular repair. There was no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality between groups. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR, EVAR, and OSR all represent cost-effective options for aortic repair with similar outcomes. Our data highlights the potential for FEVAR to present a viable alternative to open repair, particularly in higher-risk groups, when performed in specialist centers.

International Union of Angiology consensus document on vascular compression syndromes.

Vascular compression syndromes (VCS) are rare diseases, but they may cause significant symptoms interfering with the quality of life (QoL) of patients who are often in their younger age. Given their infrequent occurrence, multiform clinical and anatomical presentation, and absence of dedicated guidelines from scientific societies, further knowledge of these conditions is required to investigate and treat them using modern imaging and surgical (open or endovascular) techniques. This consensus document will focus on known VCS, affecting the arterial and venous system. The position paper, written by members of International Union of Angiology (IUA) Youth Committee and senior experts, will show an overview of pathophysiology, diagnostic, and therapeutical approaches for patients with VCS. Furthermore, this document will provide also unresolved issues that require more research that need to be addressed in the future.

Management of acute aortic syndrome with evolving individualized precision medicine solutions: Lessons learned over two decades and literature review.

Background: Thoracoabdominal acute aortic syndrome is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We aim to scrutinize our evolving strategies for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) management using minimally invasive and adaptive surgical techniques over two decades. Methods: This is a longitudinal observational study at our tertiary vascular centre from 2002 to 2021. Out of 22,349 aortic referrals, we performed 1,555 aortic interventions over twenty years. Amongst 96 presented with symptomatic aortic thoracic pathology, 71 patients had AAS. Our primary endpoint is combined aneurysm-related and cardiovascular-related mortality. Results: There were 43 males and 28 females (5 Traumatic Aortic Transection (TAT), 8 Acute Aortic Intramural Hematoma (IMH), 27 Symptomatic Aortic Dissection (SAD) and 31 Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm (TAA) post-SAD) with a mean age of 69. All the patients with AAS received optimal medical therapy (OMT), but TAT patients underwent emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Fifty-eight patients had an aortic dissection, of which 31 developed TAA. These 31 patients with SAD and TAA received OMT initially and interval surgical intervention with TEVAR or sTaged hybrId sinGle lumEn Reconstruction (TIGER). To increase our landing area, we performed a left subclavian chimney graft with TEVAR in twelve patients. The average follow-up duration was 78.2 months, and eleven patients (15.5%) had combined aneurysm and cardiovascular-related mortality. Twenty-six percentage of the patients developed endoleaks (EL), of which 15% required re-intervention for type II and III. Four patients who had paraplegia (5.7%) and developed renal failure died. None of our patients had a stroke or bowel ischaemia. Twenty patients had OMT, eight of these were patients with acute aortic hematoma, and all eight died within 30 days of presentation. Conclusion: Acute aortic hematoma is a sinister finding, which must be closely monitored, and consideration is given to early intervention. Paraplegia and renal failure result in an increased mortality rate. TIGER technique with interval TEVAR has salvaged complex situations in young patients. Left subclavian chimney increases our landing area and abolishes SINE. Our experience shows that minimally invasive techniques could be a viable option for AAS.

Two decades of experience in explantation and graft preserving strategies following primary endovascular aneurysm repair and lessons learned.

Objectives: We aim to scrutinize our evolving re-intervention strategies following primary endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) - EVAR GORE SalvAge Fabric Technique (ARAFAT), aortic sac double breasting with endograft preservation, and stent-graft explantation. Methods: We performed 1,555 aortic interventions over the study period, including 910 EVARs. Factors associated with the need for reintervention and the likelihood of chronic fabric fatigue failure (CFFF) were investigated. Using conventional and innovative diagnostic modalities with Prone contrASt enHanced computed tomography Angiography (PASHA), 136 endoleaks (ELs) were identified (15 type I, 98 type II; 18 type III; 5 type IV). Results: Forty-four (4.84%) patients underwent re-intervention post-primary EVAR; 18 ARAFATs, 12 double breastings, and 14 explantations. Choice of re-intervention was based on patient fitness and mode of failure. Mean EL detection duration following primary EVAR was 53.3 ± 6.82 months, while mean time to re-intervention was 70.20 ± 6.98 months. The mean sac size before the primary EVAR and re-intervention was 6.00 ± 1.75 cm and 7.51 ± 1.94 cm, respectively. Polyester (61.40%) was the most commonly employed stent-graft material. Use of more than three modular stent-graft components (3.42 ± 1.31, p = 0.846); with the proximal stent-graft diameter of 31.6 ± 3.80 cm (p = 0.651) and the use of iliac limbs more than 17 mm (p = 0.364), all added together are contributing factors. We had one peri-operative mortality following explantation due to sepsis-induced multiorgan failure. Conclusions: Our re-intervention strategies matured from stent graft explantation to graft preservation with endovascular relining of the stent-graft. Graft preservation with aortic sacotomy and double breasting were used to manage concealed ELs due to aortic hygroma.

The contemporary design of endovascular aneurysm stent-graft materials: PTFE versus polyester.

Endovascular aneurysm repair of the abdominal aorta (EVAR) and of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) have revolutionised therapeutic strategies in the management of aortic pathology, and endovascular repair is now an established and attractive alternative to open surgical repair (OSR) due to its superior short-term safety profile. However, opinions are divided regarding its long-term cost-effectiveness, which is reflected in the controversial NICE guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair published in 2018, which advised against EVAR for elective aortic repair due to high secondary intervention rates and resultant associated costs. There is no doubt that OSR continues to have a valuable role to play in aortic repair, but it is not universally applicable, especially in older and sicker patients. Therefore, we should not dismiss EVAR and TEVAR without examining the reasons for long-term failure, and the most obvious starting point is stent graft material properties. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyester are the two most common stent-graft materials; however, there has been no objective comparison of PTFE and polyester stent-graft post-procedural outcomes in EVAR and TEVAR, or even OSR. This lack of definitive data on different stent-graft materials and their configuration necessitates a comprehensive review to elucidate the post-procedural outcome in terms of endograft failure, cardiovascular events, and aortic-related mortality and morbidity.

TEVAR and EVAR, the unknown knowns of the cardiovascular hemodynamics; and the immediate and long-term consequences of fabric material on major adverse clinical outcome.

This review discusses the impact of endovascular aneurysm repair on cardiovascular (CV) hemodynamics and the role of stent-graft material, i.e., polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) vs. polyester in post-procedural outcomes. Endovascular aneurysm repair has been widely employed in the last decades for thoracic and abdominal aneurysm repair. However, aortic endografts are stiff and alter the native flow hemodynamics. This failure to simulate the native aorta could lead to added strain on the heart, manifesting as increased left ventricular strain, higher pulse pressure, and congestive heart failure later. This could result in adverse CV outcomes. Also, evidence is mounting to support the implication of stent-graft materials, i.e., PTFE vs. polyester, in adverse post-procedural outcomes. However, there is an absence of level one evidence. Therefore, the only way forward is to plan and perform a randomised controlled trial to demonstrate the alterations in the CV hemodynamics in the short and long run and compare the available stent-graft materials regarding procedural and clinical outcomes. We believe the best solution, for now, would be to reduce the stented length of the aorta. At the same time, in the longer term, encourage continuous improvement in stent-graft materials and design.

Management of retroperitoneal fibrosis with endovascular aneurysm repair in patients refractory to medical management.

Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of under-recognized retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) are essential before reaching the poorly responsive fibrotic stage. Although most patients respond to medical therapy, relapses and unresponsiveness are common. However, open surgery in medically resistant patients is associated with major adverse clinical events. Methods: This is a single-centre longitudinal study of optimal medical therapy (OMT) vs. endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients presenting with RPF to our tertiary referral vascular centre. Out of 22,349 aortic referrals, we performed 1,555 aortic interventions over twenty years. Amongst them, 1,006 were EVAR, TEVAR and BEVAR. Seventeen patients (1.09%) had documented peri-aortic RPF. Results: Out of the 17 RPF patients, 11 received OMT only, while 6 underwent EVAR after the failure of OMT. 82% (n = 14) were male, and the median follow-up was 62.7 months (IQR: 28.2-106). Nine (52%) had immunoglobulin G4-related disease (4 OMT vs. 5 EVAR). EVAR patients had 100% technical success without perioperative mortality. Furthermore, all the EVAR patients were symptom-free following the intervention. Pre-operative aortic RPF index (maximum peri-aortic soft tissue diameter/maximum aortic diameter) was higher in the EVAR than in OMT. However, there was a significant decrement in the aortic RPF index following EVAR (P = 0.04). Conclusion: We believe that when optimal medical therapy fails in RPF, EVAR provides a promising outcome. Further studies are recommended to establish the role of endovascular repair.

Stylohyoid Eagle syndrome and EXTracranial INternal Carotid arTery pseudoaneurysms (EXTINCT) with internal jugular vein nutcracker syndrome: a challenging clinical scenario.

We report a 4-year delay in diagnosing a combined carotid arterial and jugular venous styloid compression. The symptoms, which included dull neck pain, dizziness, intermittent diplopia, tinnitus, severe incapacitating right side headache and eye bloating, were challenging and wrongly attributed initially to various facial neuralgias. The patient presented during COVID-19 pandemic and was labelled as 'carotidynia' first and later as a transient perivascular inflammation of carotid artery syndrome. Combined targeted duplex ultrasonography and CT angiography with 3D reconstruction revealed a long styloid process and its tendinous-ligamentous attachments, injuring the internal carotid artery. Moreover, there was substantial internal jugular vein compression on a long C1 transverse process with a nutcracker syndrome. Release of the tendinous portion of the long styloid process and repair of the carotid artery pseudoaneurysm ended the patient's complaints and allowed him to have a better quality of life.

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are a life-threatening condition which remain difficult to treat. Endovascular and open surgical repair (OSR) provide treatment options for patients, however, due to the lack of clinical trials comparing these, the optimum treatment option is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endovascular repair versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAAs. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 26 April 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing endovascular repair to OSR for TAAAs for inclusion in the review. The main outcomes of interest were prevention of aneurysm rupture (participants without aneurysm rupture up to 5 years from intervention), aneurysm-related mortality (30 days and 12 months), all-cause mortality, spinal cord ischaemia (paraplegia, paraparesis), visceral arterial branch compromise causing mesenteric ischaemia or renal failure, and rate of reintervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified from the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection, risk of bias assessment, and analysis in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of endovascular compared to OSR in patients with TAAAs and are unable to provide any evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary, however conducting such studies will be logistically and ethically challenging for this life-threatening disease.

An in vitro Assessment of the Haemodynamic Features Occurring Within the True and False Lumens Separated by a Dissection Flap for a Patient-Specific Type B Aortic Dissection.

One of the highest mortality rates of cardiovascular diseases is aortic dissections with challenging treatment options. Currently, less study has been conducted in developing in vitro patient-specific Type B aortic dissection models, which mimic physiological flow conditions along the true and false lumens separated by a dissection flap with multiple entry and exit tears. A patient-specific Stanford Type B aortic dissection scan was replicated by an in-house manufactured automatic injection moulding system and a novel modelling technique for creating the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta incorporating arterial branching, the true/false lumens, and dissection flap with entry and exit intimal tears. The physiological flowrates and pressure values were monitored, which identified jet stream fluid flows entering and exiting the dissection tears. Pressure in the aorta's true lumen region was controlled at 125/85 mmHg for systolic and diastolic values. Pressure values were obtained in eight sections along the false lumen using a pressure transducer. The true lumen systolic pressure varied from 122 to 128 mmHg along the length. Flow patterns were monitored by ultrasound along 12 sections. Detailed images obtained from the ultrasound transducer probe showed varied flow patterns with one or multiple jet steam vortices along the aorta model. The dissection flap movement was assessed at four sections of the patient-specific aorta model. The displacement values of the flap varied from 0.5 to 3 mm along the model. This model provides a unique insight into aortic dissection flow patterns and pressure distributions. This dissection phantom model can be used to assess various treatment options based on the surgical, endovascular, or hybrid techniques.

Hybrid Deep Venous ARterialisation (DVAR) for No-Option Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid Deep Venous ARterialisation (DVAR) is offered as a last-ditch attempt for limb salvage in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI). It provides non-selective arterialisation independent of the angiosome, which harnesses the complex venous capillary network bed developed in the leg and foot. METHODS: We present two elderly men who underwent DVAR to salvage limb with CLTI. DVAR was performed by creating an arteriovenous connection by anastomosis of the great saphenous vein (GSV) at the level of the distal popliteal and proximal tibio-peroneal trunk. Fasciotomy was performed over the length of the GSV. Subsequently, proximal in-situ catheter valvotomies of the GSV valves were undergone with the adjuvant on-table balloon maturation. The distal tarsal veins underwent balloon valvotomy under direct vision with subsequent proximal and distal tarsal veins valvuloplasties. Completion angiogram demonstrated restoration of the flow in the foot and both the patients were relieved of rest pain. CONCLUSION: We successfully performed DVAR in 2 elderly patients. Our experience shows that DVAR is a simple and safe option that is easily reproducible without the need for complex endovascular hardware, only if a suitable GSV to the foot is available with no history of deep vein thrombosis.

Endovascular versus open surgical repair for complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Type B aortic dissection can lead to serious and life-threatening complications such as aortic rupture, stroke, renal failure, and paraplegia, all of which require intervention. Traditionally, these complications have been treated with open surgery. Recently however, endovascular repair has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of thoracic aortic endovascular repair versus open surgical repair for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 2 August 2021. We searched references of relevant articles retrieved through the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effects of thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD). Outcomes of interest were mortality (all-cause, dissection-related), neurological sequelae (stroke, spinal cord ischaemia/paresis-paralysis, vertebral insufficiency), morphological outcomes (false lumen thrombosis, progression of dissection, aortic diameters), acute renal failure, ischaemic symptoms (visceral ischaemia, limb ischaemia), re-intervention, and health-related quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified by the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. From title and abstract screening, we did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that required full-text assessment. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of RCTs or CCTs investigating the effectiveness and safety of TEVAR compared to OSR for patients with complicated CBAD, we are unable to provide any evidence to inform decision-making on the optimal intervention for these patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary. However, conducting such studies will be challenging for this life-threatening disease.

Combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair and endovascular aneurysm repair and the long-term consequences of altered cardiovascular haemodynamics on morbidity and mortality: case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic and abdominal aortic stent grafts are firmer and more rigid than the native aorta. Aortic implanted devices have been implicated in the development of acute systolic hypertension, elevated pulse pressure, and reduced coronary perfusion. CASE SUMMARY: We report four cases of staged thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and then endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). All patients had TEVAR first for thoracic aortic aneurysm and later on developed infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that required EVAR. There were three males and one female with a median age of 74.5 years (range 67.5-78.5). None of the patients developed aortic-related major clinical adverse effects or required any aortic intervention during their follow-up. However, within 2 years, all patients developed symptomatic left ventricular hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. All patients had bilateral lower limb oedema, with on and off chest pain and shortness of breath (SOB), necessitating coronary angiograms, which showed no evidence of coronary artery disease. Three patients died from cardiovascular-related morbidities, and the fourth patient is still complaining of SOB despite a normal coronary angiogram. DISCUSSION: Aortic-endograft compliance mismatch is an invisible enemy, with troubling consequences for the aorta proximal and distal to the endograft. Aortic stiffness due to vascular endograft could lead to cardiovascular adverse events, even in the absence of direct aortic-related complications. After combined TEVAR and EVAR, the compliance mismatch and elasticity loss are even more pronounced than with TEVAR alone, which necessitates patient monitoring for the development of cardiovascular complications.

Surgical and radiological interventions for treating symptomatic extracranial cervical artery dissection.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a pathological bleed or tear, or both, in the wall of the carotid or vertebral arteries as they course through the neck, and is a leading cause of stroke in young people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of surgical and radiological interventions versus best medical treatment alone for treating symptomatic cervical artery dissection. SEARCH METHODS: We performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2020, Issue 4, in the Cochrane Library (searched March 2020), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2020) and Embase (1974 to March 2020). We searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched March 2020), checked references in all relevant papers for additional eligible studies, and contacted authors and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of either surgical or endovascular intervention for the management of symptomatic CeAD were eligible for inclusion. Only studies with anticoagulants or antiplatelet treatment as the control group were included. Two review authors planned to independently extract data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were ipsilateral stroke and disability. Secondary outcomes were death, any stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, residual stenosis (> 50%), recurrence of cervical dissection, expanding pseudoaneurysm, or major bleeding. We analysed the studies according to the first choice of treatment. We planned to assess for risk of bias and apply GRADE criteria for any included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any completed RCTs or CCTs undertaken in this area of research. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs or CCTs compared either surgery or endovascular therapy with control. Thus, there is no available evidence to support their use for the treatment of extracranial cervical artery dissection in addition to antithrombotic therapy in people who continue to have neurological symptoms when treated with antithrombotic therapy alone.

Staged hybrid single lumen reconstruction (TIGER) with bilateral subclavian transposition coupled with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair in the management of acute symptomatic complex type B aortic dissection in a patient with arteria lusoria.

We present a 54-year-old Caucasian woman, who presented with acute symptomatic type B aortic dissection with deteriorating renal function. She was a known smoker with a 2-year history of dysphagia. CT angiography documented the artery of lusoria arising from the mid-thoracic aorta, aneurysmal dilation of her descending aorta, and kinetic and static flaps around her visceral ostia. The patient was managed by staged hybrid single lumen reconstruction and bilateral subclavian to carotid transpositions. During follow-up, there was no aortic rupture or retrograde type A dissection. There were no renal, visceral, cardiac, pulmonary or spinal complications. The patient went off her antihypertensive medication with a normal estimated glomerular filtration rate and accelerated aortic modulation.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of carotid surgery and endovascular carotid stenting versus best medical treatment in managing symptomatic acute carotid artery dissection.

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) with an intramural haematoma can lead to stroke risk, especially in young patients. We performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE to review the effectiveness of surgical and endovascular interventions versus best medical treatment alone for symptomatic CeAD. Furthermore, we aim to elaborate on the phenotypic individual disease manifestations of spontaneous Cervical Artery Dissection (sCAD) and how they translate into stroke and risk of dissection recurrence. Primary outcomes were ipsilateral stroke and disability. Secondary outcomes were death, any stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, residual stenosis >50%, recurrence of CeAD, expanding pseudo-aneurysm or major bleeding. Our search yielded no randomised controlled trials and/or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing either carotid surgery or endovascular therapy with optimal medical management; thus there was no evidence to support the use of any specific method for management of extracranial CeAD in patients who fail antithrombotic therapy. However, despite the absence of controlled studies to compare surgery or endovascular therapy in patients who fail antithrombotic therapy, carotid surgery in young patients can be justified as a personalized precision approach given the high morbidity and mortality in this age group.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.

BACKGROUND: A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.