Clinical Performance of the Low Profile Zenith Alpha Abdominal Endovascular Graft: 2 Year Results from the ZEPHYR Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The midterm outcomes of the low profile Zenith Alpha Abdominal Endovascular Graft from the ZEnith alPHa for aneurYsm Repair (ZEPHYR) registry are reported. METHODS: The ZEPHYR registry is a physician initiated, multicentre, non-randomised, core laboratory controlled, prospective registry. Inclusion criteria were patients with a non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with a maximum diameter ≥ 50 mm or enlargement > 5 mm within 6 months, with a site reported infrarenal neck length of ≥ 10 mm and with the intention to electively implant the Zenith Alpha abdominal endograft. Patients from 14 sites across Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands were included. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as technical success and clinical success. Technical success was defined as successful delivery and deployment of the endograft in the planned position without unintentional coverage of internal iliac or renal arteries, with successful removal of the delivery system. Clinical success was defined as freedom from aneurysm sac expansion > 5 mm, type I or type III endoleaks, aneurysm rupture, stent graft migration > 10 mm, open conversion, and stent graft occlusion. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the ZEPHYR registry. The median clinical follow up was 743 days (interquartile range [IQR] 657, 806) with a median imaging follow up of 725 days (IQR 408, 788). Treatment success at 6 months, 1, and 2 years was 92.5%, 90.4%, and 85.3%, respectively. Freedom from secondary intervention was 94.3%, 93.4%, and 86.9%, respectively. The predominant reason for secondary intervention was limb complications. Freedom from limb occlusion (per patient) at 6 months, 1, and 2 years was 97.2%, 95.8%, and 92.5%, respectively. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses could not identify any independent predictor for limb complications. CONCLUSION: While treatment success is comparable with other commercially available grafts, the rate of limb complications at 2 years is of concern. The manufacturer's instructions for use should be followed closely. Further studies are necessary to investigate the root cause of the increased rate of limb complications with the Zenith Alpha Abdominal Endovascular Graft.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy. METHODS: The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

End of Life Care for Unplanned Vascular Admissions.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned vascular admissions have a high mortality. Previous studies have indicated that end of life care (EoLC) among this group of patients is low but there exist limited data on EoLC in the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and predictors of EoLC for unplanned vascular admissions to a tertiary center in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study of unplanned vascular surgery admissions from August 1, 2019 to January 22, 2020. Data on patient demographics, markers of quality of palliative care, mortality, and cause of death of unplanned admission to the vascular surgery department were collected from hospital and general practitioner records and evaluated against EoLC to evaluate predictors and efficacy of EoLC. Quality of palliative care markers included documentation of preferred place of death and care priorities, time spent in hospital and the intensive care unit toward the end of life, and realization of documented care objectives. EoLC input was defined as a dedicated palliative care consultation (PCC) by a palliative care professional, medical doctor, surgeon, or advanced care practitioner. We also conducted a subgroup analysis of patients within this group with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), diabetic foot, and ruptured aortic aneurysms, as all patients in this group should be offered EoLC according to international guidelines. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty patients were included. Median age at presentation was 70.5 years, and the cohort consisted of mostly men (72%). CLTI (31%) was the most common reason for admission. Surgical intervention was carried out in 60% of patients. Two-year mortality was 36%, and pneumonia (22%) was the most common cause of death. Seven percent of patients received PCC, which occurred a median of 10 days before death. Only a minority of patients had preferred place of care/death (14%), care priorities (37%), and family involvement during advance care planning (17%) documented in their notes; 29% of patients had Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment forms in place. A diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, and increasing age predicted Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment form completion. Patients with PCC were more likely to have advance care planning, but this did not translate into improvements in the other markers of quality of palliative and, consequently, EoLC. CONCLUSIONS: EoLC was insufficient and of low quality despite a high mortality in this group. Clinical guidelines and pathways are needed to ensure these patients are considered for EoLC and those with CLTI, diabetic foot sepsis or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are offered it by default. Further research is needed to help identify vascular patients who would benefit from EoLC earlier to improve quality at end of life.

End-of-life care and advance care planning for outpatients with inoperable aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: A significant proportion of patients with abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms (AA) do not proceed to intervention after reaching treatment threshold diameter due to a combination of poor cardiovascular reserve, frailty, and aortic morphology. This patient cohort has a high mortality; however, until this study, there exist no studies on the end-of-life care conservatively managed patients receive. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 220 conservatively managed patients with AA referred to Leeds Vascular Institute (UK) and Maastricht University Medical Centre (the Netherlands) for intervention between 2017 and 2021. Demographic details, mortality, cause of death, advance care planning and palliative care outcomes were analysed to examine predictors of palliative care referral and efficacy of palliative care consultation. RESULTS: A total of 1506 patients with AA were seen over this time period, giving a nonintervention rate of 15%. There was a 3-year mortality rate of 55%, a median survival of 364 days, and rupture was the reported cause of death in 18% of the decedents. Median follow-up was 34 months. Only 8% of all patients and 16% of decedents received a palliative care consultation, which took place a median of 3.5 days before death. Patients >81 years of age were more likely to have advance care planning. Only 5% and 23% of conservatively managed patients had documentation of preferred place of death and care priorities respectively. Patients with a palliative care consultation were more likely to have these services in place. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of conservatively treated patients had advance care planning and this was far below international guidelines on end-of-life care for adults, which recommends it for each of these patients. Pathways and guidance should be implemented to ensure patients not offered AA intervention receive end-of-life care and advance care planning.

Human and murine fibroblast single-cell transcriptomics reveals fibroblast clusters are differentially affected by ageing and serum cholesterol.

AIMS: Specific fibroblast markers and in-depth heterogeneity analysis are currently lacking, hindering functional studies in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Here, we established cell-type markers and heterogeneity in murine and human arteries and studied the adventitial fibroblast response to CVD and its risk factors hypercholesterolaemia and ageing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Murine aorta single-cell RNA-sequencing analysis of adventitial mesenchymal cells identified fibroblast-specific markers. Immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry validated platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) and dipeptidase 1 (DPEP1) across human and murine aorta, carotid, and femoral arteries, whereas traditional markers such as the cluster of differentiation (CD)90 and vimentin also marked transgelin+ vascular smooth muscle cells. Next, pseudotime analysis showed multiple fibroblast clusters differentiating along trajectories. Three trajectories, marked by CD55 (Cd55+), Cxcl chemokine 14 (Cxcl14+), and lysyl oxidase (Lox+), were reproduced in an independent RNA-seq dataset. Gene ontology (GO) analysis showed divergent functional profiles of the three trajectories, related to vascular development, antigen presentation, and/or collagen fibril organization, respectively. Trajectory-specific genes included significantly more genes with known genome-wide associations (GWAS) to CVD than expected by chance, implying a role in CVD. Indeed, differential regulation of fibroblast clusters by CVD risk factors was shown in the adventitia of aged C57BL/6J mice, and mildly hypercholesterolaemic LDLR KO mice on chow by flow cytometry. The expansion of collagen-related CXCL14+ and LOX+ fibroblasts in aged and hypercholesterolaemic aortic adventitia, respectively, coincided with increased adventitial collagen. Immunohistochemistry, bulk, and single-cell transcriptomics of human carotid and aorta specimens emphasized translational value as CD55+, CXCL14+ and LOX+ fibroblasts were observed in healthy and atherosclerotic specimens. Also, trajectory-specific gene sets are differentially correlated with human atherosclerotic plaque traits. CONCLUSION: We provide two adventitial fibroblast-specific markers, PDGFRA and DPEP1, and demonstrate fibroblast heterogeneity in health and CVD in humans and mice. Biological relevance is evident from the regulation of fibroblast clusters by age and hypercholesterolaemia in vivo, associations with human atherosclerotic plaque traits, and enrichment of genes with a GWAS for CVD.

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair using unilateral femoral access in patients with iliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) in patients with occluded iliac arteries is challenging owing to limited access for branch vessel catheterization and increased risk for leg and spinal ischemic complications. The aim of this study was to analyze technical strategies and outcomes of F/BEVAR in patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all consecutive patients treated by F/BEVAR in two institutions (2003-2021). Patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease were included in the analysis. All patients had one patent iliac artery that was used for advancement of the fenestrated-branch component. Preloaded catheter/guidewire systems or steerable sheaths were used as adjuncts to facilitate catheterization. Primary endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events (stroke, spinal cord injury, dialysis or decrease in the glomerular filtration rate of more than 50%, bowel ischemia, myocardial infarction, or respiratory failure), primary iliac patency, and freedom from reinterventions. RESULTS: There were 959 patients treated with F/BEVAR. Of these, 15 patients (1.56%; mean age, 74 years; 80% male) had occluded iliac arteries and 1 patent iliofemoral access and were treated for a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 8) or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 7). Brachial access was used in 14 of the 15 patients and preloaded systems in 7 of the 15 patients (47%). The remaining 53% had staggered deployment of stent grafts. There were seven physician-modified endovascular grafts, seven custom-made devices, and one off-the-shelf device used. Thirteen patients (87%) had distal seal using aortouni-iliac stent grafts and two (13%) had distal seal in the infrarenal aorta. Concomitant femoral crossover bypass (FCB) was performed in two patients and six patients had a prior FCB. Technical success was 100%. There were no intraoperative complications or early lower extremity ischemic complications, and all FCB were preserved. There was one mortality (7%) within 30 days owing to retrograde type A dissection. Major adverse events occurred in 20% of patients. The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0-85 months). Two patients (13%) required three reinterventions. One patient required proximal stent graft extension for an acute type B dissection (3 months) and another required iliac extension for type Ib endoleak of an aortouni-iliac graft (21 months) and thrombolysis of that extension (50 months). At last follow-up, all patients had primary graft patency except one with secondary graft patency without new claudication. One patient had a single renal artery stent occlusion at follow-up with no r-intervention. The overall survival rate was 60%, without aortic-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenging, F/BEVAR with unilateral femoral/brachial approach is feasible in patients with occluded iliac limbs, with an important rate of ischemic complications, but satisfactory outcomes.

Safety of Percutaneous Femoral Access for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Through Previously Surgically Exposed or Repaired Femoral Arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous femoral artery access is being increasingly used in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The technique can be challenging in patients with previously surgically exposed or repaired femoral arteries because of excessive scar tissue. However, a successful percutaneous approach may cause less morbidity than a "re-do" open femoral approach. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prior open surgical femoral exposure on technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous approach. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent percutaneous EVAR between 2010 and 2020 at 2 major aortic centers. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without prior open surgical femoral access) for analysis of clinical outcomes. Only punctures with sheaths ≥12Fr were included for analysis. The access and (pre)closure techniques were similar in both institutions. Primary end points were intraoperative technical success, access-related revision, and access complications. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of conversion to open approach and femoral access complications in intact and re-do groins. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients underwent percutaneous (complex) EVAR: 98 had prior open surgical femoral access and 534 patients underwent de novo femoral percutaneous access. A total of 1099 femoral artery punctures were performed: 149 in re-do and 950 in intact groins. The extent of endovascular repair included 159 infrarenal, 82 thoracic, 368 fenestrated/branched, and 23 iliac branch devices. No significant differences were seen in technical success (re-do 93.3% vs intact 95.3%, p=0.311), access-related surgical revision (0.7% vs 0.6%, p=0.950), and access complications (2.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.443). For the whole group, significant predictors for access complications in multivariate analyses were main access site (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07%-5.35%; p=0.033) and increase of the procedure time per hour (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.34%-2.04%; p<0.001), while increase in sheath-vessel ratio had a protective effect (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.127%-0.85%; p=0.021). Surgical conversion was predicted by main access site (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.28%-4.19%; p=0.007) and calcification of 50% to 75% of the circumference of the access vessel (OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.38%-7.86%; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Within our population prior open surgical femoral artery exposure or repair had no negative impact on the technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous (complex) endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus low-dose rivaroxaban is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis on the effectiveness of all antithrombotic regimens studied in PAD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were major adverse limb events (MALE) and acute limb ischaemia (ALI). For each outcome, a frequentist network meta-analysis was used to compare relative risks (RRs) between medication and ASA. ASA was the universal comparator since a majority of studies used ASA as in the reference group. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were identified including 48,759 patients. With regard to reducing MACE, clopidogrel [RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93], ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), ASA plus ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97), and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93) were more effective than ASA, and equally effective to one another. As compared to ASA, major bleedings occurred more frequently with vitamin K antagonists, rivaroxaban, ASA plus vitamin K antagonists, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban. All regimens were similar to ASA concerning MALE, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing ALI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.80). Subgroup analysis in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization revealed that ≥ 3 months after intervention, evidence of benefit regarding clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and ASA plus ticagrelor was lacking, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing MACE (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97) and MALE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) compared to ASA. ASA plus clopidogrel was not superior to ASA in preventing MACE ≥ 3 months after revascularization. Evidence regarding antithrombotic treatment strategies within 3 months after a peripheral intervention was lacking. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel, ticagrelor, ASA plus ticagrelor, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban are superior to ASA monotherapy and equally effective to one another in preventing MACE in PAD. Of these four therapies, only ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban provides a higher risk of major bleedings. More than 3 months after peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban is superior in preventing MACE and MALE compared to ASA but again at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding, while other treatment regimens show non-superiority. Based on the current evidence, clopidogrel may be considered the antithrombotic therapy of choice for most PAD patients, while in patients who underwent a peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban could be considered for the long-term (> 3 months) prevention of MACE and MALE.

Multicenter experience of upper extremity access in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

PURPOSE: Upper extremity access (UEA) for antegrade cannulation of aortic side branches is a relevant part of endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and can be achieved using several techniques, sites, and sides. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different UEA strategies in a multicenter registry of complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: In six aortic centers in the Netherlands, all endovascular aortic procedures from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received UEA during complex EVAR were included. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any access complication, excluding minor hematomas. Secondary outcomes were access characteristics, access complications considered individually, access reinterventions, and incidence of ischemic cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients underwent 437 UEA for 303 fenestrated/branched EVARs and 114 chimney EVARs. Twenty patients had bilateral, 295 left-sided, and 102 right-sided UEA. A total of 413 approaches were performed surgically and 24 percutaneously. Distal brachial access (DBA) was used in 89 cases, medial brachial access (MBA) in 149, proximal brachial access (PBA) in 140, and axillary access (AA) in 59 cases. No significant differences regarding the composite end point of access complications were seen (DBA: 11.3% vs MBA: 6.7% vs PBA: 13.6% vs AA: 10.2%; P = .29). Postoperative neuropathy occurred most after PBA (DBA: 1.1% vs MBA: 1.3% vs PBA: 9.3% vs AA: 5.1%; P = .003). There were no differences in cerebrovascular complications between access sides (right: 5.9% vs left: 4.1% vs bilateral: 5%; P = .75). Significantly more overall access complications were seen after a percutaneous approach (29.2% vs 6.8%; P = .002). In multivariate analysis, the risk for access complications after an open approach was decreased by male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.72; P = .009), whereas an increase in age per year (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.004-1.179; P = .039) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 1.20-11.41; P = .023) increased the risk. CONCLUSIONS: Between the four access localizations, there were no differences in overall access complications. Female sex, diabetes mellitus type 2, and aging increased the risk for access complications after a surgical approach. Furthermore, a percutaneous UEA resulted in higher complication rates than a surgical approach.

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guideline Development Scheme: An Overview of Evidence Quality Assessment Methods, Evidence to Decision Frameworks, and Reporting Standards in Guideline Development.

OBJECTIVE: A structured and transparent approach is instrumental in translating research evidence to health recommendations and evidence informed clinical decisions. The aim was to conduct an overview and analysis of principles and methodologies for health guideline development. METHODS: A literature review on methodologies, strategies, and fundamental steps in the process of guideline development was performed. The clinical practice guideline development process and methodology adopted by the European Society for Vascular Surgery are also presented. RESULTS: Sophisticated methodologies for health guideline development are being applied increasingly by national and international organisations. Their overarching principle is a systematic, structured, transparent, and iterative process that is aimed at making well informed healthcare choices. Critical steps in guideline development include the assessment of the certainty of the body of evidence; evidence to decision frameworks; and guideline reporting. The goal of strength of evidence assessments is to provide well reasoned judgements about the guideline developers' confidence in study findings, and several evidence hierarchy schemes and evidence rating systems have been described for this purpose. Evidence to decision frameworks help guideline developers and users conceptualise and interpret the construct of the quality of the body of evidence. The most widely used evidence to decision frameworks are those developed by the GRADE Working Group and the WHO-INTEGRATE, and are structured into three distinct components: background; assessment; and conclusions. Health guideline reporting tools are employed to ensure methodological rigour and transparency in guideline development. Such reporting instruments include the AGREE II and RIGHT, with the former being used for guideline development and appraisal, as well as reporting. CONCLUSION: This guide will help guideline developers/expert panels enhance their methodology, and patients/clinicians/policymakers interpret guideline recommendations and put them in context. This document may be a useful methodological summary for health guideline development by other societies and organisations.

Nationwide Experience with EVAS Relining of Previous Open or Endovascular AAA Treatment in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Relining of a previously placed surgical graft or endograft for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a reintervention to treat progression of disease or failure of the primary (endo)graft. Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) relining is a technique with potential advantages due to the absence of a bifurcation, the possibility for a unilateral approach, and sealing concept of the endobags. The purpose of this study was to describe the nationwide experience with EVAS relining of previous AAA repair in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent EVAS relining in 7 high volume vascular centres in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were perioperative outcomes, complications and survival. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent EVAS relining of open (n = 10) or endovascular (n = 23) repair. 26 were elective cases, 5 were urgent and 2 were acute (ruptured). Mean time between primary treatment and EVAS relining was 99 ± 74 months. Indications after open repair were proximal progression of disease (n = 7) and graft defect (n = 3). Indications after EVAR were type IA (n = 10), type IB (n = 3), type IIIA (n = 4), type IIIB (n = 3) endoleak, and endotension (n = 3). 18 patients underwent regular EVAS, 4 unilateral EVAS and 11 chimney-EVAS. In-hospital mortality was 6% (both patients with rAAA). Technical success was achieved in 97%. Median follow-up after EVAS relining was 20 months (range 0-43). Freedom from reintervention at 1-year and 2-year were 83% and 61% and the estimated survival 79% and 71%, respectively. EVAS relining after open repair had a clinical success of 90% at 1-year and of 70% at latest follow-up, while after EVAR clinical success rates were 70% and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION: EVAS relining of previous AAA repair is associated with high technical success, however with limited clinical success at median follow-up of 20 months. Clinical success was higher in patients with EVAS relining after open repair than after EVAR. In patients with failed AAA repair, EVAS relining should only be considered, when established techniques such as fenestrated repair or open conversion are not available or indicated.