Duplex ultrasound surveillance after femoropopliteal endovascular treatment for peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the current literature and establish a consensual recommendation on duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance after endovascular treatment of the femoropopliteal tract. METHODS: This systematic review conducted literature searches on DUS surveillance after endovascular treatment of the femoropopliteal tract, and event rates. The primary end point was primary assisted patency. Secondary end points were primary patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage for double-armed studies, and sensitivity and specificity of DUS compared with other surveillance methods for single-armed studies. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Articles were eligible if they compared DUS surveillance others surveillance methods. Prospective, large cohort studies reporting on long-term events after endovascular treatment were also included. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in five studies. Only one double-armed non-randomized study compared DUS surveillance with ankle-brachial index (ABI) follow-up after femoropopliteal stenting. The DUS group demonstrated improved primary assisted patency (84% versus 76% at 12 months and 68% versus 38% at 36 months, p=.008) and limb salvage (97% versus 83% at 12 months and 90% versus 50% at 36 months, p<.001) compared with ABI follow-up. In one single-armed study, DUS surveillance showed a high sensitivity (91%) and specificity (100%) in detecting restenosis. ABI and clinical follow-up demonstrated a low sensitivity (55%-67% and 52%-64%, respectively) but reasonable specificity (80%-85% and 82%-88%, respectively) in detecting restenosis. CONCLUSION: The scarce available evidence suggests a clinical benefit of DUS surveillance after endovascular treatment of the femoropopliteal tract.

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.

Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI): a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0-76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5-76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8-10·5]; p<0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9-6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. FUNDING: Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

The Ratio Between the Infrarenal and Suprarenal Aortic Diameter Is a Predictor of Durable Proximal Seal After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the suprarenal aortic diameter is a predictor for a durable proximal seal after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A total of 439 patients who underwent elective EVAR between 2004 and 2018 in a single vascular referral center met our inclusion criteria. Ratios were calculated by dividing the mean infrarenal neck diameter by 4 different suprarenal aortic diameters. Patients who developed a late type 1A endoleak (n=20) or proximal neck dilatation mandating revision (n=8) were compared with the 411 patients without long-term proximal seal complications. RESULTS: Patients who developed a late type 1A endoleak had more frequently hypertension, a shorter infrarenal neck length, and a larger mean infrarenal neck diameter. The ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to all 4 suprarenal aortic diameters was higher in the late type 1A endoleak group compared with the group without a late type 1A endoleak. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression identified a combination of 6 variables as the best combination to predict a late type 1A endoleak: presence of hypertension, increased mean infrarenal neck diameter, decreased aneurysm neck length, larger ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), larger ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the upper renal artery, and increased ß-angle. Of these, based on both the univariate area under the curve (AUC) and optimal LASSO model restricted to a single predictor, the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA (AUC, 0.770; cutoff value, 0.997) was considered the best prognostic variable. CONCLUSION: The ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA is a good predictor for a late type 1A endoleak. Patients with mean infrarenal neck diameter larger than the diameter proximal to the SMA (ratio >1) are at risk for a late type 1A endoleak. CLINICAL IMPACT: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we found that the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA is a good predictor for a late type 1A endoleak. We conclude that the suprarenal diameter must be taken into account before assessing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair eligibility. Patients with a ratio >1 may not be the best candidates for a durable result after EVAR and may be better off with fenestrated EVAR or open repair.

Targeted proteomics and metabolomics for biomarker discovery in abdominal aortic aneurysm and post-EVAR sac volume.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients undergo uniform surveillance programs both leading up to, and following surgery. Circulating biomarkers could play a pivotal role in individualizing surveillance. We applied a multi-omics approach to identify relevant biomarkers and gain pathophysiological insights. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 108 AAA patients and 200 post-endovascular aneurysm repair (post-EVAR) patients were separately investigated. We performed partial least squares regression and ingenuity pathway analysis on circulating concentrations of 96 proteins (92 Olink Cardiovascular-III panel, 4 ELISA-assays) and 199 metabolites (measured by LC-TQMS), and their associations with CT-based AAA/sac volume. RESULTS: The median (25th-75th percentile) maximal diameter was 50.0 mm (46.0, 53.0) in the AAA group, and 55.4 mm (45.0, 64.2) in the post-EVAR group. Correcting for clinical characteristics in AAA patients, the aneurysm volume Z-score differed 0.068 (95 %CI: (0.042, 0.093)), 0.066 (0.047, 0.085) and -0.051 (-0.064, -0.038) per Z-score valine, leucine and uPA, respectively. After correcting for clinical characteristics and orthogonalization in the post-EVAR group, the sac volume Z-score differed 0.049 (0.034, 0.063) per Z-score TIMP-4, -0.050 (-0.064, -0.037) per Z-score LDL-receptor, -0.051 (-0.062, -0.040) per Z-score 1-OG/2-OG and -0.056 (-0.066, -0.045) per Z-score 1-LG/2-LG. CONCLUSIONS: The branched-chain amino acids and uPA were related to AAA volume. For post-EVAR patients, LDL-receptor, monoacylglycerols and TIMP-4 are potential biomarkers for sac volume. Additionally, distinct markers for sac change were identified.

Surveillance After Surgical and Endovascular Treatment for Peripheral Artery Disease: a Dutch Survey.

OBJECTIVE: At present, there is no clear, optimal approach to surveillance after invasive treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in terms of modality, duration, clinical benefit, and cost effectiveness. The ongoing debate on the clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of standard surveillance creates a clear knowledge gap and may result in overtreatment or undertreatment. In this study, a survey was conducted among vascular surgeons in the Netherlands to assess the currently applied surveillance programmes. METHODS: All vascular surgeons from the Dutch Society for Vascular Surgery received an online survey on follow up after open and endovascular revascularisation in patients with PAD. Surveillance was defined as at least one follow up visit after intervention with or without additional imaging or ankle brachial index (ABI) measurement. Ten types of PAD intervention were surveyed. RESULTS: Surveys were returned by 97 (46.2%) of 210 vascular surgeons, and 76% reported using a routine follow up protocol after an invasive intervention. Clinical follow up only is most commonly performed after femoral endarterectomy (53%). After peripheral bypass surgery, clinical follow up only is applied rarely (4 - 8%). In six of the 10 interventions surveyed, duplex ultrasound (DUS) was the most used imaging modality for follow up. After bypass surgery, 76 - 86% of vascular surgeons perform DUS with or without ABI measurement. After endovascular interventions, 21 - 60% performed DUS surveillance. Lifelong surveillance is most often applied after aortobifemoral bypass (57%). Surveillance frequency and duration vary greatly within the same intervention. Frequencies range from every three or six months to annually. Duration ranges from one time surveillance to lifelong follow up. CONCLUSION: There is significant practice variation in surveillance after surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with PAD in the Netherlands. Prospective studies to evaluate treatment outcomes and to define the clinical need and cost effectiveness of standardised surveillance programmes for patients with PAD are recommended.