Limb salvage and survival after urgent surgical treatment of popliteal artery aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) need urgent treatment in case of acute thrombosis, distal embolization, or rupture. Few data are available in the literature about the treatment results in these scenarios. The aim of the present study was to evaluate an 11-year multicenter experience in the urgent treatment of PAAs. METHODS: All symptomatic PAAs surgically treated in two vascular centers between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. In the postoperative period periodical clinical and Duplex-Ultrasound evaluation were performed. The evaluated endpoint was the outcome of urgent PAAs treatment according to their clinical presentation. Statistical analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier log-rank evaluation and multivariable Cox regression tests. RESULTS: Sixty-six PAAs needed an urgent repair. Twelve (18%) patients had a PAA rupture and 54 (82%) had an acute limb ischemia (ALI) due to either distal embolization or acute thrombosis. Patients with ALI underwent bypass surgery in 51 (95%) cases, which was associated with preoperative thrombolysis in 18 (31%) cases. A primary major amputation was performed in 3 (5%) cases. The mean follow-up was 52 ± 21 months with an overall 5-year limb salvage of 83 ± 6%. Limb salvage was influenced only by the number of patent tibial arteries (pTA) [5-years limb salvage 0%, 86 ± 10%, 92 ± 8% and 100% in case of 0, 1, 2 or 3 pTA, respectively (P = .001)]. An independent association of number of pTA and limb loss was found [hazard ratio (HR): 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.6), P = .001]. Overall 5-year survival was 71 ± 7%. Ruptured PAAs were associated with lower 5-year survival compared with the ALI group (48 ± 2% vs. 79 ± 7%, P = .001). The number of pTA (33 ± 20%, 65 ± 10%, 84 ± 10% and 80 ± 10% for 0, 1, 2 and 3 pTA, respectively, P = .001) and the thrombolysis (94 ± 6% vs. 62 ± 10%, P = .03) were associated with higher survival in patients with ALI. There was an independent association of number of pTA and long-term survival [HR 0.15 (95% CI 0.03-0.8), P = .03]. CONCLUSIONS: PAA rupture is the cause of urgent PAA treatment in almost one fifth of cases, and it is associated with lower long-term survival. ALI can benefit from thrombolysis, and long-term limb salvage and survival are associated with the number of pTA.

Aorto-iliac and infrainguinal artery occlusive disease: different revascularization options according to the critical limb threatening ischemia category.

BACKGROUND: Critical limb threatening-ischemia (CLTI) can be due to an extensive involvement of both the aorto-iliac (AI) and the infra-inguinal (II) districts and the efficacy of and extensive AI+II vs. only AI revascularization is still matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome in CLTI patients with concomitant AI and II peripheral artery disease (PAD) after revascularization limited to the AI or extended also to the II segment. METHODS: Patients with CLTI and concomitant AI (TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus: C-D) and II PAD (Global-Anatomic-Staging-System: II-III) from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were compared according to type of revascularization: limited to AI vs. AI+II. Common femoral and profunda artery endarterectomy (C/P-TEA) was considered in both groups. Perioperative mortality, limb salvage, foot healing (within 6 months after surgery), necessity of adjunctive revascularization and survival were analyzed and the follow-up performed with clinical and duplex assessment every six months. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the composite event of limb salvage, wound healing and necessity of adjunctive revascularization during follow-up in AI vs. AI+II groups, through Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Over a total of 1105 peripheral revascularizations for CLTI, 96 (8.7%) patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. AI revascularization was performed in 38 (40%) and AI+II in 58 (60%). AI and AI+II groups were similar for preoperative risk factors and extension of PAD with the exception of American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Classification (ASA IV: 50% vs. 25%, P=0.02, respectively). The AI group was treated with angioplasty/stenting in all cases and with C/P-TEA in 20 (52%) cases. In the AI+II group, the AI district was treated by angioplasty/stenting in 55 (95%) and by aorto-bifemoral bypass in 3 (5%) and C/P-TEA in 20 (34%). The II revascularization was performed by femoro-popliteal/tibial bypass in 27 (47%); and endovascular revascularization in 31 (53%) patients. Minor amputation rate was similar between AI and AI+II revascularization (39% vs. 48%, P=1.0); length of stay, blood transfusion units, were significantly higher in AI+II group: 7±4 days vs. 12±5 days, P=0.04 and 2±2 vs. 4±2, P=0.02. The 30-day mortality was 7% with no differences according to the type of treatment. At a mean follow-up of 28±10 months, the overall limb salvage was 87±4% with similar results in AI vs. AI+II revascularization (95±5% vs. 86±6%; P=0.56). AI had a higher necessity of adjunctive revascularization and lower wound healing compared to AI+II (18±9% vs. 0%, P=0.02; 72% vs. 100%, P=0.001, respectively). AI+II was associated with a better primary endpoint compared to AI (87±5% vs. 53±9%, P=0.01), and it was confirmed in Rutherford 5 and 6 patients (100% vs. 54±14%, P=0.01; 78±9 vs. 50±13%, P=0.04), and no differences in Rutherford 4 (100% vs. 100%). Cox regression analysis confirmed AI+II as an independent protector for the primary outcome (hazard ratio: 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: CLTI with extensive PAD disease can be treated with limited AI revascularization in Rutherford 4 patients however in case of category 5 or 6 an extensive revascularization (AI+II) should be considered.

Guideline on carotid surgery for stroke prevention: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. A trend towards personalized medicine.

BACKGROUND: This guideline (GL) on carotid surgery as updating of "Stroke: Italian guidelines for Prevention and Treatment" of the ISO-SPREAD Italian Stroke Organization-Group, has recently been published in the National Guideline System and shared with the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and other Scientific Societies and Patient's Association. METHODS: GRADE-SIGN version, AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions formulated according to the PICO model. Recommendations developed based on clinical questions by a multidisciplinary experts' panel and patients' representatives. Systematic reviews performed for each PICO question. Considered judgements filled by assessing the evidence level, direction, and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel provided indications and recommendations for appropriate, comprehensive, and individualized management of patients with carotid stenosis. Diagnostic and therapeutic processes of the best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) according to the evidences and the judged opinions were included. Symptomatic carotid stenosis in elective and emergency, asymptomatic carotid stenosis, association with ischemic heart disease, preoperative diagnostics, types of anesthesia, monitoring in case of CEA, CEA techniques, comparison between CEA and CAS, post-surgical carotid restenosis, and medical therapy are the main topics, even with analysis of uncertainty areas for risk-benefit assessments in the individual patient (personalized medicine [PM]). CONCLUSIONS: This GL updates on the main recommendations for the most appropriate diagnostic and medical-surgical management of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. This GL also provides useful elements for the application of PM in good clinical practice.

Anesthetic management of carotid endarterectomy: an update from Italian guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In order to systematically review the latest evidence on anesthesia, intraoperative neurologic monitoring, postoperative heparin reversal, and postoperative blood pressure management for carotid endarterectomy. The present review is based on a single chapter of the Italian Health Institute Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis and stroke prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic article review focused on the previously cited topics published between January 2016 and October 2020 has been performed; we looked for both primary and secondary studies in the extensive archive of Medline/PubMed and Cochrane library databases. We selected 14 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 13 randomized controlled trials, 8 observational studies, and 1 narrative review. Based on this analysis, syntheses of the available evidence were shared and recommendations were indicated complying with the GRADE-SIGN version methodology. CONCLUSIONS: From this up-to-date analysis, it has emerged that any type of anesthesia and neurological monitoring method is related to a better outcome after carotid endarterectomy. In addition, insufficient evidence was found to justify reversal or no-reversal of heparin at the end of surgery. Furthermore, despite a low evidence level, a suggestion for blood pressure monitoring in the postoperative period was formulated.