Branch Thrombus after Endovascular Treatment with Arch Branched Devices for Aortic Arch Pathologies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the occurrence of branch thrombosis following endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology using an arch branched device (ABD) and to determine whether this is influenced by clinical and geometric parameters. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study of patients treated with an ABD in three centres, the primary endpoint was thrombus formation within a branch during follow up. Secondary endpoints were technical success, serious adverse events (SAEs), early and late death, stroke, and re-interventions. Geometric measurements (tortuosity index and curvature) were determined on pre-operative and post-operative computed tomography angiographies. RESULTS: Thirty nine patients were treated and 68 antegrade branches were analysed (innominate artery, n = 27; common carotid artery [CCA], n = 40; left subclavian artery [LSA], n = 1). Thrombus was identified within seven branches (10%) on surveillance imaging (innominate artery, n = 6; CCA, n = 1; LSA, n = 0; p = .021) and was associated with a wider distal bridging stent diameter (median 14.0 mm [interquartile range {IQR} 2.0] vs. 8.7 mm [IQR 5.9]; p = .026), a higher degree of reversed tapering (4.3 mm [IQR 1.4] vs. 1.2 mm [IQR 2.8]; p = .023), use of polyethylene terephthalate (Dacron) covered (vs. expanded polytetrafluoroethylene) bridging stents (23% vs. 2%; p = .011), and higher body mass index (BMI) (32.1 kg/m2 [IQR 7.5] vs. 25.7 kg/m2 [IQR 5.4]; p = .029), but not with pre-operative or post-operative tortuosity index or curvature or alterations. Regarding secondary outcomes, the technical success rate was 97%, SAEs occurred in 15 patients (38%), early and late death rates were 8% and 23%, respectively, and early and late stroke rates were 5% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The risk of developing branch thrombosis after endovascular intervention with an ABD is considerable, especially of innominate artery branches, characterised by Dacron covered large diameter bridging stents, and in patients with a high BMI. Large prospective studies are required to analyse factors associated with branch thrombosis.

European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm. BACKGROUND: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes. RESULTS: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). BACKGROUND: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P <0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P <0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P <0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

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.

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.

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach. CONCLUSIONS: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.

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.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Survey of Current Clinical Practice in European Medical Centers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the daily clinical practice in European hospitals regarding the modalities to prevent spinal cord ischemia, with an emphasis on cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), in patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular repair. DESIGN: A 21-item online survey on current practice of spinal cord protection with an emphasis on CSFD. SETTING: Online service using Castor EDC software. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and European Society of Vascular Surgeons. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred eighty invitations were sent and 104 were used for analysis. A majority of respondents used a written protocol for spinal cord protection during endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair (81/104 = 78%). The most common protective measures used were CSFD (79/81 = 98%), controlled hypertension (59/81 = 73%), drugs (11/81 = 14%), and hypothermia (6/81 = 7%). The two most common indications for placement of a spinal catheter were the length of the stent (83/104 = 80%) and location of aneurysm (71/104 = 68%). Preventive placement of the spinal drain (96/104) is the most common approach. In the subgroup of high-volume centers, 86% (12/14) of the respondents used a written protocol and all protocols include CSFD. Ninety-two percent (11/12) had included controlled arterial hypertension in the protocol compared with 70% (48/69) of the non-high-volume centers respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of European centers use a written protocol that includes CSFD. This survey showed the similarities and differences in the management of CSFD in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair.

Endovascular Treatment of Post Type A Chronic Aortic Arch Dissection With a Branched Endograft: Early Results From a Retrospective International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aortic arch repair for chronic dissection with a custom-made branched endograft. BACKGROUND: Acute type A aortic dissections are often treated with prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta. During follow-up, repair of an aneurysmal evolution of the false lumen distal to the ascending prosthesis can be a challenge both for the surgeon and the patient. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive patients from 14 vascular units treated with a custom-made, inner-branched device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for chronic aortic arch dissection. Rates of in-hospital mortality and stroke, technical success, early and late complications, reinterventions, and mortality during follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy consecutive patients were treated between 2011 and 2018. All patients were considered unfit for conventional surgery. In-hospital combined mortality and stroke rate was 4% (n = 3), including 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke causing death, and 1 death following multiorgan failure. Technical success rate was 94.3%. Twelve (17.1%) patients required early reinterventions: 8 for vascular access complication, 2 for endoleak correction, and 2 for pericardial effusion drainage. Median follow-up was 301 (138-642) days. During follow-up, 20 (29%) patients underwent secondary interventions: 9 endoleak corrections, 1 open repair for prosthetic kink, and 10 distal extensions of the graft to the thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta. Eight patients (11%) died during follow-up because of nonaortic-related cause in 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch chronic dissections with a branched endograft is associated with low mortality and stroke rates but has a high reintervention rate. Further follow-up is required to confirm the benefits of this novel approach.

Role of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Phenotypic Switching and Calcification in Aortic Aneurysm Formation.

Aortic aneurysm is a vascular disease whereby the ECM (extracellular matrix) of a blood vessel degenerates, leading to dilation and eventually vessel wall rupture. Recently, it was shown that calcification of the vessel wall is involved in both the initiation and progression of aneurysms. Changes in aortic wall structure that lead to aneurysm formation and vascular calcification are actively mediated by vascular smooth muscle cells. Vascular smooth muscle cells in a healthy vessel wall are termed contractile as they maintain vascular tone and remain quiescent. However, in pathological conditions they can dedifferentiate into a synthetic phenotype, whereby they secrete extracellular vesicles, proliferate, and migrate to repair injury. This process is called phenotypic switching and is often the first step in vascular pathology. Additionally, healthy vascular smooth muscle cells synthesize VKDPs (vitamin K-dependent proteins), which are involved in inhibition of vascular calcification. The metabolism of these proteins is known to be disrupted in vascular pathologies. In this review, we summarize the current literature on vascular smooth muscle cell phenotypic switching and vascular calcification in relation to aneurysm. Moreover, we address the role of vitamin K and VKDPs that are involved in vascular calcification and aneurysm. Visual Overview- An online visual overview is available for this article.

Comparing Mobile C-Arm with a Hybrid Operating Room for Imaging in Fenestrated Stent-Graft Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the advantages of a hybrid operating room (OR) (group 2) compared with a fluoroscopic mobile C-arm (group 1) during fenestrated stent-graft endovascular aneurysm repair (f-EVAR). METHODS: This single-center study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data of consecutive patients treated with f-EVAR for short-necked, juxtarenal, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms between January 2006 and July 2016. Primary end points were technical success and perioperative complications. Secondary end points included 30-day and 1-year mortality as well as target vessel patency. RESULTS: About 96 patients were treated (85 men; 74.1 ± 6.3 years); 46 patients (48%) belonging to group 1 and 50 (52%) patients belonging to group 2. Technical success was achieved in 92.7% of the procedures (group 1 91.3% vs. group 2 94%, P = 0.72). Significantly more complex interventions were performed in group 2 (n = 38 of 50) compared with group 1 (n = 14 of 46; P < 0.001), in which primarily renal f-EVAR interventions were performed. In group 2, significantly less contrast was used (median 150 mL vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality in group 1 was 9% and 2% in group 2 (P = 0.14), and 1-year survival was also not significantly different between both groups. Target visceral vessel primary patency was significantly higher in group 1 (87.6% vs. 85.5% [P = 0.006] and 83.8% vs. 78.3% [P = 0.03]) at 6 and 12 months, respectively). There was no significant difference in renal artery primary patency at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate and 1-year outcomes after f-EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm were comparable using a hybrid OR compared with a mobile C-arm, despite the use of significantly more complex stent grafts in the patients treated in the hybrid OR. The use of a hybrid OR may assist in achieving satisfying results in complex f-EVAR.

Can Electric Nose Breath Analysis Identify Abdominal Wall Hernia Recurrence and Aortic Aneurysms? A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Introduction. This pilot study evaluates if an electronic nose (eNose) can distinguish patients at risk for recurrent hernia formation and aortic aneurysm patients from healthy controls based on volatile organic compound analysis in exhaled air. Both hernia recurrence and aortic aneurysm are linked to impaired collagen metabolism. If patients at risk for hernia recurrence and aortic aneurysms can be identified in a reliable, low-cost, noninvasive manner, it would greatly enhance preventive options such as prophylactic mesh placement after abdominal surgery. Methods. From February to July 2017, a 3-armed proof-of-concept study was conducted at 3 hospitals including 3 groups of patients (recurrent ventral hernia, aortic aneurysm, and healthy controls). Patients were measured once at the outpatient clinic using an eNose with 3 metal-oxide sensors. A total of 64 patients (hernia, n = 29; aneurysm, n = 35) and 37 controls were included. Data were analyzed by an automated neural network, a type of self-learning software to distinguish patients from controls. Results. Receiver operating curves showed that the automated neural network was able to differentiate between recurrent hernia patients and controls (area under the curve 0.74, sensitivity 0.79, and specificity 0.65) as well as between aortic aneurysm patients and healthy controls (area under the curve 0.84, sensitivity 0.83, and specificity of 0.81). Conclusion. This pilot study shows that the eNose can distinguish patients at risk for recurrent hernia and aortic aneurysm formation from healthy controls.

Duplex-guided versus Conventional Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty of Iliac TASC II A and B Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) requires the use of nephrotoxic contrast. Patients with chronic kidney disease are more prone to develop contrast-induced nephropathy after utilization of contrast. Doppler ultrasound (duplex)-guided PTA (DuPTA) is a novel technique and has recently proven to be a successful alternative to conventional PTA in the treatment of iliac stenotic disease, without the use of contrast. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated whether DuPTA is as effective as conventional PTA in the treatment of iliac arterial stenotic disease. METHODS: From June 2013 till January 2017, 142 patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD), with significant (>70%) iliac stenotic lesions (both isolated and patients with multilevel disease without treatment of other lesions), were randomized to receive either conventional PTA or DuPTA of the iliac lesion, regardless of renal function. All patients received an ankle-brachial index, arterial mapping with duplex, and magnetic resonance angiography in the pre-operative work-up. Primary end point was procedural success, defined as passing the guidewire through the stenotic lesion and performing a PTA, with or without stenting. Reduction in peak systolic velocity (PSV) of ≥50% after successful PTA was required in the DuPTA group. Angiographic reduction of more than 50% was required in the interventional group. Decrease in PSV was evaluated in both groups 4 weeks post-procedure. RESULTS: Passing of the guidewire through the stenotic lesion was achieved in 96.5% of the DuPTA group and 98.8% of the PTA group (P = 0.34). Although PSV decreased significantly in both groups 4 weeks post-operative, PSV reduction ≥50% was significantly higher in the DuPTA group, respectively 78% vs. 58% in the PTA group (P < 0.01). The utilization of stents was significantly greater in the DuPTA group (52% vs. 18%, P < 0.01). After correction of potential confounders, significant difference in ≥50% PSV reduction remained; technical success did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: DuPTA is a feasible alternative to conventional PTA in the treatment of PAD on the iliac anatomic level. Duplex examination before removal of the guidewire is recommended to evaluate adequate decrease in PSV and identify potential recoil.

Editor's Choice - Open Thoracic and Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Repair After Prior Endovascular Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to present current results of open thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic repair as secondary procedure after prior endovascular therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross border single centre study. From 2006 to July 2017 45 open thoracic aortic (TAA) or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) operations were performed on 44 patients (median age 58 [15-80] years) as secondary surgery after previous endovascular therapy comprising TEVAR (n = 38; 86%), EVAR (n = 3; 7%), fenestrated EVAR (n = 1; 2%) and TEVAR plus EVAR (n = 1; 2%). Eleven patients (25%) had had previous open aortic surgery at the secondary surgery site. Indications for TAA(A) repair were Type I endoleak (n = 10; 23%), post-dissection aneurysm progression due to persisting false lumen perfusion (n = 8; 18%), proximal/distal disease progression (n = 16; 36%), device fracture/dislocation (n = 4; 9%), infection (n = 5; 11%), and initial endograft misplacement (n = 1; 2%). The operations included descending thoracic aortic repair (n = 13, 29%), TAAA Type I (n = 4; 9%), Type II (n = 5; 11%), Type III (n = 13; 29%), Type IV (n = 7; 16%), and Type V repair (n = 3; 7%) with simultaneous arch repair in 18% (n = 8). The median time to secondary surgery was 36 (2-168) months. The median follow up was 39 (3-118) months. RESULTS: In hospital mortality was 20% (n = 9) due to intra-operative aneurysm rupture, pneumonia induced sepsis, hemorrhagic cerebellar infarction, mesenteric ischaemia, broncho-esophageal fistula, and multiorgan failure (1/9) as well as haemorrhage (3/9). Estimated survival was 73% at 1 year and 71% overall. The most frequent complications were pneumonia (n = 19; 43%), bleeding requiring revision (n = 11; 25%) and sepsis (n = 14; 32%). Transient dialysis was required in 32% (n = 14), permanent dialysis in 6% (n = 2). Permanent spinal cord deficit (paraparesis) occurred in 6% (n = 2). Estimated freedom from aortic re-intervention was 86%. CONCLUSION: Open TAA(A) repair as a secondary procedure after previous endovascular aortic therapy is an important treatment option even in the endovascular era. It represents a durable treatment that can produce respectable outcomes. Yet the peri-operative morbidity and mortality are relevant and a specialised team and infrastructure are mandatory for these complex procedures. Therefore, centralisation is required.

Editor's Choice - Open Thoracic and Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Repair in Patients with Connective Tissue Disease.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The aim is to present current results of open complex aortic repair in patients with connective tissue disease (CTD). METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-border, single centre study. From February 2000 to April 2016 72 aortic operations were performed on 65 patients with CTD (41 male, median age 41 years [range 19-70 years]). Fifty-six patients (86%) underwent at least one previous aortic repair (71 open, four endovascular), including 33 patients (51%) operated before at the site of the procedure reported here. The open procedures, counting eight emergency operations (11%), included aortic arch revision (n = 1; 1%), descending thoracic aortic repair (n = 11; 15%), TAAA type I repair (n = 12; 17%), type II repair (n = 29; 40%), type III repair (n = 12; 17%), and type IV repair (n = 5; 7%). Simultaneous repair of the ascending aorta and/or the aortic arch was performed in two (3%) and eight cases (11%), respectively. Seven patients (10%) underwent staged procedures. Median follow-up was 42 months (0.5-180 months). RESULTS: The in hospital mortality was 14% (n = 9) as a result of haemorrhage (n = 3/9), neurological (n = 3/9), cardiac (n = 2/9), and pulmonary (n = 1/9) complications. Paraplegia and paraparesis occurred in one (2%) and three patients (5%), respectively. Seven patients (11%) required temporary dialysis; none needed permanent dialysis. Major complications were revision surgery for bleeding or haematoma (n = 20/65), sepsis (n = 10/65), myocardial infarction/severe cardiac arrhythmia (n = 2/65), stroke (n = 2/65), as well as multiorgan failure, abdominal compartment syndrome, mesenteric and peripheral ischaemia (all n = 1/65). Multivariate analysis identified an operating time > 7 hours (p = .006) as an independent predictor of increased mortality. Freedom from re-intervention was 85%, 1 year survival was 80%, and overall survival was 75%. CONCLUSION: Open TAA(A) repair is a durable therapy for patients with CTD. Often being performed as revision surgery, it can be associated with relevant risks and should therefore be reserved for specialised centres. Staged procedures and thus reducing operating time, if applicable, should be preferred.

Loss of Kidney Function after Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Administration of radiocontrast during endovascular procedures for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may cause acute kidney injury, which generally recovers with supportive treatment. Long-term effects of endovascular procedures on renal function remain to be investigated. METHOD: This retrospective observational cohort study includes all patients who newly presented to the vascular surgery outpatient clinic with Rutherford class II or III PAD and who were treated with either supervised exercise therapy or endovascular interventions. Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) after 1 year were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Multivariate regression analysis and propensity score-matched paired analysis were done to correct for potential confounders. RESULTS: One year after treatment, eGFR was reduced by 8.6 mL/min (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-9.9, P < 0.001) after endovascular intervention (n = 284) and by 1.7 mL/min (95% CI, 0.9-25, P < 0.001) after supervised exercise therapy (n = 299). After correction for potential confounders, endovascular interventions were associated with 9.2 mL/min (95% CI, 5.9-12.4, P < 0.001) more renal decline compared to exercise therapy. Similar results were found in the propensity score-matched paired analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular procedures for PAD are associated with clinically relevant and long-term loss of kidney function.

Loss of kidney function in patients with critical limb ischemia treated endovascularly or surgically.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury after the administration of contrast material during endovascular procedures for peripheral arterial disease generally recovers with supportive treatment. However, long-term effects of endovascular procedures for critical limb ischemia on renal function remain to be investigated. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study included all patients who newly presented to the vascular surgery outpatient clinic with Rutherford class 4 to class 6 peripheral arterial disease and who were treated with either endovascular or surgical interventions. Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after 1 year were compared between the two types of intervention. Multivariate linear regression analysis was done to correct for potential confounders. RESULTS: One year after treatment, eGFR was reduced by 15.0 mL/min (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-17.0; P < .001) after endovascular interventions (n = 209) and by 7.6 mL/min (95% CI, 5.1-10.0; P < .001) after surgical therapy (n = 81). Although eGFR rates decreased in both groups, loss of renal function was significantly greater in patients after endovascular interventions (P < .001). Furthermore, 77% of patients receiving endovascular interventions experienced fast renal decline (defined as >4 mL/min loss of eGFR within 1 year) compared with 54% of patients treated surgically (P < .001). After correction for potential confounders, endovascular intervention was associated with 7.4 mL/min (95% CI, 5.4-9.3; P < .001) greater loss of renal function compared with patients treated surgically. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular procedures for critical limb ischemia are associated with clinically relevant permanent long-term loss of kidney function. This loss of renal function is greater than in comparable patients who were treated with open surgery.

Endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms: prevalence of acute kidney injury and effect on long-term renal function.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse predictors for short- and long-term renal function changes after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: A total of 157 patients underwent fenestrated and branched EVAR. Procedural intra-arterial iodinated contrast volume was documented. Serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline, during 48 h following EVAR, at discharge and latest moment of follow-up were recorded. Development of post-EVAR acute kidney injury (AKI; according to AKIN criteria), and potential risk factors for renal failure were recorded. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for AKI and eGFR decrease during follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (28 %) developed post-EVAR AKI. Long procedure time and occlusion of accessory renal arteries were independent risk factors for development of AKI. (odds ratio (OR) 1.005 per minute, 95 % CI 1.001-1.01; p = 0.025 and OR 3.02, 95 % CI 1.19-8.16; p = 0.029). Post-EVAR AKI was associated with a significantly increased risk for eGFR decrease at discharge and latest follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 3.47, 95 % CI 1.63-7.36, p = 0.001 and HR 3.01, 95 % CI 1.56-5.80; p = 0.001). Iodinated contrast volume was not an independent risk factor for AKI or eGFR decrease during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Development of post-EVAR AKI is an independent risk factor for long-term renal function decrease. KEY POINTS: • Longer procedure time is associated with an increased risk for AKI. • Renal perfusion defects on angiography are associated with increased risk for AKI. • Post-EVAR AKI is associated with higher probability for long-term eGFR decrease. • Iodinated contrast volume is not an independent risk factor for AKI. • Iodinated contrast volume is not an independent risk factor for long-term eGFR decrease.

Individualized CT Angiography Protocols for the Evaluation of the Aorta: A Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: Ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast media are potential drawbacks to repetitive follow-up CT angiography in current practice. The aim of the present study was to optimize radiation dose and contrast agent volume by using individualized CT angiography protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients referred for CT angiography of the whole aorta were prospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into groups of patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 28 kg/m(2) (group 1; n = 50) and those with a BMI ≥ 28 kg/m(2) (group 2; n = 30). A control group consisted of 50 consecutive patients who were retrospectively evaluated. CT angiography parameters on a second-generation dual-source scanner were 128 × 0.6-mm collimation, pitch of 0.9, rotation time of 0.33 seconds, tube voltages of 80/100/120 kVp (group 1/group 2/control), reference tube current of 400 mA, and image reconstruction at 1-mm/0.8-mm slice thickness (kernels, B30f [control] and I30f/strength 3 [groups 1/2]). The control group received 120 mL of contrast agent (300 mgI/mL) at 4.8 mL/s; groups 1 and 2 received 44 mL and 53 mL at 3.3 mL/s and 4 mL/s, respectively. Effective dose was evaluated for each patient. Image quality was determined by qualitative image analysis at the levels of the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic aorta as nondiagnostic, diagnostic, good, or excellent, and quantitative image analysis was performed, including attenuation values and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: Mean effective radiation dose values for CT angiography of the aorta were 3.7 mSv ± 0.7 in group 1, 6.7 mSv ± 1.4 in group 2, and 8.7 mSv ± 1.9 in the control group (P < .001). Mean attenuation values and CNR levels were 334 HU ± 66 and 16 ± 8, respectively, in group 1, 277 HU ± 56 and 14 ± 5 in group 2, and 305 HU ± 77 and 11 ± 4 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative reconstruction algorithms resulted in 23%-57% less radiation in combination with 55%-63% less contrast agent volume compared with standard CT protocols.

Radiation Exposure during Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular interventions often are the preferred treatment in peripheral arterial disease for both intermittent claudication and chronic critical limb ischemia. Ever more advanced and anatomically complex procedures are being performed, which may increase the radiation exposure of patients and medical staff. We sought to determine the radiation exposure sustained in contemporary interventional radiology practice. METHODS: A single-center observational cohort study of patients undergoing endovascular interventions for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease between January 1st, 2011 and July 31st, 2013 was performed. Radiation dose area product (DAP), peak skin dose (PSD), fluoroscopy time, and volume of contrast media were either measured or calculated and stratified according to patient demographics and anatomic location. RESULTS: In 951 patients, who were treated with endovascular interventions, mean DAP was 108 ± 88 Gy × cm(2) and mean fluoroscopy time was 13 ± 12 min. DAP was significantly higher for aortoiliac procedures (142 ± 103 Gy × cm(2)) compared with femoral (58 ± 73 Gy × cm(2)), below-knee (45 ± 51 Gy × cm(2)) and multilevel (83 ± 90 Gy × cm(2)) procedures (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). PSD was significantly higher for aortoiliac procedures (0.99 ± 0.54 Gy) compared with femoral (0.55 ± 0.55 Gy), below-knee (0.48 ± 0.27 Gy), and multilevel (0.68 ± 0.47 Gy) procedures (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In contrast, mean fluoroscopy time in aortoiliac interventions was significantly shorter (10 ± 15 min) compared with femoral (15 ± 12 min), below-knee (19 ± 10 min), and multilevel (23 ± 14 min) procedures (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular interventions in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease involve a substantial radiation dose. Although fluoroscopy time is shorter, aortoiliac interventions result in greater radiation exposure than femoropopliteal or infrapopliteal interventions.