Lower Rate of Restenosis and Reinterventions With Covered vs Bare Metal Stents Following Innominate Artery Stenting

PURPOSE: To determine any difference between bare metal stents (BMS) and balloon-expandable covered stents in the treatment of innominate artery atheromatous lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study involving 13 university hospitals in France collected 93 patients (mean age 63.2±11.1 years; 57 men) treated over a 10-year period. All patients had systolic blood pressure asymmetry >15 mm Hg and were either asymptomatic (39, 42%) or had carotid (20, 22%), vertebrobasilar (24, 26%), and/or brachial (20, 22%) symptoms. Innominate artery stenosis ranged from 50% to 70% in 4 (4%) symptomatic cases and between 70% and 90% in 52 (56%) cases; 28 (30%) lesions were preocclusive and 8 (9%) were occluded. One (1%) severely symptomatic patient had a <50% stenosis. Demographic characteristics, operative indications, and procedure details were compared between the covered (36, 39%) and BMS (57, 61%) groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine relative risks of restenosis and reinterventions [reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. RESULTS: The endovascular procedures were performed mainly via retrograde carotid access (75, 81%). Perioperative strokes occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients. During the mean 34.5±31.2-month follow-up, 30 (32%) restenoses were detected and 13 (20%) reinterventions were performed. Relative risks were 6.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 22.2, p=0.001) for restenosis and 14.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 120.8, p=0.004) for reinterventions between BMS and covered stents. The severity of the treated lesions had no influence on the results. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with BMS for innominate artery stenosis have more frequent restenoses and reinterventions than patients treated with covered stents

Persistent left superior vena cava: Review of the literature, clinical implications, and relevance of alterations in thoracic central venous anatomy as pertaining to the general principles of central venous access device placement and venography in cancer patients

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) represents the most common congenital venous anomaly of the thoracic systemic venous return, occurring in 0.3% to 0.5% of individuals in the general population, and in up to 12% of individuals with other documented congential heart abnormalities. In this regard, there is very little in the literature that specifically addresses the potential importance of the incidental finding of PLSVC to surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other physicians actively involved in central venous access device placement in cancer patients. In the current review, we have attempted to comprehensively evaluate the available literature regarding PLSVC. Additionally, we have discussed the clinical implications and relevance of such congenital aberrancies, as well as of treatment-induced or disease-induced alterations in the anatomy of the thoracic central venous system, as they pertain to the general principles of successful placement of central venous access devices in cancer patients. Specifically regarding PLSVC, it is critical to recognize its presence during attempted central venous access device placement and to fully characterize the pattern of cardiac venous return (i.e., to the right atrium or to the left atrium) in any patient suspected of PLSVC prior to initiation of use of their central venous access device

Artériopathies périphériques juvéniles [Peripheral artery disease in patients younger than 50 years old: Which etiology?]

International audiencePeripheral arterial disease (PAD) encompasses disease of all arteries of the body except the coronary arteries. The main etiology whatever the patient's age is atherosclerosis. Different etiologies can induce PAD especially when patients are younger than 50 years old and have no cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes…). PAD that appears before 50 years old can be named juvenile PAD (JPAD) although there is no consensus about the definition. The aim of this work is to present the different etiologies of JPAD according to their hereditary, acquired or mixed origins. The following hereditary causes are addressed: Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, homocystinuria, pseudoxanthoma elasticum, osteogenesis imperfecta “mid-aortic” syndrome. Among the acquired etiologies, inflammatory JPADs without extravascular signs such as atherosclerosis and Buerger's disease, inflammatory JPADs with extravascular signs as Takayasu's disease, Behçet's disease and Cogan's syndrome, JPADs like aortitis, embolic JPADs, iatrogenic JPADs, and mechanical or traumatic JPADs are described. Finally, mixed origins as thrombotic disease and fibromuscular dysplasia are presented. This work will assist clinicians in the diagnosis of JPAD. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SA

A versatile intensity-based 3D/2D rigid registration compatible with mobile C-arm for endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm

International audienc

Compensation Géométrique Des Déformations Par Réseau Élastique De Neurones Auto Organisés En Navigation Endovasculaire.

International audienc

Patient-Specific Finite-Element Simulation of the Insertion of Guidewire During an EVAR Procedure: Guidewire Position Prediction Validation on 28 Cases

International audienc

Centerline is not as accurate as outer curvature length to estimate thoracic endograft length.

International audienceBACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of the aortic outer curvature length for thoracic endograft planning. METHODS: Seventy-four patients (58 men, 66.4 ± 14 years) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair between 2009 and 2011 treated with a Cook Medical endograft were enrolled in this retrospective study. Immediate postoperative CT scans were analysed using EndoSize software. Three vessel lengths were computed between two fixed landmarks placed at each end of the endograft: the straightline (axial) length, the centerline length and the outer curvature length. A tortuosity index was defined as the ratio of the centerline length/straightline length. A Student t test and a Pearson correlation coefficient were used to examine the results. RESULTS: We found a significant difference between the centerline length (135.4 ± 24 mm) and that of the endograft (160 ± 29 mm) (p < .0001). This difference correlates with the tortuosity index (r = .818, p < .0001), the endograft length (r = .587, p < .0001), and the diameter of the endograft (r = .53, p < .0001). However, the outer curvature length (161.3 ± 29 mm) and the endograft length (160 ± 29 mm) were similar (p = .792). CONCLUSION: The outer curvature length more accurately reflects that of the deployed endograft and may prove more accurate than centerlines in planning thoracic endografts