Guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment and management of visceral and renal arteries aneurysms: a joint assessment by the Italian Societies of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM)

: The objective of these Guidelines is to provide recommendations for the classification, indication, treatment and management of patients suffering from aneurysmal pathology of the visceral and renal arteries. The methodology applied was the GRADE-SIGN version, and followed the instructions of the AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions, structured according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) model, were formulated, and systematic literature reviews were carried out according to them. Selected articles were evaluated through specific methodological checklists. Considered Judgments were compiled for each clinical question in which the characteristics of the body of available evidence were evaluated in order to establish recommendations. Overall, 79 clinical practice recommendations were proposed. Indications for treatment and therapeutic options were discussed for each arterial district, as well as follow-up and medical management, in both candidate patients for conservative therapy and patients who underwent treatment. The recommendations provided by these guidelines simplify and improve decision-making processes and diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of patients with visceral and renal arteries aneurysms. Their widespread use is recommended

Emergency sclerotherapy in esophageal and gastric acutely variceal bleeding : ten years exp\ue9rience (1988-1997).

Emergency sclerotherapy in esophageal and gastric acutely variceal bleeding : ten years exp\ue9rience (1988-1997)

European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair

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

A national cross-sectional survey on time-trends for endovascular repair of genetically-triggered aortic disease and connective tissue disorders over two decades

Background: By this survey, we aim to gain national-based information regarding trends in endovascular repair (ER) for the treatment of aortic disease in patients with genetically-triggered aortic disease (GTAD) and connective tissue disorder (CTD) over the last two decades. Methods: All Italian vascular surgery centers (N.=80) were invited to participate in an anonymous electronic cross-sectional survey on ER for GTAD/CTD. Results: Overall, 29 institutions completed the survey, thereby yielding a 36% response rate. The percentage of responding institutions rises to 64% if only regional hubs were considered (23/36). The median number of index procedures per center was 6.2, and a steady increase in the overall number of interventions over time was also noted. Most patients were males (73%) with a median age of 48 years. The most common endovascular procedure was TEVAR (N.=101), followed by F/BEVAR (N.=43) and EVAR (N.=37). The overall technical success rate was 83.4% while major adverse events and mortality at thirty days were reported at 18.2% and 9.9%, respectively. An additional 5.0% mortality rate was noted for an overall one-year mortality of 14.9%, while 3.7% of all treated patients were diagnosed with a type 1 endoleak. Conclusions: This national cross-sectional survey, investigating trends in ER of GTADs and CTDs over two decades, highlights a consistent increase in the use of endovascular techniques for their treatment. Early mortality was acceptably low, yet influenced by the urgency of presentation. At one-year follow-up, a 5% additional death rate was noted, and the reintervention rate remained below one in ten

Comparison of aortoiliac repair with iliac branch endoprosthesis versus hypogastric occlusion in aortoiliac aneurysms

BACKGROUND: The CARIBE Study aims to assess the outcome of endovascular repair (EVAR) with iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) in patients with aorto-iliac aneurysms extending to iliac bifurcation, comparing these results with those of EVAR with hypogastric occlusion pres¬ ent in the recent published literature. METHODS: Patients with aorto-iliac aneurysms anatomically suitable for EVAR with IBE, are included in the study. RESULTS: Primary safety outcome measure are total and aneurysm related death free survival. Efficacy endpoints include: iliac branch patency, aneurysmal sac exclusion and freedom from reinterventions or conversion to open repair. Patient reported outcomes are evaluated with Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) and quality of life Euro-Qual EQ-5D Questionnaire. CONCLuSIONS: Comparison with recent hystorical literature obtained in patients with EVAR with HA occlusion will offer data useful for correct information of patients affected by aorto-iliac aneurysms

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

RIvaroxaban and VAscular Surgery (RIVAS): insights from a multicenter, worldwide web-based survey

no abstract availabl