Paraplegia as a symptom of failure after endovascular therapy of type B aortic dissection in Marfan syndrome

This report describes successful treatment of an unusual case of concomitant paraplegia and type 1 endoleak during the early postoperative course of endovascular therapy of type B dissection in a patient with Marfan syndrome

Percutaneous coil embolization of postcatheterization arterial femoral pseudoaneurysms

AbstractStudy Design: This study was a prospective monocentric study to assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous embolization with coils of postcatheterization femoral pseudoaneurysm (PCFP). Patients and Methods: Seventeen PCFPs of 32-mm mean diameter in 16 patients were embolized while anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy was maintained. Ultrasound scan-guided compression repair failed at least one time in 13 cases and was contraindicated in the four remaining cases. With ultrasound-Doppler scan guidance, the PCFPs were percutaneously punctured with a 16-gauge intravenous catheter. An angiogram was performed through the catheter to ensure its location within the sac. Stainless steel spring coils with synthetic fibers were introduced within the PCFP with fluoroscopic control. Successful thrombosis was checked with ultrasound-Doppler scan and was repeated at days 1, 30, and 180 when possible. Results: All PCFPs of 32-mm mean diameter were successfully treated with two to nine coils. After embolization, gentle additional compression was necessary for complete occlusion, with a mean duration of 6.3 minutes (range, 0 to 15 minutes), except in one case with treatment with abciximab in which it was 45 minutes. All procedures were uneventful and painless. The mean follow-up period was 9.5 months (range, 1 to 21 months). Two recurrences (11.7%) were observed, and one was successfully treated with a second embolization. Conclusion: Percutaneous embolization with coils appears to be a safe and effective method for treatment of PCFP. It may be performed in patients undergoing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and must be attempted when ultrasound scan-guided compression repair has failed or is contraindicated. (J Vasc Surg 2002;36:127-31.

Ponowne zabiegi u chorych leczonych z powodu tętniaka aorty brzusznej stentgraftami wewnątrznaczyniowymi - wskazania, czynniki ryzyka i rokowanie

Background. The aim of this study was evaluation of secondary interventions defined as procedures performed to close endoleak, or to improve limb patency after endovascular AAA repair and to assess their predictive factors and prognosis. Material and methods. Patient’s data and follow-up events of all patients who underwent endovascular repair of AAA between January 1995 and November 2001 in our institution were prospectively collected and stored in our database. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of secondary reintervention during follow-up. Age, sex, type of AAA, AAA diameter, comorbidities, type of graft and period of treatment were compared using a univariate analysis. Prognosis was assessed by comparison of life table analysis. Interventional success defined as the lack of AAA conversion or rupture were also compared in both groups. Results. Two hundred and six patients were included in the study. During follow-up, thirty-two patients (16%) required 47 secondary interventions. Respectively 22 and 10 patients were treated with endovascular methods to close various type of endoleaks or were operated on to restore limb blood flow. The only significant predictive factor of secondary reintervention was the type of grafts: early generation 29/101(28.7%) versus the latest generation 3/102 (2.9%). The survival rate was not statistically different in both groups. The interventional success was significantly different 27/32 (84.4%) versus 173/174 (99.4%) Conclusions. Secondary reinterventions which mainly with early generation grafts improved outcome of endovascular AAA repair in 15% of the cases. However no death could be attributed to these reinterventions or to conversions.Wstęp. Celem pracy była ocena powikłań powodujących konieczność wykonania dodatkowych zabiegów likwidujących przeciek lub udrożniających stentgraft u chorych poddanych wewnątrznaczyniowemu leczeniu tętniaków aorty brzusznej (TAB) oraz zbadanie wpływu analizowanych powikłań na odległe wyniki terapii. Materiał i metody. W okresie od stycznia 1995 do listopada 2001 r. na Oddziale Chirurgii Naczyń Hospital Henri Mondor w Creteil metodą wewnątrznaczyniową, stosując stentgrafty aortalne, zoperowano 205 chorych z TAB. W celu przeprowadzenia badania chorych podzielono na dwie grupy: grupę pierwszą stanowili pacjenci wymagający przeprowadzenia ponownych zabiegów, drugą - chorzy niewymagający ponownych zabiegów. Wiek, płeć, rodzaj, wymiary tętniaka, obciążenia, rodzaj stentgraftu i okres obserwacji porównano, stosując odpowiednie analizy statystyczne. Wykonano analizę przeżycia chorych, uwzględniając odległe wyniki leczenia. W obu grupach porównano powodzenie zabiegu zdefiniowane jako brak konwersji do metody otwartej lub pęknięcie TAB. Wyniki. W badaniu uczestniczyło 206 chorych. Podczas obserwacji 32 chorych (16%) wymagało 47 ponownych zabiegów. W celu zlikwidowania przecieku leczono 22 chorych, natomiast 10 chorych poddano terapii z powodu niedrożności stentgraftu z wykorzystaniem technik wewnątrznaczyniowych lub metodą otwartą. Jedynym istotnym statystycznie czynnikiem związanym z liczbą ponownych zabiegów był rodzaj stentgraftu: starsza generacja 29/101 (28,7%), nowsza generacja 3/102 (2,9%). Czas przeżycia w obu grupach nie różnił się w sposób istotny statystycznie. Wyniki w poszczególnych grupach były następujące: 27/32 (84,4%) w pierwszej grupie, 173/174 (99,4%) w drugiej grupie. Wnioski. Ponowne zabiegi spowodowały poprawę wyników w 15% przypadków, obserwowano je głównie w grupie chorych z starszymi typami stentgraftów. Wśród osób poddanych ponownym zabiegom i konwersjom do metody otwartej nie zanotowano przypadków śmiertelnych

Cardiac troponin I assessment and late cardiac complications after carotid stenting or endarterectomy

PurposeWhen compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), percutaneous carotid angioplasty with stent replacement (CAS) is a less invasive technique in the treatment of carotid stenosis. However, periprocedural hemodynamic instability still remains a challenge. This instability might lead to myocardial damage, which is now measured accurately by using cardiac troponin I (CTnI).MethodsThis study was designed to compare the periprocedural variation of CTnI in 150 consecutive patients scheduled to undergo CEA (n = 75) or CAS (n = 75). The levels of CTnI were measured until the third postoperative day in all patients. Short-term (1 month) and long-term (up to 5 years) postoperative cardiac outcome were assessed by means of chart review, regular follow-ups, and telephone calls.ResultsThere was not any statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the demographic characteristics and preprocedural medical status. The incidence of increase of CTnI (>0.5 ng/mL) was significantly higher in the CEA group (13%) compared with that in the CAS group (1%; P = .001). During the acute postprocedural period, the CAS group was significantly more prone to hypotension, requiring vasopressor therapy, whereas the CEA group had more hypertension, necessitating hypotensive medications (P < .001). At 5 years, the overall incidence of major cardiac complications (nonfatal myocardial infarction and death related to cardiac origin) was significantly more frequent in the CEA group (20% vs 5%, P < .01).ConclusionThe results of our study suggest that CAS yielded less myocardial damage in the short and long term when compared with CEA. Larger randomized multicenter trials with long-term outcomes are necessary to confirm our findings

Carotid stenting: is there an operator effect? A pooled analysis from the carotid stenting trialists' collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized clinical trials show higher 30-day risk of stroke or death after carotid artery stenting compared with surgery. We examined whether operator experience is associated with 30-day risk of stroke or death in the Carotid Stenting Trialists' Collaboration database. METHODS: The Carotid Stenting Trialists' Collaboration is a pooled individual patient database including all patients recruited in 3 randomized trials of stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial, and International Carotid Stenting Study). Lifetime carotid artery stenting experience, lifetime experience in stenting procedures excluding the carotid, and annual number of procedures performed within the trial (in-trial volume), divided into tertiles, were used to measure operator experience. The outcome event was the occurrence of any stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The analysis was done per protocol. RESULTS: Among 1546 patients who underwent carotid artery stenting, 120 (7.8%) had a stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The 30-day risk of stroke or death did not differ according to operator lifetime carotid artery stenting experience (P=0.8) or operator lifetime stenting experience excluding the carotid (P=0.7). In contrast, the 30-day risk of stroke or death was significantly higher in patients treated by operators with low (mean ≤3.2 procedures/y; risk 10.1%; adjusted risk ratio=2.30 [1.36-3.87]) and intermediate annual in-trial volumes (3.2-5.6 procedures/y; 8.4%; adjusted risk ratio=1.93 [1.14-3.27]) compared with patients treated by high annual in-trial volume operators (>5.6 procedures/y; 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid stenting should only be performed by operators with annual procedure volume ≥6 cases per year

Incidence, natural course, and outcome of type II endoleaks in infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair based on the ENGAGE registry data

Objective: The purpose of this study was to report the incidence, natural history, and outcome of type II endoleaks in the largest prospective real-world cohort to date. Methods: Patients were extracted from the prospective Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE). Two groups were analyzed: first, patients with an isolated type II endoleak; and second, patients with a type II endoleak who later presented with a type I endoleak. A health status analysis between patients with an early type II endoleak and patients with no endoleak was performed. Second, an attempt was made to identify risk factors in patients with a type II endoleak who later presented with a type I endoleak. Results: Through 5 years of follow-up, a total of 197 (15.6%) patients with isolated type II endoleaks were identified. Most were detected within the first 30 days (n = 73 [37.1%]) and through the first year (n = 73 [37.1%]), with the remainder being detected after 1 year of follow-up (n = 51 [25.8%]). Patients with a type II endoleak had a higher incidence of aneurysm growth and more secondary endovascular procedures (15.4% vs 7.5% at 5 years; P <.001). Overall survival was higher in the isolated type II endoleak group compared with patients with no endoleak (77.2% vs 67.0% at 5 years; P =.010). Twenty-two patients (10%) with a type II endoleak were diagnosed with a late type I endoleak (type IA, n = 10; type IB, n = 12), with a secondary intervention rate of 67.5% through 5 years. There was no difference in health status scores between patients with an early type II endoleak and patients without any type of endoleak at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: In the ENGAGE registry, isolated type II endoleaks are present in 15.6% of patients during follow-up. The majority do not require secondary intervention, and an early isolated type II endoleak does not have an impact on health status through 1 year. However, a small group of patients with a type II endoleak will present with a type I endoleak, resulting in a high secondary intervention rate and significant risk of aneurysm-related complications

Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Results From 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. METHODS: We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0-7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. RESULTS: Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 (P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732

Prediction Models for Clinical Outcome After a Carotid Revascularization Procedure.

Background and Purpose- Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods- From a literature review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2184 carotid artery stenting and 2261 carotid endarterectomy patients from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated 7 long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with C statistics and calibration plots. Results- Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after carotid artery stenting and in 84 (3.7%) patients after carotid endarterectomy. Most models for short-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (n=4) or carotid endarterectomy (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (C statistics ranging from 0.49-0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had a slightly better performance with C statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions- Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome seemed to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients

Five Year Outcomes of the Endurant Stent Graft for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the ENGAGE Registry

Objective/background: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonly used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the incidence of long-term complications and the need for re-interventions after EVAR remains a concern. Newer generation stent grafts have encouraging short and mid-term outcomes, but thorough analysis of their long-term performance is necessary. Methods: The ENGAGE registry includes a total of 1263 patients with AAA enrolled from March 2009 to April 2011 at 79 centres across 30 countries. The aim of this study is to present standard EVAR outcomes in the registry after five years. Results: A significant proportion of the ENGAGE patients presented with challenging features, such as 15.2% with an AAA diameter >7 cm, 12.0% with proximal neck lengths 60°. Of the 1263 enrolled subjects, 17.8% were implanted outside of the instructions for use for the device. At the five year follow up, the Kaplan–Meier overall survival rate was 67.4% and the freedom from aneurysm related mortality was 97.8%. Freedom from aneurysm rupture, secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair at five years were 98.6%, 84.3%, and 97.9% respectively. The five year freedom from type IA endoleaks was 95.2% and for type III endoleaks 97.4%. Aneurysm sac diameter at five years was observed to have either decreased ≥5 mm in diameter or remained stable in 89.4% of the patients. Conclusion: Five year follow up of patients in the ENGAGE registry demonstrates sustained safety, effectiveness, and durability in an international cohort that is reflective of real world experience. Additional follow up is expected through to 10 years

Long-term outcomes of stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: The risk of periprocedural stroke or death is higher after carotid artery stenting (CAS) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, long-term outcomes have not been sufficiently assessed. We sought to combine individual patient-level data from the four major randomised controlled trials of CAS versus CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis to assess long-term outcomes. METHODS: We did a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data, acquired from the four largest randomised controlled trials assessing the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy trial, International Carotid Stenting Study, and Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial). The risk of ipsilateral stroke was assessed between 121 days and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was the composite risk of stroke or death within 120 days after randomisation (periprocedural risk) or subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years after randomisation (postprocedural risk). Analyses were intention-to-treat, with the risk of events calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards analysis with adjustment for trial. FINDINGS: In the four trials included, 4775 patients were randomly assigned, of whom a total of 4754 (99·6%) patients were followed up for a maximum of 12·4 years. 21 (0·4%) patients immediately withdrew consent after randomisation and were excluded. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2·0 to 6·9 years. 129 periprocedural and 55 postprocedural outcome events occurred in patients allocated CEA, and 206 and 57 for those allocated CAS. After the periprocedural period, the annual rates of ipsilateral stroke per person-year were similar for the two treatments: 0·60% (95% CI 0·46-0·79) for CEA and 0·64% (0·49-0·83) for CAS. Nonetheless, the periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined favoured CEA, with treatment differences at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 years all ranging between 2·8% (1·1-4·4) and 4·1% (2·0-6·3). INTERPRETATION: Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA were similar, suggesting robust clinical durability for both treatments. Although long-term outcomes (periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined) continue to favour CEA, the similarity of the postprocedural rates suggest that improvements in the periprocedural safety of CAS could provide similar outcomes of the two procedures in the future. FUNDING: None