Frequency and consequences of early in-stent lesions after carotid artery stent placement.

PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of in-stent lesions 1 month after carotid artery stent placement with multidetector computed tomography (CT) angiography and to evaluate their possible causes and their consequences during 1-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis underwent multidetector CT angiography of the carotid arteries 1 month after carotid artery stent placement. Patients were followed-up until 1 year after stent placement, when duplex ultrasonography (US) was performed. In-stent lesions were defined as hypo- or hyperattenuating lesions at the stent wall found with multidetector CT. Significant restenosis (70%) at 1 year was defined as a peak systolic velocity of more than 300 cm/sec at duplex US. The Fisher exact test was used to assess the relationship between early in-stent lesions and ischemic events and restenosis. RESULTS: At 1 month, 14 of the 69 patients (20%) were found to have in-stent lesions. In one patient, the stent was occluded. The other 13 in-stent lesions did not result in significant lumen reduction. In the year following stent placement, no difference in ischemic events was found between patients with (14%) and those without (13%) early in-stent lesions (P = .99). There was no difference in the occurrence of restenosis at 1 year (7% vs 4%, P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 month after carotid artery stent placement, in-stent lesions are found in about one-fifth of patients. These lesions do not appear to be related to recurrent ischemic events or to restenosis at 1 year

Adjusted Hospital Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery Reported in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Vascular Surger

Toward Optimizing Risk Adjustment in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Vascular Surger

Saccular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Patient Characteristics, Clinical Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes in the Netherlands

Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold.Vascular Surger