New Bacteriological Patterns in Primary Infected Aorto-iliac Aneurysms: A Single-centre Experience

AbstractObjectivesTo assess causative pathogens and surgical outcomes in patients with primary infected aorto-iliac aneurysms at our institution.DesignRetrospective study of patients treated at a university hospital between 1992 and 2009.ResultsWe identified 26 patients (median age, 63 years) with primary infected aneurysms on the aorta (descending thoracic, n = 2; thoraco-abdominal, n = 3; suprarenal, n = 2; infrarenal, n = 15) or iliac arteries (n = 4). Among them, 22 were symptomatic, including 13 with ruptured aneurysms. The causative organisms, identified in 25/26 patients, were Campylobacter fetus, n = 6; Streptococcus pneumoniae, n = 4; Listeria, n = 3; Salmonella, n = 2; Mycobacterium tuberculosis, n = 2; Staphylococcus aureus, n = 1; and other, n = 7. Immune suppression was a feature in 10 (38.4%) patients. Revascularisation was performed in situ in 23 patients (10 allografts, eight grafts, three superficial femoral veins, and 2 stentgrafts) and by extra-anatomic bypass in three patients.Hospital mortality was 23% (in situ group, 17.4%; extra-anatomic group, 66.7%; χ2 Yates, P = 0.24). During follow-up in the 20 survivors (median, 48.5 months), there were two non-infection-related deaths (five and 24 months) and six (30%) vascular complications.ConclusionsThe bacteriological spectrum of primary infected aorto-iliac aneurysms was wider than previously reported. The availability of new diagnostic tests and increased prevalence of immunosuppression may explain this finding

Status Update and Interim Results from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2)

Objectives: ACST-2 is currently the largest trial ever conducted to compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis requiring revascularization. Methods: Patients are entered into ACST-2 when revascularization is felt to be clearly indicated, when CEA and CAS are both possible, but where there is substantial uncertainty as to which is most appropriate. Trial surgeons and interventionalists are expected to use their usual techniques and CE-approved devices. We report baseline characteristics and blinded combined interim results for 30-day mortality and major morbidity for 986 patients in the ongoing trial up to September 2012. Results: A total of 986 patients (687 men, 299 women), mean age 68.7 years (SD ± 8.1) were randomized equally to CEA or CAS. Most (96%) had ipsilateral stenosis of 70-99% (median 80%) with contralateral stenoses of 50-99% in 30% and contralateral occlusion in 8%. Patients were on appropriate medical treatment. For 691 patients undergoing intervention with at least 1-month follow-up and Rankin scoring at 6 months for any stroke, the overall serious cardiovascular event rate of periprocedural (within 30 days) disabling stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and death at 30 days was 1.0%. Conclusions: Early ACST-2 results suggest contemporary carotid intervention for asymptomatic stenosis has a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, on par with other recent trials. The trial continues to recruit, to monitor periprocedural events and all types of stroke, aiming to randomize up to 5,000 patients to determine any differential outcomes between interventions. Clinical trial: ISRCTN21144362. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a 48-h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. Methods: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C-statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. Results: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48-h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C-statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C-statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. Conclusion: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life-saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non-intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family

Systematic versus selective stent placement after superficial femoral artery balloon angioplasty: a multicenter prospective randomized study

AbstractPurpose: Outcome with selective or systematic stenting with the Palmaz vascular stent was compared in patients with limb-threatening ischemia or persistent disabling claudication despite medical therapy, with less than 7 cm stenosis or occlusion of the superficial femoral artery. Methods: This was a multicenter prospective randomized trial with centralized allocation of treatment and independent review of vascular events. The primary end point was presence of more than 50% stenosis at 1-year angiographic follow-up. Secondary end points were survival; occurrence of vascular events in the treated leg; and number of failed procedures, defined as more than 50% stenosis or death at 1 year. Results: Two hundred twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the study, 112 in the selective stent group, and 115 in the systematic stent group. Seventeen patients (15%) in the selective stent group received a stent after suboptimal results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Angiograms for 140 patients were available at 1-year follow-up and demonstrated no statistical difference between the two groups; more than 50% stenosis of the dilated site was noted in 21 of 65 patients (32,3%) in the selective stent group and 26 of 75 patients (34.7%) in the systematic stent group (P =.85, Fisher exact test). Survival in the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stent groups was, respectively, 92% and 96% at 1 year, 89% and 93% at 2 years, and 82% and 80% at 4 years (P =.40, log-rank test). Survival free of new vascular events in the treated limb was 77% and 65% at 1 year, 70% and 53% at 2 years, and 57% and 44% at 4 years (P =.017, log-rank test). Number of failed procedures at 1 year was 29 of 86 (33%) and 30 of 89 (34%) (P = 0.9). Conclusion: Systematic stenting of short stenosis or occlusion of the superficial femoral artery is not justified. Palmaz vascular stent placement should be reserved for use in patients with suboptimal results of balloon angioplasty. (J Vasc Surg 2003;37:487-94.

Editor's Choice – Thirty day Outcomes and Costs of Fenestrated and Branched Stent Grafts versus Open Repair for Complex Aortic Aneurysms

ObjectiveTo compare 30 day outcomes and costs of fenestrated and branched stent grafts (f/b EVAR) and open surgery (OSR) for the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA).MethodsThe multicenter prospective registry WINDOW was set up to evaluate f/b EVAR in high risk patients with para/juxtarenal AAA, and infradiaphragmatic and supradiaphragmatic TAAA. A control group of patients treated by OSR was extracted from the national hospital discharge database. The primary endpoint was 30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included severe complications, length of stay, and costs. Mortality was assessed by survival analysis and uni/multivariate Cox regression analyses using pre- and post-operative characteristics. Bootstrap methods were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of f/b EVAR versus OSR.ResultsTwo hundred and sixty eight cases and 1,678 controls were included. There was no difference in 30 day mortality (6.7% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.40), but costs were higher with f/b EVAR (€38,212 vs. €16,497, p < .001). After group stratification, mortality was similar with both treatments for para/juxtarenal AAA (4.3% vs. 5.8%, p = .26) and supradiaphragmatic TAAA (11.9% vs. 19.7%, p = .70), and higher with f/b EVAR for infradiaphragmatic TAAA (11.9% vs. 4.0%, p = .010). Costs were higher with f/b EVAR for para/juxtarenal AAA (€34,425 vs. €14,907, p < .0001) and infradiaphragmatic TAAA (€37,927 vs. €17,530, p < .0001), but not different for supradiaphragmatic TAAA (€54,710 vs. €44,163, p = .18).Conclusionf/b EVAR does not appear justified for patients with para/juxtarenal AAA and infradiaphragmatic TAAA fit for OSR but may be an attractive option for patients with para/juxtarenal AAA not eligible for surgery and patients with supradiaphragmatic TAAA. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01168037; identifier: NCT01168037 (WINDOW registry)