Ischemic liver lesions mimicking neoplasm in a patient with severe chronic mesenteric ischemia

Chronic mesenteric ischemia most frequently presents with abdominal pain, weight loss, and food fear. Ischemic involvement of the liver is infrequent because of the dual blood supply via the portal vein and hepatic artery. Hepatic infarction has been associated with embolization, thrombosis, arterial injury, prothrombotic states, and impairment of portal venous flow. We report a patient with chronic mesenteric ischemia and severe mesenteric arterial disease who presented with large liver masses suspicious for neoplasm. Tissue samples from two hepatic biopsies confirmed ischemic lesions. After open surgical mesenteric revascularization, the patient had complete symptom improvement and nearly complete regression of the liver lesions

Outcomes of carotid artery stenting versus historical surgical controls for radiation-induced carotid stenosis

PurposeTo evaluate the outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and open surgical repair (OR) for treatment of radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 60 patients treated for 73 RICSs from a group of 5,824 patients who had carotid interventions between 1992 and 2009. Thirty-three patients (37 arteries) were treated with CAS and 27 patients (36 arteries) with OR. CAS was performed using embolic protection as part of a prospective institutional registry since 2003. End-points included mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cranial nerve injury (CNI), wound complication, restenosis, and reintervention.ResultsDemographics and cardiovascular risk factors were similar in both groups, with the exception of higher rates (P < .05) of hyperlipidemia (81% vs 56%) and coronary artery disease (63% vs 33%) in OR patients. There were more patients with tracheostomy (31% vs 4%) and time interval from irradiation to intervention was longer in the CAS group. There were no early deaths. At 30 days, OR was associated with one (3%) stroke, two (5.5%) MIs, six (17%) CNIs, and three (8%) wound complications. OR patients with prior radical neck dissections had more wound complications (14% vs 5%) and CNIs (28% vs 9%) compared with those without neck dissections. In the CAS group, there were two (6%) strokes and no MIs, CNIs, or wound complications. Mean length of hospital stay was longer after OR than CAS (4.1 ± 3.7 days vs 2.4 ± 2.1 days; P = .02). Median follow-up was 58 months. At 7 years, OR was associated with higher patient survival (75% ± 15% vs 29% ± 13%, P = .008) and freedom from neurological events (100% vs 57% ± 9.5%, P = .058), but similar freedom from restenosis (80% ± 10% vs 72% ± 9%) and reinterventions (87% ± 10% vs 86% ± 9%) compared with CAS.ConclusionCarotid artery stenting for radiation-induced stenosis has the advantages of no CNI or wound complications with similar early stroke rate compared with open carotid repair. However, the lower freedom from neurological events may offset the early benefits of carotid stenting in patients who are considered good candidates for open surgery

Migration of superior vena cava stent

There has been a recent increase in the use of endovascular prostheses resulting in complex surgical and interventional complications not previously recognised. We report a case of Superior vena cava stenosis treated with a wallstent which migrated to the right atrium, necessitating a combined radiological and surgical approach to retrieve it

Outcomes of “Anterior Versus Posterior Divisional Branches of the Hypogastric Artery as Distal Landing Zone for Iliac Branch Devices”: The International Multicentric R3OYAL Registry

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of “anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).” Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P =.18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups (P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test =.215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test =.009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test <.001). Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA. Clinical Impact: The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

Objective: To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices. Methods: A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques. Results: Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 – 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 – 12.1; p =.026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 – 9.6; p =.019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 – 20.7; p =.001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 – 9.0; p =.013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 13.8; p =.037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 – 31.1; p =.007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p <.001). Conclusion: AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure

Editor's Choice - Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms: A Delphi Consensus Document on Terminology, Definition, Classification, Diagnosis, and Reporting Standards.

There is no consensus regarding the terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, or reporting standards for the disease of infective native aortic aneurysm (INAA), previously known as mycotic aneurysm. The aim of this study was to establish this by performing a consensus study. The Delphi methodology was used. Thirty-seven international experts were invited via mail to participate. Four two week Delphi rounds were performed, using an online questionnaire, initially with 22 statements and nine reporting items. The panellists rated the statements on a five point Likert scale. Comments on statements were analysed, statements revised, and results presented in iterative rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% of the panel selecting "strongly agree" or "agree" on the Likert scale, and consensus on the final assessment was defined as Cronbach's alpha coefficient &gt; .80. All 38 panellists completed all four rounds, resulting in 100% participation and agreement that this study was necessary, and the term INAA was agreed to be optimal. Three more statements were added based on the results and comments of the panel, resulting in a final 25 statements and nine reporting items. All 25 statements reached an agreement of ≥ 87%, and all nine reporting items reached an agreement of 100%. The Cronbach's alpha increased for each consecutive round (round 1 = .84, round 2 = .87, round 3 = .90, and round 4 = .92). Thus, consensus was reached for all statements and reporting items. This Delphi study established the first consensus document on INAA regarding terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, as well as reporting standards. The results of this study create essential conditions for scientific research on this disease. The presented consensus will need future amendments in accordance with newly acquired knowledge

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality. Results: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach. Conclusions: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years