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

Technical pitfalls and proposed modifications of instructions for use for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder conformable device in angulated and short landing zones

We describe a case of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and angulated proximal neck treated with a Gore Excluder conformable endoprosthesis and show relevant technical pitfalls in the deployment of the graft main body. An 82-year-old man presented with a 71-mm asymptomatic AAA with an angulated infrarenal proximal neck (75°) and was referred to our unit. The patient was treated with a 26-mm Gore Excluder conformable device, which was deployed slightly above the renal arteries after precatheterization of the lowest renal artery. The graft was then repositioned with support of the introducer sheath and a stiff guide wire. The proximal sealing zone was ballooned before the endograft delivery system was retrieved to avoid distal migration. Technical success was achieved. The patient was discharged with no complications. No type Ia endoleak was present on the 6-month computed tomography scan. Endovascular treatment of an AAA with a severe angulated proximal neck can be effective with a conformable stent graft if technical measures are used during deployment of the main body to optimize the seal.</p

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. Methods:Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan–Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. Results: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p &lt; .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 – 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p &lt; .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p &lt; .001). Conclusion: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.</p

Results of the United States multicenter prospective study evaluating the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft for treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the results of a prospective, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) for treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with juxtarenal AAAs were prospectively enrolled in 14 centers in the United States from 2005 to 2012. Custom-made fenestrated stent grafts were designed with one to three fenestrations on the basis of analysis of computed tomography data sets. Renal alignment was performed with balloon-expandable stents. Follow-up included clinical examination, laboratory studies, mesenteric-renal duplex ultrasound, abdominal radiography, and computed tomography imaging at hospital discharge and at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months and yearly thereafter up to 5 years. RESULTS: There were 54 male and 13 female patients with a mean age of 74 ± 8 years enrolled. Mean aneurysm diameter was 60 ± 10 mm. A total of 178 visceral arteries required incorporation with small fenestrations in 118, scallops in 51, and large fenestrations in nine. Of these, all 118 small fenestrations (100%), eight of the scallops (16%), and one of the large fenestrations (11%) were aligned by stents. Technical success was 100%. There was one postoperative death within 30 days (1.5%). Mean length of hospital stay was 3.3 ± 2.1 days. No aneurysm ruptures or conversions were noted during a mean follow-up of 37 ± 17 months (range, 3-65 months). Two patients (3%) had migration ≥ 10 mm with no endoleak, both due to cranial progression of aortic disease. Of a total of 129 renal arteries targeted by a fenestration, there were four (3%) renal artery occlusions and 12 (9%) stenoses. Fifteen patients (22%) required secondary interventions for renal artery stenosis/occlusion in 11 patients, type II endoleak in three patients, and type I endoleak in one patient. At 5 years, patient survival was 91% ± 4%, and freedom from major adverse events was 79% ± 6%; primary and secondary patency of targeted renal arteries was 81% ± 5% and 97% ± 2%, freedom from renal function deterioration was 91% ± 5%, and freedom from secondary interventions was 63% ± 9%. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates that endovascular repair of juxtarenal AAAs with the Zenith fenestrated AAA stent graft is safe and effective. Mortality and morbidity are low in properly selected patients treated in centers with experience in these procedures