Technical and Clinical Outcome of Talent versus Endurant Endografts for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

The technical evolution of endografts for the interventional management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has allowed a continuous expansion of indications. This study compares the established Talent endograft with its successor, the Endurant endograft, taking individual aortoiliac anatomy into account.From June 2007 to December 2010, 35 patients with AAA were treated with a Talent endograft (33 men) and 36 patients with an Endurant endograft (34 men). Aortoiliac anatomy was evaluated in detail using preinterventional computed tomography angiography. The 30-day outcome of both groups were compared regarding technical and clinical success as well as complications including endoleaks.The Endurant group included more patients with unfavorable anatomy (kinking of pelvic arteries, p = 0.017; shorter proximal neck, p = 0.084). Primary technical success was 91.4% in the Talent group and 100% in the Endurant group (p = 0.115). Type 1 endoleaks occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Talent group and in 2.8% of those in the Endurant group (p = 0.614). Type 3 endoleaks only occurred in the Talent group (2.9% of patients; p = 0.493). Type 2 endoleaks were significantly less common in the Endurant group than in the Talent group (8.3% versus 28.6%; p = 0.035). Rates of major and minor complications were not significantly different between both groups. Primary clinical success was significantly better in the Endurant group (97.2%) than in the Talent group (80.0%) (p = 0.028).Endurant endografts appear to have better technical and clinical outcome in patients with difficult aortoiliac anatomy, significantly reducing the occurrence of type 2 endoleaks

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

Emergency intervention for thrombosed popliteal artery aneurysm: can the limb be salvaged?

We present a review and our own experience of the demographic aspects of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs), their clinical presentation, the treatment alternatives and associated outcome. The incidence of PAAs varies between 0,1-1%. 95% of the patients are male. 50% are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Annually, 5-24% of PAAs develop symptoms. The clinical presentation varies widely with an amputation rate of up to 78% in acute ischemic cases. The main indication for PAA repair is prevention of embolisation but acute revascularisation is the primary task in die emergency setting. Open surgery and endovascular techniques are described and can be combined with intraarterial thrombolysis as pre- or intraoperative treatment. The literature proves often inconclusive due to small numbers of heterogenous cases. Each case, therefore, needs to be assessed individually and offered the most suitable treatment

Influence of preoperative medical assessment prior to elective endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Aim. The aim of this study was to compare preoperative patient evaluation by a vascular physician with a standardized workup protocol prior to elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), in terms of differences in patient medication and mortality. Methods. Consecutive patients with infrarenal AAA treated with standard EVAR from 1998 to 2006 (group 2) and 2007 to 2011 (group 1) were compared. Patients in group 1 (N.=201) were investigated preoperatively by a vascular physician, evaluating comorbidities and medication. Patients in group 2 (N.=304) underwent a standardized preoperative work-up including spirometry and echocardiography. Median time of follow-up was 23 months in group 1 and 71 months in group 2. Results. The proportion of patients who had on-going medication with anti-platelet and lipid lowering medication at admission was higher in group 1 compared to group 2 (62% versus 51%; P=0.013 and 68% versus 35%; P<0.001). In group 1, the proportion of newly instituted or increased dosage of anti-hypertensive, anti-platelet or lipid lowering medication at preoperative evaluation was 40%, 24% and 31%, respectively. The total cost for preoperative assessment per patient was 272 (sic) in group 1 and 293 (sic) in group 2 (P<0.001). There was no difference in 30-day (P=0.29) or long-term (P.0.24) mortality between the two groups. Conclusion. Preoperative assessment by a vascular physician resulted in lower costs and improvement of medication against atherosclerosis, uncontrolled hypertension and perioperative ischemic cardiac events, but mortality was unaffected. [Int Angiol 2012;31:368-75

The Chimney Technique

A thoracic chimney graft is a stent or stent graft that is deployed in a supraaortic branch vessel, protruding somewhat proximally into the free aortic lumen like a chimney parallel to the main aortic stent graft. The chimney graft is used to preserve flow to vital aortic side branches covered by the main aortic stent graft. Standard off-the-shelf stent grafts can be used to instantly treat lesions with inadequate fixation zones. The chimney graft offers an alternative to fenestrated stent grafts in urgent cases, in aneurysms with challenging neck anatomy, and in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for reconstituting an unintentionally covered aortic side branch. We describe our experience with this technique and review the current literature. More data and further technical improvements are necessary before the chimney graft can be widely advocated