44 research outputs found
The Mechanical Properties of Fresh and Cryopreserved Arterial Homografts
AbstractObjectives to assess the effect of cryopreservation on the elasticity and compliance of arterial allografts. Materials and methods iliofemoral segments of arteries and veins harvested from multiorgan donors were divided into two groups: fresh–control, tested for 24 hours after harvesting, and cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen after pretreatment with 20% dimethylsulphoxide and stored for an average time of 22 days. Vessel wall elastic properties were evaluated from the stress–strain relationship in a specially designed test cell fixed to the Instron Universal Testing Machine. Results the elastic modulus of the artery control group (1.54±0.33 MPa, n=20) was not significantly different from the cryopreserved group (1.69±0.61 MPa, n=15). Similarly, values for unfrozen veins (3.11±0.65 MPa, n=47) were not significantly different from those of frozen samples (2.71±0.85 MPa, n=38). Control compliance (6.86±1.79×10−5%/Pa, for arteries; 3.84±0.81×10−5%/Pa, for veins) was similar to that of the cryopreserved group (6.66±1.80×10−5%/Pa, for arteries; 4.16±1.21×10−5%/Pa, for veins). Conclusions cryopreservation maintains the important elastic properties of arterial and venous allografts during average storage time of 22 days
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
Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: incidence and endovascular management.
Surgical procedures designed to restore vascular patency for a recurrent stenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are burdened with technical difficulties as well as with the possibility of serious neurological complications. An endovascular approach employing transluminal percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) is a promising solution to these problems. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of carotid artery restenosis following CEA, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating post-CEA restenosis with an endovascular technique (PTAS). One hundred and two patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis were included in the analysis. Clinical and sonographic follow-up examinations identified carotid artery restenosis in 16 patients, who fulfilled our criteria for endovascular treatment. Carotid PTAS was performed on symptomatic patients with a stenosis over 60% of the artery lumen (n=7) and in asymptomatic patients with a stenosis over 80% (n=9). The post-PTAS patients were evaluated by duplex sonography every three months over a 24 month follow-up period for evidence of restenosis. The cumulative incidence of post-CEA carotid restenosis qualifying for PTAS was 9.3% during an average 12-month follow-up interval. The average time from CEA to carotid PTAS was 11 months. All 16 endovascular procedures were technically successful. All of the carotid arteries were widely patent following PTAS. There were no immediate perioperative complications. One patient died two days after carotid PTAS from a cerebral hemorrhage. Thirteen of the 16 patients remained asymptomatic and had no sonographic evidence of significant restenosis during the 24- month post-PTAS follow-up period. One patient developed a symptomatic 80% restenosis proximal to the stent six months after carotid PTAS. Another patient developed an asymptomatic 60% restenosis proximal to the stent at 24 months. One patient was lost to follow-up. Following CEA, there is a significant risk of developing a symptomatic or high-grade carotid artery restenosis requiring correction. Endovascular treatment (PTAS) of a recurrent stenosis after CEA is a safe and effective alternative to repeat carotid surgery