Carotid axillary bypass in a patient with blocked subclavian stents: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Surgical treatment of symptomatic occlusive lesions of the proximal subclavian artery is infrequently necessary. Carotid subclavian bypass has gained popularity and is now considered standard treatment when stenting is not possible. Exposure of the subclavian artery and bypass grafting onto it is difficult, as the vessel is delicate, thin-walled and located deep in the supraclavicular fossa. The thoracic duct and brachial plexus are in close proximity to the left subclavian artery and are therefore susceptible to damage. Distal grafting to the axillary artery instead of the subclavian artery has the potential of avoiding some of these risks. Infraclavicular exposure of the axillary artery is more straightforward. The vessel wall is thicker and is easier to handle. In this case report, we describe a patient with a left proximal subclavian occlusion which was stented twice and blocked on both occasions. The patient underwent a carotid axillary bypass, as grafting onto the subclavian artery was impossible because of the two occluded metal stents.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 56-year-old Caucasian woman, a heavy smoker, presented acutely with left arm numbness and pain and blood pressure discrepancies in both arms. A diagnosis of subclavian stenosis was confirmed on the basis of a computed tomographic scan and a magnetic resonance angiogram. The patient had undergone subclavian artery stenting twice, and unfortunately the stents blocked on both occasions. The patient underwent carotid axillary bypass surgery. She had an uneventful recovery and was able to return to a full, normal life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Carotid axillary bypass appears to be a good alternative to carotid subclavian bypass in the treatment of symptomatic proximal stenosis or occlusion of the subclavian artery.</p

Update on Rivaroxaban

Anticoagulants are recommended for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The new anticoagulants which target specific factors in the coagulation cascade offer the advantage that they can be administered orally. These drugs seek to offer safe anticoagulation without the need for regular monitoring and frequent dose adjustment. Some of these newer drugs are in the advanced stages of clinical trials or have already completed them and thereby aim to provide more options in the management of thromboembolism. In the present review we discuss the currently available evidence supporting the use of these new anticoagulants, in particular rivaroxaban

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with conventional surgery (high ligation and stripping (HL/S)), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE : To review available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS : Search methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialized Register (July 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3). In addition the authors performed a search of EMBASE (July 2010). Manufacturers of EVLT, RFA and sclerosant equipment were contacted for trial data. Selection criteria: All RCTs of EVLT, RFA, USGFS and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalization, neovascularization, technical procedure failure or need for re-intervention, patient quality of life (QoL) scores and associated complications. Secondary outcomes were type of anaesthetic, procedure duration, hospital stay and cost. Data collection and analysis: CN, RE, VB, PC, HB and GS independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RE extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. CN contacted trial authors to clarify details. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen reports from five studies with a combined total of 450 patients were included. Rates of recanalization were higher following EVLT compared with HL/S, both early (within four months) (5/149 versus 0/100; odds ratio (OR) 3.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 32.64) and late recanalization (after four months) (9/118 versus 1/80; OR 2.97; 95% CI 0.52 to 16.98), although these results were not statistically significant. Technical failure rates favoured EVLT over HL/S (1/149 versus 6/100; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.75). Recurrence following RFA showed no difference when compared with surgery. Recanalization within four months was observed more frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although not statistically significant (4/105 versus 0/88; OR 7.86, 95% CI 0.41 to 151.28); after four months no difference was observed. Neovascularization was observed more frequently following HL/S compared with RFA, but again this was not statistically significant (3/42 versus 8/51; OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.63). Technical failure was observed less frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although this was not statistically significant (2/106 versus 7/96; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.01 to 34.25). No randomised clinical trials comparing HL/S versus USGFS met our study inclusion criteria. QoL scores and operative complications were not amenable to meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available clinical trial evidence suggests RFA and EVLT are at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. There are insufficient data to comment on USGFS. Further randomized trials are needed. We should aim to report and analyze results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis