Morphology and hemodynamics in isolated common iliac artery aneurysms impacts proximal aortic remodeling

Objective- Isolated common iliac artery aneurysms (CIAA) are rare. Their prognosis and influence on aortoiliac blood flow and remodeling are unclear. We evaluated the hypotheses that morphology at and distal to the aortic bifurcation, together with the associated hemodynamic changes, influence both the natural history of CIAA and proximal aortic remodeling. Approach and Results- Twenty-five isolated CIAAs (15 intact, 10 ruptured), in 23 patients were reconstructed and analyzed with computational fluid dynamics: all showed abnormal flow. Then we studied a series of 24 hypothetical aortoiliac geometries in silico with varying abdominal aortic deflection and aortic bifurcation angles: key findings were assessed in an independent validation cohort of 162 patients. Wall shear stress in isolated unilateral CIAAs was lower than the contralateral common iliac artery, 0.38±0.33 Pa versus 0.61±0.24 Pa, inversely associated with CIAA diameter ( P<0.001) and morphology (high shear stress in variants distal to a sharp kink). Rupture usually occurred in regions of elevated low and oscillatory shear with a wide aortic bifurcation angle. Abdominal aortas deflected towards the CIAA for most unilateral isolated CIAAs (14/21). In silico, wider bifurcation angles created high focal regions of low and oscillatory shear in the common iliac artery. The associations of unilateral CIAA with aortic deflection and common iliac artery diameter with bifurcation angle were confirmed in the validation cohort. Conclusions- Decreasing wall shear stress is strongly associated with CIAA progression (larger aneurysms and rupture), whereas abnormal blood flow in the CIAA seems to promote proximal aortic remodeling, with adaptive lateral deflection of the abdominal aorta towards the aneurysmal side

Editor's Choice \u2013 Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease: 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)

2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery

Editor's Choice – European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines on Radiation Safety

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Editor's Choice – European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A Delphi Consensus Study

Funding Information: We sincerely thank all the experts who participated in this Delphi study for their time and for sharing their expertise. All Delphi experts qualify for authorship based on the fact that they were involved in data collection and all critically appraised the final manuscript for important intellectual content. See Appendix B for the names of the Delphi experts. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The AuthorsObjective: No dedicated studies have been performed on the optimal management of patients with an acute stroke related to carotid intervention nor is there a solid recommendation given in the European Society for Vascular Surgery guideline. By implementation of an international expert Delphi panel, this study aimed to obtain expert consensus on the optimal management of in hospital stroke occurring during or following CEA and to provide a practical treatment decision tree. Methods: A four round Delphi consensus study was performed including 31 experts. The aim of the first round was to investigate whether the conceptual model indicating the traditional division between intra- and post-procedural stroke in six phases was appropriate, and to identify relevant clinical responses during these six phases. In rounds 2, 3, and 4, the aim was to obtain consensus on the optimal response to stroke in each predefined setting. Consensus was reached in rounds 1, 3, and 4 when ≥ 70% of experts agreed on the preferred clinical response and in round 2 based on a Likert scale when a median of 7 – 9 (most adequate response) was given, IQR ≤ 2. Results: The experts agreed (> 80%) on the use of the conceptual model. Stroke laterality and type of anaesthesia were included in the treatment algorithm. Consensus was reached in 17 of 21 scenarios (> 80%). Perform diagnostics first for a contralateral stroke in any phase, and for an ipsilateral stroke during cross clamping, or apparent stroke after leaving the operation room. For an ipsilateral stroke during the wake up phase, no formal consensus was achieved, but 65% of the experts would perform diagnostics first. A CT brain combined with a CTA or duplex ultrasound of the carotid arteries should be performed. For an ipsilateral intra-operative stroke after flow restoration, the carotid artery should be re-explored immediately (75%). Conclusion: In patients having a stroke following carotid endarterectomy, expedited diagnostics should be performed initially in most phases. In patients who experience an ipsilateral intra-operative stroke following carotid clamp release, immediate re-exploration of the index carotid artery is recommended.publishersversionpublishe

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