Long-term results of iliac aneurysm repair with iliac branched endograft. A 5-year experience on 100 consecutive cases

Background: Iliac branch device (IBD) technique has been introduced as an appealing and effective solution to avoid complications occurring during repair of aorto-iliac aneurysm with extensive iliac involvement. Nevertheless, no large series with long-term follow-up of IBD are available. The aim of this study was to analyse safety and long-term efficacy of IBD in a consecutive series of patients.Methods: Between 2006 and 2011, 100 consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective database on IBD. Indications included unilateral or bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms combined or not with abdominal aneurysms. Patients were routinely followed up with computed tomography. Data were reported according to the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: There were 96 males, mean age 74.1 years. Preoperative median common iliac aneurysm diameter was 40 mm (interquartile range (IQR): 35-44 mm). Sixty-seven patients had abdominal aortic aneurysm >35 mm (IQR: 40-57 mm) associated with iliac aneurysm. Eleven patients presented hypogastric aneurysm. Twelve patients underwent isolated iliac repair with IBD and 88 patients received associated endovascular aortic repair. Periprocedural technical success rate was 95%, with no mortality. Two patients experienced external iliac occlusion in the first month. At a median follow-up of 21 months (range 1-60) aneurysm growth >3 mm was detected in four iliac (4%) arteries. Iliac endoleak (one type III and two distal type I) developed in three patients and buttock claudication in four patients. Estimated patency rate of internal iliac branch was 91.4% at 1 and 5 years. Freedom from any reintervention rate was 90% at 1 year and 81.4% at 5 years. No late ruptures occurred.Conclusions: Long-term results show that IBD use can ensure persistent iliac aneurysm exclusion at 5 years, with low risk of reintervention. This technique can be considered as a first endovascular option in patients with extensive iliac aneurysm disease and favourable anatomy. (C) 2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean

Diet can influence the structural characteristics of both small and large intestine. In this study, we investigated the duodenum and colon of mice fed on genetically modified (GM) soybean during their whole life span (1–24 months) by focusing our attention on the histological and ultrastructural characteristics of the epithelium, the histochemical pattern of goblet cell mucins, and the growth profile of the coliform population. Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake. On the other hand, the histochemical approach revealed significant diet-related changes in mucin amounts in the duodenum. In particular, the percentage of villous area occupied by acidic and sulpho-mucin granules decreased from controls to GM-fed animals, whereas neutral mucins did not change

Outcomes of “Anterior Versus Posterior Divisional Branches of the Hypogastric Artery as Distal Landing Zone for Iliac Branch Devices”: The International Multicentric R3OYAL Registry

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of “anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).” Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P =.18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups (P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test =.215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test =.009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test <.001). Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA. Clinical Impact: The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

Objective: To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices. Methods: A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques. Results: Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 – 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 – 12.1; p =.026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 – 9.6; p =.019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 – 20.7; p =.001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 – 9.0; p =.013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 13.8; p =.037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 – 31.1; p =.007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p <.001). Conclusion: AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement $75$80% and full disagreement &lt;5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues. (J Vasc Surg 2024;80:937-45.

Outcomes of off-the-shelf preloaded inner branch device for urgent endovascular thoraco-abdominal aortic repair in the ItaliaN Branched Registry of E-nside EnDograft

Objective: The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of endovascular urgent thoracoabdominal aortic (TAAA) repair, using an off-the-shelf preloaded inner branch device (E-nside; Artivion). Methods: Data from a physician-initiated national multicenter registry, including patients treated with E-nside endograft (INBREED) were prospectively collected (2020-2024); only urgent cases were included in this study. Primary outcomes were technical success and mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were spinal cord ischemia rate, stroke rate, major adverse events (MAE) as also branch instability at 12 months. Results: Of 185 patients enrolled in the INBREED, 64 (34.5%) were treated in a urgent setting and were included in the study. Reason for urgent repair was presence of aneurysm-related symptoms in 31 patients (48.4%), a contained rupture in eight (12.5%), and a large aneurysm &gt;80 mm in 25 (39.1%). Extent of repair was I to III in 32 patients (50%) and IV in 32 (50%); 18 (28%) had a narrow (&lt;25 mm) paravisceral aortic lumen. An adjunctive proximal thoracic endograft was deployed in 29 patients (45.3%); a distal bifurcated abdominal endograft was used in 33 (51.5%). Two hundred forty-nine target vessels (97.2%) were successfully incorporated through an inner branch from an upper arm (81.2%) or femoral (18.8%) access. A balloon expandable stent was used in 184 (75.7%) target vessels, a self-expandable stent in 59 (24.3%). Mean time for target vessel bridging was 39.9 ± 28.4 minutes per target vessel. Thirty-day cumulative major adverse event (MAE) rate was 28%, and mortality occurred in five patients (9.1%). There was one postoperative stroke (1.6%), and the spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate was 8% (n = 5). For the 249 target vessels successfully incorporated through an inner branch, 1-year freedom from target vessel instability was 93% ± 3% after 1 year. Conclusions: The E-nside represents a valid solution for the urgent treatment of TAAAs, including symptomatic and ruptured TAAAs, as well as large asymptomatic TAAAs that cannot wait for a custom-made device. The preloaded inner branches and available proximal and distal graft diameters might be useful in urgent settings and provided satisfactory early and 1-year results, in terms of both endograft and target vessel stability. Further studies are required to assess the clinical role of E-nside for urgent TAAA repair

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