Bypass vs endovascular treatment for occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry). METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test. RESULTS: At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.

Long term efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus cilostazol in the treatment of critical ischemia of the lower limbs in a frail, elderly patient with non valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with critical lower limb ischemia are not eligible for revascularization procedures. Still, given the emerging role of both platelet and coagulation activation in the formation of arterial thrombi, they may benefit from the novel anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of a male with critical lower limb ischemia complicated by older age, frailty, polymorbidity and non valvular atrial fibrillation, who was deemed as non eligible for surgery. The patient was successfully treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and cilostazol, and the clinical benefit was maintained throughout 32 months, with no occurrence of major or minor hemorrhagic or thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first report on the efficacy and safety of such a combination therapy in critical lower limb ischemia. In a clinical setting in which alternative pharmacological approaches are urgently needed, the association of rivaroxaban and cilostazol warrants further investigations.

The Italian Multicentre Registry of Fenestrated Anaconda™ Endografts for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe the outcomes of the Anaconda™ Fenestrated endograft Italian Registry for complex aortic aneurysms (AAAs), unsuitable for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018 patients with a proximal neck unsuitable for standard EVAR, treated with the fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft, were prospectively enrolled in a dedicated database. Endpoints were peri-operative technical success (TS) and evaluation of type Ia/b or 3 endoleaks (T1/3 EL), target visceral vessel (TVV) occlusion, re-interventions, and AAA related mortality at 30 days, six months, and later follow up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty seven patients (74 ± 7 years, American Society Anesthesiology (ASA) II/III/IV: 12/85/30) were included in the study in 49 Italian Vascular Surgery Units (83 juxta/para-renal AAA, 13 type IV thoraco-abdominal AAA, 16 T1aEL post EVAR, and 15 short neck AAA). Configurations with one, two, three, and four fenestrations were used in 5, 56, 39, and 27 cases, respectively, for a total of 342 visceral vessels. One hundred and eight (85%) bifurcated and 19 (15%) tube endografts were implanted. In 35% (44/127) of cases the endograft was repositioned during the procedure, and 37% (128/342) of TVV were cannulated from brachial access. TS was 87% (111/127): five T1EL, six T3EL (between fenestration and vessel stent), and six loss of visceral vessels (one patient with a Type Ia EL had also a TVV loss) occurred. Thirty day mortality was 4% (5/127). Two of the five T1EL resolved spontaneously at 30 days. The overall median follow up was 21 ± 16 months; one T1EL (5%) occurred at six months and one T3EL (4%) at the three year follow up. Another two (3%) TVV occlusions occurred at six months and five (3%) at three years. The re-intervention rate at the 30 days, six months, and three year follow up was 5%, 7%, and 18 ± 5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft is effective in the treatment of complex AAA. Some structure properties, such as the re-positionability and the possibility of cannulation from above, are specific characteristics helpful for the treatment of some complex anatomies.

New access to facilitate endovascular repair of descending aorta aneurysms.

Coexisting arterial diseases and endoprosthesis to peripheral-vessel mismatch may impair conventional femoral access for endovascular treatment of descending aorta aneurysms. Furthermore, previous abdominal operations can make an optional aortic-iliac approach more difficult. We introduced a new minimally invasive access through the aortic arch, which completely avoids the aortic-iliac access and minimizes surgical trauma.