The Importance of Cell Saver Usage in Complex Endovascular Repair of Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

AIM: The use of the cell-saver is well established in open aneurysm repair, however, its role in endovascular repair is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of cell-saver usage in patients undergoing complex endovascular procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing fenestrated and/or branched repair for the treatment of thoracoabdominal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms between January 2019 and December 2022. The cell-saver was a standard part of the intraoperative setup of these procedures and its use was readily available. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients in which autologous blood collected was transfused (CSBT), alongside the usable amount obtained. Secondary endpoints included mean blood loss, postoperative haemoglobin levels and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (77.1% male, mean age 71.2 ± 9.2 years) were included, with a median blood loss of 700mL (IQR 400-1200mL). A total of 96 patients received some kind of blood transfusion (BT) (56.5%): 35 (20.6%) allogenic BT, 31 (18.2%) CSBT only and 30 (17.6%) a combination of both. In total, 61 patients (35.9%, or 63.5% of all patients requiring BTs) received CSBT, with a median usable blood volume of 282mL (IQR, 194.5 - 508mL). Thirty-day mortality was similar in both groups. Although the CSBT group had lower intraoperative hemoglobin values (9.25 ± 1.55 vs. 10.36 ± 1.88 mg/dL; p<0.001), both groups presented similar postoperative hemoglobin levels. CONCLUSION: Blood loss during complex endovascular repair is not insignificant. In this cohort, over 50% of included patients required some kind of BT, 32.3% of which received exclusively CSBT while 31.3% had supplementary CSBT alongside allogenic BT. This data showcases its potential role in these repairs, paving the way for its standardization in the intraoperative setup of these complex procedures.

Burden of Stroke in Europe: An Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study Findings From 2010 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: While most European Regions perform well in global comparisons, large discrepancies within stroke epidemiological parameters exist across Europe. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the stroke burden across European regions and countries in 2019 and its difference to 2010. METHODS: The GBD 2019 analytical tools were used to evaluate regional and country-specific estimates of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years of stroke for the European Region as defined by the World Health Organization, with its 53 member countries (EU-53) and for European Union as defined in 2019, with its 28 member countries (EU-28), between 2010 and 2019. Results were analyzed at a regional, subregional, and country level. RESULTS: In EU-53, the absolute number of incident and prevalent strokes increased by 2% (uncertainty interval [UI], 0%-4%), from 1 767 280 to 1 802 559 new cases, and by 4% (UI, 3%-5%) between 2010 and 2019, respectively. In EU-28, the absolute number of prevalent strokes and stroke-related deaths increased by 4% (UI, 2%-5%) and by 6% (UI, 1%-10%), respectively. All-stroke age-standardized mortality rates, however, decreased by 18% (UI, -22% to -14%), from 82 to 67 per 100 000 people in the EU-53, and by 15% (UI, -18% to -11%), from 49.3 to 42.0 per 100 000 people in EU-28. Despite most countries presenting reductions in age-adjusted incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life year rates, these rates remained 1.4×, 1.2×, 1.6×, and 1.7× higher in EU-53 in comparison to the EU-28. CONCLUSIONS: EU-53 showed a 2% increase in incident strokes, while they remained stable in EU-28. Age-standardized rates were consistently lower for all-stroke burden parameters in EU-28 in comparison to EU-53, and huge discrepancies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-year rates were observed between individual countries.

Transaxillary Branch-to-Branch-to-Branch Carotid Catheterization Technique for Triple-Branch Arch Repair.

PURPOSE: To describe the transaxillary branch-to-branch-to-branch carotid catheterization technique (tranaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT) for cannulation of all supra-aortic vessels using only 1 femoral and 1 axillary access during triple-branch arch repair. TECHNIQUE: After deployment of the triple-branch arch device, catheterization and bridging of the innominate artery (IA) should be performed through a right axillary access (cutdown or percutaneous). Then, the retrograde left subclavian (LSA) branch should be catheterized (if not preloaded) from a percutaneous femoral access, and a 12×90Fr sheath should be advanced to the outside of the endograft. Subsequently, catheterization of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) antegrade branch should be performed, followed by snaring of a wire in the ascending aorta which was inserted through the axillary access, creating a branch-to-branch-to-branch through-and-through guidewire. Over the axillary access, a 12×45Fr sheath should be inserted into the IA branch and looped in the ascending aorta using a push-and-pull technique so that it faces the LCCA branch, allowing for stable catheterization of the LCCA. The retrograde LSA branch should then be bridged following the standard fashion. CONCLUSIONS: This series of 5 patients demonstrates that triple-branch arch repair can be performed with the transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT, allowing catheterization of the supra-aortic vessels without manipulation of the carotid arteries. CLINICAL IMPACT: The transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT allows catheterization and bridging of all supra-aortic vessels in triple-branch arch repair through only 2 vascular access points, the femoral artery and the right axillary artery. This technique avoids carotid surgical cutdown and manipulation during these procedures, reducing the risk of access site complications, including bleeding and reintervention, reintubation, cranial nerve lesions, increased operating time, and so on, and has the potential to change the current vascular access standard used during triple-branch arch repair.

Additional Aortic Coverage With an Off The Shelf, Multibranched Endograft Compared With Custom Made Devices For Endovascular Repair of Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (p-AAA) require complex endovascular aortic repair or open surgical repair with suprarenal clamping. Custom made devices (CMD), including fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) or off the shelf (OTS) multibranched devices, are available treatment options. The aim of this study was to determine the additional healthy aortic coverage using an OTS multibranched endograft vs. a CMD for the treatment of p-AAAs. METHODS: This was a retrospective single centre analysis of prospectively collected data. Consecutive patients with p-AAAs requiring a proximal landing zone above the coeliac artery (CA), planned and treated with CMDs (Zenith Fenestrated) between January 2017 and December 2021 were included in this study. Treatment with supracoeliac coverage using available OTS multibranched devices was simulated using available pre-operative images: T-Branch; E-nside; and TAMBE. Study endpoints included the need for additional proximal aortic coverage, and the number of the segmental arteries additionally covered proximally from the CA for OTS devices compared with CMDs. RESULTS: Eighty three patients with p-AAAs were treated with CMDs (all FEVAR), including juxtarenal AAAs (n = 46; 56%), suprarenal AAAs (n = 20; 24%), and short neck AAAs (n = 17; 20%). In this study, treatment with 249 (3 × 83) OTS endografts was simulated. When compared with CMDs, OTS devices required a mean of 74 ± 19 mm of additional proximal healthy aortic coverage from the CA (CMD: 33 ± 19 mm vs. OTS: 108 ± 6 mm; p ≤ .001), as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries (CMD: 1.3 ± 0.8 vs. OTS: 3.8 ± 0.9; p ≤ .001). In 94% of patients, at least one of the available multibranched endografts could have been implanted in accordance with instructions for use. CONCLUSION: Despite not requiring customisation time, OTS endografts for the treatment of p-AAA lead to more extensive healthy aortic coverage, as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries, compared with CMDs. When compared with OTS devices, CMDs appear to limit the extent of unnecessary aortic coverage and the theoretical subsequent risk of spinal cord ischaemia.

Use of Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy in Recanalization of Calcified Visceral and Renal Arteries: A Case Report and Update of the Literature.

PURPOSE: Calcifications of the visceral and renal arteries lead to chronic mesenteric ischemia and renal artery stenosis, and both open and endovascular treatments can be proposed. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as a novel technique used in peripheral and coronary interventions. CASE REPORT: A 73-year-old man presented with chronic postprandial abdominal pain and weight loss. Computed-tomography-angiography (CTA) showed 93% calcified stenosis of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). The plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) was affected by immediate recoiling. The patient underwent ShockwaveTM IVL of the SMA via brachial access and stent-graft implantation. At 3-months follow-up, the patient showed symptoms resolution. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Shockwave IVL can be an effective treatment for severely calcified SMA stenosis. A similar approach can be employed in both celiac and renal arteries as reported in 11 cases in literature and herein summarized. Intravascular lithotripsy resulted in high technical success and uneventful follow-up. However, given the small number of patients reported, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. CLINICAL IMPACT: This article reports a case of recanalization of superior mesenteric artery with heavily calcified lesion treated with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) with Shockwave™ Intravascular Lithotripsy Balloon (Shockwave Medical Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Beside, for the first time, we summarize the Literature on the use of IVL in the renal and visceral arteries district, providing indications, applications and useful hints for the endovascular treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia and renal artery stenosis. This preliminary data show straightforward applicability, high technical success, and uneventful follow-up and IVL can be proposed as an useful tool for challenging revascularization of heavily calcified reno-visceral arteries.

The "Skewer Technique" for Stentgraft Delivery in the Aortic Arch: Advancing the Dilatator in The Innominate Artery Over a Right Femoro-Brachial Through-And-Through Wire.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for different aortic pathologies, because it has reduced mortality and morbidity rates. However, TEVAR is not feasible in all cases due to aortic angulations, the hemodynamics of the aortic arch and narrow or tortuous iliofemoral access. Therefore, different adjuvant techniques, such as iliac percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, iliathrough-and-through guidewires and external transapical guidewires have been previously reported. Herein we describe the Skewer Technique for successful TEVAR delivery, through a right-brachial-femoral through-and-through guidewire and advancement of the delivery system into the innominate artery. METHODS: A 38-year-old male presented with a symptomatic 11.5cm thoracic aneurysm with involvement of the left-subclavian artery ostium. The patient underwent left carotid-subclavian bypass and a TEVAR. Due to the huge size of the aneurysm a left-brachial-right femoral artery through-and-through guidewire was established. However, the achievement of a stable position for the deployment of the stentgraft was not possible. Eventually, the exclusion of the aneurysm was done with a right brachio-femoral through-and-through wire, inserting the proximal part of the delivery system into the innominate artery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant techniques such as a through-and-through right brachial-femoral guidewire with advancement of the endograft delivery system in the innominate artery (Skewer Technique) represents a useful alternative option in cases where the angulations of the aortic arch impede the deployment of the stent graft using conventional techniques.