The Impact of Iliac Artery Anatomy on Distal Landing Zone After EVAR During the 12-Month Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Proximal sealing zone has been the main interest in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), although the distal landing zone remodeling may also affect EVAR durability. The aim of this study was to assess iliac anatomy and its potential impact on distal landing zone adverse events after EVAR during the 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective data collection of patients treated with standard bifurcated EVAR devices for abdominal aortic aneurysm was undertaken between 2017 and 2019. Patients that received extension to the external iliac artery were excluded. Follow-up included computed tomography angiography (CTA) at the 1st and 12th month postoperatively. The common iliac artery (CIA) diameter was assessed in three levels: origin (just below the aortic bifurcation), distally (just above the iliac bifurcation) and the middle of the distance between these two landmarks. Iliac angle, tortuosity indexes, relining and oversizing were also analyzed. Distal landing zone-related adverse events were any limb related re-intervention, endoleak type Ib, graft migration, limb stenosis, or occlusion. RESULTS: In total, 268 iliac limbs (134 patients) were included. In all three levels, the mean iliac artery diameters increased at 12-month follow-up. At the origin of the CIA, the diameter increased from 18.7 ± 10.5 mm to 19.9 ± 9.4 mm (P = 0.04), at the middle portion of the CIA, the diameter changed significantly from 15.5 ± 5.1 mm to 17.4 ± 5.4 mm (P < 0.001) and at the distal CIA, from 14.6 ± 3.3 mm to 15.1 ± 3.9 mm (P = 0.03). The iliac angle remained stable (P = 0.14) while the CIA index decreased significantly from 1.17 ± 0.13 to 1.11 ± 0.09 (P < 0.001). The mean value of oversizing was 21.5 ± 14.5% and affected distal iliac diameter increase (P < 0.001). The composite outcome of distal landing zone adverse events was not associated to diameter changes at any level. In 57 cases, a distal iliac diameter ≥18 mm was recorded. The estimated oversizing was lower (16.3 ± 11.8%) compared to <18 mm arteries (22.5 ± 14.9%, P = 0.01). At 12-month follow-up, iliac diameters remained stable in the ≥18 mm group. Endoleak type Ib was more common in iliac arteries ≥18 mm [3 (5.3%) vs. 1 (0.5%) (P = 0.04)] at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Post-EVAR iliac artery dilation does not seem to have an impact on distal landing zone adverse events during the 12-month follow-up. Aggressive oversizing may be related to iliac dilation. EVAR patients with iliac arteries ≥18 mm are at higher risk for ET Ib.

The Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis According to the Current Literature.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients suffering from malignancies, leading to an increased mortality rate. Novel randomized trials have added valuable information regarding cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) management using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The aim of this study is to present an overview of the current literature and recommendations in CAT treatment. A few randomized control trials (RCTs) have been integrated suggesting that DOACs may be effectively applied in CAT patients compared to low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) with a decreased mortality and VTE recurrence rate. However, the risk of bleeding is higher, especially in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Real-world data are in accordance with these RCT findings, while in the currently available recommendations, DOACs are suggested as a reliable alternative to LMWH during the initial, long-term, and extended phase of treatment. Data retrieved from the current literature, including RCTs and "real-world" studies, aim to clarify the role of DOACs in CAT management, by highlighting their benefits and remarking upon the potential adverse outcomes. Current recommendations suggest the use of DOACs in well-selected patients with an increasing level of evidence through years.

Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time. RESULTS: We identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Standard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery.