BLOOD GROUP IS A LONG-TERM CARDIOVASCULAR RISK FACTOR AFTER CAROTID ENDARTERECTOMY.

BACKGROUND: ABO blood group system has been clinically related to an increased incidence of cardiovascular diseases. Preliminary data relating Rhesus (Rh) factor and these outcomes also have been published. Our aim was to analyse the impact of blood group on the short and long-term outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2012 to 2019, patients from a referral centre who underwent CEA for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis were prospectively followed. Our primary outcomes were long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications and myocardial injury after non-cardiac-surgery (MINS). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 21-69). Time-to-event analysis was used to determine the effect of ABO and Rh groups in long-term outcomes. RESULTS: 184 patients were included, with a mean age of 70.1 ± 9.1 years. Eighteen (25.7%) patients with O type and 48 (42.1%) patients with non-O type presented coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR]: 2.313 5-95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.245-4.297, P = 0.008). Patients Rh+ presented significantly more congestive heart failure, 23 (14,7%), P= 0.03. The incidence of MACE in the long-term was higher in non-O patients (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 2.034; CI: 1.032-4.010, P= 0.040). Rh- patients, presented a higher incidence of perioperative MINS. However, there was no statistically significant association with long-term risk of MACE. CONCLUSION: The incidence of MACE in long-term analysis was higher in non-O blood type and 30-day MINS was significantly more common amongst Rh- patients. The benefit from a more complete preoperative cardiac study in these patients should be performed.

Circulating biomarkers in acute aortic dissection versus acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to discuss the current knowledge of possibly useful circulatory biomarkers (other than D-dimers) in the diagnosis of patients with an acute aortic dissection (AAD), to distinguish these patients from patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. Studies were included if they presented measurements of biomarker(s) in the blood/plasma/serum samples from adult patients with AAD versus AMI. Articles were excluded if aortic dissection was subacute or chronic (>14 days), if they lack a control group (AMI), or if they were animal studies, revisions, or editorials. The main outcome was the identification of biomarkers that exhibited diagnostic potential to differentiate patients with AAD versus AMI. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The research query resulted in 1342 articles after the removal of duplicates, from which seven were included in the systematic review. The biomarkers identified included general blood assessment, metabolomics, products of the degradation of fibrin, extracellular matrix markers and an ischemia-associated molecule. Most studies lack diagnostic validity such as sensitivity and specificity. In six studies, the concentration of a total of six biomarkers showed significative differences between AAD and AMI group. CONCLUSIONS: A great heterogeneity of molecules has been studied as putative diagnostic markers of AAD versus AMI. Studies of better quality are needed, presenting the diagnostic validity of the molecules under analysis and the putative synergic diagnostic value of the molecules identified so far.

Long-pulsed 1064nm Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of leg veins: Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser can damage vessels with higher diameters and penetrate to a deeper level than other laser therapies. We aim to analyze outcomes of the treatment of leg veins with long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser regarding intervention protocol, technical success, clinical success, and side effects. METHODS: A research of the published literature was conducted, using PubMed and Embase databases, in April 2022. The key words used were telangiectasia, reticular veins, neodymium YAG laser, clearance, satisfaction, and treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS: We included twenty-six articles, twenty-three prospective and three retrospective studies, with a total of 1991 patients. The articles were organized in different sections according to the control group. The four outcomes were analyzed in each section. These studies showed that the long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser is a safe and very good option for the treatment of leg veins measuring up to 3 mm in diameter. Studies comparing long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser therapy and sclerotherapy showed similar clearance rates with no significant differences. However, sclerotherapy seemed to be less painful and to have faster clinical improvements. In two articles, Nd:YAG laser had better outcomes in the treatment of smaller vessels with less than 1 mm in diameter, than sclerotherapy alone. Treatment with polidocanol microfoam and Nd:YAG laser had better clearance rates than Nd:YAG laser alone in three studies. In the comparison of 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser therapy with other lasers and light sources, the studies had contradictory results. CONCLUSION: Long-pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser is a valid therapeutic option for leg telangiectasia and reticular veins with great aesthetic outcomes and minor side effects. Nd:YAG laser therapy could be combined with sclerotherapy or other laser therapies or IPL in order to achieve better results. Serious side effects are rare, but the procedure is almost always accompanied by moderate tolerable pain.

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Protocols for Deep Venous Thrombosis of the Lower Extremities-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize characteristics, complications, and success rates of different catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) protocols for the treatment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LE-DVT). METHODS: A systematic review using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies related to LE-DVT treated with CDT. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to obtain the pooled proportions of early complications, postthrombotic syndrome (PTS), and venous patency. RESULTS: Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria reporting 49 protocols (n = 3,028 participants). In studies that addressed the thrombus location (n = 37), LE-DVT had iliofemoral involvement in 90 ± 23% of the cases. Only four series described CDT as the sole intervention for LE-DVT, while 47% received additional thrombectomy (manual, surgical, aspiration, or pharmacomechanical), and 89% used stenting.Definition of venogram success was highly variable, being the Venous Registry Index the most used method (n = 19). Among those, the minimal thrombolysis rate (<50% lysed thrombus) was 0 to 53%, partial thrombolysis (50-90% lysis) was 10 to 71%, and complete thrombolysis (90-100%) was 0 to 88%. Pooled outcomes were 8.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.6-10.7) for minor bleeding, 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.7%) for major bleeding, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.6) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3-0.9) for death. Pooled incidences of PTS and of venous patency at up to 1 year of follow-up were 17.6% (95% CI: 11.8-23.4) and 77.5% (95% CI: 68.1-86.9), respectively. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the evidence is hampered by the heterogeneity of protocols, which may be reflected in the variation of PTS rates. Despite this, CDT is a low-risk treatment for LE-DVT.

Effectiveness of Intra-operative Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Assessment to Optimize Type II Endoleak Embolization.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effectiveness of type II endoleaks (T2E) embolization using intra-operative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). METHODS: Consecutive patients treated for T2E underwent a standardized protocol with trans-arterial or trans-lumbar access, large volume embolization, onlay fusion, and intra-operative CEUS. Technical success was defined by exclusion of endoleak by CEUS. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (mean age 81 ± 11 years old; 89% male) were treated. The mean aneurysm sac enlargement was 11 ± 8 mm from T2E diagnosis. Embolization was performed using Onyx® 18 in all patients with adjunctive coils in 13 patients (50%). After the first embolization, CEUS documented residual T2E in 13 patients (50%). Ten patients (38%) had additional embolization, which successfully eradicated the T2E in seven of them. Technical success was 50% after the first embolization attempt and 77% after additional attempts guided by CEUS (P = 0.080). There was no mortality. Median imaging follow-up was 22 months. Among the 20 patients with no residual T2E on completion CEUS, 16 (80%) had sac stabilization and none required additional interventions for T2E. Of the six patients with residual T2Es on CEUS, three had sac stabilization (50%) and one required additional reintervention for T2E. There was one late aortic rupture at 56 months. CONCLUSION: One in two patients treated by T2E embolization had residual endoleak on intra-operative CEUS after a first embolization attempt, decreasing to one in four patients after multiple attempts. A negative completion CEUS following embolization was associated with higher rates of sac stabilization and no need for additional T2E embolization.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). BACKGROUND: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P <0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P <0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P <0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Changes in renal-mesenteric duplex ultrasound velocities after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with <60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches. RESULTS: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR.

The effect of wound electrical stimulation in venous leg ulcer healing-a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of using electric stimulation therapy (EST) to heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is not well established. The main aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of ulcer EST in VLU healing. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and included original studies that reported VLU healing after EST. The inclusion criteria were at least two surface electrodes placed on or near the wound or a planar probe covering the ulcer area to be treated. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized control trials (RCTs) and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series were used to evaluate the risk of bias. RESULTS: This review included eight RCTs and three case series involving a total of 724 limbs in 716 patients with VLUs. The mean patient age was 64.2 years (95% confidence interval, 62.3-66.2), and 46.2% (95% confidence interval, 41.2%-50.4%) were men. The active electrode was placed on the wound with the passive electrode placed on healthy skin (n = 6), the two electrodes were placed on either side of the wound edges (n = 4), or a planar probe was used (n = 1). The pulsed current was the most used waveform (n = 9). The change in the ulcer size was the main method used to determine ulcer healing (n = 8), followed by the ulcer healing rate (n = 6), exudate levels (n = 4), and the time to healing (n = 3). Five RCTs detected a statistically significant improvement in at least one VLU healing outcome, after EST compared with the control group. In two of these, EST was better than the control but only for patients who had not undergone surgical treatment of VLU. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from the present systematic review support the use of EST to accelerate wound healing of VLUs, especially for patients who are not surgical candidates. However, the significant variation in electric stimulation protocols represents an important limitation to its use and should be addressed in future studies.

Technical Pitfalls for Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Following PETTICOAT.

PURPOSE: The Provisional Extension to Induce Complete Attachment Technique (PETTICOAT) uses a bare-metal stent to scaffold the true lumen in patients with acute or subacute aortic dissections. While it is designed to facilitate remodeling, some patients with chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) require repair. This study describes the technical pitfalls of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in patients who underwent prior PETTICOAT repair. TECHNIQUE: We report 3 patients with extent II TAAAs who had prior bare-metal dissection stents treated by FB-EVAR. Two patients required maneuvers to reroute the aortic guidewire, which was initially placed in-between stent struts. This was recognized before the deployment of the fenestrated-branched device. A third patient had difficult advancement of the celiac bridging stent due to a conflict of the tip of the stent delivery system into one of the stent struts, requiring to redo catheterization and pre-stenting with a balloon-expandable stent. There were no mortalities and target-related events after a follow-up of 12 to 27 months. CONCLUSION: FB-EVAR following the PETTICOAT is infrequent, but technical difficulties should be recognized to prevent complications from the inadvertent deployment of the fenestrated-branched stent-graft component in-between stent struts. CLINICAL IMPACT: The present study highlights a few maneuvers to prevent or overcome possible complications during endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm following PETTICOAT. The main problem to be recognized is the placement of the aortic wire beyond one of the struts of the existing bare-metal stent. Moreover, encroachment of catheters or the bridging stent delivery system into the stent struts may potentially cause difficulties.

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach. CONCLUSIONS: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.

Outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE). RESULTS: There were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure.

Timing of Intervention for Aortic Intramural Hematoma.

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is one of the acute aortic syndromes along with acute aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer. The three conditions can occur alone or in combination with overlapping presentation. Medical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment is tailored depending on clinical presentation, timing, and location within the aorta. Among patients who present with acute IMH affecting the ascending aorta (Type A), urgent open surgical repair is considered the primary line of treatment in patients who are suitable candidates and unstable. The management of IMH in the descending aorta and aortic arch (Type B) is similar to that applied to treat acute dissections in the same segment. Medical treatment with sequential imaging is recommended in patients with uncomplicated course, and endovascular repair is indicated in patients with rupture, persistent pain, end-organ ischemia, or rapid aortic enlargement. This review discusses the ideal timing for treatment of IMH.

Early Feasibility of Endovascular Repair of Distal Aortic Arch Aneurysms Using Patient-Specific Single Retrograde Left Subclavian Artery Branch Stent Graft.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility and outcomes of endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with a pre-loaded single retrograde left subclavian artery (LSA) branch stent graft. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective, non-randomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular aortic arch repair using patient-specific arch branch stent grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) between 2019 and 2022. All patients received a design with triple-wide scallop and a single retrograde LSA branch with a pre-loaded catheter. RESULTS: There were five male patients with median age of 77 years old (72-80) treated using the single LSA branch stent graft. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Median operating time, fluoroscopy time, and total radiation dose area product were 103 (78-134) minutes, 26 (19-39) minutes, and 123 (71-270) mGy.cm2, respectively. There were no 30-day or in-hospital mortality, neurological or other major adverse events (MAEs). During median follow-up of 21 (20-27) months, all patients were alive with patent LSA branches, except for one who died of COVID-19 complications. There was no branch instability or secondary interventions. CONCLUSION: This early feasibility study demonstrates successful endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with single retrograde LSA branch without technical failures, mortality or neurological events. Larger clinical experience and longer follow-up are needed to determined effectiveness of this approach in patients who need endovascular repair with proximal extension into Zone 2.