Fenestrated Endovascular Repair for Pararenal or Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to collect all available data on early and late outcomes in patients undergoing fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) for pararenal or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Studies reporting at least early mortality after F-EVAR in patients with pararenal or juxtarenal AAA were included. Thirty-day outcomes were defined as early, and outcomes reported after 30 days postoperatively were defined as late. Basic characteristics of all studies and demographics of patients were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 30 studies (17 retrospective and 13 prospective) including 23,385 patients in total were included. Out of 23,385 patients, a total of 2,271 patients were treated with F-EVAR for pararenal/juxtarenal AAA. Overall, 4,216 target vessels were to be treated (data from 24 studies). Pooled early mortality reached 2.55% (ranging from 0% to 6.74%), with a pooled technical success of 96.8% (ranging from 82.8% to 100%). Regarding late outcomes, pooled all-cause mortality reached 17% (ranging from 0% to 50%), 1-year primary patency was 94.6% (ranging from 91.8% to 97.1%) and reintervention rate was 10.4% (ranging from 0% to 57.4%). Mean/median follow-up ranged from 3 to 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: Early outcomes indicate that F-EVAR is a safe and efficient treatment for patients with pararenal/juxtarenal AAAs. Although long-term outcomes are acceptable, late-intervention rate remains high.

Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Stenting or Best Medical Treatment in Asymptomatic Patients with Significant Carotid Stenosis: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate randomized trials (RTs) that compare outcomes among asymptomatic patients with significant carotid stenosis undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) or best medical treatment (BMT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Data were analyzed by using the StatsDirect Statistical software (Version 2.8.0, StatsDirect Ltd). Odds ratios (OR) were used to determine effect size, along with 95% confidence interval (CI). PRISMA guidelines for conducting meta-analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 10 RTs including 8771 asymptomatic patients were evaluated. Compared to CAS, 30-day all stroke risk was found to be lower after CEA (pooled OR = 0.56; CI 95% [0.312-0.989]; P = 0.046). However, other early and late outcomes were not different between CEA and CAS. Furthermore, 30-day all stroke (pooled OR = 3.43; CI 95% [1.810-6.510]; P = 0.0002), death (pooled OR = 4.75; CI 95% [1.548-14.581]; P = 0.007) and myocardial infarction (MI) (pooled OR = 9.18; CI 95% [1.668-50.524]; P = 0.011) risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT, as expected. Additionally, 30-day all stroke/death and all stroke/death/MI risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT as well. Regarding long-term results, ipsilateral stroke risk was lower after CEA compared to BMT (pooled OR = 0.46; CI 95% [0.361-0.596]; P < 0.0001) although death due to stroke risk was not different (pooled OR = 0.57; CI 95% [0.223-1.457]; P = 0.240). Unfortunately, no study comparing CAS to BMT was found. CONCLUSIONS: CEA is associated with a lower early all stroke risk compared to CAS although other early or late outcomes did not show any difference between the two methods. Additionally, CEA seems to have a benefit over BMT against long-term ipsilateral stroke, although early outcomes are worse after CEA. No studies are available comparing CAS to BMT alone.