Journal of Endovascular Therapy最新文献

Background: Secondary aortic intervention (SAI) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is not uncommon. However, a satisfactory management system has not been established for these patients. We aimed to report our single-center experience with SAI after prior TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

Methods: From January 2010 to May 2017, 860 eligible patients with TBAD underwent TEVAR. One hundred seven (12.4%) patients required SAI, either endovascularly (n=76) or surgically (n=31). The main indications for SAI were entry flow (n=58 [54.2%]), aneurysm expansion of the proximal or remote aorta (n=26 [24.3%]), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=11 [10.3%]), distal stent-graft-induced new entry tear (n=6 [5.6%]), and stent migration (n=4 [3.7%]). The Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine the degree of freedom from SAI and the prognosis. Cox proportional hazards were used to screen for risk factors for SAI and poor prognosis.

Results: The overall 30-day mortality rate after SAI was 4.7% (n=5): endovascular (n=2 [2.6%]) vs open surgery (n=3 [9.7%]; p=0.145). The cumulative survival rates with or without SAI were 86.3%±3.6% vs 95.7%±0.8% at 3 years and 82.0%±4.2% vs 92.2%±1.1% at 5 years, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). Although no significant difference in survival was observed, the incidence of SAI was significantly greater in patients who underwent TEVAR during the chronic phase (acute [11.6%] vs subacute [9.6%] vs chronic [27.8]; p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that prior TEVAR in the chronic phase (hazard ratio [HR]=1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-2.90; p=0.039), maximum aortic diameter (HR=1.05, 95% CI=1.04-1.07; p<0.001), and arch involvement (HR=1.48, 95% CI=1.01-2.18; p=0.048) were predictors of the incidence of SAI. In addition, the maximum aortic diameter was demonstrated to be the only risk factor for prognosis after adjusting for confounding factors.

Conclusions: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic TBAD patients should be reconsidered. Open surgery is preferable for those with proximal progression, whereas endovascular treatment is more suitable for distal lesions. Close surveillance and timely reintervention after TEVAR, whether via endovascular techniques or open surgery, are necessary to prevent devastating complications.Clinical ImpactThe management of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is challenging. We summarized our single-center experience regarding secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR for TBAD. We found that TEVAR for chronic TBAD patients should be carefully evaulated, and open surgery is recommended for those with proximal progession, while endovascular treatment is more preferable for distal lesions.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present the covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac artery bifurcation (CERIB) technique as a revascularization option for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) involving the iliac artery bifurcation.

Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study including all patients undergoing a CERIB procedure from January 2021 until December 2022. Covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac artery bifurcation procedures were performed percutaneously with bilateral femoral access, excepting cases where simultaneous open femoral artery reconstruction was required due to the extension of peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Standard patient, procedural, and follow-up (FU) data including survival and arterial reinterventions were gathered and analyzed.

Results: A total of 13 patients were included (11/13 male, median age=70 [60-76] years). Additional open and/or endovascular procedures included endarterectomy of the femoral bifurcation (n=6), rotational atherectomy (n=2), and 1 axillary artery cutdown for upper limb access (n=1). Median operating time was 2.9 hours (1.5-4.9 hours); median radiation duration and dose were 28.4 (14.3-63.3 minutes) and 4090.6 (384.4-9430.1 cGray/cm²), respectively. The stent grafts used for CERIB were BeGraft peripheral n=31, BeGraft Aortic n=4 and BeGraft peripheral plus n=1 (Bentley InnoMed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany). In 2 patients with prior stenting of the common iliac artery (CIA), only the internal and external iliac arteries (IIA and EIA) were treated in this study, and in 2 cases, additional uncovered stents were required for relining. Technical success was 100%. During a midterm FU (median 18 [4-31] months), 2 patients died from cardiovascular reasons and 1 patient with prior iliac stenting required reinterventions for recurring occlusion.

Conclusion: Covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac artery bifurcation is a straightforward option for treating AIOD involving the iliac artery bifurcation that allows preservation of internal iliac artery perfusion and shows good early and midterm results. Prior iliac artery stenting may be a risk factor for early occlusion after CERIB.Clinical impactAorto-iliac occlusive disease with involvement of the internal iliac artery is encountered regularly in vascular surgical practice, but the internal iliac artery is often not included in the revascularization strategy. The present article will increase the awareness for the relevance of including the internal iliac artery in revascularization strategies and presents CERIB as another method to be added to the armamentarium of (endo-)vascular surgeons and interventionalists.

Background: Thrombotic material in the non-aneurysmatic and non-atherosclerotic aorta is a rare entity without any recommended standard treatment so far. We present a successful treatment strategy for patients who do not fit into any of the common approaches.

Case report: A free-floating thrombus in the descending aorta was found as source of embolism in an 82-year-old female patient with lower limb ischemia. After initial heparinization of the patient without relevant reduction of the thrombotic mass, the thrombus was removed using an interdisciplinary approach. Under echocardiographic guidance to locate the thrombus, the AngioVac device, usually licensed to remove floating thrombi from the venous system, was used off-label to remove the thrombus by a transfemoral approach. To avoid rebuilding of a new thrombus, the attachment point with an exulcerated plaque in the descending aorta was covered by a stent graft via the same femoral access. The patient did not experience any further embolic events, and the postoperative course was uncomplicated.

Conclusion: Patients with uncommon aortic diseases, such as the reported free-floating thrombus, should be treated by an individualized, interdisciplinary approach. Besides the recommended treatment options, there are other uncommon approaches that might offer an alternative in complex cases.Clinical ImpactEvidence is rare for the treatment of a free-floating thrombus in the descending aorta and the treatment strategy remains discussed controversially. We present a rather uncommon approach of successful off-label treatment for patients who do not fit into any of the common approaches (operative, endovascular, or conservative treatment based on patient's comorbidities). The AngioVac System has already been successfully used off-label in the arterial system but not in the above presented way of treating a free-floating thrombus in a patient with high embolization risk and treatment-limiting comorbidities.

Purpose: This trial was designed and aimed to compare safety and efficacy of Obtura™ vascular closure device (VCD) to manual compression (MC) among patients undergoing transfemoral catheterization.

Material and methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial of Obtura VCD against MC randomized patients in 1:1 (n=268; 134:134) ratio. Safety and efficacy were measured by primary endpoints (time to hemostasis [TTH] and deployment success) and secondary endpoints which included technical success, device-related adverse events, and time to ambulation (TTA).

Results: The procedural access using right femoral artery was performed in 95.52% of patients in Obtura VCD versus 96.27% in standard MC method, whereas 2.99% of patients in each group underwent left femoral access. Bilateral access was performed in 1.49% (n=2) versus 0.75% (n=1) in Obtura VCD versus MC, respectively. Both the technical success and deployment success were 100%. Patients in Obtura VCD group had shorter TTH (3.26±3.39 vs 23.95±8.24 minutes; p<0.0001) and TTA (155.44±125.32 vs 723.84±197.98 minutes; p<0.0001) than MC group. No access site complications (re-bleeding, infection, arteriovenous fistula, and transient access site nerve injury) were noted at 2-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups. There were 4 (3%) and 6 (4.5%) cases of hematoma, respectively, in Obtura VCD versus MC and 1 case (0.7%) of post-procedural arterial pseudoaneurysm each in both the groups which were successfully resolved and patients were discharged with no further complications. Further follow-up was without any adverse events.

Conclusions: The study demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy of Obtura™ VCD with a significantly short TTH and TTA compared to MC.Clinical ImpactIn patients undergoing cardiac catheterization, vascular closure devices (VCDs) can achieve hemostasis faster after successful implantation of the device with fewer complications such as bleeding and ambulation can be achieved faster. In terms of effectiveness, Obtura VCD was found to be better than manual compression in achieving early hemostasis and higher technical and deployment success was accomplished. Obtura VCD does not require enlargement of the route through the tissues, uses the same existing arterial sheath as its conduit, and does not cause patients' access sites to feel uncomfortable while it is being deployed.

Background: Surgical endarterectomy is currently considered the front-line therapy for the treatment of calcified lesions in the common femoral artery (CFA). Endovascular interventions have evolved, and their use is increasing in frequency. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown promising safety and effectiveness in calcified CFA lesions in a small pilot study, but "real-world" evidence from a larger cohort is lacking.

Methods: The Disrupt PAD III Observational Study (NCT02923193) was a prospective, multicenter registry designed to assess the acute safety and effectiveness of IVL treatment for calcified peripheral arterial disease. Any concomitant treatment with other calcium-modifying technologies as well as definitive treatment strategies was at the discretion of the operators. Patients with CFA lesions were evaluated for acute angiographic safety and effectiveness outcomes following IVL treatment as determined by an independent angiographic core lab.

Results: Common femoral artery treatment was indicated in 177 patients (n=163 could be analyzed based on core-laboratory data) enrolled at 23 sites. Characteristics for 164 treated lesions included moderate-severe calcification 95.1%, diameter stenosis 74.8±17.7%, and lesion length 53.6±53.1 mm. Concomitant calcium-modifying therapy was used in 32.3% of lesions. Final therapy included drug-coated balloons in 68.9% and stenting in 16.5% of lesions. Post-IVL and final residual stenoses were 29.2±16.5%and 23.6±11.5%, respectively. No vascular complications (flow-limiting dissections, perforations, embolization, slow or no reflow, or abrupt closure) were present at the end of the procedure by core-laboratory assessment, with 1 (0.8%) flow-limiting dissection initially occurring immediately following IVL treatment.

Conclusion: This study represents the largest real-world experience of IVL treatment in heavily calcified CFA lesions. Intravascular lithotripsy treatment showed significant stenosis reduction and favorable periprocedural safety in this challenging patient population.Clinical ImpactIn this study we show that calcified common femoral artery disease can be safely and effectively treated with shockwave balloon angioplasty with high procedural success and low complication rates and in clinical practice can now be offered as an alternative to surgical treatment in those patients reluctant to or high risk for vascular surgery. This opens another option for clinicians to treat calcified common femoral artery disease without the risk of dissection, perforation or distal embolization that are associated with atherectomy. This study shows that shockwave lithoplasty offers an innovative plaque modification technology to tackle calcified disease in the common femoral artery.

Introduction: Physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for the aortic arch provides a minimally invasive treatment option for patients who are too high-risk for open repair. Improvements in technique are gained with ongoing experience with these complex repairs. This study aims to describe outcomes of arch PM-FBEVAR and technical lessons.

Materials and methods: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR with zone 0 proximal sealing at a single institution between January 2019 and July 2023 was performed. Cases completed using initial techniques (early technique) were compared with cases using the current techniques (current technique). Modification technique changed to include a self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific fenestrations or inner branches in the current group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success and 30 day stroke.

Results: A total of 21 patients underwent arch PM-FBEVAR, with 7 in the early group and 14 in the current group. Severe comorbidities were present in both groups including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (43% vs 36%), prior open ascending aortic repair (57% vs 43%), and prior stroke (86% vs 21%), respectively. Technical success was the same (86% vs 86%, p=1.0). Fluoroscopy time (56 vs 24 min, p=0.012) and in-hospital death (43% vs 0%, p=0.026) were significantly lower in the current group. A 30 day stroke rate (29% vs 7%, p=0.247) was non-significantly decreased in the current group. All-cause mortality was 100% vs 7% during median follow-up of 8 and 6 months (p<0.001). Three deaths in the early group were related to their aortic arch repair including aortic rupture during endograft advancement and 2 postoperative strokes.

Conclusion: There is a significant learning curve associated with aortic arch PM-FBEVAR. This study suggests that gained experience, use of the spine trigger wire technique, and precise creation of fenestrations or inner branches can lead to a shorter procedure time and lower complications.Clinical ImpactPhysician modified fenestrated branched endografting is feasible for the aortic arch. The high rate of stroke and perioperative mortality was reduced with incorporation of self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific inner branch creation.

Introduction: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in chronic dissection is associated with a risk for distal stent-graft-induced new entry (dSINE) in up to a quarter of cases. We assess the mid-term outcome of a novel dissection-specific stent-graft (DSSG), which is a custom-made device based on the Cook Alpha platform, with a modified graft design and a distal endovascular elephant trunk without any supporting stent to reduce the radial force on the dissection membrane at the distal landing zone.

Methods: A retrospective single-center study of chronic dissection patients at high risk of dSINE who received an elective endovascular repair with DSSG from January 2017 to June 2023. The primary outcome is Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated freedom from dSINE during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included technical success, aortic remodeling, and anatomical evaluation of the distal landing zone in cases with dSINE during follow-up versus those without.

Results: Thirty patients (24 males) with a median age of 66 years [range=31-78] underwent elective TEVAR with the DSSG. The majority, n=27 (90%), had previous aortic repair; 7 (23%) had established connective tissue disease, and 6 (20%) had established dSINE after previous stent-graft implantation as an indication for TEVAR. Technical success was achieved in n=29 (97%). Median follow-up was 38.5 months (4.3-76.4), and KM estimated freedom from dSINE at 1 and 3 years was 95.6% (SE 0.043) and 89% (SE 0.081), respectively Four cases developed dSINE during follow-up. The median distance from the distal stent-graft to the coeliac trunk was 74mm (range=18-123) in the dSINE group versus 26mm (range=0-74) in the non-dSINE group (p=0.049). Median proximal tangential aortic angulation in the distal landing zone was 38.5° (range=26°-50°) in the dSINE group compared to 21° (range=3-61°) in the non-dSINE group (p=0.052).

Conclusions: The Use of a novel DSSG with low radial force for TEVAR in the setting of chronic dissection is safe and feasible, with remodeling outcomes comparable with standard TEVAR. The reduced distal radial force in the DSSG does not eliminate the risk for dSINE over time, with new entries occurring, particularly in cases where the distal landing zone is in a tortuous aortic segment and not close to the coeliac trunk.Clinical ImpactUsing the novel dissection-specific stent-graft with reduced radial force is safe and feasible but does not completely eliminate the risk of dSINE occurring over time. The exact positioning of the distal stent-graft in a straight aortic segment, close to the coeliac trunk, may be of importance to further mitigate the risk.

Purpose: To describe a standardized technique for managing "wire wrap" during the implantation of fenestrated endografts in the aortic arch. This approach aims to enhance wire position predictability, reduce unnecessary device manipulations, and improve procedural safety in fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR).

Technique: The technique is illustrated through 3 representative cases, including a customized triple-wide scallop endograft with a single fenestration featuring a preloaded guidewire, as well as 2 additional physician-modified endograft cases. The procedure begins with detailed preoperative imaging to plan graft selection and positioning. A through-and-through wire system is employed, with careful advancement of the delivery system into the descending thoracic aorta. We distinguish 3 possible scenarios in right anterior oblique fluoroscopy regarding wire position: guidewire aligned, graft positioned posterior to the wire, or graft positioned anterior to the wire. Specific rotational maneuvers-clockwise or counterclockwise-are performed in the descending thoracic aorta to resolve wire wrapping. Once corrected, the fenestration aligns precisely with the targeted supra-aortic branch for graft deployment.

Conclusion: The systematic approach to addressing "wire wrap" during f-TEVAR minimizes embolization and device distortion risks while optimizing procedural efficiency. This reproducible technique provides a valuable tool for advancing endovascular repair in challenging aortic arch pathologies.Clinical ImpactThis standardized technique for managing "wire wrap" during fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair provides a reproducible and practical approach to a well-recognized intraoperative challenge. By systematizing wire handling, the technique enhances procedural safety and minimizes unplanned maneuvers that may increase operative time and radiation exposure while also facilitating device alignment and deployment in demanding scenarios. The innovation lies in offering a simple, easily adoptable strategy that can be consistently applied across operators and centers, supporting safer dissemination of complex endovascular techniques and promoting more predictable outcomes in advanced aortic repair.

Persistent sciatic artery (PSA) is a rare congenital vascular abnormality associated with the embryonic development of the iliac, common femoral, and superficial femoral arteries. Most cases of PSA are incidentally detected and are generally asymptomatic. However, PSA can present as chronic pain, such as neuralgia from aneurysmal dilatation compressing the sciatic nerve, or ischemic pain due to thrombus embolization from the aneurysm. In severe cases, aneurysm rupture poses a significant threat to both limb and life. Timely detection and appropriate intervention are therefore crucial. This article explores the clinical characteristics and treatment strategies of PSA, exemplified through the management of a patient with PSA complicated by distal embolization.Clinical ImpactThis study underscores the importance of simultaneously addressing both the aneurysm and distal thromboembolism in symptomatic persistent sciatic artery (PSA) cases, rather than treating embolic events alone. It reinforces endovascular repair as a preferred, minimally invasive strategy, reducing surgical trauma and nerve injury risk. For clinicians, this highlights the need for vigilant follow-up and consideration of early combined intervention to prevent recurrence. The innovation lies in demonstrating the efficacy of a staged, hybrid endovascular approach and proposing postural modification as a potential adjunct to slow aneurysm progression, offering a refined management paradigm for this rare condition.

Introduction: Endovascular repair of the aortic arch has emerged as an alternative to open surgery, particularly for high-risk and elderly patients. While multibranched endografts have demonstrated technical success, anatomical suitability remains a key limiting factor, especially given the variability of arch anatomy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the suitability of the Hector multibranch device in a cohort of patients who underwent endovascular treatment for aortic arch's lesions.

Methods: A total of 539 patients were treated between 1999 and 2024, with 79 included in a single-center, retrospective, preclinical study. The suitability for device and its connecting stent was defined according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Extended suitability was also evaluated, including patients excluded for limiting anatomical criteria. Secondary outcomes were suitable and non-suitable patients' comparison, exclusion causes analysis, and anatomical characteristics associated with suitability. A logistic regression model assessed associations between baseline and non-suitability.

Results: A total of 50 patients (63.2%) were suitable for implantation, raising to 54 (68.4%) by using other available bridging stents. Approximately half of the eligible patients could have been treated using 14 configurations for the analyzed device. The left common carotid artery bridging stent was appropriate for all suitable patients, while the appropriateness rate for the left subclavian artery stent was 92.6%. The odds of non-feasibility increased with proximal landing zone shortening (OR=1.05, p=0.015), whereas each additional millimeter in BCT length increased the odds of suitability by 6% (OR=1.06, p=0.046).

Conclusions: The Hector Stent Graft system coupled with commercially available bridging stents for supra-aortic trunks proved to be feasible for more than two-thirds of patients previously subjected to an endovascular treatment for aortic arch pathologies. The left common carotid artery bridging stent was suitable for all patients, while the one for the left subclavian artery was adequate for 9 out of 10 cases.Clinical ImpactThe Hector™ Stent Graft system shows high anatomical feasibility for endovascular aortic arch repair, with broad applicability using limited configurations. Its design may help minimize supra-aortic-trunks manipulation and facilitate safer, more streamlined procedures to treat the aortic arch pathologies in a complete endovascular fashion.