Search

Surgical repair of a common iliac artery aneurysm (CIA) after previous open aortic reconstruction is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular repair is considered less invasive than surgery. However, if preservation of the internal iliac artery (IIA) is required, the applicability of endovascular techniques may represent a challenge and a limitation to the use of standard aortic endografts or iliac branch devices. In these cases, the off-label use of endovascular devices may be an effective alternative. Herein, we report a successful hybrid approach to treat CIA using a reversed iliac limb endograft coupled with a double-barrel technique with femoro-femoral crossover bypass in a patient who had previously undergone open aortic reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS), such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, TandemHeart and VA-ECMO, in the setting of cardiogenic shock or in protect percutaneous coronary intervention (protect-PCI) is rapidly increasing in clinical practice. The major problem related to the use of pMCS is the management of all the device-related complications and of any vascular injury. MCS often requires large-bore access, if compared with common PCI, and for this reason the correct management of vascular access is a crucial point. The correct use of these devices in catheterization laboratories requires specific knowledge such as the correct evaluation of the vascular access performed, when possible, with advance imaging techniques in order to choose a percutaneous or a surgical approach. In addition to conventional transfemoral access, other types of access, such as transaxillary/subclavial access and the transcaval approach, have emerged over the years. These other approaches require advanced skills of the operators and a multidisciplinary team with dedicated physicians. Another important part of the management of vascular access is the closure systems used for hemostasis. Currently, two types of devices are typically used in the lab: suture-based or plug-based ones. In this review we want to describe all these aspects related to the management of vascular access in pMCS and describe, finally, a case report from our center's experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has shown no significant benefits compared with an angiography-guided strategy in the management of non-culprit lesions in STEMI regarding the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 1 year [[10]]. Complete revascularization has been found superior to the treatment of the culprit lesion alone in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction STEMI [[9]]. Reduction of strut thickness has been an important innovation in stent design, leading to easier manipulation, reduced risk of stent thrombosis, and lower rates of revascularization. Most of these patients have been excluded from RCTs whereas observational studies only include patients who underwent revascularization [[2]]. [Extracted from the article]

The purpose of this study is to report our early experience with endovascular treatment of patients with symptomatic non-ruptured (sAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) abdominal aortic aneurysms. Between September 2005 and September 2008, all patients with a diagnosis of sAAA or rAAA were evaluated for endovascular suitability. We did not consider hemodynamic instability to be a contraindication for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Patients whose aneurysm anatomy was not suitable for EVAR received open repair (OR). A total of 46 patients with sAAA or rAAA underwent emergency EVAR: in particular, 18/46 patients were treated for sAAA and 28/46 for rAAA. Successful stent-graft deployment was achieved in 44 patients (96%); we had two open surgical conversions. The 30-day mortality rate was 19.5%. Nine patients died during the first 30 postoperative days: four patients died within 24 hours because of severe hypovolemic shock, two died of respiratory failure, one died as a result of bowel ischemia and two because of myocardial infarction after hospital discharge. Complete follow-up data were available for 35 patients (median 185 days; range 30-730 days). In conclusion, endovascular treatment is feasible and the early experience is promising. The capability of offering EVAR and OR for sAAA and rAAA according to our experience suggests that EVAR and OR should be regarded as complementary techniques to improve outcome of patients with acute AAA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]