Search

Objective: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers’ consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.Results: Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.Conclusion: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.

Background The high-risk patient cohort of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (uTBADs) needs to be clarified. We compared uTBAD patients treated with best medical treatment (BMT), with and without aortic growth, from the Acute Dissection Stent Grafting or Best Medical Treatment (ADSORB) trial database. Furthermore, we looked for trends in outcome for aortic growth and remodeling after BMT and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and BMT (TEVAR+BMT). Methods BMT patients with available baseline and a 1-year follow-up arterial computed tomography scan were identified. True lumen and false lumen diameter was assessed at baseline and at follow-up. Patients with false lumen growth (group I) and without false lumen growth (group II) were compared. Predictors of false lumen and total lumen (aortic) growth were identified. Lastly, BMT outcomes were compared with BMT+TEVAR for false lumen thrombosis and change in false lumen and total aortic diameter in four sections: 0 to 10 cm (A), 10 to 20 cm (B), 20 to 30 cm (C), and 30 to 40 cm (D) from the left subclavian artery. Results The dissection was significantly longer in group I than in group II (43.2 ± 4.9 cm vs 30.4 ± 8.8 cm; P = .002). The number of vessels originating from the false lumen at baseline was identified as an independent predictor of false lumen growth (odds ratio, 22.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-481.5; P = .049). Increasing age was a negative predictor of total aortic diameter growth (odds ratio, 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.813-1.00; P = .0502). The proximal sections A and B showed complete thrombosis in 80.6% in the BMT+TEVAR group compared with 9.5% in the BMT group. In these sections, changes from patent to partial or partial to complete thrombosis were observed in 90.3% of the TEVAR+BMT group vs 31.0% in the BMT group. In sections C and D, the change in thrombosis was 74.1% for the TEVAR+BMT group vs 20.6% for the BMT group. The false lumen diameter increase at section C was larger in the BMT group. Total lumen diameter decreased in sections A and B in the TEVAR+BMT group compared with an increase in the BMT group (–4.8 mm vs +2.9 mm, and –1.5 mm vs +3.8 mm, respectively). Sections C and D showed minimal and comparable expansion in both treatment groups. Conclusions The new imaging analysis of the ADSORB trial patients identified the number of vessels originating from the false lumen as an independent predictor of false lumen growth in uTBAD patients. Increasing age was a negative predictor of aortic growth. Our analysis may help to identify which uTBAD patients are at higher risk and should receive TEVAR or be monitored closely during follow-up.

Background and Purpose— Rupture of atherosclerotic plaques is one of the main causes of ischemic strokes. The aim of this study was to investigate carotid plaque vulnerability markers in relation to blood flow direction and the mechanisms leading to plaque rupture at the upstream side of carotid stenoses. Methods— Frequency and location of rupture, endothelial erosion, neovascularization, and hemorrhage were determined in longitudinal sections of 80 human carotid specimens. Plaques were immunohistochemically analyzed for markers of vulnerability. Plaque geometry was measured to reconstruct shape profiles of ruptured versus stable plaques and to perform computational fluid dynamics analyses. Results— In 86% of ruptured plaques, rupture was observed upstream. In this region, neovascularization and hemorrhage were increased, along with increased immunoreactivity of vascular endothelial and connective tissue growth factor, whereas endothelial erosion was more frequent downstream. Proteolytic enzymes, mast cell chymase and cathepsin L, and the proapoptotic protein Bax showed significantly higher expression upstream as compared with the downstream shoulder of atherosclerotic lesions. Comparison of geometric profiles for ruptured and stable plaques showed increased longitudinal asymmetry of fibrous cap and lipid core thickness in ruptured plaques. The specific geometry of plaques ruptured upstream induced increased levels of shear stress and increased pressure drop between the upstream and the downstream plaque shoulders. Conclusions— Vulnerability of the upstream plaque region is associated with enhanced neovascularization, hemorrhage, and cap thinning induced by proteolytic and proapoptotic mechanisms. These processes are reflected in structural plaque characteristics, analyses of which could improve the efficacy of vascular diagnostics and prevention.

Objective There is abundant evidence linking hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy to poor outcome after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), yet the definition of hostile anatomy varies from study to study. This current analysis was undertaken to identify anatomic criteria that are most predictive of success or failure at the aortic neck after EVAR. Methods The study group comprised 221 patients in the Aneurysm Treatment using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) clinical trial, a population enriched with patients with challenging aortic neck anatomy and failure of sealing. Imaging protocols were not protocol specified but were performed according to the institution's standard of care. Core laboratory analysis assessed the three-dimensional centerline-reformatted computed tomography scans. Failure at the aortic neck was defined by type Ia endoleak occurring at the time of the initial endograft implantation or during follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the value of each anatomic measure in the classification of aortic neck success and failure and to identify optimal thresholds of discrimination. Binary logistic regression was performed after excluding highly intercorrelated variables, creating a final model with significant predictors of outcome after EVAR. Results Among the 221 patients, 121 (54.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and 100 (45.2%) did not. Type Ia endoleaks presented immediately after endograft deployment in 58 (58.0%) or during follow-up in 42 (42.0%). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified 12 variables where the classification of patients with type Ia endoleak was significantly more accurate than chance alone. Increased aortic neck diameter at the lowest renal artery (P = .013) and at 5 mm (P = .008), 10 mm (P = .008), and 15 mm (P = .010) distally; aneurysm sac diameter (P = .001), common iliac artery diameters (right, P = .012; left, P = .032), and a conical (P = .049) neck configuration were predictive of endoleak. By contrast, increased aortic neck length (P = .050), a funnel-shaped aortic neck (P = .036), and neck mural thrombus content, as measured by average thickness (P = .044) or degrees of circumferential coverage (P = .029), were protective against endoleak. Binary logistic regression identified three variables independently predictive of type Ia endoleak. Neck diameter at the lowest renal artery (P = .002, cutpoint 26 mm) and neck length (P = .017, cutpoint 17 mm) were associated with endoleak, whereas some mural neck thrombus content was protective (P = .001, cutpoint 11° of circumferential coverage). Conclusions A limited number of independent anatomic variables are predictive of type Ia endoleak after EVAR, including aortic neck diameter and aortic neck length, whereas mural thrombus in the neck is protective. This study suggests that anatomic measures with identifiable threshold cutpoints should be considered when defining the hostile aortic neck and assessing the risk of complications after EVAR.

A method to determine the electrical conductance of thin films such as a‐Si:H that does not require contacting electrodes is presented. This method, introduced by Sommer and Tanner, is based on measuring the phase shift of a capacitive transmission line. The lower detection limit for the geometry used here is 10−11 Ω−1, which makes it suitable to determine the photoconductivity of a‐Si:H thin films. The method shows reasonable agreement with classical conductance measurements using sputtered electrodes.

ObjectiveProximal attachment site complications continue to occur after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), specifically type Ia endoleak and endograft migration. EndoAnchors (Aptus Endosystems, Sunnyvale, Calif) were designed to enhance endograft proximal fixation and sealing, and the current study was undertaken to evaluate the potential benefit of this treatment.MethodsDuring the 23-month period ending in December 2013, 319 subjects were enrolled at 43 sites in the United States and Europe. EndoAnchors were implanted in 242 patients (75.9%) at the time of an initial EVAR procedure (primary arm) and in 77 patients with an existing endograft and proximal aortic neck complications (revision arm). Technical success was defined as deployment of the desired number of EndoAnchors, adequate penetration of the vessel wall, and absence of EndoAnchor fracture. Procedural success was defined as technical success without a type Ia endoleak at completion angiography. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and interquartile range.ResultsThe 238 male (74.6%) and 81 female (25.4%) subjects had a mean age of 74.1 ± 8.2 years. Aneurysms averaged 58 ± 13 (51-63) mm in diameter at the time of EndoAnchor implantation (core laboratory measurements). The proximal aortic neck averaged 16 ± 13 (7-23) mm in length (42.7%

Objective The proximal aortic neck remains one of the challenges of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the risk of type Ia endoleak and endograft migration is increased in patients with short, large-diameter, or highly angulated necks. EndoAnchors have been used as an adjunct to EVAR in such patients, and the aim of this study was to assess their benefit analyzed by indication for use. Methods During a 2-year period, 319 patients were enrolled at 43 sites in the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) study. This prospective, multinational, real-world analysis of EndoAnchors comprised two groups of patients, those undergoing first-time EVAR (primary arm, 242) and those with proximal neck complications remote from the time of an initial endograft implantation (revision arm, 77). The primary arm was further subdivided into patients undergoing prophylactic EndoAnchor use for hostile proximal neck anatomy (178), with a type Ia endoleak evident during initial endograft deployment (60), and in conjunction with extender cuffs after unsatisfactory endograft deployment distally in the neck (four). The revision arm was subdivided into patients presenting with a type Ia endoleak alone (45), endograft migration alone (11), and migration with endoleak (21). Technical success was site reported as satisfactory deployment of the desired number of EndoAnchors without fracture or loss of integrity. Procedural success was defined as technical success without type Ia endoleak at completion arteriography. Core laboratory analysis was performed on 249 baseline and 192 follow-up computed tomographic studies, 66 of which were available within the 1-year window. Results Technical and procedural success rates were highest in the prophylactically treated subset (172 of 178; 96.6%). Whereas the technical success of EndoAnchor deployment was also high in the other subsets, residual type Ia endoleaks were more frequent at completion angiography when the indication for EndoAnchor use was type Ia endoleak, both in the primary arm (17 of 60; 28%) and in the revision arm (9 of 45; 20%). During a median imaging follow-up of 7 months, 183 of 202 patients (90.1%) remained free of type Ia endoleaks. Primary prophylactic patients were free from type Ia endoleak in 110 of 114 cases (96.5%). The most challenging subset was revision patients treated for type Ia endoleak; type Ia endoleaks were evident during follow-up in 10 of 29 of the cases (34%). Sac regression >5 mm in patients with 1-year imaging was observed in 26 of 66 patients (39%) and was highest in the primary prophylaxis subset (20 of 43; 47%). Conclusions EndoAnchor implantation can be a useful adjunct to EVAR as prophylaxis against proximal attachment site complications in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, as treatment for early and late type Ia endoleaks, or, in conjunction with aortic extension cuffs, for endograft migration. Whereas the most challenging patients are those who present with type Ia endoleaks remote from initial EVAR, EndoAnchors are still effective in treating the majority of these cases.