Search

Objectives: Arterial thrombo-embolic complications (ATEC) are still common during and after non-cardiac arterial procedures (NCAP) despite the administration of (a fixed bolus of) heparin. These ATEC could be due to existing individual differences in heparin sensitivity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an ACT guided heparin dose protocol and to evaluate if a more effective target ACT can be achieved during NCAP., Methods: In this multi-center prospective study, 194 patients undergoing elective and non-elective NCAP were enrolled and received heparin according to a heparin dose protocol which aimed to obtain a target ACT of 250 seconds (s.), measured by the Medtronic HMS Plus. Patients received a standardized bolus of 5 000 IU followed by additional boluses depending on the actual ACT. Primary outcome was the ACT value reached. Secondary outcomes were incidence of all ATEC and haemorrhagic complications., Results: The mean baseline ACT was 138 ± 17 s. The mean ACT five minutes after the initial heparin bolus of 5 000 IU was 197 ± 31 s. 48% of patients reached an ACT of 200 s. and six per cent of patients reached an ACT of 250 s. Additional dosages of heparin were administered in 72% of patients. With this ACT guided heparin protocol 86% of patients reached an ACT of 200 s. and 26% of patients reached an ACT of 250 s. A negative correlation was found between body weight and the ACT at T1 (P ˂ 0.001). ATEC and haemorrhagic complications occurred in 11.3% and 16.5% of patients. The lowest incidence of ATEC was found in patients with peak ACT between 200 and 250 s, namely 6.3%., Conclusion: This ACT guided heparin protocol proved to be feasible, safe and more patients reached an ACT > of 200 s. compared to a standardized heparin bolus of 5 000 IU. Further research is needed to investigate if ACT guided heparin administration could be preferable over not monitoring the anticoagulant effect of peri-procedural heparin and results in a lower incidence of ATEC, without an increase in haemorrhagic complications., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In non-cardiac arterial procedures (NCAP), heparin is administered to prevent arterial thromboembolic complications (ATEC). Heparin has a nonpredictable effect in the individual patient, also known as variation in heparin sensitivity. Various dosing protocols are in use, but the optimal dose is currently still unknown. A standardized bolus of 5 000 IU heparin is most frequently used by vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. The activated clotting time (ACT) is an established method to measure the level of anticoagulation, but has, until now, not gained widespread use in NCAP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anticoagulant effect during NCAP of a standardized bolus of 5 000 IU heparin by measuring the ACT., Methods: In this prospective study, 190 patients undergoing NCAP were enrolled between December 2016 and September 2018. The ACT was measured during open and endovascular/hybrid procedures. All patients received a standardized bolus of 5 000 IU heparin. The ACT was measured by the Hemostasis Management System Plus (HMS Plus, Medtronic®), before, 5 minutes after administration of heparin, and every 30 minutes thereafter. The primary outcome was periprocedural ACT values measured. Secondary outcomes were ATEC and hemorrhagic complications., Results: A large individual patient variability in the response to heparin was found. The mean baseline ACT in all patients was 129 ± 18 s., and the mean ACT 5 minutes after the initial bolus of heparin was 191 ± 36 s. After the initial dose of 5 000 IU heparin 60 (33%) and 10 (6%) patients reached an ACT of 200 and 250 s., respectively. Despite the use of heparin, ATEC occurred in 17 patients (9%). The lowest number of ATEC occurred in the group of patients with an ACT between 200 and 250 s., Conclusions: A standardized bolus of 5 000 IU heparin does not lead to adequate and safe heparinization in non-cardiac arterial procedures. Patient response to heparin shows a large individual variability. Therefore, routine ACT measurements are necessary to ascertain adequate anticoagulation. Further research is needed to investigate if heparin dosing based on the ACT could result in less arterial thromboembolic complications, without increasing hemorrhagic complications., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Endovascular repair has become a viable alternative for aortic pathological features, including those located within the aortic arch. We investigated the anatomic suitability for branched thoracic endovascular repair in patients previously treated with conventional open surgery for aortic arch pathological features. Methods and Results Patients who underwent open surgery for aortic arch pathological features at our institution between 2000 and 2018 were included. Anatomic suitability was determined by strict compliance with the anatomic criteria within manufacturers' instructions for use for each of the following branched thoracic stent grafts: Relay Plus Double-Branched (Terumo-Aortic), TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates), Zenith Arch Branched Device (Cook-Medical), and Nexus Stent Graft System (Endospan Ltd/Jotec GmbH). Computed tomography angiography images were analyzed with outer luminal line measurements. A total of 377 patients (mean age, 64±14 years; 64% men) were identified, 153 of whom had suitable computed tomography angiography images for measurements. In total, 59 patients (15.6% of the total cohort and 38.6% of the measured cohort) were eligible for endovascular repair using at least one of the devices. Device suitability was 30.9% for thoracic aneurysms, 4.6% for type A dissections, 62.5% for type B dissections, and 28.6% for other pathological features. Conclusions The anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of all aortic arch pathological features was modest. The highest suitability rates were observed for thoracic aneurysms and for type B dissections, of which repair included part of the aortic arch. We suggest endovascular repair of arch pathological features should be reserved for high-volume centers with experience in endovascular arch repair.