Search

Introduction: Portugal has one of the highest prevalence of patients on a regular dialysis program. This population has a higher incidence of peripheral arterial disease with higher rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our goal was to compare outcomes between dialysis and non-dialysis patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) submitted to infrapopliteal bypass., Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center study of infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI was performed between 2012 and 2019. Patients were divided in two groups based on dialysis status (group 1 incorporated patients on dialysis). Primary end point was 1-year freedom from CLTI. Secondary end points were limb-salvage, survival and primary (PP) and tertiary patency (TP) rates at 3 years of follow-up., Results: A total of 352 infrapopliteal bypasses were performed in 310 patients with CLTI. Fourteen percent of the revascularizations were performed on dialysis patients (48/352). Median age was 73 years (interquartile range - IQR 15) and 74% (259/352) were male. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR 42). Overall, 92% (325/352) had tissue loss and 44% (154/352) had some degree of infection. The majority of revascularization procedures were performed with vein grafts (61%, 214/352). The 30-day mortality was 4% (11/310), with no difference between groups (p = 0.627). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference between groups regarding freedom from CLTI (76% vs. 79%; HR 0.96, CI 0.65-1.44, p=0.857), limb-salvage (70% vs. 82%; HR 1.40, CI 0.71-2.78, p=0.327) and survival (62% vs. 64%; HR 1.08, CI 0.60-1.94, p=0.799). PP rates were 39% in group 1 and 64% in group 2 (HR 1.71, CI 1.05-2.79, p=0.030). TP rates were not different between groups (57% and 78%; HR 1.79, CI 0.92-3.47, p=0.082)., Conclusion: Infrapopliteal bypass for CLTI, on dialysis patients, resulted in lower PP rates. No differences were observed in freedom from CLTI, TP, limb salvage and survival.

Objective: Aortic arch aneurysmal disease remains a therapeutic challenge. For patients unsuitable for standard open surgery, hybrid repair with debranching of the supra-aortic arteries followed by thoracic endovascular grafting has been shown to be an effective solution. The aim of this study was to report the clinical outcomes of a single-institution experience using hybrid aortic arch repair., Methods: The cases of all consecutive patients submitted to hybrid aortic arch repair between January 2010 and June 2018 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of the study were 30-day mortality, perioperative complications, 2-year survival, endoleak, and reintervention rates., Results: A total of 35 patients with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range, 62-77 years) were submitted to hybrid aortic arch repair, with a median follow-up of 26.9 months (interquartile range, 2.4-63.6 months). Ten procedures (28.6%) were performed urgently for contained rupture. The most common etiology was degenerative (n = 14 [40.0%]). The proximal landing zones according to the Ishimaru classification were zone 2 in 20 patients (57.1%), zone 1 in 12 patients (34.3%), and zone 0 in 3 patients (8.6%). Early endoleaks were observed in six patients (17.1%), equally distributed between type I and type II. Late endoleaks were identified in 4 of 24 patients (16.7%; type I, n = 2 [8.3%]; type II, n = 1 [4.2%]; and type III, n = 1 [4.2%]). Thirty-day mortality rate was 14.3% (n = 5) with an early death rate of 8.7% (2/23) in elective cases and 30.0% (3/10) in urgent cases (odds ratio [OR], 4.93; confidence interval [CI], 0.68-35.67; P = .128). Except in one patient, 30-day mortality was associated with landing zone 0 or zone 1 (26.7% vs 5.0%; OR, 6.91; CI, 0.68-69.86; P = .141). Three patients (8.6%) suffered a postoperative stroke, and no episodes of spinal cord ischemia were observed. Two-year survival rate was 67.8% (CI, 49.4%-80.8%). Survival rates were significantly lower with increasing age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; CI, 1.03-1.18; P = .004), urgent procedure (HR, 4.80; CI, 1.56-14.80; P = .003), zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 6.34; CI, 1.73-23.18; P = .001), presence of arrhythmia (HR, 3.76; CI, 1.22-11.62; P = .013), and cerebrovascular disease (HR, 4.12; CI, 1.38-12.35; P = .006). A multivariate analysis identified age (HR, 1.11; P = .047) and zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 4.93; P = .033) as the only predictors for overall mortality., Conclusions: Hybrid aortic arch repair seems to be an alternative for higher risk patients not suitable for open repair, but selection of patients is crucial and may benefit from further refinement. In this study, worse outcomes were seen in older patients and those who required more proximal landing zones., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Through the association of endovascular and open procedures, hybrid surgery for lower limb revascularization allows the treatment of multilevel occlusive disease with a lower risk when compared to extensive open interventions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the immediate and midterm clinical outcomes of hybrid techniques for lower limb revascularization in a cohort of patients with multilevel arterial disease., Methods: Data from elective procedures between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively collected regarding hybrid lower limb revascularization procedures. The outcomes of the study were categorical clinical improvement, patency rates, major amputation rates, and mortality., Results: A total of 81 patients, 89 limbs, with a median age of 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61-73) were submitted to hybrid lower limb revascularization, with a median follow-up of 10.7 months (IQR 2.5-25.1). Treatment indications were chronic limb-threatening ischemia in 80.9% of the cases (rest pain in 18.0% and tissue loss in 62.9%). One-year primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency rates were 78.28% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.20-86.92), 85.12% (95% CI 72.96-92.09), and 90.19% (95% CI 79.13-95.54), respectively. Overall categorical clinical improvement was observed in 56.2%. Major amputation and mortality rates were 14.6% and 16.0%, respectively. Multilevel Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) C or D and stage IV Leriche-Fontaine classification were strongly associated with decreased categorical clinical improvement (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.08, P < 0.0001 and aOR 0.25, P = 0.013, respectively). Multilevel TASC C or D was also related to higher amputation rates, contrary to clinical presentation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 11.37, P = 0.002 and aHR 4.70, P = 0.091, respectively). Primary-assisted and secondary patency rates were associated with higher categorical clinical improvement (aOR 4.30, P = 0.036 and aOR 7.36, P = 0.021, respectively) and decreased major amputation rates (aHR 0.11, P = 0.003 and aHR 0.09, P = 0.001, respectively) but were not related to multilevel TASC and Leriche-Fontaine classifications., Conclusions: The present study reports a real-world experience with a large proportion of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Hybrid interventions for lower limb revascularization revealed to be a potential approach for patients with complex arterial disease that would beneficiate from less invasive procedures., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)