Search

Background: Identifying sex-related differences/variables associated with 30-day/1-year mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Methods: Multicenter/retrospective/observational study. Database sent to all-the-Italian vascular surgeries to collect all-the¬-patients operated for CLTI in 2019. Acute lower-limb ischemia and neuropathic-diabetic foot not included. Follow-up: 1-year. Data on demographics/comorbidities, treatments/outcome, and 30-day/1-year mortality investigated. Results: Information on 2399 cases (69.8% men) from 36/143 (25.2%) centers. Median (IQR) age: 73 (66-80) and 79 (71-85) yrs for men/women, respectively (p75 (HR3.63, p=.003) associated with 30-day mortality. Age >75 (HR2.14, p

To determine outcomes of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms by either open or endovascular repair with fenestrated or branched endografts.A systematic review was conducted for open or endovascular repair of postdissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms, between January 2009 and February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed for postoperative complications and both early and late mortality and reinterventions.Fifteen noncomparative studies (eight endovascular repair and seven open repair) were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 1337 patients were included, 1068 in the open repair group (73% male; mean age 58 years) and 269 in the endovascular repair group (79% male; mean age 65 years). The 30-day mortality was 6% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .35), whereas the 30-day reintervention rate was 3% for open repair vs 1% for endovascular repair (P = .66). The only significant difference was reported for 30-day respiratory complication rate (30% open repair vs 2% endovascular repair; P .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was 9% for open repair vs 8% for endovascular repair (P = .95). The mean follow-up was 44 months: 48 months (range, 10-72 months) after open repair and 17 months (range, 12-25 months) after endovascular repair (P .01). Late aortic reinterventions were more frequent after endovascular repair (11% vs 32%; P .001). The late overall mortality rate was 19% for open repair vs 7% for endovascular repair (P = .08), whereas aortic-related mortality was 7% for open repair vs 3% for endovascular repair (P = .22).In the absence of comparative studies, this meta-analysis showed that endovascular repair seems to be a viable alternative for patients unfit for open repair.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long term results of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and ectatic common iliac arteries (CIAs).In a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database in two high volume centres, patients with AAAs undergoing elective standard EVAR were divided into two groups: those with both CIA diameters18 mm, and those with at least one ectatic iliac artery (CIA ≥ 18 mm). Patients with an intentional external iliac artery landing zone were excluded. Primary outcomes were survival and freedom from re-intervention. Secondary end points were EVAR failure and iliac related endoleak and iliac re-intervention.From 2000 to 2015, 648 patients were included in the study, 277 (43%) had at least one CIA ≥ 18 mm. Pre-operative risk factors were similar between the two groups, with the exception of chronic renal insufficiency (p = .010) and cerebrovascular events (p = .040), which were higher in the ectatic CIA group. At 30 days from primary procedure, there was a higher rate of type Ib endoleak in patients with ectatic iliacs (p = .020). A statistically significant increase in the incidence of late type Ib endoleak in patients with ectatic iliac arteries was confirmed at a mean follow up of 74.8 months (p = .01). The need for iliac related re-intervention was higher in patients with CIAs ≥18 mm (odds ratio 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.1-3.2).Ectatic iliac arteries are considered suitable landing zones for EVAR, although there is an increased risk of secondary interventions in time mainly due to late CIA dilation and secondary type Ib endoleak. Patients receiving EVAR with flared iliac limbs may benefit a more intensive surveillance to avoid late failures.

INTRODUCTION Endovascular treatment represents nowadays the preferred therapeutic approach for disabling femoro-popliteal arterial occlusive disease in fit patients. In the latest years, in order to improve short- and long-term outcomes, drug eluting devices have been developed. Drug coated balloons (DCB) and drug eluting stents (DES) are today employed in clinical practice, and several studies has been completed to assess their performance in different clinical scenarios. Objective of the present review and meta-analysis is to compare clinical results of different endovascular treatment modalities in the published literature in the last 10 years. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement on the literature regarding direct comparisons between DCB, DES, bare metal stents (BMS) and Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty (POBA) has been conducted. Primary outcomes were considered Primary Patency and Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Analysis of late survival in different treatment groups was outside the scope of the present study and was therefore not included as main end point. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Meta analysis results confirm that DCB outperforms POBA in both primary patency (estimate OR=3.17, 95% CI: 2.10-4.76) and TLR (POBA estimate OR=3.59, 95% CI= 2.31-5.56). No clear evidences emerged comparing DES and BMS; however, DES were shown to fare better than BMS in terms of TLR when analyzing lesions