712 Outcomes of Infrainguinal Stents in Peripheral Arterial Disease

Background Endovascular therapy is an established treatment for peripheral arterial disease. In aortoiliac disease, above the inguinal ligament, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) + stent results in good long-term patency rates[1]. In comparison, long-term patency rates of PTA + stent in femoropopliteal disease, below the inguinal ligament are inferior, despite advancements in stent technology[2]. Multi-level disease is more common, lesions are often longer in length and rates of re-stenosis remain high. There is a paucity of data of long-term outcomes in infrainguinal stents and therefore debate to what the optimal treatment strategy should be[3]. Method 5-year retrospective analysis of 59 patients between 2014 and 2019 in a UK regional vascular centre. Patients with Rutherford Score 3 - 6 were treated by Vascular Surgeons and Interventional Radiologists with PTA + stent. Outcomes included patency at 6, 12, 24, 36 months, need for revascularisation/reintervention, major amputation, and death. Results 12% of stents occluded at 30 days and 39% of stents occluded at 12 months. 34% patients required further intervention (PTA, femoropopliteal bypass, amputation) and 7 out of 59 (12%) target limbs were amputated. Conclusions Whilst PTA + stent demonstrates an effective intervention for a selection of patients, it is evident that further work is required in order to identify the best treatment strategy and most clinically useful outcome measure.

Long-Term Outcome for Covered Endovascular Reconstruction of Aortic Bifurcation for Aortoiliac Disease: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose The gold standard for the treatment of complex (TASC II C and D) atherosclerotic aortoiliac lesions is still open surgical repair. Endovascular techniques have a lower mortality and morbidity rate but this comes at the cost of worse patency rates when compared with open repair. Improved short- and mid-term results have been reported using the covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) technique. The aim of this study was to report our initial experience with the CERAB technique and report long-term patency rates. Materials and Methods All patients treated with the CERAB technique between 2012 and 2018 were prospectively registered in an institutional database and included in this study. Patient demographics, characteristics, symptoms, procedural, and follow-up details were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative complications and reinterventions were also identified. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to assess cumulative rates of patency. Results A total of 44 patients were treated with the CERAB technique and included in this study. The majority of the treated aortoiliac occlusions were classified as complex: TASC II C (n=7; 15.9%) or TASC II D (n=25; 56.8%). Primary patency rate at 60 months was 83.3%, assisted primary patency was 90.9% and secondary patency 95%. No significant differences were found in patency rates comparing noncomplex (TASC II A and B) and complex (TASC II C and D) aortoiliac lesions. Seven patients (15.9%) required at least one additional procedure to maintain either assisted primary patency or secondary patency during follow-up. The 30-day complication rate in this series was 20.5% (n=9), of which 55.6% (n=5) were minor complications. All major 30-day complications (n=4) occurred during or directly after the CERAB procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. No limb occlusions occurred within 30 days of the procedure. Conclusion Good long-term patency rates can be achieved with the CERAB technique to treat aortoiliac stenosis or occlusions while maintaining advantages associated with endovascular interventions. This remains true even when a CERAB is used to treat complex aortoiliac lesions. An endo-first approach to treat complex aortoiliac lesions seems viable.

How to perform a percutaneous coronary intervention, when no conventional arterial access site is available: A case report

Coronary artery disease is one of the leading causes of mortality in the world. The presence of concomitant peripheral artery disease increases the risks of cardiovascular events along with limiting the arterial access for coronary intervention. Invasive management of such cases includes either alternate site access or combined peripheral and coronary revascularization. We hereby report a patient of the infrarenal abdominal aorta and bilateral subclavian arterial occlusion, who presented with acute coronary syndrome. To perform the percutaneous coronary intervention, we first performed the endovascular stenting of occluded aortoiliac disease, followed by stenting of the right coronary artery. We had discussed the limitation of arterial access to perform PCI in such a situation.

A case report of a transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation with concomitant carotid endarterectomy

Background Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worthwhile substitute in patients who might otherwise be inoperable; however, it is applied in <10% of TAVI cases. In patients with established carotid artery stenosis, the risk of complications is increased with the transcarotid access route. Case summary We report a case of concomitant transcarotid TAVI and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a patient with bovine aortic arch and previous complex infrarenal EndoVascular Aortic Repair (EVAR). The integrity and positioning of the previous EVAR endograft was risked by transfemoral access. The right subclavian artery was only 4.5 mm and the left subclavian was totally occluded so transcarotid access was chosen. The patient recovered well, with no neurological deficit and was discharged home after 72 h. He was last seen and was doing well 6 months post-procedure. Discussion In patients with severe aortoiliac disease, or previous aortic endografting, transfemoral access for TAVI can be challenging or even prohibitive. Alternative access sites such as transapical or transaortic are associated with added risk because they carry increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, longer intensive care unit and hospital stay, and increased cost. A transcaval approach for TAVI has also been reported but was not suitable for our patient due to prior EVAR. Concomitant TAVI via transcarotid access and CEA can be successful in experienced hands. This case highlights the importance of a team-based approach to complex TAVI cases in high-risk patients with complex vascular access.

Iliac Branch Devices With Standard vs Fenestrated/Branched Stent-Grafts: Does Aneurysm Complexity Produce Worse Outcomes? Insights From the pELVIS Registry

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of iliac branch devices (IBD) used in combination with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs with fenestrated/branched EVAR (f/bEVAR) to treat complex aortoiliac aneurysms. Materials and Methods: The pELVIS Registry database containing the outcomes of IBD use at 8 European centers was interrogated to identify all IBD procedures that were combined with either standard EVAR or f/bEVAR. Among 669 patients extracted from the database, 629 (mean age 72.1±8.8 years; 597 men) had received an IBD combined with standard EVAR vs 40 (mean age 71.1±8.0 years; 40 men) who underwent f/bEVAR with an IBD. The mean aortic aneurysm diameters were 46.4±13.3 mm in the f/bEVAR patients vs 45.0±15.5 mm in the standard EVAR cases. The groups were similar in terms of baseline clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare patient survival, IBD occlusion, type III endoleak, and aneurysm-related reinterventions in follow-up. The estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was 100% in the f/bEVAR+IBD group and 99% in the EVAR+IBD group (p=0.85). The 30-day mortality was 0% vs 0.5%, respectively (p=0.66), while the 30-day reintervention rates were 7.5% vs 4.1% (p=0.31). The mean follow-up was 32.1±21.3 months for f/bEVAR+IBD patients (n=30) and 35.5±26.8 months for EVAR+IBD patients (n=571; p=0.41). The 12-month survival estimates were 93.4% (95% CI 93.2% to 93.6%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 93.6% (95% CI 93.3% to 93.9%) for the f/bEVAR+IBD group (p=0.93). There were no occlusions or type III endoleaks in the f/bEVAR+IBD group at 12 months, while the estimates for freedom from occlusion and from type III endoleak in the EVAR+IBD group were 97% (95% CI 96.8% to 97.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 98.4% to 98.6%), respectively. The 12-month estimates for freedom for aneurysm-related reintervention were 93% (95% CI 92.7% to 93.3%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 86.4% (95% CI 85.9% to 86.9%) in the f/bEVAR+IBD patients (p=0.046). Conclusion: Treatment of complex aortoiliac disease with f/bEVAR+IBD can achieve equally good early and 1-year outcomes compared to treatment with IBDs and standard bifurcated stent-grafts, except for a somewhat higher reintervention rate in f/bEVAR patients.