Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Case and single center reports have documented the feasibility and suggested the effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs), but the role and value of such treatment remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: To clarify these we examined a collected experience with use of EVAR for RAAA treatment from 49 centers. METHODS: Data were obtained by questionnaires from these centers, updated from 13 centers committed to EVAR treatment whenever possible and included treatment details from a single center and information on 1037 patients treated by EVAR and 763 patients treated by open repair (OR). RESULTS: Overall 30-day mortality after EVAR in 1037 patients was 21.2%. Centers performing EVAR for RAAAs whenever possible did so in 28% to 79% (mean 49.1%) of their patients, had a 30-day mortality of 19.7% (range: 0%-32%) for 680 EVAR patients and 36.3% (range: 8%-53%) for 763 OR patients (P < 0.0001). Supraceliac aortic balloon control was obtained in 19.1% +/- 12.0% (+/-SD) of 680 EVAR patients. Abdominal compartment syndrome was treated by some form of decompression in 12.2% +/- 8.3% (+/-SD) of these EVAR patients. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that EVAR has a lower procedural mortality at 30 days than OR in at least some patients and that EVAR is better than OR for treating RAAA patients provided they have favorable anatomy; adequate skills, facilities, and protocols are available; and optimal strategies, techniques, and adjuncts are employed

A floating thrombus within the aortic arch is a rare condition that is generally detected after cerebral, visceral, or peripheral embolization. Endovascular exclusion of such mobile thrombus has been described but exclusively involved the descending aorta, or debranching of the supra-aortic trunk was done by open surgical bypass procedure. We present a case with a floating thrombus that extended throughout the whole aortic arch and involved all of the supra-aortic trunks. The pathology was treated by debranching the supra-aortic trunks using a new nonsutured Viabahn-based (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) technique (Viabahn Open Revascularization TEChnique [VORTEC]) for revascularization of the left common carotid artery and performing an antegrade endograft implantation from the ascending aorta, distal to the origin of the feeding graft for debranching, to the descending aorta in one procedure

Since the first successful attempts of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for patients with ruptured AAAs in the mid 1990s, surgeons have had to decide whether to treat patients by conventional open surgery or by minimally invasive but technically more demanding eEVAR. To date, selection of patients for eEVAR is still heavily debated and factors like hemodynamic instability, fear of treatment delay for patient transfer or imaging procedures and logistic issues often lead to the exclusion of anatomically suitable patients from eEVAR. However, these adverse factors may be overcome by adherence to an appropriate (intention-to-treat) protocol employing the use of a hypotensive hemostatic approach, transfemoral aortic balloon occlusion technique (when needed), different types of devices and an appropriate plan to resolve logistic issues, leaving anatomic suitability as the single most important determinant of suitability for EVAR

Improvements in the design of endovascular grafts are based on lessons learned from difficulties encountered with prior-generation devices. The most common difficulties in device design relate to how the device is delivered and how it can safely and durably fix the aneurysm. This concept is especially true in patients with difficult anatomy. Difficult anatomy, such as small, calcified, tortuous access vessels and short angulated sealing zones, continue to challenge engineers. Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved eight endovascular devices for the treatment of aortic aneurysms: five for abdominal aortic aneurysms and three for thoracic aortic aneurysms. Compared to the first-generation devices approved in 1999, current devices have smaller and more flexible delivery systems. The devices themselves are more flexible and have better fixation than prior-generation devices. This article will focus on the next generation of devices that are not yet approved, but currently under investigation in the United States

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular replacement of failed Vanguard endoprosthesis with a newly inserted bifurcated Excluder endograft in 6 selected patients over a 10-year period is reported. REPORT: Six male patients were treated by secondary EVAR procedures for endograft failure (type I and/or III endoleaks caused by endograft disintegration and/or migration). All failed endografts (1 tube, 5 bifurcated) were Vanguard prostheses. Technically, a new bifurcated Excluder endograft was placed within the old failing Vanguard endograft. All reinterventions were performed under local anesthesia supplemented by systemic analgesia/sedation. In 3 patients, insertion of the new Excluder endograft was possible without any additional technical measure as the failing Vanguard endograft trunk had migrated distally. In another 3 patients, the failed Vanguard endograft trunk was still in place. In these patients, the Vanguard main body was pulled caudally with a transfemoral cross-over guide wire in order to gain sufficient length to allow the short limb of the Excluder endograft to open within the trunk of the failed Vanguard endoprosthesis. This guide wire was introduced through a second femoral 5F in the main access and exeteriorized with a snare through the contralateral 12 Fr sheath. The main body and short limb of the Excluder was then deployed whilst pulling on the cross-over wire. RESULTS: Six patients initially treated by a Vanguard endograft underwent complete relining with a newly inserted Excluder bifurcated stentgraft. The mean interval from the first EVAR procedure to the described replacement procedure was 75+/-20.2 months (range: 53-109). The new bifurcated Excluder endografts were successfully deployed in all patients (technical success: 100%). Primary sealing (defined as absence of endoleaks type I, III or IV in the postoperative contrast enhanced CT scan) was achieved in 6 of the 6 patients. There was no operative mortality. No further endovascular or open treatment was needed in the other 5 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 26+/-20.1 months (range 2.5-50 months), 2 patients died from unrelated causes. CONCLUSION: Secondary endovascular replacement of failed Vanguard endografts with a bifurcated Excluder endograft proved to be feasible and safe with no 30-day mortality. Technical detail requires traction on a cross-over wire to pull the old graft caudally and create enough space for the new bifurcated graft to be deployed

BACKGROUND: Open abdomen treatment (OAT) is considered a lifesaving procedure in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) after endovascular or open intervention for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA). Standardized treatment methods and algorithms for its use are still lacking. The high, published mortality rates may reflect difficulties in detecting and treating ACS, especially in patients treated by emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR). Presented are standardized algorithms for OAT, including a new technique using the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) system developed during 10 years of experience with eEVAR for RAAA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with RAAA treated by eEVAR from January 1998 to April 2008. Abdominal decompression was done when intravesical pressure >20 mm Hg or when abdominal perfusion pressure was <50 to 60 mm Hg and concomitant organ deterioration occurred. OAT was initially done with a subcutaneously sutured plastic bag or with a nonsutured zipper drape combined with a VAC device (VAC/ETHIZIP; KCI International Inc, Amstelveen, The Netherlands; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). All patients were switched to VAC/ETHIZIP as soon as possible. Dressings were generally changed every 3 to 5 days. Intra-abdominal pressure was monitored until stability was observed after delayed direct abdominal closure. RESULTS: Overall 30-day mortality for eEVAR was 13% (13 of 102); 8% (7 of 82) for patients without ACS and 30% (6 of 20) for those with ACS. Decompression for ACS was needed in 20 patients (20%) primarily during the intervention (n = 14) or secondarily in the intensive care unit (n = 6). Six of 20 (30%) patients requiring OAT died <or=30 days (4 primary, 2 secondary). A mean of 3.6 (range, 1-12) planned second-look interventions were done per patient at an interval of 3 to 5 days. No bowel lesions were observed. Four patients required antibiotic therapy for abdominal infection, and all infections resolved. Delayed abdominal wall closure (direct closure, 11; closure with polypropylene mesh, 3; bilateral anterior rectus abdominis sheath turnover flap, 1) was achieved after a median of 6 days (range, 1-47 days). CONCLUSION: The use of standardized novel techniques and a treatment protocol and algorithm for OAT after eEVAR for RAAA were feasible and safe. It decreased the workload of the medical and nursing staff, enhanced patient comfort because the need for dressing changes was minimized, and likely contributed to lower overall mortality in RAAA patients. Delayed direct fascial closure was possible in most patients

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation and critical overview of the trials comparing the early and later results of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The CochraneControlled Trials Register, PubMed/Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 1, 2009, to identify trials comparing the long-term outcomes of CAS with CEA. The MeSH terms used were 'carotid artery stenting,' 'carotid endarterectomy,' 'symptomatic carotid artery stenosis,' 'treatment,' 'clinical trial,' 'randomized,' and 'long-term results,' in various combinations. One single-center and three multicenter randomized studies reporting their long-term results from the comparison of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified. All four studies independently reached the conclusion that CAS may not provide results equivalent to those of CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis. A higher incidence of recurrent stenosis and peri- and postprocedural events accounted for the inferior results reported for CAS compared with CEA. Current data from randomized studies indicate that CAS provides inferior long-term results compared with CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, it can be argued that all of these trials were performed when both CAS equipment and CAS operators had not evolved to their current status. Given that current equipment and mature experience are required for CAS before comparing it with the current 'gold standard' procedure (CEA), the results of soon-to-be reported trials (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial [CREST], International Carotid Stenting Study [ICSS], or others) may alter the current impression that CAS is inferior to CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis