Dias‐Neto, Marina

Background: Pericarotid adipose tissue (PCAT) characteristics and systemic inflammation may play an important role in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes. This study explores the association between PCAT Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges, radiomic features, and systemic inflammatory markers in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods: Twenty patients undergoing CEA were included in this cross-sectional study. PCAT was analyzed using preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) images, with regions of interest defined around the carotid arteries. PCAT was categorized into three HU ranges: −190 to −120, −119 to −70, and −69 to −30. Radiomics features were extracted using PyRadiomics. The primary outcome was the correlation of PCAT imaging with preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (NLRs). The secondary outcome was the association of PCAT imaging with the red cell distribution width (RDW-CV). Linear regression was used to evaluate associations between PCAT characteristics and inflammatory markers. Results: Distinct HU ranges in PCAT imaging showed strong correlations with the preoperative NLR. The −190 to −120 HU range demonstrated a negative association (β = −3.809, p < 0.001), whereas the −119 to −70 HU range showed a positive correlation (β = 3.814, p < 0.001). PCAT uniformity was positively associated with RDW-CV (β = 0.494, p = 0.027). Other radiomics features, such as contrast, showed trends but did not reach statistical significance. A larger outer area of PCAT was inversely associated with the NLR (β = −0.677, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Specific PCAT HU ranges and radiomics features are significantly associated with systemic inflammatory markers in CEA patients. These findings suggest that HU-based segmentation and radiomics analysis of PCAT may offer valuable insights into the relationship between local adipose tissue characteristics and systemic inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68–79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6–50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Objective: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Background: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. Methods: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006–2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. Results: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P<0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P<0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7–37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50–2.44; P<0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63–3.62; P<0.001). Conclusions: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Purpose: The Provisional Extension to Induce Complete Attachment Technique (PETTICOAT) uses a bare-metal stent to scaffold the true lumen in patients with acute or subacute aortic dissections. While it is designed to facilitate remodeling, some patients with chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) require repair. This study describes the technical pitfalls of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in patients who underwent prior PETTICOAT repair. Technique: We report 3 patients with extent II TAAAs who had prior bare-metal dissection stents treated by FB-EVAR. Two patients required maneuvers to reroute the aortic guidewire, which was initially placed in-between stent struts. This was recognized before the deployment of the fenestrated-branched device. A third patient had difficult advancement of the celiac bridging stent due to a conflict of the tip of the stent delivery system into one of the stent struts, requiring to redo catheterization and pre-stenting with a balloon-expandable stent. There were no mortalities and target-related events after a follow-up of 12 to 27 months. Conclusion: FB-EVAR following the PETTICOAT is infrequent, but technical difficulties should be recognized to prevent complications from the inadvertent deployment of the fenestrated-branched stent-graft component in-between stent struts. Clinical Impact The present study highlights a few maneuvers to prevent or overcome possible complications during endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm following PETTICOAT. The main problem to be recognized is the placement of the aortic wire beyond one of the struts of the existing bare-metal stent. Moreover, encroachment of catheters or the bridging stent delivery system into the stent struts may potentially cause difficulties.