D'Oria, Mario

Abstract Introduction Revascularization to prevent limb loss is not feasible or represents a very high risk in a significant proportion of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). No standard definition currently exists to define this population of patients. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based, multidomain definition to improve clinical assessment and reporting of studies in people with ‘no option’ (NO) or ‘poor option’ (PO) CLTI. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted with 164 specialists from 30 countries. Two iterative survey rounds were used to reach consensus, defined as ≥70% agreement with a score of ≥7 on a nine-point scale. Results Some 164 international vascular specialists participated in the study, averaging 19 years of experience. A multidomain framework including arterial disease anatomy, biology, risk, function, and context (ABRFC) achieved 83% consensus. A ‘desert foot’ was defined as the absence of distal arterial revascularization targets on advanced non-invasive imaging, invasive digital subtraction angiography, and at least one failed endovascular revascularization attempt (81.6% agreement). Inadequate autogenous bypass conduit was defined as the lack of usable autologous vein across all four limbs (85% agreement). Patients were classified as NO for revascularization if they present with ‘desert foot’, prohibitive medical risk, a non-functional limb, or in those patients who refused arterial revascularization. PO revascularization patients combined factors such as severe infection, lack of autologous vein, or treatment non-compliance (72.1% agreement). Conclusion This consensus study established a structured, expert-validated definition of no option or poor option for revascularisation of patients with CLTI. The multidomain ABRFC framework provides a foundation for standardized clinical assessment, trial design, and future guideline development.

Purpose. The present scoping review aims to describe and analyze available clinical data on the most commonly reported risk prediction indices in vascular surgery for perioperative mortality, with a particular focus on ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Materials and Methods. A scoping review following the PRISMA Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews was performed. Available full-text studies published in English in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases (last queried, 30 March 2023) were systematically reviewed and analyzed. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework used to construct the search strings was the following: in patients with aortic pathologies, in particular rAAA (population), undergoing open or endovascular surgery (intervention), what different risk prediction models exist (comparison), and how well do they predict post-operative mortality (outcomes)? Results. The literature search and screening of all relevant abstracts revealed a total of 56 studies in the final qualitative synthesis. The main findings of the scoping review, grouped by the risk score that was investigated in the original studies, were synthetized without performing any formal meta-analysis. A total of nine risk scores for major vascular surgery or elective AAA, and 10 scores focusing on rAAA, were identified. Whilst there were several validation studies suggesting that most risk scores performed adequately in the setting of rAAA, none reached 100% accuracy. The Glasgow aneurysm score, ERAS and Vancouver score risk scores were more frequently included in validation studies and were more often used in secondary studies. Unfortunately, the published literature presents a heterogenicity of results in the validation studies comparing the different risk scores. To date, no risk score has been endorsed by any of the vascular surgery societies. Conclusions. The use of risk scores in any complex surgery can have multiple advantages, especially when dealing with emergent cases, since they can inform perioperative decision making, patient and family discussions, and post hoc case-mix adjustments. Although a variety of different rAAA risk prediction tools have been published to date, none are superior to others based on this review. The heterogeneity of the variables used in the different scores impairs comparative analysis which represents a major limitation to understanding which risk score may be the “best” in contemporary practice. Future developments in artificial intelligence may further assist surgical decision making in predicting post-operative adverse events.

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of “anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).” Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups ( P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001). Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA. Clinical Impact The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient’s quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures. METHODS Non-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010–1 August 2020. RESULTS Current general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS The overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) using division branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zones. Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, 74 patients (mean age 74±7 years; 72 men) treated for aortoiliac or common iliac artery aneurysms had an IBE deployed with distal landing of the side branch within the main trunk (n=60) of the internal iliac artery (IIA) vs within a division branch (n=25). Thirteen (17%) patients received bilateral IBE implantations for a total of 85 vessels evaluated. Early endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, 30-day major adverse events (MAEs), and 30-day major access complications. Late endpoints were survival, primary and secondary IIA patency, freedom from IIA branch instability, freedom from new-onset buttock claudication, and aneurysm sac diameter changes. Time-dependent outcomes were reported as Kaplan-Meier curves with differences assessed using the log-rank test. Estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The overall technical success rate was 97%, with 1 technical failure per group (p=0.43). Two patients, one from each group, died within 30 days (p=0.43). No significant differences were seen in the rates of 30-day MAEs (7% vs 17%, p=0.35) or major access complications (9% vs 11%, p>0.99) for patients receiving distal landing in the main trunk vs a division branch, respectively. The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 19±12 months. The overall 1-year survival rate was 94% (95% CI 74% to 99%). The primary and secondary patency rates at 1 year were 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 95% (95% CI 72% to 99%, p=0.72) and 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 100% (p=0.41) for the main trunk vs division branch groups, respectively. Freedom from IIA branch instability estimates were also similar at 1-year follow-up [93% (95% CI 82% to 97%) vs 90% (95% CI 66% to 97%), p=0.29], as were the freedom from new-onset buttock claudication estimates [98% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI 67% to 99%), respectively; p=0.62]. Mean sac diameter change was 5.4±5.3 mm, not significantly different between the groups (p=0.85). Conclusion: Use of the posterior or anterior division of the IIA as a distal landing zone for the Gore Excluder IBE was safe and efficacious in the midterm. This technique may permit extending indications for endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Long-term assessment is needed to affirm the efficacy of this technique.

Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) with inner branches for 2 mesenteric arteries as an alternative to fenestrations or directional branches. Technique: A symptomatic 60-year-old man presented with supraceliac para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm involving an antegrade aorta to celiac artery and superior mesenteric artery bypass. Since an off-the-shelf multibranched endograft was inappropriate, a Zenith Alpha thoracic stent-graft was modified with 2 inner branches fashioned of 8-mm Viabahn endoprostheses with preloaded guidewires. The procedure was technically successful, and the patient had no postoperative complications. Conclusion: Inner branches might offer an alternative to fenestrations or directional branches in patients with narrow aortas.