Stonko, David P

Introduction Lower Extremity Extracorporeal Distal Revascularization (LEEDR) is a novel, preclinically tested technique designed to provide temporary limb perfusion in cases of acute limb ischemia when immediate revascularization is not feasible. Methods LEEDR employs an extracorporeal pump and circuit to draw arterial blood from a proximal inflow site and deliver it to an outflow artery within the ischemic limb. The system is designed for bedside initiation using percutaneous access. Results ALI from embolism, thrombosis, or trauma rapidly leads to irreversible tissue damage. Delays in revascularization are associated with high rates of limb loss and systemic complications. LEEDR offers a time-sensitive intervention aimed at mitigating these risks and preserving limb viability until definitive treatment is available. Conclusion LEEDR is a promising temporary perfusion strategy for limb salvage in ALI. This manuscript outlines its procedural components, technical considerations, and anticipated role in bridging patients to definitive revascularization.

Objectives Traditionally, acute mesenteric ischemia studies are performed by utilizing an open superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion, which is an invasive technique with potentially devastating effects. A new endovascular technique for SMA occlusion using a catheter-balloon system was designed and compared to the open SMA occlusion to test its efficacy and animal safety. Methods All animals underwent open instrumentation of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) for blood flow monitoring. The animals were grouped into an open SMA occlusion technique group and an endovascular SMA occlusion group. The open SMA occlusion technique group involved exposure of the SMA via left medial visceral rotation with vascular clamping. In the endovascular group, an endovascular balloon was placed in the SMA and inflated to produce occlusion. Results Complete cessation of flow to the SMV was observed in the endovascular group, compared to the residual SMV flow in the open occlusion group. Following a 30-min post-occlusion period, the MAP in the endovascular group increased, compared to a decline of MAP in the open occlusion group. Conclusions This study indicates the endovascular technique provides a more potent SMA occlusion, with insignificant consequences on the overall health of the animal, in contrast to the open vascular clamping.

Background: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) requires prompt revascularization to preserve the extremity and minimize the effects of systemic reperfusion. Once ALI is recognized, delays in revascularization are generally due to system issues (e.g., transfer) and there is a need for a method of temporary extremity perfusion to reduce warm ischemic time. Lower Extremity Extracorporeal Distal Revascularization (LEEDR) is a percutaneous technique that uses a pump and circuit to deliver oxygenated blood into a pedal artery. Hypothesis: Extracorporeal perfusion can improve survival from ALI. Aims: The aim of this study is to use a swine model of prolonged hindlimb ischemia to compare survival and functional outcomes of LEEDR versus control (warm ischemia). Methods: Anesthetized female Yorkshire swine (40-60kg) underwent hindlimb ischemia using endovascular balloon occlusion and were randomized to control (n=6) or LEEDR (n=6). Controls underwent 9 hours of ischemia. LEEDR animals underwent contralateral femoral and ipsilateral posterior tibial artery cannulation followed by 8 hours of extracorporeal perfusion into the ischemic limb. Subjects were revascularized by removing the endovascular balloons, restoring extremity blood flow, and undergoing a 4-hour critical care period before extubation and observation for 48 hours. Primary outcome was survival and secondary outcomes included functional extremity scores (Tarlov Gait Score), compartment pressures (mmHg) and biochemical markers of reperfusion. Results: Survival was higher in animals undergoing LEEDR (83% vs. 0%; p=0.001), with most control animals succumbing to acute lung injury. LEEDR animals had a higher functional gait score (5.9±0.3 vs. 2.5±0.7; p<0.001) and lower compartment pressure (8±2 vs. 28±4; p=0.002) compared to controls. Biochemically, the LEEDR group had lower potassium (4.5±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.4; p=0.001) and lactate (1.2±0.5 vs. 2.0±0.7; p<0.001) measurements compared to controls during reperfusion and recovery. Conclusion: LEEDR can effectively mitigate 8 hours of extremity ischemia in a swine model, reducing mortality from reperfusion, while improving functional gait score and eliminating compartment syndrome. This percutaneous approach to ALI opens a new field of extracorporeal limb salvage, which can temporize extremity perfusion improving outcomes in patients who have traditionally had limited options due to prolonged warm ischemia.

Traumatic injury leading to arterial damage has traditionally been repaired using autologous vein graft from the contralateral limb. This often requires a secondary surgical site and the potential of prolonged operative time for patients. We sought to assess the use of ipsilateral vs contralateral vein grafts in patients who experienced traumatic extremity vascular injury. A multicenter database was queried to identify arterial injuries requiring operative intervention with vein grafting. The primary outcome of interest was need for operative reintervention. Secondary outcomes included risk of thrombosis, infection, and intensive care unit length of stay. 358 patients (320 contralateral and 38 ipsilateral) were included in the analysis. The ipsilateral vein cohort did not display a statistically significant decrease in need for reoperation when compared to the contralateral group (11% vs 23%; OR 0.41, 95% CI −0.07-1.3; P = .14). Contralateral repair was associated with longer median intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (4.3 vs 3.1 days; P < .01).

Objectives While methods of endovascular carotid artery stenting have improved over time, concerns surrounding the safety and efficacy of stenting for blunt carotid injury (BCI) remain. This study aims to present our approach to carotid artery stenting (CAS) by incorporating new technologies such as flow-diverting stents and circuits. Methods There is no robust evidence to support routine carotid artery stenting; however, there are several therapeutic options and approaches for treating BCI that currently require an individualized approach. Endovascular stenting and specific stent selection are largely dictated by the disease process the surgeon intends to treat. We will discuss patient selection, medical management, and the most common revascularization techniques, including transfemoral stenting, trans-carotid arterial revascularization using flow reversal, and stent-assisting coiling. Results It must be stressed that endovascular intervention is not an alternative to or preclusive of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy. In the setting of BCI, transfemoral CAS is most appropriate in patients who are symptomatic, have a rapidly progressing or large lesion, and do not have a soft thrombus present due to risk of embolism. Unlike transfemoral CAS, TCAR offers an elegant solution for embolic protection when patients have a soft thrombus present. In the case of a large pseudoaneurysm, we perform stent-assisted coiling. Conclusions We practice selective endovascular intervention, stenting lesions that are flow-limiting or have large or rapidly expanding pseudoaneurysms, and only in patients for whom anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents are not contraindicated. As technology and investigation progress, the concerns regarding the safety and the role of endovascular intervention in the treatment of BCI will be more clearly defined.

This cohort study quantifies the yearly trends and outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting among high-risk patients from 2015 to 2021.

Intraoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging with endovascular delivery of intra-arterial (IA) contrast could potentially provide higher attenuation with lower contrast volumes than intravenous (IV) administration. We aimed to compare IA and IV contrast use for organ-specific CT abdominal imaging. Five anesthetized swine had external jugular and brachial artery access with ascending aortic pigtail placement. An IV protocol was 100 mL at 5 mL/sec over 20 sec vs 50 mL of IA contrast at 5 mL/sec over 10 sec. Region-of-interest markers were applied to anatomical regions to measure attenuation (HU) over time. IA and IV contrast protocols achieved adequate aortic opacification (IA, 455 ± 289 vs IV, 450 ± 114 HU). The IA contrast aortic attenuation curve reached peak attenuation compared with IV contrast (IA, 8 vs 23 sec; P < .001). Time to peak attenuation was similar between IA and IV contrast in the portal vein (IA, 38 vs IV, 42 sec, P = .25). IA administration achieved a superior contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in less time compared with IV (R 2 = .94; P < .001). IA contrast achieved adequate opacification with less bolus broadening and a superior CNR compared with IV contrast while using a smaller contrast volume for directed organ-directed imaging.