Mees, Barend M.E.

Limb ischaemia is a clinically relevant complication of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) with femoral artery cannulation. No selective distal perfusion or other advanced techniques were used in the past to maintain adequate distal limb perfusion. A more recent trend is the shift from the reactive or emergency management to the pro-active or prophylactic placement of a distal perfusion cannula to avoid or reduce limb ischaemia-related complications. Multiple alternative cannulation techniques to the distal perfusion cannula have been developed to maintain distal limb perfusion, including end-to-side grafting, external or endovascular femoro-femoral bypass, retrograde limb perfusion (e.g., via the posterior tibial, dorsalis pedis or anterior tibial artery), and, more recently, use of a bidirectional cannula. Venous congestion has also been recognized as a potential contributing factor to limb ischaemia development and specific techniques have been described with facilitated venous drainage or bilateral cannulation being the most recent, to reduce or avoid venous stasis as a contributor to impaired limb perfusion. Advances in monitoring techniques, such as near-infrared spectroscopy and duplex ultrasound analysis, have been applied to improve decision-making regarding both the monitoring and management of limb ischaemia. This narrative review describes the evolution of techniques used for distal limb perfusion during peripheral VA ECMO.

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.

Objective: Percutaneous femoral artery access is being increasingly used in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The technique can be challenging in patients with previously surgically exposed or repaired femoral arteries because of excessive scar tissue. However, a successful percutaneous approach may cause less morbidity than a “re-do” open femoral approach. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prior open surgical femoral exposure on technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous approach. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent percutaneous EVAR between 2010 and 2020 at 2 major aortic centers. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without prior open surgical femoral access) for analysis of clinical outcomes. Only punctures with sheaths ≥12Fr were included for analysis. The access and (pre)closure techniques were similar in both institutions. Primary end points were intraoperative technical success, access-related revision, and access complications. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of conversion to open approach and femoral access complications in intact and re-do groins. Results: A total of 632 patients underwent percutaneous (complex) EVAR: 98 had prior open surgical femoral access and 534 patients underwent de novo femoral percutaneous access. A total of 1099 femoral artery punctures were performed: 149 in re-do and 950 in intact groins. The extent of endovascular repair included 159 infrarenal, 82 thoracic, 368 fenestrated/branched, and 23 iliac branch devices. No significant differences were seen in technical success (re-do 93.3% vs intact 95.3%, p=0.311), access-related surgical revision (0.7% vs 0.6%, p=0.950), and access complications (2.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.443). For the whole group, significant predictors for access complications in multivariate analyses were main access site (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07%–5.35%; p=0.033) and increase of the procedure time per hour (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.34%–2.04%; p<0.001), while increase in sheath-vessel ratio had a protective effect (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.127%–0.85%; p=0.021). Surgical conversion was predicted by main access site (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.28%–4.19%; p=0.007) and calcification of 50% to 75% of the circumference of the access vessel (OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.38%–7.86%; p=0.005). Conclusion: Within our population prior open surgical femoral artery exposure or repair had no negative impact on the technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous (complex) endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.