Explore the vast range of titles available.

No randomized studies have thus far evaluated intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. The aim was to evaluate if IVUS optimized DES implantation was superior to angiographic guidance alone in complex lesions. Randomized, multicentre, international, open label, investigator-driven study evaluating IVUS vs angiographically guided DES implantation in patients with complex lesions (defined as bifurcations, long lesions, chronic total occlusions or small vessels). Primary study endpoint was post-procedure in lesion minimal lumen diameter. Secondary end points were combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis at 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. The study included 284 patients. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. The primary study end point showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the IVUS group (2.70 mm ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.51 ± 0.46 mm; P = .0002). During hospitalization, no patient died, had repeated revascularization, or a Q-wave MI. No difference was observed in the occurrence of non-Q wave MI (6.3% in IVUS vs. 7.0% in angio-guided group). At 24-months clinical follow-up, no differences were still observed in cumulative MACE (16.9%vs. 23.2 %), cardiac death (0%vs. 1.4%), MI (7.0%vs. 8.5%), target lesion revascularization (9.2% vs. 11.9%) or target vessel revascularization (9.8% vs. 15.5%), respectively in the IVUS vs. angio-guided groups. In total, only one definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the IVUS group. A benefit of IVUS optimized DES implantation was observed in complex lesions in the post-procedure minimal lumen diameter. No statistically significant difference was found in MACE up to 24 months.

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a lower 30-day operative mortality than open repair, the long-term results of EVAR are uncertain. We instigated EVAR trial 1 to compare these two treatments in terms of mortality, durability, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and costs for patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We did a randomised controlled trial of 1082 patients aged 60 years or older who had aneurysms of at least 5·5 cm in diameter and who had been referred to one of 34 hospitals proficient in the EVAR technique. We assigned patients who were anatomically suitable for EVAR and fit for an open repair to EVAR (n=543) or open repair (n=539). Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, with secondary endpoints of aneurysm related mortality, HRQL, postoperative complications, and hospital costs. Analyses were by intention to treat. 94% (1017 of 1082) of patients complied with their allocated treatment and 209 died by the end of follow-up on Dec 31, 2004 (53 of aneurysm-related causes). 4 years after randomisation, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (about 28%; hazard ratio 0·90, 95% CI 0·69–1·18, p=0·46), although there was a persistent reduction in aneurysm-related deaths in the EVAR group (4% vs 7%; 0·55, 0·31–0·96, p=0·04). The proportion of patients with postoperative complications within 4 years of randomisation was 41% in the EVAR group and 9% in the open repair group (4·9, 3·5–6·8, p<0·0001). After 12 months there was negligible difference in HRQL between the two groups. The mean hospital costs per patient up to 4 years were UK£13 257 for the EVAR group versus £9946 for the open repair group (mean difference £3311, SE 690). Compared with open repair, EVAR offers no advantage with respect to all-cause mortality and HRQL, is more expensive, and leads to a greater number of complications and reinterventions. However, it does result in a 3% better aneurysm-related survival. The continuing need for interventions mandates ongoing surveillance and longer follow-up of EVAR for detailed cost-effectiveness assessment.

Background Thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch are a great challenge for vascular surgeons. Maintaining the patency of supra-aortic branches while excluding the aortic lesion remains difficult. Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) with fenestrations provides a feasible and effective approach for this type of disease. The main purpose of this trial is to assess the safety and validity of extracorporeal fenestration and in situ fenestration in patients with aortic disease involving the left subclavian artery. Methods This is a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study. A total of 170 eligible patients will be recruited from The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China and randomized on a 1:1 basis either to the group A (extracorporeal fenestration) or the group B (in situ fenestration). The primary outcome will be the all-cause mortality (30 days). The secondary outcomes will include incidence of secondary intervention (30 days, 6 months, 1 year), incidence of endoleak (30 days, 6 months, 1 year), incidence of major adverse events (MAE) (i.e., immediate procedural success and complications) (30 days, 6 months, 1 year), immediate technical success rate, and all-cause mortality (6 months, 1 year). Discussion Suppose extracorporeal fenestration non-inferior to in situ fenestration in patients with aortic disease involving the left subclavian artery. This trial aims to demonstrate the safety and validity of extracorporeal fenestration and in situ fenestration in patients with aortic disease involving the left subclavian artery, which is expected to provide a reference for Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) with fenestrations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06256757. Registered on February 5, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06256757 .

Purpose: To review clinical outcomes of patients with chronic limb ischemia and TASC type C lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting versus bare SMART nitinol self-expanding stents. Methods: Data were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study conducted in 2 phases. All 93 patients had chronic limb ischemia and superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions or stenoses (average lesion length 8.3 cm). In total, 47 patients (31 men; mean age 66.3±9.1 years, range 50–84) received the sirolimus-eluting SMART stent and 46 patients (36 men; mean age 65.9 ± 10.8 years, range 38–83) received a bare SMART nitinol stent. Both groups were followed for a mean 24 months. Results: Both the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents were effective in revascularizing the diseased SFA and in sustaining freedom from restenosis. For both types of stents, improvements in ankle-brachial indices (ABI) and symptoms of claudication were maintained over 24 months (median 24-month ABI 0.96 for the sirolimus group versus 0.87 for the bare stent group, p>0.05). At 24 months, the restenosis rate in the sirolimus group was 22.9% versus 21.1% in the bare stent group (p>0.05). The cumulative in-stent restenosis rates according to duplex ultrasound were 4.7%, 9.0%, 15.6%, and 21.9%, respectively, at 6, 9, 18, and 24 months; the rates did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. The TLR rate for the sirolimus group was 6% and for the bare stent group 13%; the TVR rates were somewhat higher: 13% and 22%, respectively. Mortality rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stent are effective, safe, and free from restenosis in a majority of patients for up to 24 months. Because the restenosis rate in the bare stent group is unexpectedly low, no significant difference could be found between the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents.

Background Aortic aneurysms, a significant cause of mortality, particularly in individuals aged 55 years and older, have witnessed a transformative shift in treatment strategies with the advent of endovascular surgery. Cydar-EV is an innovative image fusion technology that can augment preoperative planning and surgical guidance of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The ARIA trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of using Cydar-EV with EVAR procedures to reduce operating time while enhancing procedural precision, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the study. Methods/design The ARIA trial, a phase III, multi-centre, open-label, two-armed, parallel groups randomised controlled surgical trial, seeks to recruit 340 patients diagnosed with abdominal or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either standard endovascular repair or an endovascular repair assisted by Cydar-EV for planning and surgical guidance. Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at baseline, 4–12 weeks, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is procedure duration at baseline, while additional secondary outcomes are recorded at various time points and include indicators for technical effectiveness, patient outcomes, procedure efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. We plan to analyse the patient outcome data according to the treatment they received regardless of initial allocation. The statistical analysis plan outlines methods for handling missing data, covariates for adjusted analyses, and planned sensitivity analyses to ensure robust evaluation of treatment effects. Trial registration The trial was registered with the ISRCTN register on 03/12/2021, number ISRCTN13832085.

Background This study aims to compare the clinical effects of two distinct surgical approaches, namely 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration and Castor integrated branch stent techniques, in treating patients with Stanford type B aortic dissections (TBAD) characterized by inadequate proximal landing zones. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 84 patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction at our center from January 2022 to July 2023. Based on the different surgical approaches, the patients were divided into two groups: the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration ( n  = 44) and the group using the castor integrated branch stent ( n  = 40). Clinical indicators: including general patient information, operative time, surgical success rate, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, re-intervention rate, and mortality, as well as postoperative aortic remodeling, were compared between the two groups. The endpoint of this study is the post-TEVAR mortality rate in patients. Results The surgical success rate and device deployment success rate were 100% in both groups, with no statistically significant difference ( P  > 0.05). However, the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration had a significantly longer operative time (184.20 ± 54.857 min) compared to the group using the castor integrated branch stent (152.75 ± 33.068 min), with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.215, p  = 0.002, P  < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign was significantly lower in the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration compared to the castor-integrated branch stent group, demonstrating statistical significance. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other postoperative complication rates and aortic remodeling ( P  > 0.05). Notably, computed tomography angiography images revealed the expansion of the vascular true lumen and the reduction of the false lumen at three specified levels of the thoracic aorta. The follow-up duration did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (10.59 ± 4.52 vs. 9.08 ± 4.35 months, t = 1.561, p  = 0.122 > 0.05). Throughout the follow-up period, neither group experienced new endoleaks, spinal cord injuries, nor limb ischemia. In the castor-integrated branch stent group, one patient developed a new distal dissection, prompting further follow-up. Additionally, there was one case of mortality due to COVID-19 in each group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-intervention rate and survival rate ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion Both 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR and castor-integrated branch stent techniques demonstrate good safety and efficacy in treating Stanford type B aortic dissection with inadequate proximal anchoring. The 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR technique has a lower incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign, while the castor-integrated branch stent technique has advantages in operative time.

Background Contemporary management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (uTBAD) is based on the acuity and various morphological features. Medical therapy is mandatory, while the risks of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are balanced against the potential for rupture, complex surgery, and death. Improved aortic morphology following TEVAR is documented, but evidence for improved overall survival is lacking. The costs and impact on quality of life are also needed. Methods The trial is a randomized, open-label, superiority clinical trial with parallel assignment of subjects at 23 clinical sites in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Eligibility includes patients aged ≥ 18 with uTBAD of < 4 weeks duration. Recruited subjects will be randomized to either standard medical therapy (SMT) or SMT + TEVAR, where TEVAR must be performed between 2–12 weeks from the onset of symptoms. Discussion This trial will evaluate the primary question of whether early TEVAR improves survival at 5 years among uTBAD patients. Moreover, the costs and the impact on quality of life should provide sorely needed data on other factors that play a role in treatment strategy decisions. The common Nordic healthcare model, with inclusion of all aortic centers, provides a favorable setting for carrying out this trial, while the robust healthcare registries ensure data validity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05215587. Registered on January 31, 2022.

Purpose To report the 6-month results of a prospective randomized trial investigating angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) vs. plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of failing native arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) or prosthetic arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Methods The enrollment criteria for this non-inferiority hypothesis trial included clinical signs of failing dialysis access with angiographic documentation of a significant venous stenotic lesion in patients with AVF or AVG circuits. From March to December 2010, 40 patients (29 men; mean age 64.1±14.3 years) were randomized to undergo either PCB dilation (n=20) or standard BA (n=20) of a stenosed venous outflow lesion. Regular angiographic follow-up was scheduled bimonthly. Study outcome measures included device success (<30% residual stenosis without postdilation), procedural success (<30% residual stenosis), and primary patency of the treated lesion (<50% angiographic restenosis and no need for any interim repeat procedures). Results Baseline and procedural variables were comparably distributed between both groups. Device success was 9/20 (45%) for the PCB device vs. 20/20 (100%) for standard control BA (p<0.001). Procedural success was 100% in both groups after further high-pressure post-dilation as necessary. There were no major or minor complications in either group. At 6 months, cumulative target lesion primary patency was significantly higher after PCB application (70% in PCB group vs. 25% in BA group, p<0.001; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.71, p<0.006). Conclusion PCB angioplasty improves patency after angioplasty of venous stenoses of failing vascular access used for dialysis.

Background Beyond a certain threshold diameter, abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are to be treated by open surgical or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In a quarter of patients who undergo EVAR, inversion of blood flow in the inferior mesenteric artery or lumbar arteries may lead to type II endoleak (T2EL), which is associated with complications (e.g. AAA growth, secondary type I endoleak, rupture). As secondary interventions to treat T2EL often fail and may be highly invasive, prevention of T2EL is desirable. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of sac embolization (SE) with metal coils during EVAR to prevent T2EL in patients at high risk. Methods Over a 24-month recruitment period, a total of 100 patients undergoing EVAR in four vascular centres (i.e. Klinikum rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, University Hospital Augsburg, University Hospital Dresden, St. Joseph’s Hospital Wiesbaden) are to be included in the present study. Patients at high risk for T2EL (i.e. ≥ 5 efferent vessels covered by endograft or aneurysmal thrombus volume <40%) are randomized to one group receiving standard EVAR and another group receiving EVAR with SE. Follow-up assessments postoperatively, after 30 days, and 6 months involve contrast-enhanced ultrasound scans (CEUS) and after 12 months an additional computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan. The presence of T2EL detected by CEUS or CTA after 12 months is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprise quality of life (quantified by the SF-36 questionnaire), reintervention rate, occurrence of type I/III endoleak, aortic rupture, death, alteration of aneurysm volume, or diameter. Standardized evaluation of CTA scans happens through a core lab. The study will be terminated after the final follow-up visit of the ultimate patient. Discussion Although preexisting studies repeatedly indicated a beneficial effect of SE on T2EL rates after EVAR, patient relevant outcomes have not been assessed until now. The present study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to assess the impact of SE on quality of life. Further unique features include employment of easily assessable high-risk criteria, a contemporary follow-up protocol, and approval to use any commercially available coil material. Overcoming limitations of previous studies might help SE to be implemented in daily practice and to enhance patient safety. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05665101. Registered on 23 December 2022.

Background During total aortic arch replacement surgery (TARS) for patients with acute type A aortic dissection, the organs in the lower body, such as the viscera and spinal cord, are at risk of ischemia even when antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) is performed. Combining ACP with retrograde inferior vena caval perfusion (RIVP) during TARS may improve outcomes by providing the lower body with oxygenated blood. Methods This study is designed as a multicenter, computer-generated, randomized controlled, assessor-blind, parallel-group study with a superiority framework in patients scheduled for TARS. A total of 636 patients will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to a moderate hypothermia circulatory arrest (MHCA) group, which will receive selective ACP with moderate hypothermia during TARS; or to an RIVP group, which will receive the combination of RIVP and selective ACP under moderate hypothermia during TARS. The primary outcome will be a composite of early mortality and major complications, including paraplegia, postoperative renal failure, severe liver dysfunction, and gastrointestinal complications. All patients will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat protocol. Discussion This study aims to assess whether RIVP combined with ACP leads to superior outcomes than ACP alone for patients undergoing TARS under moderate hypothermia. This study seeks to provide high-quality evidence for RIVP to be used in patients with acute type A aortic dissection undergoing TARS. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT03607786 . Registered on 30 July 2018.