Bram Fioole

DISCOVER: Dutch Iliac Stent trial: COVERed balloon-expandable versus uncovered balloon-expandable stents in the common iliac artery: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIliac artery atherosclerotic disease may cause intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia. It can lead to serious complications such as infection, amputation and even death. Revascularization relieves symptoms and prevents these complications. Historically, open surgical repair, in the form of endarterectomy or bypass, was used. Over the last decade, endovascular repair has become the first choice of treatment for iliac arterial occlusive disease. No definitive consensus has emerged about the best endovascular strategy and which type of stent, if any, to use. However, in more advanced disease, that is, long or multiple stenoses or occlusions, literature is most supportive of primary stenting with a balloon-expandable stent in the common iliac artery (Jongkind V et al., J Vasc Surg 52:1376-1383,2010). Recently, a PTFE-covered balloon-expandable stent (Advanta V12, Atrium Medical Inc., Hudson, NH, USA) has been introduced for the iliac artery. Covering stents with PTFE has been shown to lead to less neo-intimal hyperplasia and this might lower restenosis rates (Dolmatch B et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:527-534,2007, Marin ML et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 7:651-656,1996, Virmani R et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:445-456,1999). However, only one RCT, of mediocre quality has been published on this stent in the common iliac artery (Mwipatayi BP et al. J Vasc Surg 54:1561-1570,2011, Bekken JA et al. J Vasc Surg 55:1545-1546,2012). Our hypothesis is that covered balloon-expandable stents lead to better results when compared to uncovered balloon-expandable stents.Methods/DesignThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial. The study population consists of human volunteers aged over 18 years, with symptomatic advanced atherosclerotic disease of the common iliac artery, defined as stenoses longer than 3 cm and occlusions. A total of 174 patients will be included.The control group will undergo endovascular dilatation or revascularization of the common iliac artery, followed by placement of one or more uncovered balloon-expandable stents. The study group will undergo the same treatment, however one or more PTFE-covered balloon-expandable stents will be placed. When necessary, the aorta, external iliac artery, common femoral artery, superficial femoral artery and deep femoral artery will be treated, using the standard treatment.The primary endpoint is absence of binary restenosis rate. Secondary endpoints are reocclusion rate, target-lesion revascularization rate, clinical success, procedural success, hemodynamic success, major amputation rate, complication rate and mortality rate. Main study parameters are age, gender, relevant co-morbidity, and several patient, disease and procedure-related parameters.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register, NTR3381.

Long-term follow-up of secondary interventions after endovascular aneurysm repair with the AneuRx endoprosthesis: a single-center experience.

Purpose: To evaluate initial and long-term results of secondary interventions after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with an AneuRx endoprosthesis. Methods: Between 1996 and 2003, an AneuRx device was used primarily in 212 patients (197 men; mean age 71±7.0 years). Sixty-two (29%) patients (58 men; mean age 73±7.2 years) required a secondary intervention (percutaneous, endovascular, or open repair) after EVAR and were prospectively followed after their secondary interventions. Data were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of the 212 AneuRx patients, 59 (28%) required secondary interventions for endoleaks (28 type Ia, 6 type Ib, 8 type II, and 17 type III) and 3 (1%) for obstruction of the endoprosthesis. The mean interval between primary EVAR and secondary intervention was 39±30 months. The yearly risk of requiring a secondary intervention after receiving a primary AneuRx graft was 3.7%. Overall 30-day morbidity after a secondary intervention was 18% (11/62); the 30-day mortality was 5% (3/62). Short endovascular extender cuffs were used for type Ia endoleaks in 23 of 28 patients. Over a mean follow-up of 81 ±34 months after the secondary intervention, the success of short endovascular cuffs for treatment of type Ia endoleak was 52% (12/23); the remaining 11 (48%) patients required additional reinterventions for recurrent endoleak or persistent aneurysm growth. Conclusion: Patients with a primary AneuRx stent-graft had an acceptable yearly risk of requiring a secondary intervention following EVAR, but 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were significant and must be taken into account during primary decision making for endovascular or open repair. Proximal extender cuffs may not be a durable treatment for type Ia endoleak.

Analysis of EndoAnchors for endovascular aneurysm repair by indications for use.

OBJECTIVE The proximal aortic neck remains one of the challenges of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the risk of type Ia endoleak and endograft migration is increased in patients with short, large-diameter, or highly angulated necks. EndoAnchors have been used as an adjunct to EVAR in such patients, and the aim of this study was to assess their benefit analyzed by indication for use. METHODS During a 2-year period, 319 patients were enrolled at 43 sites in the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) study. This prospective, multinational, real-world analysis of EndoAnchors comprised two groups of patients, those undergoing first-time EVAR (primary arm, 242) and those with proximal neck complications remote from the time of an initial endograft implantation (revision arm, 77). The primary arm was further subdivided into patients undergoing prophylactic EndoAnchor use for hostile proximal neck anatomy (178), with a type Ia endoleak evident during initial endograft deployment (60), and in conjunction with extender cuffs after unsatisfactory endograft deployment distally in the neck (four). The revision arm was subdivided into patients presenting with a type Ia endoleak alone (45), endograft migration alone (11), and migration with endoleak (21). Technical success was site reported as satisfactory deployment of the desired number of EndoAnchors without fracture or loss of integrity. Procedural success was defined as technical success without type Ia endoleak at completion arteriography. Core laboratory analysis was performed on 249 baseline and 192 follow-up computed tomographic studies, 66 of which were available within the 1-year window. RESULTS Technical and procedural success rates were highest in the prophylactically treated subset (172 of 178; 96.6%). Whereas the technical success of EndoAnchor deployment was also high in the other subsets, residual type Ia endoleaks were more frequent at completion angiography when the indication for EndoAnchor use was type Ia endoleak, both in the primary arm (17 of 60; 28%) and in the revision arm (9 of 45; 20%). During a median imaging follow-up of 7 months, 183 of 202 patients (90.1%) remained free of type Ia endoleaks. Primary prophylactic patients were free from type Ia endoleak in 110 of 114 cases (96.5%). The most challenging subset was revision patients treated for type Ia endoleak; type Ia endoleaks were evident during follow-up in 10 of 29 of the cases (34%). Sac regression >5 mm in patients with 1-year imaging was observed in 26 of 66 patients (39%) and was highest in the primary prophylaxis subset (20 of 43; 47%). CONCLUSIONS EndoAnchor implantation can be a useful adjunct to EVAR as prophylaxis against proximal attachment site complications in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, as treatment for early and late type Ia endoleaks, or, in conjunction with aortic extension cuffs, for endograft migration. Whereas the most challenging patients are those who present with type Ia endoleaks remote from initial EVAR, EndoAnchors are still effective in treating the majority of these cases.

Dutch randomized trial comparing standard catheter-directed thrombolysis versus Ultrasound-accElerated Thrombolysis for thromboembolic infrainguinal disease (DUET): design and rationale

BackgroundThe use of thrombolytic therapy in the treatment of thrombosed infrainguinal native arteries and bypass grafts has increased over the years. Main limitation of this treatment modality, however, is the occurrence of bleeding complications. Low intensity ultrasound (US) has been shown to accelerate enzymatic thrombolysis, thereby reducing therapy time. So far, no randomized trials have investigated the application of US-accelerated thrombolysis in the treatment of thrombosed infra-inguinal native arteries or bypass grafts. The DUET study (Dutch randomized trial comparing standard catheter-directed thrombolysis versus Ultrasound-accElerated Thrombolysis for thrombo-embolic infrainguinal disease) is designed to assess whether US-accelerated thrombolysis will reduce therapy time significantly compared with standard catheter-directed thrombolysis.Methods/designSixty adult patients with recently (between 1 and 7 weeks) thrombosed infrainguinal native arteries or bypass grafts with acute limb ischemia class I or IIa, according to the Rutherford classification for acute ischemia, will be randomly allocated to either standard thrombolysis (group A) or US-accelerated thrombolysis (group B). Patients will be recruited from 5 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands during a 2-year period. The primary endpoint is the duration of catheter-directed thrombolysis needed for uninterrupted flow in the thrombosed infrainguinal native artery or bypass graft, with outflow through at least 1 crural artery.DiscussionThe DUET study is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence of whether US-accelerated thrombolysis will significantly reduce therapy time in patients with recently thrombosed infrainguinal native arteries or bypass grafts, without an increase in complications.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN72676102

Dutch Randomized Trial Comparing Standard Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Ultrasound-Accelerated Thrombolysis for Arterial Thromboembolic Infrainguinal Disease (DUET):

Purpose: To report the results of the Dutch randomized trial comparing standard catheter-directed and ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (UST) for the treatment of arterial thromboembolic occlusions. Methods: The DUET study ( controlled-trials.com ; identifier ISRCTN72676102) was designed to assess whether UST can reduce therapy time significantly compared with standard thrombolysis (ST). Sixty patients (44 men; mean age 64 years) with recently (7–49 days) thrombosed infrainguinal native arteries or bypass grafts causing acute limb ischemia (Rutherford category I or IIa) were randomized to ST (n=32) or UST (n=28). The primary outcome was the duration of thrombolysis needed for uninterrupted flow (>95% thrombus lysis), with outflow through at least 1 below-the-knee artery. Continuous data are presented as means ± standard deviations. Results: Thrombolysis was significantly faster in the UST group (17.7±2.0 hours) than in the ST group (29.5±3.2 hours, p=0.009) and required significantly fewer units of urokinase (2.8±1.6×106 IU in the ST group vs. 1.8±1.0×106 IU in the UST group, p=0.01) for uninterrupted flow. Technical success was achieved in 27 (84%) patients in the ST group vs. 21 (75%) patients in the UST group (p=0.52). The combined 30-day death and severe adverse event rate was 19% in the ST group and 29% in the UST group (p=0.54). The 30-day patency rate was 82% in the ST group as compared with 71% in the UST group (p=0.35). Conclusion: Thrombolysis time was significantly reduced by UST as compared with ST in patients with recently thrombosed infrainguinal native arteries or bypass grafts.

Randomized trial of Legflow® paclitaxel eluting balloon and stenting versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for the treatment of intermediate and long lesions of the superficial femoral artery (RAPID trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundRestenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the superficial femoral artery (SFA) may occur in 45% of patients at 2 years follow-up. Paclitaxel-coated balloons have been found to reduce neointimal hyperplasia, and thus reduce restenosis. Recently, the Legflow® paclitaxel-coated balloon (Cardionovum Sp.z.o.o., Warsaw, Poland) (LPEB) has been introduced. This balloon is covered with shellac, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved natural resin, to obtain an equally distributed tissue concentration of paclitaxel. The RAPID trial is designed to assess restenosis after PTA using the Legflow balloon combined with nitinol stenting versus uncoated balloons with nitinol stenting in SFA lesions >5 cm.Methods/DesignA total of 176 adult patients with Rutherford class 2 to class 6 symptoms due to intermediate (5–15 cm) or long (>15 cm) atherosclerotic lesions in the SFA will be randomly allocated for treatment with LPEB with nitinol stenting or uncoated balloon angioplasty with stenting. Stenting will be performed using the Supera® stent in both groups (IDEV Technologies Inc., Webster, TX). The primary endpoint is the absence of binary restenosis of the treated SFA segment. Secondary outcomes are target lesion revascularization (TLR), clinical and hemodynamic outcome, amputation rate, mortality rate, adverse events, and device-specific adverse events. Follow up consists of four visits in which ankle-brachial indices (ABI), toe pressure measurements, and duplex ultrasound (DUS) will be performed. Furthermore, a peripheral artery questionnaire (PAQ) will be completed by the patients at each follow-up. In the event that DUS reveals a symptomatic >50% restenosis, or a >75% asymptomatic restenosis, additional digital subtraction angiography will be performed with any necessary re-intervention.DiscussionThe RAPID trial is a multicenter randomized controlled patient blind trial that will provide evidence concerning whether the use of the Legflow paclitaxel/shellac coated balloons with nitinol stenting significantly reduces the frequency of restenosis in intermediate and long SFA lesions compared to standard PTA and stenting.Trial registrationISRCTN47846578

Endovascular Treatment of Common Iliac Artery Aneurysms With an Iliac Branch Device: Multicenter Experience of 140 Patients

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and long-term outcomes of the Zenith ZBIS iliac branch device (IBD) to preserve internal iliac artery (IIA) perfusion in a large Dutch multicenter cohort. Methods: Between September 2004 and August 2015, 140 patients (mean age 70.9±7.4 years; 130 men) with 162 IBD implantations were identified in 7 vascular centers. The indication for IBD implantation was an abdominal aortic aneurysm >55 mm with a concomitant common iliac artery (CIA) aneurysm >20 mm (n=40), a CIA aneurysm with a diameter >30 mm (n=89), or revision of a type Ib endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (n=11). Results: Technical success (aneurysm exclusion, no type I or III endoleak, and a patent IIA) was obtained in 157 (96.9%) of 162 IBD implantations. Six (4.3%) patients developed major complications; 2 (1.4%) died. Mean follow-up was 26.6±24.1 months, during which 17 (12.1%) IBD-associated secondary interventions were performed. Including technical failures and intentional IIA embolizations, 15 (9.3%) IIA branch occlusions were identified; buttock claudication developed in 6 of these patients. The freedom from secondary intervention estimate was 75.9% (95% confidence interval 59.7 to 86.3) at 5 years. Conclusion: CIA aneurysms can be treated safely and effectively by IBDs with preservation of antegrade flow to the IIA. Secondary interventions are indicated in >10% of patients during follow-up but can be performed endovascularly in most.

Angiosome-directed revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia

Objective: Direct revascularization (DR), according to the angiosome concept, provides direct blood flow to the site of tissue loss in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). DR may lead to improved outcomes; however, evidence for this is controversial. This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated the outcomes of surgical and endovascular DR compared with indirect revascularization (IR) in patients with CLI. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken using the Cochrane Collaboration specified tool, and a meta‐analysis was done according to the MOOSE (Meta‐analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) criteria. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for studies of DR compared with IR in patients with CLI with tissue loss. All articles were critically assessed for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding patient and lesion characteristics and outcomes. When possible, data were systematically pooled, and a meta‐analysis was performed for wound healing, major amputation, amputation‐free survival, and overall survival. Results: Of 306 screened abstracts, 19 cohort studies with 3932 patients were included. Nine scored 7 or higher on the Newcastle‐Ottawa score. DR significantly improved wound healing (risk ratio [RR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.71), major amputation (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47–0.67), and amputation‐free survival rates (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69–1.00) compared with IR. This significance was lost in major amputation on sensitivity analysis for bypass studies. No significant difference was found in overall survival. In studies stratifying for collaterals, no differences between DR and IR were found in wound healing or major amputations in the presence of collaterals. Conclusions: DR significantly improves wound healing and major amputation rates after endovascular treatment in patients with CLI, supporting the angiosome theory. In the presence of collaterals, outcomes after IR are similar to outcomes after DR. Alternatively, patients without collaterals may benefit even more from DR as a primary treatment strategy. The angiosome theory is less applicable in bypass surgery, because bypasses are generally anastomosed to the least affected artery, with runoff passing the ankle to maintain bypass patency.

Aortic Curvature Is a Predictor of Late Type Ia Endoleak and Migration after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To evaluate the association between aortic curvature and other preoperative anatomical characteristics and late (>1 year) type Ia endoleak and endograft migration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients. Methods: Eight high-volume EVAR centers contributed 116 EVAR patients (mean age 81±7 years; 103 men) to the study: 36 patients (mean age 82±7 years; 31 men) with endograft migration and/or type Ia endoleak diagnosed >1 year after the initial EVAR and 80 controls without early or late complications. Aortic curvature was calculated from the preoperative computed tomography scan as the maximum and average curvature over 5 predefined aortic segments: the entire infrarenal aortic neck, aneurysm sac, and the suprarenal, juxtarenal, and infrarenal aorta. Other morphological characteristics included neck length, neck diameter, mural neck calcification and thrombus, suprarenal and infrarenal angulation, and largest aneurysm sac diameter. Independent risk factors were identified using backward stepwise logistic regression. Relevant cutoff values for each of the variables in the final regression model were determined with the receiver operator characteristic curve. Results: Logistic regression identified maximum curvature over the length of the aneurysm sac (>47 m−1; p=0.023), largest aneurysm sac diameter (>56 mm; p=0.028), and mural neck thrombus (>11° circumference; p<0.001) as independent predictors of late migration and type Ia endoleak. Conclusion: Aortic curvature is a predictor for late type Ia endoleak and endograft migration after EVAR. These findings suggest that aortic curvature is a better parameter than angulation to predict post-EVAR failure and should be included as a hostile neck parameter.

Secondary interventions in patients with autologous infrainguinal bypass grafts strongly improve patency rates

OBJECTIVE To describe the patency of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of autologous infrainguinal bypasses at risk. METHODS This was a retrospective single-center cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent primary PTA of an infrainguinal autologous bypass at risk from January 2009 to December 2013. Duplex ultrasound surveillance was performed for at least 1 year after PTA. The primary study end point was the number of secondary interventions. Secondary end points were freedom from recurrent stenosis or bypass occlusion and the patency of the infrainguinal autologous bypass at 1 year after primary PTA. RESULTS A total of 69 infrainguinal bypasses at risk in 69 patients were identified and treated with PTA. Technical success was achieved in 91%. The median follow-up was 17 months (range, 1-58 months). During follow-up, 30 bypasses (43%) remained free of significant stenosis or bypass occlusion, 29 bypasses (42%) developed recurrent stenosis, and 10 bypasses (14%) occluded. Rates of primary assisted, and secondary patency at 1 year were 84%, and 86%. Five (7%) major amputations were performed, all after bypass occlusion. CONCLUSIONS Secondary interventions after PTA of a bypass at risk are common. However, repeated secondary interventions of autologous infrainguinal bypasses at risk result in patency rates of more than 80% at 1 year.