G. Parlani

Comparison of Surveillance Versus Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair (CAESAR): Results from a Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND Randomised trials have failed to demonstrate benefit from early surgical repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) compared with surveillance. This study aimed to compare results after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or surveillance in AAA <5.5 cm. METHODS Patients (50-79 years) with AAA of 4.1-5.4 cm were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive immediate EVAR or surveillance by ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) and repair only after a defined threshold (diameter ≥5.5 cm, enlargement >1 cm /year, symptoms) was achieved. The main end point was all-cause mortality. Recruitment is closed; results at a median follow-up of 32.4 months are here reported. RESULTS Between 2004 and 2008, 360 patients (early EVAR = 182; surveillance = 178) were enrolled. One perioperative death after EVAR and two late ruptures (both in the surveillance group) occurred. At 54 months, there was no significant difference in the main end-point rate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-1.93; p = 0.6] with Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause mortality of 14.5% in the EVAR and 10.1% in the surveillance group. Aneurysm-related mortality, aneurysm rupture and major morbidity rates were similar. Kaplan-Meier estimates of aneurysms growth ≥5 mm at 36 months were 8.4% in the EVAR group and 67.5% in the surveillance group (HR 10.49; 95% CI 6.88-15.96; p < 0.01). For aneurysms under surveillance, the probability of delayed repair was 59.7% at 36 months (84.5% at 54 months). The probability of receiving open repair at 36 months for EVAR feasibility loss was 16.4%. CONCLUSION Mortality and rupture rates in AAA <5.5 cm are low and no clear advantage was shown between early or delayed EVAR strategy. However, within 36 months, three out of every five small aneurysms under surveillance might grow to require repair and one out of every six might lose feasibility for EVAR. Surveillance is safe for small AAA if close supervision is applied. Long-term data are needed to confirm these results. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION This study is registered, NCT Identifier: NCT00118573.

Quality of life in patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm: the effect of early endovascular repair versus surveillance in the CAESAR trial.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare changes over time in health-related quality of life reported by patients with small (4.1-5.4 cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or surveillance. METHODS Participants were randomly assigned to receive either early EVAR or surveillance within a multicentre, randomised clinical trial on small AAA (Comparison of surveillance vs. Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair, CAESAR). Patient-reported health-related quality of life was assessed before randomisation, at 6 months and yearly thereafter using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. RESULTS Between 2004 and 2008, 360 patients (345 males, mean age 68.9 years) were randomised, 182 to early EVAR and 178 to surveillance. There was one perioperative death. Mean follow-up was 31.8 months. No significant difference in survival was found. At baseline, comparable quality of life scores were recorded in both treatment groups: Total SF-36: 73.0 versus 75.5 (p = 0.18), Physical domain: 71.4 versus 73.3 (p = 0.33); Mental health domain: 70.9 versus 72.7 (p = 0.33), in the EVAR arm versus the surveillance arm, respectively. Six months after randomisation, Total SF-36 and Physical and Mental domain scores were all significantly higher with respect to baseline in the EVAR group, while patients of the surveillance group scored lower. The differences between EVAR and surveillance arms in score changes at 6 months were significant and in favour of EVAR: Total score: difference 5.4; p = 0.0017; Physical: difference 3.8; p = 0.02; and Mental: difference 6.0; p = 0.0005. Differences between EVAR and surveillance diminished over time. At the last assessment, patients in both groups had decreased scores with a significant drop with respect to the baseline (-3.9 in EVAR, -6.3 in surveillance). There were no significant differences between the EVAR and surveillance arms: Total score: p = 0.25; Physical: p = 0.47; and Mental: p = 0.38. CONCLUSIONS Patients with small AAA under surveillance compared with early EVAR had significant impaired functional health at 6 months after assignment. After a mean of 31.8 months, SF-36 health-related quality of life in patients allocated to early EVAR and surveillance was similar.

Safety of Carotid Stenting (CAS) is Based on Institutional Training More than Individual Experience in Large-volume Centres

BACKGROUND Operator training is a key factor for the safety of carotid stenting (CAS). Whether institutional practice is associated with improved individual operator outcomes is debated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of the institutional experience on outcomes of new trainees with CAS, a retrospective analysis of a prospectively held database was performed. METHODS The overall study period, 2004-2012, was divided into two sequential time frames: 2004-April 2006 (leaders-team phase) and May 2006-2012 (expanded team phase). In the first frame, a single leader-operators team that first approached CAS and passed the original institutional learning curve, performed all the procedures; in the following expanded-team phase, five new trainees joined. Institutional CAS training for new trainees was based on a team-working approach including selection of patients, devices and techniques and collegial meetings with critical review and discussion of all procedural steps and imaging. RESULTS A total of 431 CAS procedures were performed in the leaders-team phase and 1026 in the sequential expanded-team phase. Periprocedural complication rates in the two time frames were similar: stroke/death (3.0% vs. 2.1%; P = 0.35), stroke (2.8% vs. 2.1%; P = 0.45) major stroke (0.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.49), death (0.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.29) during the leaders-team and expanded-team phase, respectively. However, rates of CAS failure requiring surgical conversions (3.7% vs. 0.8%; P < 0.0001) and mean contrast use (91.6 vs. 71.1 ml; P = 0.0001) decreased in the expanded phase. In the expanded-team frame (May 2006-2012), there was no mortality, and stroke rates were comparable between the leader and new operator teams: 2.6% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.17. CONCLUSIONS Institutional experience, including instruction on selection of patients and materials best suited for the procedure, is a primary factor driving outcomes of CAS. An effective team-working approach can reliably improve the training of new trainees preserving CAS safety and efficacy.

Safety of Chronic Anticoagulation Therapy After Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

OBJECTIVE Current data supporting the effect of anticoagulation drug use on aneurysm sealing and the durability of endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) are conflicting. This study assessed the safety of chronic anticoagulation therapy after EVAR. METHODS Records of 1409 consecutive patients having elective EVAR during 1997-2011 who were prospectively followed were reviewed. Survival, reintervention, conversion, and endoleak rates were analyzed in patients with and without chronic anticoagulants. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of anticoagulation therapy on outcomes. RESULTS One-hundred and three (7.3%) patients were on chronic anticoagulation drugs (80 on vitamin K antagonists) at the time of EVAR. An additional 46 patients started on anticoagulants after repair were identified. Patients on chronic anticoagulation therapy at repair (mean age 73.6 years; 91 males) had more frequent cardiac disease (74.8% vs. 44.2%; p < 00001), but no other differences in demographic and major baseline comorbidities with respect to the others. At baseline, mean abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter was 56.43 mm vs. 54.65 mm (p = .076) and aortic neck length 26.54 mm vs. 25.21 mm (p = .26) in patients with and without anticoagulants, respectively. At 5 years, freedom from endoleak rates were 55.5% vs. 69.9% (p < .0001), and freedom from reintervention/conversion rates were 69.4% vs. 82.4% (p < .0001) in patients with (including those with delayed drug use) and without chronic anticoagulants, respectively. Controlling for covariates with the Cox regression method, at a mean follow-up of 64.3 ± 45.2 months after EVAR, use of anticoagulation drugs was independently associated with an increased risk of endoleak (odds ratio, OR 1.6; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.23-2.07; p < .0001) and reintervention or late conversion rates (OR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.31-2.48; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS The safety of anticoagulation therapy after EVAR is debatable. Chronic anticoagulation drug use risks exposure to a poor long-term outcome. A critical and balanced decision-making approach should be applied to patients with AAA and cardiac disease who may require prolonged anticoagulation treatment.

Second-generation Thienopyridine use is not Associated with Better Early Perioperative Outcome During Carotid Stenting

OBJECTIVE Management of anti-platelet therapy during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is mainly based on indirect evidence from coronary stenting experience. There is common agreement on the use of thienopyridine (mainly second-generation) during CAS, but some patients are unsuitable for clopidogrel treatment and data on the benefit of its use in large CAS populations are lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether clopidogrel was associated with reduced perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing CAS. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing CAS for primary carotid stenosis from 2004 to 2009 were reviewed. The independent association of clopidogrel and perioperative morbidity was assessed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS A total of 1083 patients were treated (29% females, mean age 71.6 years); 825 (76%) patients were given clopidogrel starting before treatment. Clopidogrel use was associated with a non-significant reduction of perioperative stroke/death (4.3% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.13) and disabling stroke (1.2% vs. 1.0%; p = 1) rates. The non-significant stroke/death difference was similar in symptomatic (5.8% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.37) and asymptomatic (3.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.17) patients. After adjusting for demographics, co-morbidities and other therapies with multivariable analysis, clopidogrel use failed to show any significant independent association in decreasing operative risks. The only independent protective factor was use of statins (p = 0.010). The additional use of dual anti-platelet therapy did not add any advantage to the use of clopidogrel alone. CONCLUSIONS The suggested benefit of clopidogrel in decreasing the incidence of complications in patients undergoing CAS may be overestimated due to the overlapping effect of other more relevant factors (e.g., pleiotropy and plaque stabilisation from statins). More data and level I evidence are needed to understand which is the best medical management of CAS that will help improve outcomes of the procedure.

Alternative Solution for Bilateral Common Iliac Aneurysm in a Patient With Left External Iliac Artery Occlusion.

8 Joynt KE, Blumenthal DM, Orav E, Resnic FS, Jha AK. Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2012;308:1460e8. 9 Chaturvedi S, Bruno A, Feasby T, Holloway R, Benavente O, Cohen SN, et al. Carotid endarterectomydan evidence-based review: report of the therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2005;65:794e801. 10 Kresowik TF, Bratzler DW, Kresowik RA, Hendel ME, Grund SL, Brown KR, et al. Multistate improvement in process and outCan Patients Select the Best Hospital

Timing of Complications during Carotid Artery Stenting. How Can they Be Predicted

Abstract Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is becoming increasingly common for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Accumulating data, but not randomised data, suggest that CAS has promising efficacy in preventing stroke with an acceptable rate of procedure-related complications when compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, CAS procedures can carry a risk of non-negligible complications such as cerebral embolization, cerebral hemorrhage, severe hypotension and bradycardia. These may occur after the first 24 hours. Lessons may be learned from the timing of occurrence of CAS adverse events. The most severe neurological complications are generally due to embolism and occur intraprocedurally especially during catheter, wire or sheath manipulation in the aortic arch and common carotid. These strokes, obviously, cannot be prevented by using cerebral protection devices and enhance the importance of an appropriate learning curve that includes proper material choice, patient selection, good technique and the skill of “know when to quit”.