| 1. |
- Ederle, Joerg, et al.
(författare)
-
Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 375:9719, s. 985-997
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Stents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy. Methods The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. Findings The trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3.2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.77-2.11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8.5% in the stenting group compared with 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1.69, 1.16-2.45, p=0.006), Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1.92, 1.27-2.89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2.76, 1.16-6.56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0.0197). Interpretation Completion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Dias-Neto, Marina, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 77:6, s. 1588-1597
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single-or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality.Results: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 +/- 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9 +/- 1.3% vs 79.6 +/- 1.7%) and 3 years (72.7 +/- 2.1% vs 64.2 +/- 2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach.Conclusions: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.
|
|
| 4. |
- Dias, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 278:4, s. 568-577, s. 568-577
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
