Clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices (EPDs).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 566 patients treated by 836 endovascular femoropopliteal interventions for lower extremity claudication (46%) or critical limb ischemia (54%) from 2002 to 2012. Outcomes were analyzed in 74 patients/87 interventions performed with EPDs (Spider Rx; Covidien, Plymouth, Minn) and 513 patients/749 interventions performed without EPDs. TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification, runoff scores, and embolic events were analyzed. End points were morbidity, mortality, reintervention, patency, and major amputation rates.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar demographics, indications, cardiovascular risk factors, and runoff scores, but patients treated with EPDs had significantly (P < .05) longer lesions (109 ± 94 mm vs 85 ± 76 mm) and more often had occlusions (64% vs 30%) and TASC C/D lesions (56% vs 30%). Embolic events occurred in 35 of 836 interventions (4%), including two (2%) performed with EPD and 33 (4%) without EPD (P = .35). Macroscopic debris was noted in 59 (68%) filter baskets. Embolic events were not associated with lesion length, TASC classification, runoff scores, treatment type, or indication but were independently associated with occlusion. Patients who had embolization required more reinterventions (20% vs 3%; P < .001) and major amputations at 30 days (11% vs 3%; P = .02). There was no difference in hospital stay (2.4 ± 4 days vs 1.6 ± 2 days; P = .08), reintervention (2% vs 4%), and major amputation (1% vs 4%) among patients treated with or without EPD, respectively. The two patients who developed embolization with EPDs had no clinical sequela and required no reintervention. Most emboli were successfully treated by catheter aspiration or thrombolysis, but eight patients (24%) treated without EPD required prolonged hospital stay, seven (21%) had multiple reinterventions, one (3%) had unanticipated major amputation, and one (3%) died from hemorrhagic complications of thrombolysis. Median follow-up was 20 months. At 2 years, primary patency and freedom from reintervention was similar for TASC A/B and TASC C/D lesions treated with or without EPDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of embolization are low in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with (4%) or without (2%) EPD. Embolization is more frequent in patients with occlusions. While emboli in patients with EPD had no clinical sequel, those treated without EPD required multiple reinterventions in 21% or resulted in major amputation or death in 3%. Late outcomes were similar in patients treated with or without EPDs.

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome from induced hypertension during endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm has been increasingly performed using fenestrated and branched endografts. Spinal cord injury is a complication of complex endovascular aortic repair, especially in patients with extensive aortic involvement. Maneuvers commonly used to avoid spinal cord injury include cerebrospinal fluid drainage and induced hypertension. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome is associated with abnormal cerebral autoregulation through endothelial and blood-brain barrier dysfunction; the pathophysiology involves vasogenic edema, and severe hypertension is a recognized trigger. We report on a patient who developed posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome associated with induced hypertension used to prevent spinal cord injury during endovascular repair of a type II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm using fenestrated and branched stent grafts.

Technique of implantation and bail-out maneuvers for endovascular fenestrated repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of complex aneurysms involving the visceral arteries has become a reality. Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) has been used with increasing frequency to treat complex aortic aneurysms. The Zenith fenestrated stent-graft system (Cook Medical Inc, Brisbane, Australia) was approved for commercial use in the United States in April 2012, offering a custom-made design with up to 3 fenestrations to treat short-neck infrarenal and juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, FEVAR is a complex procedure that demands accurate planning, advanced endovascular skills, and excellent perioperative patient care to achieve optimal outcomes. This article summarizes the basic concepts of device design, case planning, techniques of implantation, and some of the "bail-out" maneuvers that may be required during endovascular repair using the Zenith fenestrated stent-graft system.

Preloaded guidewires to facilitate endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm using a physician-modified branched stent graft

Branched stent grafts have been widely applied to treat complex aortic aneurysms. The technique often requires brachial or axillary approach to provide antegrade access to directional branches, which are bridged to target visceral arteries by self-expandable stent grafts. Preloaded guidewire catheterization may facilitate access into directional branches, decreasing or eliminating catheter manipulations required during this step of the procedure. We describe the use of a physician-modified branched stent graft using preloaded guidewire catheterization to treat a patient with recurrent, type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. The procedure was performed with no complications, and total operative time was 300 minutes, fluoroscopy time was 81 minutes, and iodinated contrast dose was 210 mL. Computed tomographic angiography revealed no endoleak and widely patent branches at 2 months.

Pelvic revascularization during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms (EVAR) has gained widespread acceptance in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Prospective studies have shown advantages compared with open surgical repair, including decreased blood loss, operating time, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Approximately 30% of patients treated by EVAR have ectatic or aneurysmal common iliac arteries not suitable for distal sealing zones. In these patients, one of the most commonly utilized options is exclusion of the internal iliac artery (IIA). Decreased pelvic perfusion carries the risk of ischemic complications, including buttock claudication, sexual dysfunction, and other devastating complications such as spinal cord injury, ischemic colitis, and gluteal muscle necrosis. This article summarizes the methods of pelvic revascularization in patients with aortoiliac aneurysms involving one or both common iliac arteries.

Current role and future directions of hybrid repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Hybrid procedures were introduced as a less invasive alternative to open conventional repair, avoiding thoracotomy, single-lung ventilation, and in many patients, aortic cross-clamping. Despite these potential advantages over open repair, results of hybrid repair have varied in the literature, with several reports indicating high morbidity and mortality rates. It is likely that once fenestrated and branched endografts receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration for clinical use, indications for hybrid repair of complex aortic aneurysms will further diminish. This article summarizes the current state of the art on patient selection, techniques, and results of hybrid procedures for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.