Role of Lithotripsy for Small Calcified Iliacs in the Era of Big Devices

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Intravascular Iliac Artery Lithotripsy to Facilitate Aortic Endograft Delivery: Midterm Results of a Dual-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for enabling transfemoral abdominal (EVAR), thoracic (TEVAR), and thoracoabdominal (BEVAR) endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with narrow and calcified iliac arteries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with IVL for severe calcified and narrowed iliac access before EVAR, TEVAR, or BEVAR between November 2020 and June 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. All anatomical iliac characteristics were acquired by multi-planar reconstruction of preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA). The hostility of the vascular accesses was classified based on Peripheral Arterial Calcium Scoring System (PACSS) and calcified access severity score (CASS), a new score considering both anatomical (calcium grade and length, minimum lumen diameter [MLD], and tortuosity index) and aortic stent-graft (SG/MLD index) parameters. Primary endpoint was technical success defined as successful aortic endograft delivery and deployment without iliac rupture. Freedom from complications and primary patency were additionally analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight iliac axes were treated with IVL (8 bilateral) in 20 patients (mean age 74.5±6.7 years) with a mean follow-up of 26.5±6.2 (range 17-36) months. Ten patients underwent EVAR: 3 TEVAR, and 7 BEVAR procedures. In 14 patients (70%), aneurysm disease was associated with symptomatic aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD), with Rutherford class III to IV. The PACSS was grade IV in 89% of the cases and the CASS (mean 14±2) was grade III to IV in all cases. The stent-graft (SG) outer diameter (5.60±1.65 mm) was significantly larger by 50% than MLD (3.96±1.20 mm), with an SG/MLD index of 1.50±0.51 (p<0.001). Technical success was 100%. No dissection, rupture, or distal embolization occurred. One (3.4%) bail-out stenting was necessary as endoconduit after IVL treatment. One month CTA showed that postoperative luminal gain increased by 93% (p<0.001). An improvement of 2 Rutherford classes occurred in all AIOD patients with a primary patency of 100% at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the safety and feasibility of IVL as a valuable option to treat narrow and calcified iliac arteries to facilitate endograft delivery. Further studies will be useful to confirm these results.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In this article, the use of intravascular iliac artery lithotripsy to facilitate aortic endograft delivery is explored. The presence of iliac severe calcifications still represents a contraindication for aortic endovascular repair. Intravascular lithotripsy increases the feasibility and safety of endovascular aortic procedures, facilitating endograft delivery and reducing the risk of iliac rupture and/or dissections by improving vessel compliance and luminal gain. This novel vessel preparation could be an alternative to "paving and cracking" and/or iliac conduits. This study describes a new score to classify the severity of iliac calcifications, considering anatomical parameters and the profile of aortic endografts delivery system.

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral TAVI: The Copenhagen Experience and Literature Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently an established therapy for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis across all surgical risk categories. Access is an important aspect when planning for and performing TAVI. The superiority of a transfemoral (TF) approach compared to a transthoracic (transapical, direct aortic) approach has been demonstrated in several studies. Recently, the introduction of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has made it possible to treat patients with calcified iliofemoral disease by TF approach. This article aimed to provide a comprehensive overview on the following aspects: (1) preprocedural planning for IVL-assisted TF-TAVI; (2) procedural aspects in IVL-assisted TF-TAVI; (3) outcomes of IVL-assisted TF-TAVI in an experienced TAVI center; and (4) literature review and discussion of this new emerging approach.

Advancements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Focused Update

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the leading technique for aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) now limited to patients younger than 65-75 years due to a combination of unsuitable anatomies (calcified raphae in bicuspid valves, coexistent aneurysm of the ascending aorta) and concerns on the absence of long-term data on TAVI durability. This incredible rise is linked to technological evolutions combined with increased operator experience, which led to procedural refinements and, accordingly, to better outcomes. The article describes the main and newest technical improvements, allowing an extension of the indications (valve-in-valve procedures, intravascular lithotripsy for severely calcified iliac vessels), and a reduction of complications (stroke, pacemaker implantation, aortic regurgitation).

Prevention and treatment of pulmonary congestion in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is still a major driver of mortality on intensive care units and complicates ∼10% of acute coronary syndromes with contemporary mortality rates up to 50%. In the meantime, percutaneous circulatory support devices, in particular venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), have emerged as an established salvage intervention for patients in cardiogenic shock. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides temporary circulatory support until other treatments are effective and enables recovery or serves as a bridge to ventricular assist devices, heart transplantation, or decision-making. In this critical care perspective, we provide a concise overview of VA-ECMO utilization in cardiogenic shock, considering rationale, critical care management, as well as weaning aspects. We supplement previous literature by focusing on therapeutic issues related to the vicious circle of retrograde aortic VA-ECMO flow, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload, insufficient LV unloading, and severe pulmonary congestion limiting prognosis in a relevant proportion of patients receiving VA-ECMO treatment. We will outline different modifications in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support to meet this challenge. Besides a strategy of running ECMO at lowest possible flow rates, novel therapeutic options including the combination of VA-ECMO with percutaneous microaxial pumps or implementation of a venoarteriovenous-ECMO configuration based on an additional venous cannula supplying towards pulmonary circulation are most promising among LV unloading and venting strategies. The latter may even combine the advantages of venovenous and venoarterial ECMO therapy, providing potent respiratory and circulatory support at the same time. However, whether VA-ECMO can reduce mortality has to be evaluated in the urgently needed, ongoing prospective randomized studies EURO-SHOCK (NCT03813134), ANCHOR (NCT04184635), and ECLS-SHOCK (NCT03637205). These studies will provide the opportunity to investigate indication, mode, and effect of LV unloading in dedicated sub-analyses. In future, the Heart Teams should aim at conducting a dedicated randomized trial comparing VA-ECMO support with vs. without LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock.