Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI): a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0-76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5-76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8-10·5]; p<0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9-6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none).

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

FUNDING

Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.

A Case of Complete Resolution of Cauda Equina Syndrome Caused by Extensive Iliocaval Thrombosis: The Role of Thrombolysis and Venous Stents

PURPOSE

The cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare condition affecting less than 1 in 100,000 patients annually. Diagnosing CES is challenging because of its rare incidence, potentially subtle presentation, and various underlying etiologies. Vascular causes, such as inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis, are uncommon but should be considered, since timely recognition and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as a cause of CES can avoid irreversible neurological damage.

CASE REPORT

A 30-year-old male presented with partial CES caused by nerve root compression due to venous congestion from an extensive iliocaval DVT. He completely recovered after thrombolysis and stenting of the IVC. His iliocaval tract remained patent until the last date of follow-up at 1 year without signs of post-thrombotic syndrome. Broad molecular, infectious, and hematological laboratory tests did not reveal any underlying disease for the thrombotic event, particularly no hereditary or acquired thrombophilia.

CONCLUSION

Timely recognition of venous thrombosis as a cause of CES is essential. This is the first case report of CES caused by an extensive iliocaval DVT successfully treated with thrombolysis and venous stenting with good resolution of DVT and CES.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This case-report describes a patient with cauda equina syndrome resulting from an extensive iliocaval deep vein thrombosis due to an underlying stenosis of the inferior vena cava. Thrombolysis and venous stenting succesfully restored venous patency and thereby relieved symptoms and signs of cauda equina syndrome, in addition to (long-term) therapeutic dose anticoagulation. It is important to timely recognize deep vein thrombosis as a cause of cauda equina syndrome and to consider endovenous treatment in a specialized center.

Ipsilateral Aorto-Iliac Calcification is Not Directly Associated With eGFR After Kidney Transplantation: A Prospective Cohort Study Analyzed Using a Linear Mixed Model

Aorto-iliac calcification (AIC) is a well-studied risk factor for post-transplant cardiovascular events and mortality. Its effect on graft function remains unknown. The primary aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the association between AIC and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in the first year post-transplant. Eligibility criteria were: ≥50 years of age or ≥30 years with at least one risk factor for vascular disease. A non-contrast-enhanced CT-scan was performed with quantification of AIC using the modified Agatston score. The association between AIC and eGFR was investigated with a linear mixed model adjusted for predefined variables. One-hundred-and-forty patients were included with a median of 31 (interquartile range 26-39) eGFR measurements per patient. No direct association between AIC and eGFR was found. We observed a significant interaction between follow-up time and ipsilateral AIC, indicating that patients with higher AIC scores had lower eGFR trajectory over time starting 100 days after transplant (p = 0.014). To conclude, severe AIC is not directly associated with lower post-transplant eGFR. The significant interaction indicates that patients with more severe AIC have a lower eGFR trajectory after 100 days in the first year post-transplant.

Risk of post-transplant cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients with preexisting aortoiliac stenosis

Prediction of the risk of cardiovascular events (CVE's) is important to optimize outcomes after kidney transplantation. Aortoiliac stenosis is frequently observed during pre‐transplant screening. We hypothesized that these patients are at higher risk of post‐transplant CVE's due to the joint underlying atherosclerotic disease. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether aortoiliac stenosis was associated with post‐transplant CVE's. This retrospective, single‐center cohort study included adult kidney transplant recipients, transplanted between 2000 and 2016, with contrast‐enhanced imaging available. Aortoiliac stenosis was classified according to the Trans‐Atlantic Inter‐Society Consensus (TASC) II classification and was defined as significant in case of ≥50% lumen narrowing. The primary outcome was CVE‐free survival. Eighty‐nine of 367 patients had significant aortoiliac stenosis and were found to have worse CVE‐free survival (median CVE‐free survival: stenosis 4.5 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8–6.2), controls 8.9 years (95% CI 6.8–11.0); log‐rank test P < .001). TASC II C and D lesions were independent risk factors for a post‐transplant CVE with a hazard ratio of 2.15 (95% CI 1.05–4.38) and 6.56 (95% CI 2.74–15.70), respectively. Thus, kidney transplant recipients with TASC II C and D aortoiliac stenosis require extensive cardiovascular risk management pre‐, peri,‐ and post‐transplantation.

To screen or not to screen? The development of a prediction model for aorto-iliac stenosis in kidney transplant candidates

Screening for aorto‐iliac stenosis is important in kidney transplant candidates as its presence affects pre‐transplantation decisions regarding side of implantation and the need for an additional vascular procedure. Reliable imaging techniques to identify this condition require contrast fluid, which can be harmful in these patients. To guide patient selection for these imaging techniques, we aimed to develop a prediction model for the presence of aorto‐iliac stenosis. Patients with contrast‐enhanced imaging available in the pre‐transplant screening between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2018 were included. A prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis and internally validated using bootstrap resampling. Model performance was assessed with the concordance index and calibration slope. Three hundred and seventy‐three patients were included, 90 patients (24.1%) had imaging‐proven aorto‐iliac stenosis. Our final model included age, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, a previous transplant, intermittent claudication and the presence of a femoral artery murmur. The model yielded excellent discrimination (optimism‐corrected concordance index: 0.83) and calibration (optimism‐corrected calibration slope: 0.91). In conclusion, this prediction model can guide the development of standardized protocols to decide which patients should receive vascular screening to identify aorto‐iliac stenosis. External validation is needed before this model can be implemented in patient care.

Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Transradial, Transbrachial, and Transfemoral Approach for Mesenteric Arterial Procedures

PURPOSE

To assess feasibility and safety of transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) and transbrachial access (TBA) for mesenteric arterial endovascular procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all consecutive patients who underwent a mesenteric arterial procedure in a tertiary referral center between May 2012 and February 2018. Exclusion criteria were absence of data and lost to follow-up within 24 hours after the procedure. During the study period, 103 patients underwent 148 mesenteric arterial procedures (TBA, n = 52; TFA, n = 39; TRA, n = 57). Mean patient age was 64.3 years ± 13.3, and 91 patients (62%) were women. Primary outcomes were vascular access specified technical success rate and access site complication rate, as reported in hospital records.

RESULTS

Technical success rate specified for the vascular access technique did not differ between the 3 approaches (TBA 96%, TFA 87%, TRA 91%; TRA vs TBA, P = .295; TBA vs TFA, P = .112; TRA vs TFA, P = .524), and overall access site complication rate was not different between the 3 approaches (TBA 42%, TFA 23%, TRA 35%; TRA vs TBA, P = .439; TBA vs TFA, P = .055; TRA vs TFA, P = .208). However, more major access site complications were reported for TBA than for TRA or TFA (TBA 17%, TFA 3%, TRA 2%; TRA vs TBA, P = .005; TBA vs TFA, P = .026; TRA vs TFA, P = .785).

CONCLUSIONS

TRA is a safe and feasible approach for mesenteric arterial procedures comparable to TFA, but with a significantly lower major access site complication rate than TBA.

[Radiofrequency ablation of a symptomatic benign thyroid nodule]

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) enables the ablation of selected tissue by means of heat. For the first time in the Netherlands, RFA is being used to treat patients with benign thyroid nodules. RFA is able to reduce the volume of a nodule that may be causing cosmetic complaints or problems due to mass effect. This avoids the need for surgery or treatment with radioactive iodine in this benign condition. The average reduction in size is 80% in the first year, leading to a considerable decrease in both symptomatic and cosmetic complaints. At Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, this technique has been introduced in accordance with current guidelines, and it is expected that other centres of excellence will follow in implementing it. It is important that the initial experiences with this technique in the Netherlands in terms of effectiveness, risks and patient satisfaction should be monitored before RFA becomes routine treatment.