Similar long-term outcomes for venous, bovine pericardial, and polyester patches for primary carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently, the type of patch used for carotid endarterectomy closure depends on the preference of the operating surgeon. Various materials are available, including autologous venous patches, bovine pericardial patches (BPP), and synthetic patches. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes.

METHODS

All patients who underwent primary carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty using a venous, bovine, or polyester patch between 2010 and 2020 at two high-volume medical centers were included in this retrospective analysis on largely prospectively collected data. Study endpoints included long-term ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident, restenosis, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to assess the effect of patch type to each outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 1481 CEAs were performed with a follow-up of 32 (13-65) months. Venous patch was used in 309 patients (20.9%), BPP in 1000 patients (67.5%), and polyester patch in 172 patients (11.6%). A preoperative symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50% was observed in 91.9% (n = 284) of the patients who received a venous patch, 92.1% (n = 921) of the patients who received BPP, and 90.7% (n = 156) of the patients who received a polyester patch (p = 0.799). Only in selected patients with an asymptomatic stenosis of >70% surgery was considered. Multivariable analyses showed no significant differences between the three patch types regarding long-term outcomes after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing primary carotid endarterectomy, the use of venous, bovine pericardial, or polyester patches seems equally safe and durable in terms of comparability in long-term outcomes.

Outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis used for revascularization in the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis in peripheral arterial revascularization at different anatomical sites and for different indications is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the Omniflow® II used at various positions within the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting.

METHODS

Patients who underwent reconstructive lower leg vascular surgery with implantation of an Omniflow® II from 2014 until 2021 at five medical centers were retrospectively included (N.=142). Patients were subdivided into the following categories: femoro-femoral crossover (N.=19), femoral interposition (N.=18), femoro-popliteal (above-the-knee [N.=25; AK] or below-the-knee [N.=47; BK]), and femoro-crural bypass grafts (N.=33). Primary outcome was primary patency and secondary outcomes included primary assisted patency, secondary patency, major amputation, vascular graft infection, and mortality. Outcomes were compared according to different subgroups and the surgical setting (infected versus non-infected).

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 35.0 (17.5-54.3) months. Three years primary patency of 58% was observed for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 75% for femoral interposition graft, 44% for femoro-popliteal above-the-knee bypass, 42% for femoro-popliteal below-the-knee bypass, and 27% in the femoro-crural position (P=0.006). Freedom from major amputation at three years were 84% for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 88% for femoral interposition bypass, 90% for femoro-popliteal AK bypass, 83% for femoro-popliteal BK bypass, and 50% for femoro-crural bypass (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of the use of Omniflow® II for femoro-femoral crossover-, femoral interposition-, and femoro-popliteal (AK and BK) bypass. Omniflow® II seems to be less suitable for femoro-crural bypass with a significantly lower patency compared to other positions.

Variability of [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT reporting in vascular graft and endograft infection

PURPOSE

18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography with low dose and/or contrast enhanced computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) scan reveals high sensitivity for the diagnosis of vascular graft and endograft infection (VGEI), but lower specificity. Reporting [18F]FDG-PET/CT scans of suspected VGEI is challenging, reader dependent, and reporting standards are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate variability of [18F]FDG-PET/low dose CT (LDCT) reporting of suspected VGEI using a proposed standard reporting format.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including all patients with a suspected VGEI (according to the MAGIC criteria) without need for urgent surgical treatment who underwent an additional [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT scan between 2006 and 2022 at a tertiary referral centre. All [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT reports were scored following pre-selected criteria that were formulated based on literature and experts in the field. The aim was to investigate the completeness of [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT reports for diagnosing VGEI (proven according to the MAGIC criteria) and to evaluate if incompleteness of reports influenced the diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Hundred-fifty-two patients were included. Median diagnostic interval from the index vascular surgical procedure until [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT scan was 35.5 (7.3-73.3) months. Grafts were in 65.1% located centrally and 34.9% peripherally. Based on the pre-selected reporting criteria, 45.7% of the reports included all items. The least frequently assessed criterion was FDG-uptake pattern (40.6%). Overall, [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT showed a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 72%, and an accuracy of 88% when compared to the gold standard (diagnosed VGEI). Lower sensitivity and specificity in reports including ≤ 8 criteria compared to completely evaluated reports were found (83% and 50% vs. 92% and 77%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of the [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT reports of suspected VGEI met all pre-selected criteria. Incompleteness of reports led to lower sensitivity and specificity. Implementing a recommendation with specific criteria for VGEI reporting is needed in the VGEI-guideline update. This study provides a first recommendation for a concise and complete [18F]FDG-PET/LDCT report in patients with suspected VGEI.

Use of Omniflow® II Biosynthetic Graft for the Treatment of Vascular Graft and Endograft Infections

BACKGROUND

Vascular graft/endograft infection is a rare but life-threatening complication of cardiovascular surgery and remains a surgical challenge. Several different graft materials are available for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Biosynthetic vascular grafts have shown low reinfection rates and could be a potential second best after autologous veins in the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and morbidity of Omniflow® II for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the use of Omniflow® II in the abdominal and peripheral region to treat vascular graft/endograft infection between January 2014 and December 2021. Primary outcome was recurrent vascular graft infection. Secondary outcomes included primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, all-cause mortality, and major amputation.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included with a median follow-up duration of 26.5 (10.8-54.8) months. Nine (17%) grafts were implanted in intracavitary position and 43 (83%) in peripheral position. Most grafts were used as femoral interposition (n = 12, 23%), femoro-femoral crossover (n = 10, 19%), femoro-popliteal (n = 8, 15%), and aorto-bifemoral (n = 8, 15%) graft. Fifteen (29%) grafts were implanted extra-anatomically and 37 (71%) in situ. Eight patients (15%) presented with reinfection during follow-up, most of these patients received an aorto-bifemoral graft (n = 3, 38%). Intracavitary vascular grafting had a 33% (n = 3) reinfection rate and peripheral grafting 12% (n = 5; P = 0.025). The estimated primary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 75%, 72%, and 72% for peripherally located grafts and 58% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary grafts (P = 0.815). Secondary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 77% (at all timepoints) for peripherally located prostheses and 75% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary prostheses (P = 0.731). A significantly higher mortality during follow-up was observed in patients who received an intracavitary graft compared to patients with a peripheral graft (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the efficacy and safety of the Omniflow® II biosynthetic prosthesis for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, in absence of suitable venous material, with acceptable reinfection, patency, and freedom of amputation prevalences, especially in replacing peripheral vascular graft/endograft infection. However, a control group with either venous reconstruction or another alternative graft is needed to make firmer conclusions.

Ultrasound for the Detection of Inflammatory Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Case and Validation Series

Inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms (iAAA) are a form of noninfectious aortitis in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Ultrasound could help to detect iAAA early. This retrospective observational study assessed the potential of using ultrasound to detect iAAA in a case series of iAAA patients, and the diagnostic value of ultrasound to detect iAAA in consecutive patients in a follow-up for AAA, referred to as a feasibility study. In both studies, diagnosis of iAAA was based on a cuff surrounding the aneurysm using CT (golden standard). The case series included 13 patients (age 64 (61; 72) years; 100% male). The feasibility study included 157 patients (age 75 (67; 80) years; 84% male). In the case series, all iAAA patients showed a cuff surrounding the aortic wall on ultrasound. In the feasibility study with AAA patients, ultrasound yielded no cuff in 147 (93.6%; CT negative in all cases), a typic cuff in 8 (5.1%; CT positive in all cases), and an inconclusive cuff in 2 (1.3%; CT negative in both cases) patients. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 98.7%, respectively. This study indicates that iAAA can be identified with ultrasound, and safely ruled out. In positive ultrasound cases, additional CT imaging might still be warranted.

Patch angioplasty during carotid endarterectomy using different materials has similar clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Patch angioplasty during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is commonly used to treat carotid artery stenosis. However, the choice of which patch to use remains a matter of debate. Autologous venous material has disadvantages such as wound-related problems at the harvest site and a prolonged intervention time. These limitations can be bypassed when synthetic or biological patches are used. Both materials have been associated with divergent advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare the long-term follow-up outcomes in patients who underwent CEA and closure with either a bovine pericardial patch (BPP) or polyester patch.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including all patients who underwent primary CEA and closure with a BPP or a polyester patch between January 2010 and December 2020 at our tertiary referral center. In 2015, the BPP was introduced as an alternative for polyester. The primary outcome was the occurrence of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA) during follow-up and secondary outcomes included restenosis, reintervention, all-cause mortality, and patch infection. Cox proportional hazard models were used and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used to predict these outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 417 CEA patients; 254 patients (61%) received a BPP and 163 received (39%) a polyester patch. The mean age was 70.2 ± 8.7 years and 67% were male. The median follow-up time was 15 months (range, 12-27 months) for BPP and 42 months (range, 16-60 months) for polyester (P < .001). Postoperative hematoma (≤30 days) was significantly lower in the BPP cohort (2% BPP vs 6% polyester; P = .047). No other significant differences on short-term outcomes were found. Univariable Cox regression analyses showed no significant differences between the effect estimates of polyester and BPP on TIA or CVA (P = .106), restenosis (P = .211), reintervention (P = .549), or all-cause mortality (P = .158). No significant differences were found after adjusting for confounders in the multivariable analyses: TIA or CVA (P = .939), restenosis (P = .057), reintervention (P = .193) and all-cause mortality (P = .742). Three patients with a polyester patch had patch infection compared with none of the patients in the group who received a BPP.

CONCLUSIONS

This large retrospective study showed comparable safety and durability of both BPP and polyester suggesting that both patch types can be safely applied for CEA with patch angioplasty. Patch infection was rare and was absent in the BPP group.

[Abdominal pain in a man with an endovascular aortic prosthesis]

A 79-year-old man with an abdominal aorta aneurysm (AAA) with endovascular repair presented with abdominal pain and inflammation. Although the initial work-up was in favour of an idiopathic inflammatory AAA, FDG-PET imaging showed atypical irregular uptake. Per-operative assessment and culture of pus matter revealed infection by Listeria monocytogenes. Atypical findings on imaging of aortic wall inflammation should alarm the clinician of an infectious aetiology.