Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm represents a distinct group of vascular lesions, in terms of surveillance and treatment. Screening and follow-up of patients via duplex ultrasound has been well established and proposed by current guidelines. However, serum circulating biomarkers could earn a position in individualized patient surveillance, especially in cases of aggressive AAA growth rates. A systematic review was conducted to assess the correlation of AAA expansion rates with serum circulating biomarkers. Methods: A data search of English medical literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, until 7 March 2021, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on humans, on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rates and on serum circulating biomarkers were included. No statistical analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 25 studies with 4753 patients were included. Studies were divided in two broad categories: Those reporting on clinically applicable (8 studies) and those reporting on experimental (17 studies) biomarkers. Twenty-three out of 25 studies used duplex ultrasound (DUS) for following patients. Amongst clinically applicable biomarkers, D-dimers, LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, ApoB, and HbA1c were found to bear the most significant association with AAA growth rates. In terms of the experimental biomarkers, PIIINP, osteopontin, tPA, osteopontin, haptoglobin polymorphisms, insulin-like growth factor I, thioredoxin, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), and genetic factors, as polymorphisms and microRNAs were positively correlated with increased AAA expansion rates. Conclusion: In the presence of future robust data, specific serum biomarkers could potentially form the basis of an individualized surveillance strategy of patients presenting with increased AAA growth rates.

Purpose: Currently there is no robust evidence which type of bridging stent graft provides better outcomes after branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR). Self-expanding (SESG) and balloon-expandable (BESG) stent grafts are both commonly used to connect branches to their respective target vessels (TV). The aim of the current review was to evaluate the impact of the type of bridging stent grafts on TV outcomes during the mid-term follow-up after BEVAR. Materials and Methods: The study protocol was registered to the PROSPERO (CRD42021274766). A search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed and EMBASE databases via Ovid and Cochrane database via CENTRAL, from inception to June 30, 2021, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Only comparative studies on BEVAR reporting TV outcomes related to BESG vs SESG were considered eligible. Individual studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. The primary outcomes were primary patency, freedom from endoleak, TV instability, and re-intervention between BESG and SESG, used as bridging stents in branches. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), through a paired meta-analysis. Results: Five out of 609 articles published from 2016 to 2020 were included in the analysis. In total, 1406 TV were revascularized, 547 (38.9 %) with BESGs and 859 with SESGs. The overall pooled primary patency (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–1.09; p=.256, I²=4.24%) and freedom from branch-related endoleak (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.17–1.48; p<.122, I²=0.18%) did not differ between the stent types during the available follow-up (17 months, range = 12–35 months). In 4 studies (619 TV), SESG required fewer secondary interventions (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.23–1.83; p=.009, I²=0%) and TV instability rate was lower (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.33–1.65; p=.003, I²=0%) compared with BESG during the available follow-up. Conclusion: BESG and SESG seem to perform similarly in terms of primary patency and branch-related endoleak during the mid-term follow-up. Current data from retrospective studies suggest that overall TV instability and re-intervention rates are favorable for SESG as bridging stent grafts in BEVAR.

Purpose: Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management. Materials and Methods: A search of the English literature (2000–2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies’ quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up. Results: Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected. Conclusions: Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement. Clinical Impact: Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

Fenestrated or branched endovascular repairs (f/bEVAR) are valuable treatments in patients with chronic post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aneurysms (PD-TAAA). This study aimed to analyse early and follow up outcomes of f/bEVAR. Thirty day and follow up outcomes of consecutive patients with PD-TAAA treated with f/bEVAR in a tertiary centre over 8 years were retrospectively analysed. All patients presenting with PD-TAAA and managed with f/bEVAR, were eligible. Modified Crawford's classification system was used. Thirty day mortality and major adverse events (MAE) were analysed. Time to event data were estimated with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Fifty five patients (80% men, mean age 63.7 ± 7.7 years) were included: 12 (22%) were managed urgently; 25 (46%) for chronic type B aortic dissection; and the remainder for residual type A aortic dissection. Of these patients, 88% had undergone previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was used in 91%. Fifteen (27%) patients were treated with fEVAR, nine (16%) with fenestrations and branches, and 31 (56%) with bEVAR. False lumen adjunctive procedures were used in 56%. Technical success was achieved in 96% of patients. Thirty day mortality was 7% and MAE rate was 20%. Spinal cord injury (SCI) grades 1 - 3 and grade 3 rates were 13% and 2%, respectively. Mean follow up was 33.0 ± 18.4 months. Survival and freedom from unscheduled re-intervention were 86% (SE 5%) and 55% (SE 8%) at 24 months, respectively. Freedom from target vessel stenosis and occlusion was higher in fEVAR at the 12 month follow up (p = .006) compared with bEVAR. Fenestrated or branched endovascular repairs in patients with PD-TAAA showed high technical success, with acceptable early mortality and MAE rates. The SCI rate was > 10%, despite CSFD use and staged procedures. Almost one-half of patients needed an unscheduled re-intervention within 24 months after f/bEVAR.