The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient’s quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Objectives: The Padova Hospital Vascular Surgery Division is located in Veneto, one of the area of the Northern Italy most hit by the Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocols adopted and to evaluate their impact during the acute phase of Coronavirus spread, focusing on the management of elective and urgent/emergent surgery, outpatients activity, and also health staff preservation from intra-hospital Coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Methods: Several measures were progressively adopted in the Padova University Hospital to front the Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, with a clear strong asset established by 9 March 2020, after the Northern Italy lockdown. Since this date, the Vascular Surgery Unit started a “scaled-down” activity, both for elective surgical procedures and for the outpatient Clinical activities; different protocols were developed for health preservation of staff and patients. We compared a two months period, 30 days before and 30 days after this time point. In particular, emergent vascular surgery was regularly guaranteed as well as urgent surgery (to be performed within 24 h). Elective cases were scheduled for “non-deferrable” pathology. A swab test protocol for COVID-19 was applied to health-care professionals and hospitalized patients. Results: The number of urgent or emergent aortic cases remained stable during the two months period, while the number of Hospital admissions via Emergency Room related to critical limb ischemia decreased after national lockdown by about 20%. Elective vascular surgery was scaled down by 50% starting from 9 March; 35% of scheduled elective cases refused hospitalization during the lockdown period and 20% of those contacted for hospitalization where postponed due to fever, respiratory symptoms, or close contacts with Coronavirus disease 2019 suspected cases. Elective surgery reduction did not negatively influence overall carotid or aortic outcomes, while we reported a higher major limb amputation rate for critical limb ischemia (about 10%, compared to 4% for the standard practice period). We found that 4 out of 98 (4%) health-care providers on the floor had an asymptomatic positive swab test. Among 22 vascular doctors, 3 had a confirmed Coronavirus disease 2019 infection (asymptomatic); a total of 72 swab were performed (mean = 3.4 swab/person/month) during this period; no cases of severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (deaths or requiring intensive care treatment) infection were reported within this period for the staff or hospitalized patients. Conclusions: Elective vascular surgery needs to be guaranteed as possible during Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The number of truly emergent cases did not reduce, on the other side, Emergency Room accesses for non-emergent cases decreased. Our preliminary results seem to describe a scenario where, if the curve of the outbreak in the regional population is flattened, in association with appropriate hospitals containment rules, it may be possible to continue the activity of the Vascular Surgery Units and guarantee the minimal standard of care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the outcomes of open surgical repair (OSR) versus endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with parallel graft technique (PG) in patients with juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) excluded from fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) due to clinical, anatomical, technical or manufacturing time reasons. METHODS: A single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent elective and urgent (within 24-48 hours) repair of JAAA from January 2010 to January 2019 was performed. Two groups were compared: patients excluded from FEVAR and respectively treated by OSR or by PG for JAAA. Perioperative clinical, anatomic and operative data were collected in a dedicated database. The endpoints were primary technical success, changes in renal function, early and long-term mortality, freedom from aortic related reinterventions (ARRs) and aortic related mortality (ARM). RESULTS: Overall, 118 consecutive patients were treated for JAAA, 32 of whom (27.1%) with FEVAR. Eighty-six patients were enrolled in the study (OSR group, N.=61; PG group, N.=25). The mean age was 77.4 +/- 6.5 years for PG group and 71.1 +/- 6.7 years for OSR group (P4.0001); the average comorbidity score of the Society for Vascular Surgery was higher for patients treated by PG (10.2 +/- 4.8 vs. 5.5 +/- 0.4, P4.0001), with no differences for hypertension and renal score. After propensity score matching, 42 patients (27 OSR, 15 PG) without differences in the preoperative risk factors were selected. Conical shape and neck mural thrombus were respectively more represented in the OSR group (95.1% vs. 56.0%; 63.9% vs. 36.0%). Aortic clamp site was supraceliac for 12 patients (19.7%), suprarenal for 21 (34.4%) and trans-renal for 28 patients (45.9%). In the PG group, 16 patients (640/o) were treated with a single renal chimney. Primary technical success was similar in the two groups (100.0% vs. 92.0%. P=0.08), with a higher rate of procedure achieved by assisted technical success for the PG group after propensity score matching analysis (20.0% vs. 0%, P=0.04). Deterioration of renal function occurred for both groups of patients, with a significant creatinine increasing 12 months after surgery in the PG group compared with OSR group (1.72 +/- 0.66 vs. 1.18 +/- 0.40, P=0.006). Multiple logistic regression shows no independent predictor of pen-operative medical complication among demographics and pre-operative relevant clinical factors between the two cohorts. No difference in terms of early mortality was observed between the groups (1.6% vs. 0%, P=1.00). At 5 years, overall survival was lower for patients treated by PG (53.5% vs. 70.2%, P=0.007), such as freedom from ARRs (64.6 vs. 90.5%, P=0.03). Freedom from ARM at 5 years did not show significant differences among the two groups (100% vs. 98.4%, P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: PG represents a feasible procedure for patients excluded from FEVAR due to clinical, anatomical, technical or device manufacturing time reasons, ensuring low rates of ARM. However, ARRs during the follow-up remain the Achilles heel of this technique. OSR is still the most durable procedure in the endovascular era, allowing the treatment of proximal "hostile necks" with low rates of reoperation and a similar impact on the renal function compared to PG.

Background: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the mainstay of treatment for patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, whereas carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is indicated in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, the impact of prior IVT on the outcomes of CEA (IVT-CEA) is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine whether IVT may create additional stroke and death risk for CEA, compared with CEA performed in the absence of a history of recent IVT, and to determine the optimal timing for CEA after IVT. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of IVT-CEA vs CEA, using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Results: We included 11 retrospective comparative studies, in which 135,644 patients underwent CEA and 2070 underwent IVT-CEA. The pooled rate of perioperative stroke was 4.2% in the IVT-CEA group and 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.58; P = .21), with a high heterogenicity (I-2 = 93%). The rate of stroke/ death was 5.9% in patients undergoing IVT-CEA 1.9% in those receiving CEA only (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.14; I-2 = 92%; P = .09); after exclusion of studies including TIA as presenting symptom, stroke/death risk was 3.6% in IVT-CEA and 3.0% in CEA (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.53; I-2 = 50%; P = .11). The risk of stoke decreased with a delay in the performance of CEA (P = .268). Using results of the metaregression, the calculated delay of CEA that allows for a <6% risk was 4.6 days. Compared with CEA, patients undergoing IVT-CEA had a significantly higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2.5% vs 0.1%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.21; I-2 = 28%; P < .001) and neck hematoma requiring reintervention (3.6% vs 2.3%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 0.85;I-2=0%;P=.003). Conclusions: In patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke, CEA can be safely performed after a prior endovenous thrombolysis, maintaining a stroke/death risk of = 5 days to minimize the risk for intracranial hemorrhage and neck bleeding. (J Vasc Surg 2025;81:261-7.)