Stenting across head and neck vessels using covered stents for persisting aortic arch obstruction

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 610-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Bentham ◽  
Nilesh Oswal ◽  
Robert Yates

AbstractObjectiveTo describe endovascular stent placement using partially covered stents to preserve flow in head and neck vessels.BackgroundEndovascular stent placement has become established as a first-line therapy for native coarctation of the aorta or re-coarctation in older children and adults. Increasingly covered stents are becoming the preferred option over bare-metal stents because of the perceived lower risk of aneurysm formation. Open-cell bare-metal stents are chosen when there is a high likelihood of jailing a head and neck vessel. Here we describe partial uncovering of a covered stent before implantation to allow flow through the uncovered portion of the stent to the branch vessel but preserve the covering over the majority of the remaining stent.MethodsWe describe two cases with aortic arch hypoplasia and re-coarctation, both of which required two partially uncovered stents for a satisfactory result.ConclusionsEndovascular stent placement is becoming the preferred option in the management of coarctation of the aorta in older children and adults. Strategies to deal with transverse arch hypoplasia and multiple levels of aortic arch obstruction frequently involving branch vessels or aneurysms need to be considered before these procedures are embarked upon. Partially uncovering stents may afford more protection than using bare-metal stents in the transverse and distal arch while preserving flow in head and neck branches, and is a technically straightforward procedure.

2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 23S ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo S. Oderich ◽  
Luke Erdoes ◽  
Christopher LeSar ◽  
Peter Gloviczki ◽  
Audra A. Duncan ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregg W. Stone ◽  
Sheldon Goldberg ◽  
Charles O'Shaughnessy ◽  
Mark Midei ◽  
Robert M. Siegel ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myriam Ammi ◽  
Samir Henni ◽  
Lucie Salomon Du Mont ◽  
Nicla Settembre ◽  
Hélène Loubiere ◽  
...  

Purpose: To determine any difference between bare metal stents (BMS) and balloon-expandable covered stents in the treatment of innominate artery atheromatous lesions. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective study involving 13 university hospitals in France collected 93 patients (mean age 63.2±11.1 years; 57 men) treated over a 10-year period. All patients had systolic blood pressure asymmetry >15 mm Hg and were either asymptomatic (39, 42%) or had carotid (20, 22%), vertebrobasilar (24, 26%), and/or brachial (20, 22%) symptoms. Innominate artery stenosis ranged from 50% to 70% in 4 (4%) symptomatic cases and between 70% and 90% in 52 (56%) cases; 28 (30%) lesions were preocclusive and 8 (9%) were occluded. One (1%) severely symptomatic patient had a <50% stenosis. Demographic characteristics, operative indications, and procedure details were compared between the covered (36, 39%) and BMS (57, 61%) groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine relative risks of restenosis and reinterventions [reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Results: The endovascular procedures were performed mainly via retrograde carotid access (75, 81%). Perioperative strokes occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients. During the mean 34.5±31.2–month follow-up, 30 (32%) restenoses were detected and 13 (20%) reinterventions were performed. Relative risks were 6.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 22.2, p=0.001) for restenosis and 14.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 120.8, p=0.004) for reinterventions between BMS and covered stents. The severity of the treated lesions had no influence on the results. Conclusion: Patients treated with BMS for innominate artery stenosis have more frequent restenoses and reinterventions than patients treated with covered stents.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksei Zulkarnaev ◽  
Vadim Stepanov ◽  
Ekaterina Parshina ◽  
Mariya Novoseltseva

Abstract Background and Aims According to the current KDIGO guidelines, angioplasty should be preferred procedure for treatment of CVS instead of the bare metal stents or self-expanding stent-grafts placement. However, bare stents are still significantly more affordable than stent grafts. Aim: comparative analysis of the results of isolated balloon angioplasty (BA) and combined technique (BA with a stent placement in HD patients with central vein stenosis (CVS). Method A retrospective study included 62 patients with functional AVF and confirmed CVS: subclavian, brachiocephalic veins, vena cava inferior, or multiple lesions. In 39 patients, stents were not used; isolated balloon angioplasty (BA) was performed. In 23 patients we used bare metal stents during the first endovascular treatment. Results The use of stents leads to increase of primary patency (the time interval between the first and second endovascular interventions) – fig. 1A; HR (BA only vs. stenting) 2.064 [95% CI 1.252; 3.404], p = 0.0017. The use of stents allows to increase secondary patency (the time interval between the first endovascular intervention and the complete cessation of the use of AVF): HR=2.03 [95% CI 1.232; 3.347], p = 0.0021; fig 1B. Total need for surgical interventions did not differ: BA only 1.511 [95% CI 1.225; 1.843] and BA+stenting 1.277 [95% CI 0.997; 1.611] per 10 patient-months, incidence rate ratio 1.183 [95% CI 0.872; 1.612] p=0.2822. The second isolated BA allowed to increase patency compared to the first (HR of AVF function loss or relapse 0.512 [95% CI 0.32; 0.818], log rank p=0.001), and the third compared to the second isolated BA (HR=0.607 [95% CI 0.384; 0.959], log rank p=0.0157). The fourth isolated BA also showed a slight increase in AVF patency, but in this case we observed no significant difference with the previous intervention (HR= 0.783 [95% CI 0.501; 1.225], log rank p=0.2433). In the case of BA+stenting, the second intervention, which was consisted of stent recanalization, allowed to increase patency of the AVF (HR= 0.433 [95% CI 0.231; 0.813], log rank p= 0.0014), but the third intervention was no longer accompanied by a significant increase in patency (HR= 0.873 [95% CI 0.489; 1.558], log rank p= 0.629) and AVF function was completely lost. Conclusion The use of stents leads to a moderate increase in the median patency of AVF and a significant increase in the proportion of patients with functional AVF in the long-term period. However, repeated surgeries are significantly less effective than in a case of isolated BA. Therefore, we consider isolated BA to be the optimal treatment strategy, and stenting should be used only if the isolated BA does not result in clinical improvement. Multiple endovascular interventions can extend the duration of AVF functioning, however, in our study, AVF function was completely lost up to 52 months after the clinical manifestation of CVS in all patients. Thus, isolated BA and BA combined with a bare metal stent placement cannot be considered as a definitive treatment of CVS. Endovascular interventions provide only the necessary amount of time to create vascular access on the contralateral side or for shift of modality of renal replacement therapy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. e363
Author(s):  
Charles DeCarlo ◽  
Laura Boitano ◽  
Christopher Latz ◽  
C.Y. Maximilian Png ◽  
Sujin Lee ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document