The current endoleak classification system with some important modifications is adequate. Types I and II endoleak occur after 0 to 10% and 10% to 25% of EVARs, respectively. Many (30% to 100%) type II endoleaks will seal and have no detrimental effect, which never or rarely occurs with type I endoleaks. Not all endoleaks can be visualized with any technique, and increased pressure (endotension) can be transmitted through clot. Aneurysm pulsatility after EVAR correlates poorly with endoleaks and endotension. An enlarging aneurysm after EVAR mandates surgical or interventional treatment. These and other conclusions will help to resolve controversy and aid in the management of these vexing complications and should also point the way to future research in this field.

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

The primary lesion in oxygen supply dominates muscle metabolism. Reduced force-generation in patients who are affected more may protect muscle from metabolic stress.

In the ongoing evolution of a categorization system for endoleak, the authors propose the term endotension to define persistent or recurrent pressurization of the aortic aneurysm sac after endovascular repair. Endotension is evidence that the aneurysm remains at risk of rupture and should, therefore, be considered an indication for secondary intervention. Management strategies and a grading system for endotension are offered.

Localized "hot spots" of MMP hyperactivity could lead to focal weakening of the aneurysm wall and rupture at relatively low levels of intraluminal pressure. These data suggest that tensile strength of the sac is just as important as intrasac tension in determining the risk of rupture. Moreover, these observations may explain why some small aneurysms rupture and larger aneurysms do not. Assessment of rupture risk based on computation or measurement of wall stress may be subject to error and inaccuracy due to variations in wall tensile strength.