Objective: The goal of this study was to analyze our 10-year experience in the treatment of aneurysms of the collateral circulation secondary to steno-occlusions of the celiac trunk (CT) or superior mesenteric artery (SMA).Methods: In the last 10 years, 32 celiac-mesenteric aneurysms were detected (25 true aneurysms and seven pseudoaneurysms) in 25 patients with steno-occlusion of the CT or SMA. All cases were diagnosed and treated at our center, with either surgical or endovascular approach. As open surgery, we performed aneurysmectomy and revascularization; as endovascular treatment we performed both the embolization (or graft exclusion) of the aneurysm sac, and embolization of afferent and efferent arteries.Results: Sixteen patients (64%) underwent endovascular treatment, accounting for 66% of aneurysms (21/32). Six patients (24%) and seven associated aneurysms (22%) underwent open surgery. Three asymptomatic patients (12%), representing a total of four aneurysms (12%), were not treated. For endovascular procedures, the technical success rate was 90%, with a 56% clinical success rate. For open surgery, clinical and technical success were achieved in five patients (83%) and six procedures (86%), respectively. Sixty-eight percent of patients (17/25) were treated in an emergency setting, using either endovascular (88%) or open (12%) approaches. Although technical success was achieved in more than 85% of these procedures for both approaches, clinical success was reached less frequently among patients with an acute presentation (P ¼ .041). Regardless of the type of treatment, CT or SMA revascularization during the first procedure did not show an increased rate of clinical success (P ¼ .531). However, we reported four cases of visceral ischemia after an endovascular approach without revascularization, with three open surgical corrections required. The mean follow-up was 41 months (range, 0-136 months).Conclusions: Neither of the approaches described qualifies as a standard optimal choice. We suggest a tailored therapeutic approach based on the clinical condition at the time of diagnosis and specific vascular anatomy.

Our score is a simple clinical tool that allows a quick and reliable prediction of survival in asymptomatic patients who are candidates for CEA. This selective approach is crucial to avoid unnecessary surgery on patients who are less likely to survive long enough to experience the benefits of this preventive procedure.

This article reviews the arterial access sites used in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, including common femoral, superficial femoral, and popliteal arterial puncture. The optimal approach and techniques for arterial puncture will be described and technical tips and tricks will be discussed. An overview of the currently available vascular closure devices will also be presented. Indications, contraindications, and complications will be discussed. Results of the use of vascular closure devices compared with manual compression will be presented.

Our results with U-CEA confirm that this population has a higher risk profile compared with elective surgery. The type of acute presentation is correlated with perioperative risk. U-CEA was safe when performed on patients presenting with transient ischemic attack. An acceptable complication rate was achieved for patients with minor to moderate strokes. The poorest outcomes occurred in patients presenting with stroke in evolution: U-CEA in these patients should be offered with extreme caution, although we are aware that a conservative treatment may not grant a better prognosis.

PA and MA both achieved satisfactory results in primary and secondary patency rates, as well as limb salvage, during long-term follow-up. The differences between the two groups were small and not statistically significant. PA was burdened by similar postoperative nerve and wound complications compared with MA. The in-hospital stay after PA was significantly lower.

Primary aorto-enteric fistula (PAEF) develops between the native aorta and the gastro-intestinal tract, in the presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. It is a rare, life-threatening condition and appears to be less frequent than secondary aorto-enteric fistula, which is associated with previous aortic prosthetic reconstruction. When untreated, the overall mortality rate is almost 100%. Diagnosis may be challenging until the occurrence of a massive haemorrhage. In the presence of gross contamination, patients tend to a worse prognosis. Extra-anatomical bypass and repair of the enteric tract is the treatment of choice in case of gross contamination. In situ reconstruction is often reported in cases of mild bacterial contamination. Endovascular treatment has recently become a valid option in haemodynamically unstable patients, but a staged approach, with delayed surgical treatment, seems advisable.

Blunt abdominal trauma with major vascular involvement is found to be rare. Although few series have been reported in the literature, the true incidence of blunt abdominal aortic injury is unknown. Different modalities of blunt trauma may occur among civilians with steering wheel and seat belt injury secondary to motor vehicle accident the most frequent. Mechanical forces produce variable patterns of injury; therefore, the onset of signs and symptoms can be different. Dissection and thrombosis of the abdominal aorta have been frequently described among seat-belted adult patients with major vascular involvement. The associated abdominal viscus and/or vertebral lesions must always be taken into account. Prompt diagnosis allows adequate surgical treatment. We present the case of a 66-year-old woman, restrained front passenger involved in a motor vehicle collision, who had small bowel transection, vertebral fractures, and aortic partial occlusion below inferior mesenteric artery with bilateral iliac artery involvement. Along with the case reported, the purpose of this study is to highlight and compare features and management of the previous cases described in the English literature.

We evaluated the evolution of chronic medical therapy in patients admitted for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) over a 13-year period and to analyze the difference in medical treatment between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. A retrospective study was conducted on patients treated between 2002 and 2015. The use of antiplatelets (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], ticlopidine, and clopidogrel), oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT), statins and antihypertensives (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACE-I]/angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], β-blockers [BB]) administration was evaluated. During the study period, 852 CEAs were performed in 681 (79.9%) asymptomatic patients. Prescription rate increased significantly for ASA (+29.2%), clopidogrel (+10.3%), statins (+60.8%), ACE-I/ARBs (+31.1%), and BB (+19.3%; all P < .05). No significant modification was observed for ticlopidine and OAT (ticlopidine use was abandoned in the recent years, but this difference was not significant due to the small numbers). A lower medication intake was recorded for symptomatic patients when compared with asymptomatic patients, except for OAT and clopidogrel. Our analysis suggests that medical therapy has changed over the years for patients with carotid stenosis. Although this is a big step toward best medical therapy, preoperative drug therapy remains suboptimal in symptomatic patients.