Favourable and adverse anatomy patients can be successfully treated using the Nellix sac-anchoring endoprosthesis. Early results are promising but longer-term studies are needed.

on behalf of the PREFER study group. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;42:26-34. Objective: Factors influencing the choice between endovascular (endovascular aneurysm repair, EVAR) and open repair (OPEN) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are of increasing interest. We quantified their importance among the different subjects involved in the treatment.Methods: Pre-and postoperative patients (pts), their relatives and vascular surgeons completed questionnaires evaluating six treatment characteristics: anaesthesia; recovery time to basic everyday activities; risk of re-intervention at 5 years (RR); complexity of follow-up; risk of major complications; and additional cost of intervention (AC). Through a discrete choice experiment, hypothetical scenarios of treatment were obtained and the relative importance (RI) of each characteristic was determined through a conditional logistic regression model.Results: A total of 160 pts, 102 relatives and 30 surgeons from nine centres completed the questionnaires. Major complications and re-intervention risk were the most important characteristics (RI ϭ 56.0% and 27.2%, respectively) for all the respondent categories. Pts and their relatives considered very important also a possible out-of-pocket AC. Recovery time and type of anaesthesia were among the least important characteristics, including hospital additional cost for surgeons. The different categories of respondents showed different opinions towards different treatment characteristics depending also on possible previous treatment.Conclusion: Preferences for AAA treatment characteristics differ between groups of involved subjects. Understanding individuals' preferences could help in optimising treatment benefits.

EVAR using SES endografts resulted in progressive infrarenal aortic neck enlargement, whereas EVAR using BES endografts resulted in no neck enlargement over time. These data suggest that infrarenal neck enlargement after EVAR with SES endografts is likely related to the force exerted by SES elements rather than disease progression in the infrarenal neck.

The overall incidence of proximal endoleak after EVAS is 3.1% after a mean follow-up period of 16 months, with 1.5% occurring within 30 days. Their occurrence is related to patient selection and stent positioning. Early detection and classification is crucial to avoid the potential of sac rupture.

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) using the Nellix system is a new and different method of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Normal postoperative imaging has unique appearances that change with time; complications also have different and specific appearances. This consensus document on the imaging findings after Nellix EVAS is based on the collective experience of the sites involved in the Nellix EVAS Global Forward Registry and the US Investigational Device Exemption Trial. The normal findings on computed tomography (CT), duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and plain radiography are described. With time, endobag appearances change on CT due to contrast migration to the margins of the hydrogel polymer within the endobag. Air within the endobag also has unique appearances that change over time. Among the complications after Nellix EVAS, type I endoleak usually presents as a curvilinear area of flow between the endobag and aortic wall, while type II endoleak is typically small and usually occurs where an aortic branch artery lies adjacent to an irregular aortic blood lumen that is not completely filled by the endobag. Procedural aortic injury is an uncommon but important complication that occurs as a result of overfilling of the endobags during Nellix EVAS. The optimum imaging surveillance algorithm after Nellix EVAS has yet to be defined but is largely CT-based, especially in the first year postprocedure. However, duplex ultrasound also appears to be a sensitive modality in identifying normal appearances and complications.

Background Bridging treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is applied under the assumption of benefits for patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, the benefit of this additional step has not yet been proven. Purpose To compare procedural parameters (procedural time, number of attempts), complications, and clinical outcome in patients receiving EVT vs. patients with bridging treatment. Material and Methods In this prospective study all patients had acute anterior cerebral circulation occlusion and were treated with EVT. All patients were selected for treatment based on clinical criteria, multimodal computed tomography (CT) imaging. Eighty-four patients were treated with bridging IVT followed by EVT; 62 patients were treated with EVT only. Results Bridging therapy did not influence endovascular procedure time ( P = 0.71) or number of attempts needed ( P = 0.63). Bleeding from any site was more common in the bridging group (27, 32%) vs. the EVT group (12, 19%) ( P = 0.09). Functional independence modified Rankin Scale after 90 days was slightly higher in the bridging group (44%) vs. the EVT group (42%) ( P = 0.14). Mortality did not differ significantly at 90 days: 17% in the bridging group vs. 21% in EVT alone ( P = 0.57). Both treatment methods showed high recanalization rates: 94% in the bridging group and 89% for EVT alone. Conclusion Bridging treatment in LVO did not show benefits or elevated risks of complications in comparison to EVT only. The bridging group did not show significantly better neurological outcome or significant impact on procedural parameters vs. EVT alone.

No abstract

An increasing number of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms are treated using endovascular rather than open surgical techniques. The Vascular Surgery Center, P. Stradins Clinical University Hospital, has the largest worldwide experience using a new type of endoprosthesis, which fills and anchors the device in the aneurysm sac. Within the framework of a clinical trial, the quality-of-life evaluation of patients treated using this type of device was carried out. Materials and Method. A cohort study was conducted from 2008 to 2011 comparing the quality of life (QOL) of patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with either the new endovascular treatment method (EVAR) or open surgery (OS). Each group comprised 20 patients, and the quality-of life-evaluation was performed using the SF-36 questionnaire before operation, 1 month after operation, and 1 year after operation. Results. One month after operation, an improved QOL was documented in the EVAR group (47 [SD, 3] in the EVAR group vs. 38 [SD, 3] in the OS group, P<0.001). One year after operation, a significant improvement in QOL persisted although the difference between the groups diminished (48 [SD, 4] in the EVAR group vs. 42 [SD, 3] in the OS group, P<0.001). Conclusions. The patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms who underwent EVAR using the new sac-anchoring endoprosthesis have improved health-related quality of life compared to the patients undergoing open surgical repair. The improvement in quality of life remained slightly better in the EVAR group 1 year after operation.