Search

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the approaches to reno-visceral target vessels (TVs) cannulation during branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic repair, determine the evidence base that links these approaches to clinical outcomes and identify literature gaps. METHODS A scoping review following the PRISMA Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews was performed. Available full-text studies published in English (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases; last queried, 31 June 2022) were systematically reviewed and analysed. Data were reported as descriptive narrative or tables, without any statistical analysis nor quality assessment. RESULTS Fourteen retrospective articles were included. Seven articles studied the use of upper extremity access (UEA) during branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic repair, 3 studied the use of steerable sheaths and 4 included both approaches. A left UEA was used in 757 patients (technical success: 99%, stroke rate: 1–3%) and a right UEA in 215 patients (technical success: 92–98%, stroke rate: 0–13%). Seven studies (1066 patients) described a surgical access only (technical success: 80–99%, stroke rate: 0–13%), while 3 studies (146 patients) described a percutaneous access only (technical success: 83–90%, stroke rate: 3%) and lastly 4 studies compared UEA versus use of steerable sheaths from the transfemoral approach (TFA) (UEA: 563 patients, technical success: 95–98%, stroke rate: 1–8%; TFA: 209 patients, technical success: 98–100%, stroke rate: 0–1%). CONCLUSIONS Both UEA and TFA as cannulation approaches were associated with high technical success and low perioperative complications. Currently, there is a paucity of high-quality data to provide definitive indication. Optimal UEA in terms of side (left versus right) and approach (surgical versus percutaneous) needs further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures. METHODS Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared. RESULTS No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.04; P  = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded (<12 h 32% vs > 12 h 68% in 2020, < 12 h 34% vs > 12 h 66% in 2019 P  = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76–0.87; P  < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (−40%, P  < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P  = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]