Search

Heart failure represents a dynamic clinical challenge with the continuous rise of a multi‐morbid and ageing population. Yet, the evolving nature of mechanical circulatory support offers a variety of means to manage candidates who might benefit from such interventions. This narrative review focuses on the role of the main mechanical circulatory support devices, such as ventricular assist device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella and TandemHeart, in the physiological process of ventricular unloading and remodelling in heart failure, highlighting their characteristics, mechanism and clinical outcomes. The outcome measures described include physiological changes (i.e., stroke volume or preload and afterload), intracardiac pressure (i.e., end‐diastolic pressure) and extracardiac pressure (i.e., pulmonary capillary wedge pressure). Overall, all the above mechanical circulatory support strategies can facilitate the unloading of the ventricular failure through different mechanisms, which subsequently affects the ventricular remodelling process. These physiological changes start immediately after ventricular assist device implantation. The devices are indicated in different but overlapping populations and operate in distinctive ways; yet, they have evidenced performance to a favourable standard to improve cardiac function in heart failure, although this proved variable for different devices, and further high‐quality trials are vital to assess their clinical outcomes further. Both Impella and TandemHeart are indicated mainly in cardiogenic shock and high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention patients; at the time the literature was evaluated, both devices were found to yield a significant improvement in haemodynamics but not in survival. Nevertheless, the choice of device strategy should be based on individual patient factors, including indication, to optimize clinical outcomes. What is the topic of this review?This narrative review focuses on the role of the main mechanical circulatory support devices in the physiological process of ventricular unloading and remodelling in heart failure.What advances does it highlight?This narrative review presents a comprehensive overview of the main mechanical circulatory support devices in heart failure, highlighting their characteristics, mechanisms and clinical outcomes. These devices can facilitate the unloading of ventricular failure to varying extents and through different mechanisms, which subsequently affects the ventricular remodelling process. Nevertheless, the choice of device strategy should be based on individual patient factors, including indication, to optimize clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a prevalence of 4.8%. AAA rupture is associated with significant mortality, thus surgical intervention is generally required once the aneurysm diameter exceeds 5.5 cm. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the predominant repair modality for AAA. However, in patients with complex aortic anatomy, fenestrated or branched EVAR is a superior repair option vs standard EVAR. Fenestrated and branched endoprostheses can be off-the-shelf or custom-made, which offers a more individualised approach. Aim: To summarise and evaluate the clinical outcomes achieved by fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and branched EVAR (BEVAR), and to explore the role of custom-made endoprostheses in contemporary AAA management. Methods: A literature search using Ovid Medline and Google Scholar was conducted to identify literature pertaining to the use and outcomes of fenestrated, branched, fenestrated-branched and custom-made endoprostheses for AAA repair. Results: FEVAR is an effective repair modality for patients with AAA that offers similar early survival, improved early morbidity but higher rates of reintervention in comparison to open surgical repair (OSR). Compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with similar in-hospital mortality yet higher rates of morbidity, especially regarding renal outcomes. BEVAR outcomes are rarely reported exclusively in the context of AAA repair. When reported, BEVAR is an acceptable alternative to EVAR in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and has similar reported complication issues to FEVAR. Custom-made grafts are a good alternative treatment option for complex aneurysms where hostile aneurysm anatomy precludes the use of conventional EVAR and sufficient time is available for the manufacturing of such devices. Conclusion: FEVAR offers a very effective treatment for patients with complex aortic anatomy and has been well-characterised over the past decade. RCTs and longer-term studies are desirable for unbiased comparison of non-standard EVAR modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices. Areas covered: This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes. Expert opinion: Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The extent to which patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) should exercise remains unclear, given theoretical concerns over the perceived risk of blood pressure‐induced rupture, which is often catastrophic. This is especially pertinent during cardiopulmonary exercise testing, when patients are required to perform incremental exercise to symptom‐limited exhaustion for the determination of cardiorespiratory fitness. This multimodal metric is being used increasingly as a complementary diagnostic tool to inform risk stratification and subsequent management of patients undergoing AAA surgery. In this review, we bring together a multidisciplinary group of physiologists, exercise scientists, anaesthetists, radiologists and surgeons to challenge the enduring 'myth' that AAA patients should be fearful of and avoid rigorous exercise. On the contrary, by appraising fundamental vascular mechanobiological forces associated with exercise, in conjunction with 'methodological' recommendations for risk mitigation specific to this patient population, we highlight that the benefits conferred by cardiopulmonary exercise testing and exercise training across the continuum of intensity far outweigh the short‐term risks posed by potential AAA rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Its main aim is to seal the perfusion of the aneurysmal sac and, thus, induce sac regression and subsequent aortic remodelling. Aneurysmal sac regression has been linked to the short- and long-term clinical outcomes post-EVAR. It has also been shown to be influenced by endograft device choice, with several of these available commercially. This review summarises and discusses current evidence on the influence of pre- and intraoperative factors on sac regression. Additionally, this review aims to highlight the device-specific variations in sac regression to provide an overall holistic approach to treating AAAs with EVAR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases to identify and extract relevant data. Results: Female sex, >70 mm original sac diameters, higher pre-procedural fibrinogen levels, smoking and low intra-aneurysmal pressure were found to positively impact sac regression. Whereas renal impairment, ischemic heart disease, high intra-aneurysmal pressure and aneurysm neck thrombus negatively influenced sac regression. Patent lumbar arteries, age, statins and hypercholesterolaemia displayed conflicting evidence regarding sac regression. Regarding the EVAR endografts compared, newer generation devices such as the Anaconda mainly showed the most optimal results. Conclusion: Sac regression following EVAR in AAA is an important prognostic factor for morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, several pre- and intraoperative factors can have an influence on sac regression. Therefore, it is necessary to take them into account when assessing AAA patients for EVAR to optimise outcomes. The choice of EVAR stent-graft can also affect sac regression, with evidence suggesting that the Fenestrated Anaconda is associated with the most favourable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the mainstay treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms and is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. However, there remains a risk of complications requiring reintervention. Several EVAR devices exist commercially, yet, the Terumo Aortic Fenestrated Anaconda™ has demonstrated outstanding results. The main scope of this study is to evaluate survival/longevity, target vessel patency (TVP), endograft migration and reintervention following Fenestrated Anaconda™ implantation and discuss relevant literature. Methods: The current study represents a 9-year cross-sectional international analysis of custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R was utilised. Pearson Chi-Square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05. Results: A total of 5058 patients received the Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ was indicated either due to complex anatomy for competitor devices (n = 3891, 76.9%) or based on surgeon preference (n = 1167, 23.1%). Both survival and TVP were 100% during the first 6 postoperative years but dropped to 77.1% and 81% thereafter. In the complex anatomy indication group, cumulative survival and TVP were both 100% until year 7 post-EVAR when they decreased to 82.8% and 75.7%. In the other indication group, survival and TVP were also 100% during the first 6 years but plateaued at 58.1% and 98.8% in years 7–9 of follow-up. No cases of endograft migration and reintervention were recorded. Conclusion: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has been proven across the literature to be a highly effective EVAR endograft, as it has demonstrated excellent survival/longevity and TVP as well as minimal endograft migration and reintervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires urgent surgical intervention. The mainstay surgical approach to treating ATAAD with aortic arch involvement is total arch replacement (TAR). The frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure involves TAR with hybrid endovascular stenting of the DTA in a single step using a hybrid prosthesis (HP). The prime example of a FET HP is Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP). Another treatment option is the novel Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) that is deployed as a non-covered stent along with the aortic arch as an adjunct to prior hemi-arch replacement. Aims: This comparative review highlights the clinical applications and outcomes of THP and AMDS in the treatment of ATAAD and discusses the main differences between both approaches. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase. Results: TAR with FET can be considered the superior approach to managing ATAAD with arch involvement relative to AMDS with hemi-arch replacement due to more optimal clinical outcomes. Upon comprehensively searching the literature, early mortality was substantially lower with FET ranging from 0–11% compared to 12.5–18.7% using AMDS, with more favourable long-term survival. The incidence of kidney injury and new stroke post-FET ranged from 3–20% and 5–16%, and 11–37.5% and 0–18.8% following AMDS implantation. However, evidence supporting the use of AMDS is extremely limited. Meanwhile, TAR with FET is a well-established and well-described procedure for ATAAD repair. Conclusion: Despite the novel nature of AMDS, its clinical safety and effectiveness are yet to be proven. In conclusion, THP remains the best evidenced-based approach to treat ATAAD in this era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta that can be repaired either endovascularly or with open surgery. However, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the main treatment modality for AAA due to its more optimal results. EVAR devices can either be standard, fenestrated, or branched, with fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) seemingly achieving superior prospects. Although EVAR is associated with excellent outcomes, it still carries a risk of certain complications requiring reintervention or 'rescue'. Several commercial EVAR devices are available on the global market, nevertheless, the Fenestrated Anaconda developed by Terumo Aortic can be considered the superior device due to the wide range of endovascular solutions that it offers along with its unique custom-made approach, excellent results and its highly promising potential to be used as a 'rescue' device for failed competitor endografts. Materials and methods: The current study represents a 9-year cross-sectional international analysis of a custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson Chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05. Results: Out of 5058 EVARs performed using the Fenestrated Anaconda, 2987 (59%) were 'rescue' procedures for migrated Gore (n = 252) and Medtronic (n = 2735) devices. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ was indicated as the reintervention device either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for the competitor (n = 2411) or based on surgeon preference (n = 576). Overall, the Fenestrated Anaconda was utilised to rescue 3466 (68.5%) failed previous EVARs using competitor devices. Yet, the primary endovascular solution offered by the Fenestrated Anaconda was FEVAR (91.3%), with 112 (2.2%) devices using custom-made iliac stents. Discussion: The use of the Fenestrated Anaconda endograft as a 'rescue' device to salvage failed competitor devices is well-established in the literature with excellent clinical outcomes achieved. The evidence in the literature also highlights the distinctive custom-made approach that the Fenestrated Anaconda offers which enables it to treat extremely complex aortic anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to the aortic arch has been met with the development of purpose-made endoprostheses for on-label use in the aortic arch. An appraisal of the clinical efficacy of each major device is therefore useful towards informing clinical decision making for patients eligible for endovascular arch repair (EAR) rather than open surgical reconstruction. Methods: A literature review of publications outlining clinical experience with the RELAY™ Branched and Zenith™ devices was undertaken, and the results therefrom analysed to evaluate the clinical efficacies of each device. Results: Early- and long-term mortality rates associated with EAR appear favourable, especially compared against open surgical repair. EAR is also associated with good neurological outcomes and target vessel patency rates. However, EAR continues to be associated with substantial reintervention rates. Conclusions: At the present stage, EAR represents a promising alternative option to open surgical reconstruction in patients that meet its eligibility criteria. Though there remains a substantial learning curve associated with EAR, its favourable outcome profile is likely to increase its applicability in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Since the introduction of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) it has become the mainstay treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Several EVAR devices exist commercially, yet, the Terumo Aortic Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft has demonstrated outstanding results. Evidence in the literature suggests that sac regression could be linked to patient survival and longevity. The main scope of this study is to evaluate sac regression and survival achieved using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft and to discuss relevant literature. Materials and methods: The current study represents a nine-year cross-sectional international analysis of custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05. Results: A total of 5,058 patients received the Fenestrated Anaconda™ in this study, either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for competitor devices (n = 3,891) or based on surgeon preference (n = 1,167). A sac regression of 0–30% was observed in 4,772 (94.3%) over the first four years post-EVAR. Here, 99.6% of patients receiving the Fenestrated Anaconda™ due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for competitor devices and 76.8% based on surgeon preference had 0–30% sac regression. During years 5–9 of follow-up, all patients had 20–45% sac regression. Patient survival during the first six years post-EVAR was 100% but dropped to 77.1% in years 7–9. Survival differed between categorical patient subsets based on the indication. Discussion: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has been proven to be a highly effective EVAR endograft. Evidence in the literature clearly demonstrates that sac regression is an accurate prognostic factor for patient survival and longevity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of endovascular aortic repair has revolutionised the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, replacing open surgical repair for the majority of elective cases due to its optimal morbidity and mortality. Several endovascular aortic repair stent grafts exist commercially, one of which is the Fenestrated Anaconda™ by Terumo Aortic which benefits from a very innovative design, unique custom-made approach and highly favourable results. Aims: The main scope of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of endovascular aortic repair clinical outcomes using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ stent-graft and comparing these with its market competitor, Zenith. This review will also examine the evidence in the literature on the Anaconda™'s custom-made approach. Methods: A comprehensive literature was conducted on several search engines including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase to collate the evidence in the literature on clinical outcomes achieved with the Fenestrated Anaconda™ and Zenith including, but not limited to, survival, technical success, target vessel patency, endoleak, reintervention and aneurysm sac regression. Results: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ is associated with excellent results, including highly favourable survival, technical and clinical success and target vessel patency rates, very low need for reintervention or conversion, and minimal incidence of complications such as endoleak and endograft migration. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ also drives significant sac regression and aortic remodelling. In addition, its unique custom-made approach enables it to treat highly complex aortic anatomy as well as to 'rescue' failed competitor grafts. Conclusion: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has proven that it is a very safe, highly applicable and extremely effective device used for complex aortic and/or iliac pathology based on its novel design and outstanding track record of clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD) comprises the estimated majority of type B aortic dissection (TBAD), presenting without any of the complications associated with complicated TBAD (coTBAD). Although first-line treatment for coTBAD is thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and despite the fact that TEVAR has proven its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of unTBAD, unTBAD is still being predominantly managed conservatively with medical therapy, with a small proportion of patients being offered TEVAR. Aims: The main scope of this review is to highlight the evidence in the literature of the demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients undergoing TEVAR in order to produce a risk stratification system to achieve favourable outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and EMBASE. Results: Multiple demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients affecting TEVAR outcomes were identified, assessed, and investigated, including age, gender, race, genetics, medical conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and lifestyle factors such as smoking. Most factors were associated with increased risks of mortality and morbidity, while others, such as race, were identified as being protective against those when it comes to TEVAR. Conclusion: Despite the favourable results yielded by TEVAR in unTBAD, there remains a grey area concerning its management. Thus, it is important to incorporate the demographics and co-morbidities of unTBAD patients' when into clinical judgement when assessing indications for TEVAR intervention to ensure optimum results can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]