RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) requiring lower extremity revascularization (LER) have a high risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The results from the VOYAGER PAD (efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of major thrombotic vascular events in subjects with symptomatic peripheral artery disease undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures of the lower extremities) trial have demonstrated that rivaroxaban significantly reduced this risk with an overall favorable net benefit for patients undergoing surgical revascularization. However, the efficacy and safety for those treated by surgical bypass, including stratification by bypass conduit (venous or prosthetic), has not yet been described. METHODS: In the VOYAGER PAD trial, patients who had undergone surgical and endovascular infrainguinal LER to treat PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background antiplatelet therapy (aspirin 100 mg to be used in all and clopidogrel in some at the treating physician's discretion) and followed up for a median of 28 months. The primary end point was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of vascular etiology, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding using the TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) scale. The index procedure details, including conduit type (venous vs prosthetic), were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Among 6564 randomized patients, 2185 (33%) had undergone surgical LER. Of these 2185 patients, surgical bypass had been performed for 1448 (66%), using a prosthetic conduit for 773 patients (53%) and venous conduit for 646 patients (45%). Adjusting for the baseline differences and anatomic factors, the risk of unplanned limb revascularization in the placebo arm was 2.5-fold higher for those receiving a prosthetic conduit vs a venous conduit (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-3.90; P < .001), and the risk of acute limb ischemia was three times greater (adjusted HR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.84-5.11; P < .001). The use of rivaroxaban reduced the primary outcome for the patients treated with bypass surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98), with consistent benefits for those receiving venous (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96) and prosthetic (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15) conduits (Pinteraction = .254). In the overall trial, major bleeding using the TIMI scale was increased with rivaroxaban. However, the numbers for those treated with bypass surgery were low (five with rivaroxaban vs nine with placebo; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.18-1.65) and not powered to show statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical bypass with a prosthetic conduit was associated with significantly higher rates of major adverse limb events relative to venous conduits even after adjustment for patient and anatomic characteristics. Adding rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced this risk, with an increase in the bleeding risk, but had a favorable benefit risk for patients treated with bypass surgery, regardless of conduit type. Rivaroxaban should be considered after lower extremity bypass for symptomatic PAD to reduce ischemic complications of the heart, limb, and brain.
Assuntos
Infarto do Miocárdio , Doença Arterial Periférica , Humanos , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/efeitos adversos , Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença Arterial Periférica/cirurgia , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Infarto do Miocárdio/tratamento farmacológico , Isquemia/diagnóstico por imagem , Isquemia/tratamento farmacológico , Isquemia/cirurgia , Extremidade Inferior/irrigação sanguínea , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: All current aortic endografts depend on proximal and distal fixation to prevent migration. However, migration and rupture can occur, particularly in patients with aortic necks that are short or angulated, or both. We present our initial clinical experience with a new sac-anchoring endoprosthesis designed to anchor and seal the device within the aneurysm sac. METHODS: The initial worldwide experience using a new endoprosthesis for the treatment of aortic aneurysms (Nellix Endovascular, Palo Alto, Calif) was reviewed. The endoprosthesis consists of dual balloon-expandable endoframes surrounded by polymer-filled endobags designed to obliterate the aneurysm sac and maintain endograft position. Clinical results and follow-up contrast computed tomography (CT) scans at 30 days and 6 and 12 months were reviewed. RESULTS: The endograft was successfully deployed in 21 patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms measuring 5.7 ± 0.7 cm (range, 4.3-7.4 cm). Two patients with common iliac aneurysms were treated with sac-anchoring extenders that maintained patency of the internal iliac artery. Infusion of 71 ± 37 mL of polymer (range, 19-158 mL) into the aortic endobags resulted in complete aneurysm exclusion in all patients. Mean implant time was 76 ± 35 minutes, with 33 ± 17 minutes of fluoroscopy time and 180 ± 81 mL of contrast; estimated blood loss was 174 ± 116 mL. One patient died during the postoperative period (30-day mortality, 4.8%), and one died at 10 months from non-device-related causes. During a mean follow-up of 8.7 ± 3.1 months and a median of 6.3 months, there were no late aneurysm- or device-related adverse events and no secondary procedures. CT imaging studies at 6 months and 1 year revealed no increase in aneurysm size, no device migration, and no new endoleaks. One patient had a limited proximal type I endoleak at 30 days that resolved at 60 days and remained sealed. One patient has an ongoing distal type I endoleak near the iliac bifurcation, with no change in aneurysm size at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical experience with this novel intrasac anchoring prosthesis is promising, with successful aneurysm exclusion and good short-term results. This new device platform has the potential to address the anatomic restrictions and limitations of current endografts. Further studies with a longer follow-up time are needed.