In 2009 Paolo Zamboni et al. implicated that chronic cerebral venous congestion lead to the development of multiple sclerosis. In this review, we examined the role of chronic cerbrospinal venous insufficiency in multiple sclerosis and the proposed therapy entailing venous angioplasty and stenting of extracranial veins with available evidence to date.
Angioplasty ; Hyperemia ; Multiple Sclerosis* ; Stents ; Veins ; Venous Insufficiency*

Major branches of the aortic arch and visceral aorta pose a particular challenge for endovascular repair of aneurysms involving these regions. To preserve perfusion through these essential branches, fenestrated and branched endografts have been used. Current fenestrated and branched aortic endografts have evolved into modular devices in which the aortic main body provides appropriate access to the target branch vessel either through reinforced fenestrations or directional cuffs as the hinge point for bridging stent grafts (BSGs). BSGs are used to connect the aortic main body and target branch vessel, and must provide both unhindered flow and a seal. Appropriate selection of BSG for target vessels in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair is critical for technical success and durability. At present, there are no dedicated devices for use as BSGs, and a variety of stent grafts are currently used off-label. In this report, we review the available published series on the performance of presently available BSGs in relation to their design and selection.

Major branches of the aortic arch and visceral aorta pose a particular challenge for endovascular repair of aneurysms involving these regions. To preserve perfusion through these essential branches, fenestrated and branched endografts have been used. Current fenestrated and branched aortic endografts have evolved into modular devices in which the aortic main body provides appropriate access to the target branch vessel either through reinforced fenestrations or directional cuffs as the hinge point for bridging stent grafts (BSGs). BSGs are used to connect the aortic main body and target branch vessel, and must provide both unhindered flow and a seal. Appropriate selection of BSG for target vessels in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair is critical for technical success and durability. At present, there are no dedicated devices for use as BSGs, and a variety of stent grafts are currently used off-label. In this report, we review the available published series on the performance of presently available BSGs in relation to their design and selection.

Purpose: Large studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) at two and five years compared to medical therapy; however, early TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate trends and clinical predictors of hospital readmissions in patients undergoing medical management and TEVAR for acute TBADs. Materials and Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for all 30-day and 90-day index readmissions (30D-IR and 90D-IR, respectively) after a diagnosis of a TBAD from January 2012 to September 2015. Data on readmission diagnosis, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics were collected from readmitted patients and analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of readmission after TEVAR or medical medical management of TBAD. Results: We identified 53,117 patients with acute TBAD. Medical management was the initial treatment modality in 46,985 (88.4%) patients, while 6,132 (11.5%) underwent TEVAR. Factors including older patient age, lower household income, severity of comorbidities, initial hospital length of stay, and urgent procedure demonstrated an increased likelihood of experiencing 30D-IR and 90D-IR (P<0.05).The rate of unplanned readmission for patients undergoing medical management remained stable (11.3% vs. 10.0% for 30D-IR; 19.1% vs. 15.5% for 90D-IR). Reasons for unplanned readmission in the TEVAR cohort were largely related to technical complications. There was no significant difference in readmission costs between medical management and TEVAR. Conclusion Number of unplanned readmissions in the TEVAR arm decreased significantly over time, whereas the number of readmissions for medical management remained stable.