Purpose: We compared the outcomes between the total endovascular approach using a unibody bifurcated aortoiliac endograft and the gold standard aortobifemoral bypass (ABF) surgery for the management of extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study compared the outcomes of endovascular technique with unibody bifurcated endograft (UBE) using the Endologix AFX unibody stent-graft and a standard surgical approach (ABF) in the management of AIOD based on patient records in Western Vascular Institute, Galway University Hospital, National University of Ireland. Procedural details and outcomes were documented to compare both groups. Results: From January 2002 to December 2018, 67 patients underwent AIOD (20 UBE and 47 ABF). Both the ABF and UBE groups showed 100% immediate clinical and technical successes without 30-day mortality. There were no statistical differences in the overall survival and sustained clinical improvement between the bypass and the UBE groups; however, statistically significant differences were observed in 3-year freedom from re-intervention and amputation-free survival. Furthermore, the mean length of the intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly lower in the UBE group than that in the ABF group (0.75 days vs. 3.1 days, P=0.001). Conclusion Total endovascular reconstruction of AIOD is an alternative to invasive bypass procedures, with a shorter ICU stay.

Purpose: We compared the outcomes between the total endovascular approach using a unibody bifurcated aortoiliac endograft and the gold standard aortobifemoral bypass (ABF) surgery for the management of extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study compared the outcomes of endovascular technique with unibody bifurcated endograft (UBE) using the Endologix AFX unibody stent-graft and a standard surgical approach (ABF) in the management of AIOD based on patient records in Western Vascular Institute, Galway University Hospital, National University of Ireland. Procedural details and outcomes were documented to compare both groups. Results: From January 2002 to December 2018, 67 patients underwent AIOD (20 UBE and 47 ABF). Both the ABF and UBE groups showed 100% immediate clinical and technical successes without 30-day mortality. There were no statistical differences in the overall survival and sustained clinical improvement between the bypass and the UBE groups; however, statistically significant differences were observed in 3-year freedom from re-intervention and amputation-free survival. Furthermore, the mean length of the intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly lower in the UBE group than that in the ABF group (0.75 days vs. 3.1 days, P=0.001). Conclusion Total endovascular reconstruction of AIOD is an alternative to invasive bypass procedures, with a shorter ICU stay.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.