Objective: Early outcomes of open abdominal repair (OS) versus endovascular repair (EVAR) forabdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively analyzed, after commercialized devices for EVAR had become available in Japan. Patients and Methods: A total of 781 consecutive patients (OS, n = 522; EVAR, n = 259) were treated at ten medical centers between January 2008 and September 2010. The OS group comprised patients with preoperative shock (SOS, n = 34) and without shock (NOS, n = 488). Results: Patients in the EVAR group were 3 years older than those in the NOS group. There was greater prevalence of hostile abdomen, on dialysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on inhaled drug, and cerebrovascular disease in the EVAR group than in the NOS group. Surgical mortality was 16 cases (2.0% in all patients, EVAR: 0.8%, NOS: 1.4%, SOS: 21%). Hospital stay >30 days was documented in 52 (11%) with NOS, 11 (33%) with SOS, and 8 (3%) with EVAR. Thirty late deaths included 6 aneurysm related death and 14 cardiovascular causes at a mean follow up of 1.0 year. The survival rates freedom from all cause death at one year, were 95 ± 1% in NOS and 94 ± 2% in EVAR respectively. Conclusion: Though significant differences in patient characteristics among three groups were noted, early results were satisfactory.

Diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET (47%) was low and similar to that of CT (42%). The possibility of false-negative as well as false-positive findings should be recognized in interpreting PET images. Micrometastasis appeared to be the greatest cause of false-negative findings.

No abstract

An analysis of the results of physiologic repair for ccTGA showed that the long-term outcome was overall favorable. To maintain RV function, early TVR may be a reasonable option, even in the management of patients during childhood.

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of sac embolization with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) in emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and iliac artery aneurysm (IAA) in comparison to EVAR without sac embolization. Materials and Methods: Between February 2012 and December 2019, among 44 consecutive patients with ruptured AAA or IAA, 29 underwent EVAR. Of these, 22 patients (median age 77.5 years; 18 men) had concomitant sac embolization using NBCA; the remaining 7 patients (median age 88 years; 6 men) underwent EVAR without sac embolization and form the control group. The technical success, clinical success (hemodynamic stabilization), procedure-related complications, and mortality were compared between the groups. Results: All EVAR procedures and embolizations were successful. The clinical success rates in the NBCA and control groups were 95% (21/22) and 71% (5/7), respectively (p=0.14). There was no complication related to the procedure. Type II endoleak occurred in 4 of 21 patients (19%) in the NBCA group vs none of the control patients. One patient (5%) died in the NBCA group vs 3 (43%) in the controls (p=0.034). Conclusion: Sac embolization using NBCA in emergency EVAR appears to be feasible and safe for ruptured AAA and IAA.