These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Long-Term Outcomes of Mesenteric Stenting and Analysis of In-Stent Restenosis Duplex Velocity Criteria.
    Author: Barnes JA, Columbo JA, Ponukumati AS, Zwolak RM, Olive FT, Goodney PP, Powell RJ, Zacharias N.
    Journal: Ann Vasc Surg; 2020 Oct; 68():226-233. PubMed ID: 32428638.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is the mainstay of treatment. Duplex velocity criteria within stented mesenteric vessels are not well established. We describe single-center outcomes of mesenteric stenting for CMI and analyze duplex velocities associated with in-stent restenosis (ISR). METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of patients undergoing mesenteric stenting for CMI (2012-2018). Primary outcome was reintervention for recurrence of CMI symptoms. Secondary outcomes were occlusion or bypass grafting. Duplex velocities in those with recurrent symptoms, corresponding with clinically significant ISR, were identified. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created to identify velocity thresholds for ISR. RESULTS: Mesenteric stents were placed in 61 patients (71 arteries). Mean age was 72 years (range, 49-92), and the majority were female (55%). Thirty-two (45%) celiac (CA) stents and 39 (55%) superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stents were placed. Ten patients had SMA and CA stents placed. Twenty-five stents were covered (35%). Freedom from reintervention at 1, 2, and 3 years was 83%, 73%, and 60%. Freedom from occlusion or bypass grafting at 1, 2, and 3 years was 100%, 86%, and 86%. No significant difference in patency was seen between covered and bare-metal stents (OR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.15-1.33; P = 0.1383). Median survival was 6.1 years. For CA stents, a peak systolic velocity (PSV) of 440 cm/s corresponded with clinically significant ISR with 100% sensitivity and 86% specificity. For SMA stents, a PSV of 341 cm/s corresponded with clinically significant ISR with only 80% sensitivity and 52% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: A PSV of 440 cm/s for CA stents was indicative of clinically significant ISR with excellent sensitivity and specificity. This should be used in conjunction with clinical findings to identify patients that may benefit from repeat intervention. A similar threshold could not be identified for SMA stents and warrants further collaborative investigation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]