METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed questionnaire was distributed to 28 highly-experienced interventional cardiologists ('Authors') from 13 Asia-Pacific countries. The results were discussed at a meeting on patient selection, technical consideration, deployment practices and patient management. Potential patient benefits of Absorb compared to metallic DES, the learning curve for patient selection and preparation, device deployment, and subsequent patient management approaches are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Current practices are derived from guidelines optimized for European patients. Differences in approach exist in the Asia-Pacific context, including limited access to imaging and frequency of occurrence of complex lesions. Nevertheless, the use of the Absorb BVS ('Absorb') in certain Asia-Pacific countries has flourished and practices here are continuing to mature.
RECENT FINDINGS: The total number of personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) operations is now approaching 700 in 30 centres in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and Slovakia. There are continued reports of stability of aortic dimensions and aortic valve function with the only exceptions known being where the surgeon has deviated from the instructions for use of the device. The median root diameter of Marfan patients having PEARS was 47 mm suggesting that the existing criterion of 50 mm is due for reconsideration. The peri-operative mortality currently estimated to be less than 0.3%. The first recipient remains alive and well after 18 years. The use of PEARS as an adjunct to the Ross operation to support the pulmonary autograft is being explored in several centres.
SUMMARY: The operation requires proctoring and adherence to a strict operative protocol and with those precautions excellent results are attained. The evidence and opinions provided in the cited publications indicate that PEARS is a proven and successful prophylactic operation for aortic root aneurysm.
METHODS: PCL grafts (1 mm ID/10 mm long) were implanted into the left common carotid artery in 20 Sprague-Dawley rats and compared to our previously published series of abdominal aortic implants. The animals were followed up to 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. At each time point, in vivo compliance, angiography and histological examination with morphology were performed.
RESULTS: PCL grafts showed good mechanical properties and ease of handling. The average graft compliance was 14.5 ± 1.7%/ mmHg compared to 7.8 ± 0.9% for the abdominal position and 45.1 ± 3.2%/ mmHg for the native carotid artery. The overall patency for the carotid position was 65% as compared to 100% in the abdominal position. Complete endothelialisation was achieved at 3 weeks and cell invasion was more rapid than in the aortic position. In contrast, intimal hyperplasia (IH) and vascular density were less pronounced than in the aortic position.
CONCLUSION: Our PCL grafts in the carotid position were well endothelialised with early cellular infiltration, higher compliance, lower IH and calcification compared to the similar grafts implanted in the aortic position. However, there was a higher occlusion rate compared to our abdominal aorta series. Anatomical position, compliance mismatch, flow conditions may answer the difference in patency seen.
CASE PRESENTATION: This is a case of a 37-year-old, right-hand dominant, Malay man who fell approximately 6 meters from a rambutan tree and his left arm hit the tree trunk on his way down. He was an active tobacco smoker with a 20 pack year smoking history. On clinical examination, Doppler signals over his radial and ulnar arteries were poor. He proceeded with emergency computed tomography angiogram of his left upper limb which showed non-opacification of contrast at the distal left brachial artery just before the bifurcation of the left brachial artery at his left elbow joint. Radiographs and computed tomography scan also showed undisplaced fracture of left lateral epicondyle and radial head with no evidence of elbow dislocation. He subsequently underwent left brachial to brachial artery bypass which was done using reversed saphenous vein graft and recovered well. His fractures were treated using 90 degree long posterior splint for 2 weeks and he was then allowed early range of motion of the left elbow. This patient developed left elbow dislocation 6 weeks postoperatively. Closed manipulative reduction of his left elbow resulted in incomplete reduction. The functional outcome of his left elbow was limited with a range of motion of left elbow of 0-45 degrees. However, he was not keen for surgery to stabilize his elbow joint during his last follow-up 6 months post injury.
CONCLUSIONS: This is an uncommon case of brachial artery injury in a civilian caused by blunt trauma associated with occult elbow instability/dislocation and minor fractures around the elbow joint. The treatment of brachial artery injury with clinical evidence of distal ischemia is surgical revascularization. The possibility of elbow instability and dislocation need to be considered in all cases of brachial artery injury because early radiographs and computed tomography scans may be normal. Short-term posterior splint immobilization is not sufficient to prevent recurrent dislocations.