View clinical trials related to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.
Filter by:Surgery for abdominal aortic pathology usually occurs in the setting of advanced cardiovascular disease. The repair can be relatively simple or complex with multiple steps including open repair, placing a stent with a catheter, and placing a complicated stent that allows for crossing vessels without occluding them. All these repairs require imaging follow up. The most commonly accepted tool for follow up is Computed Tomography (CT) scan which involves ionizing radiation and potentially nephrotoxic iodinated contrast. Recommendations for the time interval for follow up, as well the radiology imaging technique vary. Routine ultrasound with Doppler, CT, and MRI has all been employed utilizing various imaging protocols. Clinicians use non-contrast CT, arterial phase and delayed phase CT, ultrasound, and various combinations based on personal experience and patient pathology. Concerns over cost, potential nephrotoxicity of contrast agents and repeated radiation exposure has led to investigation of alternate imaging modalities such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). CEUS represents an improvement of ultrasound imaging but comparisons against CT report widely varying results, likely due to technical factors of CEUS and limitations of single-phase CTA. Contrast ultrasound has been used effectively to diagnose leaks in the aorta post repair and is without the radiation and potential nephrotoxicity of iodinated contrast. Of yet, no large prospective studies have compared CT and contrast US and no studies have looked at the more complicated staged or fenestrated repairs. This study proposes to perform a contrast ultrasound at the same time as a contrast CT using a standardized protocol. This protocol would include a non-contrast CT, angiographic CT, and a CT in a delayed phase in all patients as standard of care. We will compare the results of a contrast US with the various data derived from a three phase CT.
Retrospective data have shown that active sac management, as applied in EVAS, reduces the incidence of the post-implant syndrome. All-cause and cardiac mortality at one-year seems to be lower after EVAS when compared to EVAR. Ongoing, low grade, inflammation could differ between techniques and induce cardiac damage. This study is designed to establish whether EVAS results in a reduced post-operative inflammatory response during the first year after surgery, compared to EVAR as assessed by trends in circulating inflammatory cytokine concentration. Study design: International prospective, comparative, explorative study. Study population: Patients scheduled to undergo infra-renal EVAR with a polyester endograft or EVAS for an infrarenal aortic aneurysm. This is an explorative study and therefore only patients who would normally receive a suitable device as part of standard treatment at the participating institutes will be recruited. Blood samples will be taken at specified time points before and after surgery. Main study parameters/endpoints: The difference in early post-operative and long term inflammatory response between EVAS and EVAR, measured by the incidence of the post-implant syndrome. To investigate the incidence of the post-implant syndrome, the rise in CRP, WBC and circulating cytokines, at specified time points up to 12 months after surgery and the change in aortic thrombus volume and its relationship with the inflammatory response, measured by cytokines' concentrations.
This is a prospective multicenter observational study with 20 patients to evaluate the performance of SCITECH stent for treatment of AAA. Will be enrolled the patient demographics, laboratory tests, medical history, clinical evaluation, physical examination, adverse events. The benefits and risks of the study should be explained before any specific test or procedure of the study. The written consent must be obtained from the patient. No action specifies the study should be performed while the patient has not signed the form of consent.
A prospective, actively controlled, consecutively enrolling, non-randomized multi center clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the Boston Scientific ENOVUS AAA Endograft when used in the treatment of patients with AAA (Treatment Group) as compared to patients treated with conventional open surgery (Control Group).