Mortality analysis of endovascular aneurysm sealing versus endovascular aneurysm repair

BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR.MethodsWe compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.ResultsAfter weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46).ConclusionsWithin the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.     

Clinical outcomes after Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

The published evidence on clinical outcomes of Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has confirmed low procedural morbidity and reintervention rate. This early clinical experience with Nellix is encouraging, despite the device and procedural steps being in evolution, and patients being treated outside of the recommended instructions for use. The long-term follow-up of a treated patient cohort is now available and demonstrates low aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity. The initial experience with the commercially available Nellix device was captured in a multicenter report involving 171 patients and two independently monitored, company-sponsored device registries (EVAS Forward Global Trial and Forward US Investigational Device Exemption Trial). All three clinical studies report a 99% procedural technical success, low mortality, and persistent endoleak rate with re-intervention rates comparable to conventional EVR device registries. Nellix EVAS is applicable to a range of aneurysm anatomies, including patients with isolated of concomitant iliac artery aneurysms. The post-procedural imaging appearances after Nellix EVAS are unique due to the AAA sac polymer, change with time, but are now well understood.     

Type 1A endoleak detachable coil embolization after endovascular aneurysm sealing: Case report

IntroductionEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) with the Nellix system was introduced to reduce endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) perioperative complications, especially endoleaks. Herein we report a case of successful type 1A endoleak managed with detachable coils embolization after EVAS.Presentation of caseA 77-year-old male was referred for abdominal pain. The angio-CT scan confirmed the previous EVAS procedure and showed a type Is2 endoleak below the right renal artery resulting in a 2.5 cm aortic blister with contrast medium filling the space between the aortic wall and the endobags. The patient was considered unfit for conventional open surgery and an endovascular approach with coil embolization Concerto Helix Detachable Coil System was chosen under local anesthesia. After intervention, a complete abdominal pain regression was registered. The 12- month CT follow-up showed endoleak sealing and Nellix system stability.DiscussionEVAS has been associated to a high endoleaks and complications incidence when compared to EVAR. The EVAS different device concept led to a different endoleak classification and management. Endoleak management main options include the Nellix system explantation or the Nellix in Nellix application, however these are nearly always not applicable, respectively, due to the high surgical risk condition and the Nellix system availability, especially in emergent setting. Despite the use of coil embolization is controversial, this tool is off-the-shelf and leads to a disease resolution in most of patients without other surgical options.ConclusionProximal type Is2 embolization after EVAS is feasible with limited invasiveness.     

Surgical treatment for primary infected aneurysm of the descending thoracic aorta,abdominal aorta,and iliac arteries

OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: In this retrospective review, we report the surgical results of infected aortic aneurysms treated at a single center over 5 years. RESULTS: From October 1996 to October 2001, 19 patients with infected aortic aneurysm were treated with surgery, nine with suprarenal infections (four proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, two distal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, and three suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms) and 10 with infrarenal infections (eight infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and two iliac artery aneurysms). All had a positive blood or tissue culture; 89% were febrile, 89% had leukocytosis, and 32% were hemodynamically unstable. The most common responsible pathogens were Salmonella organisms (74%) followed by Streptococcus species (11%). Nine of 10 infrarenal infections were caused by Salmonella organisms. Both infrarenal and suprarenal infections were treated with wide débridement of infected aorta, in situ prosthetic graft or patch repair, and prolonged intravenous antibiotics. Hospital survival rate was 95%: 100% for infrarenal and 89% for suprarenal infections. There was no perioperative intestinal ischemia or perioperative limb loss. Acute renal failure occurred in two patients with suprarenal infection. Late deaths have occurred in three patients with one early graft infection (5%) resulting in the only one in-hospital death at 4 months. Sixteen patients remain alive at mean follow-up of 17.8 months (range, 4-47 months). There have been no late aortic or graft infections. During the same period, there were five unoperated patients, four of whom died of shock during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Infected aortic aneurysm is common in Taiwan, and Salmonella species were the most common responsible microorganisms. With surgical intervention and prolonged intravenous antibiotics, in situ graft replacement provided a good outcome. The incidence of prosthetic graft infection was low, even in patients with infections due to Salmonella species and with in situ graft replacement.     

Mycotic aneurysm of the suprarenal aorta secondary toStreptococcus pneumoniae: An unusual pathogen

Mycotic aneurysms of the suprarenal aorta are rare lesions, accounting for less than 1% of aortic reconstructions for aneurysmal disease. The bacteriology of these lesions differs from the infrarenal aneurysms and primarily consists of Gramnegative organisms. We report an unusual case of an 87-year-old man successfully treated for a ruptured mycotic suprarenal aortic aneurysm caused byStreptococcus pneumoniae. We have not seen a previously reported case where this pathogen has been associated with a suprarenal mycotic aneurysm. The unique bacteriology of these aneurysms is reviewed along with theories of etiology and their classification. The current management of these aneurysms is summarized.     

Critical Analysis of Outcome Determinants Affecting Repair of Intact Aneurysms Involving the Visceral Aorta

Visceral (mesenteric and/or renal) ischemia/reperfusion phenomena likely contribute to the greater operative risk associated with pararenal and lower thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAA) repair. To differentiate the relative adverse effects of aortic clamp level, visceral ischemic duration, and various pre- and perioperative factors shared with infrarenal aneurysm patients, a comparative analysis of early and late outcomes after open repair of intact infrarenal and visceral aortic aneurysms was undertaken. A retrospective review of our university experience from 1993-1999/2002 revealed 549 patients (mean age 70 ± 8 years, 11% female) undergoing open repair of intact, degenerative aneurysms of the infrarenal (n = 391, 71%), juxtarenal (n = 78, 14%), suprarenal (n = 35, 7%), and type IV (n = 40, 7%) and type III (n = 5, 1%) TAA segments. All pararenal aneurysms required suprarenal (SR) or supravisceral (SV, above celiac or superior mesenteric artery) clamp placement. Concomitant renal reconstruction was done in 30% of visceral aortic and 3% of open infrarenal aneurysm repairs. Thirty-day adverse outcomes [death, renal failure (creatinine 2 × baseline or new dialysis), visceral (bowel, hepatic, renal, spinal cord, multiple organ dysfunction), and nonvisceral (cardiac, pulmonary, procedural) complications] were analyzed relative to patient and operative factors using univariate comparisons and multivariate stepwise logistic regression. Perioperative mortality rates varied significantly between aneurysm locations (infrarenal 2.1%, juxtarenal 2.6%, suprarenal 11.4%, TAA 13.3%; p < 0.01) and for clamp locations (infrarenal 2.1%, SR 3.0%, SV 10.8 %; p < 0.01) but were not different between juxtarenal (1.8% vs. 4.4 %) and SR (9.1% vs. 12.5%) aneurysms requiring SR or SV clamping, respectively. Visceral ischemic time (VIT) during SR or SV clamping, and not clamp location, was the only independent predictor of operative mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 10.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4-29]. Sensitivity analyses revealed VIT > 32 min to be the strongest predictor of early death. Visceral complication or renal failure affected 34% and 23% of visceral aortic (5% dialysis) and 7% and 5% (1% dialysis) of infrarenal repairs, respectively. VIT > 32 min, SV clamp placement, diabetes, and inflammatory aneurysm repair were each predictive of visceral complications and/or renal failure. Five-year survival rate was similar after visceral aortic (70%) and infrarenal (75%) repairs but negatively impacted only in patients with prior infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and recurrent aneurysms (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.9). The high incidence of early adverse outcomes following repair of pararenal and lower thoracoabdominal aneurysms is primarily associated with excessive periods of renal and/or gut ischemia during visceral aortic clamp placement. However, nearly equivalent early and late survival was seen for visceral aortic and infrarenal repairs when VIT < 32 min was achieved.Presented at the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, January 14-17, 2004.     

Comparable perioperative mortality outcomes in younger patients undergoing elective open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.     

Preliminary results of endovascular aneurysm sealing from the multicenter Italian Research on Nellix Endoprosthesis (IRENE) study

Objective

Because of advances in technology and experience of the operator, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has supplanted open repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The low 30-day mortality and morbidity of EVAR make the endovascular approach particularly suitable for patients at high surgical risk. However, endoleak or endograft migration requiring secondary intervention or open surgical conversion is a limitation of EVAR. The Nellix system (Endologix, Inc, Irvine, Calif) has been designed to seal the entire AAA to overcome these limitations with EVAR. We report the results of a retrospective, multicenter study with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) aimed to assess technical success, procedure-related mortality, complications, and reinterventions.

Midterm results of endovascular aneurysm sealing to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) represents a novel approach to the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It uses polymer technology to achieve an anatomic seal within the sac of the aneurysm. This cohort study reports the early clinical outcomes, technical refinements, and learning curve during the initial EVAS experience at a single institution.

Comparative early and midterm results of open juxtarenal and infrarenal aneurysm repair

Background and aims Since the introduction of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for aortic aneurysms, the number of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JRA) has been growing steadily due to selection bias (neck morphology for EVAR). This case-match study compares the perioperative outcome and midterm results of suprarenally clamped JRA with infrarenal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Methods From 1997 to 2004, patients who received open surgery with suprarenal clamping for JRA were included in the study and compared to matched patients with infrarenal clamping (AAA). Measurements analyzed were the in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Midterm results were obtained through clinical investigation and magnetic resonance angiography imaging. Results Thirty-five patients (mean age, 68.4 years; 30 male and 5 female) received suprarenal cross-clamping for JRA. The overall in-hospital mortality for JRA and for the controls (AAA) with elective aortic repair was 4.5% (6.1% JRA; 3% AAA, p = 0.058). The morbidity of JRA was elevated according to the rate of pulmonary complications (p = 0.021) and the need for re-operation (p = 0.019). The mean follow-up time was 2.3 years (range, 8–96 months). At follow-up, 28 patients (80%) from the JRA group and 29 patients from the AAA group (82.9%) were alive. Conclusion Open aortic surgery for JRA with the need for suprarenal cross-clamping shows a slightly elevated in-hospital mortality rate without statistical significance and equal midterm mortality results in comparison with infrarenally clamped aortic aneurysms.     

Two-year evaluation of fenestrated and parallel branch endografts for the treatment of juxtarenal,suprarenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms at a single institution

ObjectiveDespite numerous recent pivotal and small-scale trials, real-world endovascular management of juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA), suprarenal aneurysms (SRA), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) remains challenging without consensus best practices. This study evaluated the mortality, graft patency, renal function, complication, and reintervention rates for fenestrated and parallel endografts in complex aortic aneurysms repairs.MethodsThis retrospective review of consecutive included patients with JRA, SRA, or TAAA who underwent complex endovascular repair from August 2014 to March 2017 at one high-volume institution. Treatment modality was a single surgeon decision based on patients anatomy and the urgency of the repair. Patient demographics, hospital course, and follow-up visits inclusive of imaging were analyzed. Ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Survival rates and outcomes were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.ResultsSeventy complex endovascular aortic repairs were performed; 38 patients with TAAA were treated with snorkel/sandwich parallel endografts (21 celiac, 28 superior mesenteric arteries, 58 renal arteries) and 32 patients with JRA/SRA were treated by fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with 94 total fenestrations (2 celiac, 30 SMA, 62 renal). The mean patient age was 74.8 ± 10.0 years. Sixty percent were male, and the mean aortic aneurysm diameter was 6.0 ± 1.4 cm. Perioperative mortality was 3.1% (1/32) for FEVAR compared with 2.6% (1/38) for parallel endografts (P = .9). All-cause reintervention rates were 15.6% in FEVAR (5/32) vs 23.6% with parallel endografts (9/38; P = .4). Branch reintervention rates per each branch endograft were 4.3% for FEVAR (4/94; 2 renal stent occlusions, 1 colonic ischemia without technical issue found on reintervention, 1 perinephric hematoma) vs 3.7% for parallel endografts (4/107; 2 renal and 1 celiac stent thromboses, and 1 renal stent kink; P = .41). The endograft branch thrombosis rate was 2.1% in FEVAR (2/94) vs 2.7% in parallel endografts (3/109; P = .77). Reinterventions owing to endoleaks were performed in five patients (2 type I, 2 type III, and 1 gutter endoleak; 13.1%) with parallel grafts vs no endoleak reinterventions in FEVAR. The overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related mortality at 24 months was 78% and 96.9% in FEVAR vs 73% and 93.4% for parallel endografts (P = .8 and P = .6). The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 1-32 months).ConclusionsParallel and fenestrated endografts have acceptable and comparable mortality and patency rates in endovascular treatment of JRA, SRA, and TAAA. This study reaffirms that parallel endografts are a safe and viable alternative to fenestrated devices for complex aortic aneurysmal disease despite often treating more urgent patients and more complicated anatomy unable to be treated with FEVAR.     

Aneurysmal change at or above the proximal anastomosis after infrarenal aortic grafting.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm at or above the proximal anastomosis of a previous infrarenal aortic graft between 1986 and 1991. Infected grafts and patients with suprarenal aneurysms present at the time of the original graft were excluded. Twenty-one patients, 19 men and two women, were included. The original indication for surgery was aneurysm in 14 patients and occlusive disease in seven; the mean interval from initial surgery to presentation was 10 years (range, 3 to 23 years). Twelve lesions were anastomotic false aneurysms, and nine were true aneurysms beginning in the proximal juxta-anastomotic aorta. Fourteen patients had an asymptomatic abdominal mass. Seven patients had symptoms of acute expansion (three), rupture (three), or thrombosis (one). True aneurysm and symptomatic presentation were correlated with aneurysm as the original indication for surgery. Repair was accomplished by an interpositional graft in 13 and graft replacement in eight. Seven patients required suprarenal anastomosis or renal and visceral reconstruction. Five operative deaths (24%) occurred, including two of three patients with rupture (67%) and two of seven patients (28%) in the suprarenal group. The mortality rate for elective repair with an infrarenal anastomosis was 11%. Two additional late deaths occurred during the follow-up period.     

Five-year reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectivePatients who undergo endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) remain at risk for reintervention and rupture. We sought to define the 5-year rate of reintervention and rupture after EVR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).MethodsWe identified all patients in the VQI who underwent EVR from 2003 to 2015. We linked patients in the VQI to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We stratified patients on baseline clinical and procedural characteristics to identify those at risk for reintervention. Our primary outcomes were 5-year rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture after EVR. We assessed these with Kaplan-Meier survival estimation.ResultsWe studied 12,911 patients who underwent EVR. The mean age was 75.5 years, 79.9% were male, 3.9% were black, and 89.1% of operations were performed electively. The 5-year rate of reintervention for the entire cohort was 21%, and the 5-year rate of late aneurysm rupture was 3%. Reintervention rates varied across categories of EVR urgency. Patients who underwent EVR electively had the lowest 5-year rate of reintervention at 20%. Those who underwent surgery for symptomatic aneurysms had higher rates of reintervention at 25%. Patients undergoing EVR emergently for rupture had the highest rate of reintervention, 27% at 4 years (log-rank across the three groups, P < .001). Black race and aneurysm size of 6.0 cm or greater were associated with significantly elevated reintervention rates (black, 31% vs white, 20% [log-rank, P < .001]; aneurysm size 6.0 cm or greater, 27% vs all others, <20% [log-rank, P < .001]). There were no significant associations between age or gender and the 5-year rate of reintervention.ConclusionsMore than one in five Medicare patients undergo reintervention within 5 years after EVR in the VQI; late rupture remains low at 3%. Black patients, those with large aneurysms, and those who undergo EVR urgently and emergently have a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes and should be the focus of diligent long-term surveillance.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of proximal aortic neck dilatation after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveTo provide an updated systematic literature review summarizing current evidence on aortic neck dilatation (AND) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.MethodsAn extensive electronic search in major electronic databases was conducted between January 2000 and December 2021. Eligible for inclusion were observational studies that followed up with patients (n ≥ 20) undergoing EVAR with self-expanding endografts, for 12 or more months, evaluated AND with computed tomography angiography and provided data on relevant outcomes. The primary end point was the incidence of AND after EVAR, and the secondary end points were the occurrence of type Ia endoleak, stent graft migration, secondary rupture, and reintervention.ResultsWe included 34 studies with a total sample of 12,038 patients (10,413 men; median age, 71 years). AND was defined clearly in 18 studies, but significant differences in AND definition were evidenced. The pooled incidence of AND based on quantitative analysis of 16 studies with a total of 9201 patients (7961 men; median age, 72 years) was calculated at 22.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.4-34.4) over a follow-up period ranging from 12 months to 14 years. The risk of a type Ia endoleak was significantly higher in AND patients compared with those without AND (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.10-7.93; P = .030). Similarly, endograft migration was more common in the AND group compared with the non-AND group (odds ratio, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.80-19.69; P = .004). The combined incidence of secondary rupture and reintervention did not differ significantly between the two groups, even though the combined effect was in favor of the non-AND group.ConclusionsProximal AND after EVAR is common and occurs in a large proportion of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. AND can influence the long-term durability of proximal endograft fixation and is significantly related to adverse outcomes, often leading to reinterventions.     

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal suprarenal cross-clamping for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with a hostile infrarenal aortic neck

Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with a hostile infrarenal aortic neck unfit for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are more likely to require open repair with suprarenal aortic cross-clamping. We compared the results of the transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches for repair of infrarenal AAA requiring suprarenal cross-clamping and the relative frequency of such techniques after incorporating EVAR into our clinical practice. From January 1998 through September 2005, 478 elective infrarenal aortic aneurysms were repaired. There were 160 (33%) open repairs (71% transperitoneal and 29% retroperitoneal) and 318 (67%) endovascular repairs. In 38 cases (24%) suprarenal cross-clamping was performed (47% transperitoneal and 53% retroperitoneal incisions) for a hostile infrarenal neck. A hostile aortic neck was defined as severe angulation (>60 degrees ), short neck (<15 mm), extensive calcification, or circumferential thrombus. The median age was 70 years; 47% were men; 16% had diabetes mellitus, 29% pulmonary disease, 53% coronary artery disease, and 11% renal insufficiency. The median aneurysm size was 6.0 cm. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between the trans- and retroperitoneal patient cohorts. The results were determined for two time periods to assess whether open repair with suprarenal cross- clamping was being performed more frequently as a result of increased utilization of EVAR in the contemporary period. After 2002, EVAR increased from 60% to 71% (p = 0.04) while open repair declined from 40% to 29% (p = 0.01). The retroperitoneal approach doubled from 19% to 39%, while the transperitoneal approach decreased from 81% to 61% (p = 0.02). Suprarenal cross-clamping increased by 11% after 2002. There was no significant difference in age, sex, aneurysm size, or comorbidities between the trans- and retroperitoneal groups with suprarenal cross-clamping. The 30-day mortality was 2/38 (5%) and occurred only in the transperitoneal group. The transperitoneal approach was associated with significantly greater blood loss and longer suprarenal cross-clamp times (2,400 vs. 1,800 mL and 38.0 vs. 29.5 min; p = 0.03), but there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative complications. In our 7 years' experience, there has been a gradual increase in the utilization of EVAR for infrarenal AAAs. At the same time, more infrarenal AAAs with hostile aortic necks requiring suprarenal aortic cross-clamping were encountered. In such instances, the retroperitoneal approach is safer, with less perioperative blood loss and shorter suprarenal cross-clamp time. This is likely attributed to better exposure of the suprarenal abdominal aorta, allowing a more secure proximal anastomosis.     

Surgical Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and safety of Suprarenal Aortic Clamping

Background

Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) comprises 15–20% of all AAAs and often requires open surgical repair (OSR) due to anatomical limitations associated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly in the case of hostile proximal necks. This study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of suprarenal clamping during OSR of juxtarenal AAAs and compare the outcomes of this technique with those of infrarenal clamping for AAAs.

Methods

Between January 1 2014, and December 31 2016, 289 consecutive patients aged ≥40 years underwent primary repair for infrarenal AAAs, including 141 OSRs and 148 EVARs. Of the 141 patients, 20 were excluded and totally, 121 patients were included.

Results

All patients had fusiform-type AAAs and were divided into infrarenal (N = 98) or suprarenal (N=23) clamp groups. The mean follow-up period was 51.4 months (95% CI: 48.6–54.2). Mean survival time was 51.4 months (95% CI: 48.6–54.2). Thirty-day mortality was 0.8%, and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > .999). Renal complication in infrarenal clamp group was 4.1% and suprarenal clamp group was 4.3% (P > .999). Old age (HR: 1.084; 95% CI: 1.025–1.147; P=.005) and high ASA score (HR: 2.361; 95% CI: 1.225–4.553; P = .010) were substantially associated with in-hospital complications.

Conclusions

Although endovascular procedures for repairing juxtarenal AAAs, such as fenestrated EVAR, have been developed, surgical repair is the standard treatment for juxtarenal AAAs. Morbidity and mortality due to open surgery were not higher in the juxtarenal AAA group than in the infrarenal AAA group. Therefore, need for suprarenal clamp should not preclude OSR and also there is continued need for training in surgical exposure of juxtarenal AAA and OSR.

     

Ultrasound screening of first-degree relatives of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm

The pedigrees were constructed of 43 patients (probands) who underwent resection of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Seven probands (16.2%) had a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, child) known to have had an abdominal aortic aneurysm (multiplex family). To determine the prevalence of undiagnosed abdominal aortic aneurysm, ultrasound screening of first-degree relatives over age 40 years was undertaken. Of 202 eligible relatives, 103 (51.0%) were screened. An occult abdominal aortic aneurysm was defined as an infrarenal aortic diameter greater than 3.0 cm or an infrarenal/suprarenal aortic diameter ratio of greater than 1.5. An incipient abdominal aortic aneurysm was defined as a clear focal bulge of the infrarenal aorta, which was less than 3.0 cm in greatest diameter. Four of 103 relatives (3.9%) were found to have an occult abdominal aortic aneurysm (age/sex: 57M, 60M, 62F, 65M), and three (2.9%) were found with an incipient abdominal aortic aneurysm (age/sex: 56M, 60M, 67F). These smaller abdominal aortic aneurysms were in patients younger than the operated probands (average age men, 67 years; women, 69 years). Six of seven individuals were in families previously considered simplex, increasing the actual multiplex family frequency from 16.2% to 27.9%. All seven new abdominal aortic aneurysms were found in the 49 siblings age 55 years or older. There were no abdominal aortic aneurysms found in the 39 relatives under age 55 years, in 14 children ages 50 to 59 years or in one parent. Therefore of the siblings age 55 years or older, 5/20 men (25.0%) and 2/29 women (6.9%) were found to have a previously undiagnosed abdominal aortic aneurysm.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Fenestrated endovascular repair for diseases involving the aortic arch

ObjectiveExtension of aortic disease to the aortic arch is common, frequently requiring cervical debranching procedures to maintain patency of supra-aortic branches. Endovascular aortic arch repair is an attractive alternative in the treatment of aortic arch disease for high-risk patients with thoracoabdominal diseases encroaching on the arch. The aim of our study was to report our experience of fenestrated endovascular repair in the aortic arch.MethodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data involving consecutive patients in a single tertiary center treated with custom-made fenestrated endografts for the aortic arch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) was undertaken. End points included technical success, perioperative mortality and morbidity, reintervention, and late survival.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2017, there were 44 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years (27 male [61%]) who were treated with fenestrated endografts for arch aneurysm (n = 11 [25%]), arch penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 6 [14%]), thoracoabdominal aneurysm with arch involvement (n = 11 [25%]), postdissection false lumen aneurysm (n = 13 [29%]), or lusorian artery aneurysm (n = 3 [7%]). The proximal landing zone was at Ishimaru zone 0 in 12 cases (27%), zone 1 in 27 cases (62%), and zone 2 in 5 cases (11%). Nine patients (20%) underwent a unilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, two (5%) a bilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, and four (9%) a subclavian transposition. In total, of the 73 target supra-aortic vessels (average of 1.7 target vessels per patient), 37 were treated with fenestrations and 36 with scallops. The mean operation time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast material volume were 215 ± 152 minutes, 33 ± 23 minutes, and 114 ± 45 mL, respectively. Technical success was 95% (42/44). The median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 3 ± 1 days and 7 ± 6 days, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 9% (4/44; one graft displacement and stroke, one retrograde type A dissection, one access complication and stroke, and one death of unknown cause). Major stroke occurred in three (7%), minor stroke in one (2%), temporary spinal cord ischemia in three (7%), and renal injury in three (7%) patients, whereas three (7%) patients required early reintervention. With mean follow-up of 18 ± 17 months, 10 more patients required secondary interventions, most of which (90%) were planned distal intervention to complete the repair of thoracoabdominal diseases. Overall survival rates were 78% ± 7% and 72% ± 8% at postoperative years 1 and 2, respectively.ConclusionsFenestrated endograft repair of aortic arch disease is a feasible technique with a high technical success rate and acceptable rates of stroke and paraplegia. A high number of secondary interventions were needed to complete the treatment of underlying diseases.     

Outcomes of open repair of postdissection abdominal aortic aneurysms

BackgroundEvidence to guide management of postdissection abdominal aortic aneurysms (PDAAA) is lacking. This study describes the outcomes of open repair of PDAAA.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted of all consecutive patients treated with open repair for PDAAA after a Stanford type A or type B thoracic aortic dissection between January 2006 and December 2017 in two vascular referral centers. Preceding type B dissection treatment could include conservative or surgical management. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, complication rates, survival, and reintervention-free survival. Survival and reintervention-free survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Reintervention was defined as any endovascular or surgical intervention after the index procedure.ResultsIncluded were 36 patients (27 men [75%]) with a median age of 64 years (range, 35-81 years). The 30-day mortality was 2.7%. The median follow-up was 16 months (range, 0-88 months). The postoperative course was uneventful in 21 patients (58%). The most frequent complications were postoperative bleeding requiring repeat laparotomy (n = 4), pneumonia (n = 3), congestive heart failure (n = 2), new-onset atrial fibrillation (n = 2), mesenteric ischemia requiring left hemicolectomy (n=1), and ischemic cerebrovascular accident (n = 1). Renal failure requiring hemodialysis developed in one patient. The overall survival at 1 year was 88.8%. Reintervention-free survival was 95.5% after 1 year and 88.6% after 2 years.ConclusionsOpen repair of PDAAA can be performed with a low mortality rate and an acceptable complication rate, comparable with elective open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms without dissection.     

Midterm outcomes of AFX2 endografts used in combination with aortic cuffs

ObjectiveType III endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with the Endologix unibody endograft remain a major concern, despite fabric, system, and instructional updates. The purpose of this study was to examine real-world outcomes of repairing AAAs using the current version of the AFX2 main body in combination with an aortic cuff, specifically focusing on type III endoleaks and morphological changes of the endograft.MethodsWe recruited facilities in Japan that used AFX2 combined with an aortic cuff for at least five cases between April 2017 and March 2018. A total of 175 cases in 24 facilities were analyzed. Patients’ background information, including anatomic factors, operative findings, device component variations, and midterm outcomes at 3 years after the EVAR were collected. The data on computed tomography scans from cases registered as types I and III endoleaks and migration from each institute were sent to our department for verification.ResultsThe mean patient age was 74.6 ± 8.1 years, and 48 cases (27%) were saccular aneurysms. The mean fusiform and saccular AAA diameters were 50.5 ± 5.8 mm and 43.5 ± 8.9 mm, respectively. No in-hospital deaths occurred. Data at 3 years, including computed tomography images, of 128 cases were analyzed. Overall survival, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality, and freedom from reintervention rates at 3 years were 85.8%, 99.3%, and 87.3%, respectively. There were three, one, and three cases of types I, IIIa, and IIIb endoleaks without sac dilatations, respectively. Among five migration cases, one case of aortic cuff migration presented as a type Ia endoleak, and four cases demonstrated sideways displacement, one of which presented as a type IIIa endoleak. The sac regression and enlargement rates at 3 years were 41.4% and 20.5% in the fusiform group and 44.2% and 16.7% in the saccular group, respectively. The proximal neck diameter slightly increased from 20.8 ± 2.7 mm before the EVAR to 22.2 ± 4.6 mm after the repair.ConclusionsMidterm outcomes of the AFX2 used in combination with an aortic cuff were acceptable, considering the rates of types I and III endoleaks. However, there were cases of sideways displacement that could cause future type IIIa endoleaks. When the AFX2 is used in combination with an aortic cuff, close surveillance for endograft deformations and subsequent adverse events, including type III endoleaks, is needed.