Risk of spinal cord ischemia after fenestrated or branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms

Objective

The aim of our study was to analyze the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients presenting with complex aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to identify risk factors associated with this complication.

Gender-related outcomes after open repair of descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective

Female sex has been associated with greater morbidity and mortality for a variety of major cardiovascular procedures. We sought to determine the influence of female sex on early and late outcomes after open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair.

Risk factors for target vessel endoleaks after physician-modified fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair for postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectivePatients with postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) have been more likely to develop endoleaks than those with degenerative TAAAs after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). In the present study, we aimed to determine the risk factors for target vessel (TV)-related endoleaks after visceral segment F/BEVAR for postdissection TAAAs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with degenerative and postdissection TAAAs treated with F/BEVAR between 2017 and 2021. All the patients had undergone computed tomography angiography before and 3 months, 6 months, and annually after discharge. Two experienced vascular surgeons had used data from computed tomography angiography and vascular angiography to judge the presence of endoleaks. The study end points were mortality, aneurysm rupture, and the emergence of and reintervention for TV-related endoleaks.ResultsA total of 195 patients (mean age, 66 ± 10 years; 69% men) had undergone F/BEVAR for 99 postdissection TAAAs and 96 degenerative TAAAs. During a mean follow-up of 16 ± 12 months, we found that the patients with postdissection TAAAs were younger (age, 64 ± 10 years vs 69 ± 9 years; P = .001), had required more prior aortic repairs (58% vs 40%; P = .012), and had had a higher body mass index (26.1 ± 3.4 kg/m² vs 24.8 ± 3 kg/m²; P = .008), a larger visceral segment aortic diameter (47.1 ± 7.5 mm vs 44.5 ± 7.5 mm; P = .016), and more TV-related endoleaks (18% vs 7%; P = .023) compared with those with degenerative TAAAs. Of the 99 patients with postdissection TAAAs, 327 renal–mesenteric arteries were revascularized using 12 scallops, 141 fenestrations, and 174 inner or outer branch stents. A total of 25 TV-related endoleaks were identified among 18 patients during follow-up, including 6 type Ic (retrograde from the distal end of the branch), 3 type IIIb (bridging stent fabric tear), and 16 type IIIc endoleaks (detachment or loose connection of the bridging stent). The patients with an endoleak had had a larger visceral aortic diameter (52.7 ± 6.4 mm vs 45.8 ± 7.2 mm; P < .001) and had undergone revascularization of more TVs (3.7 ± 0.7 vs 3.2 ± 0.9; P = .032). In contrast, true lumen compression did not seem to affect the occurrence of TV endoleaks (39% vs 27%; P = .323). The use of presewn branch stents in the fenestration position was associated with a lower risk of TV-related endoleaks (5% vs 11%; P = .025). In addition, TVs derived entirely or partially from the false lumen were more prone to the development of endoleaks after reconstruction (19% vs 4% [P < .001]; and 15% vs 4% [P = .047], respectively).ConclusionsWe found that patients with postdissection TAAAs were more likely to have TV-related endoleaks after F/BEVAR in the visceral region than those with degenerative TAAAs. Additionally, patients with a larger aortic diameter and a greater number of fenestrations in the visceral region were more likely to have experienced TV-related endoleaks. Branch vessels deriving from the false lumen were also more likely to develop endoleaks after reconstruction, and prefabricated branch stents were related to a lower possibility of TV-related endoleaks.     

Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated and branched endografts

Purpose

The study purpose was to review the outcomes of patients treated for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using endovascular repair with fenestrated and branched stent-grafts in a single center.

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.     

Combined fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of the aortic arch and the thoracoabdominal aorta

ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to evaluate patients who underwent extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage (from the aortic arch to abdominal aorta) in terms of early and midterm clinical outcomes.MethodsA retrospective multicenter study was undertaken. All patients were treated with extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage with fenestrated and branched endografts at three experienced endovascular centers.ResultsBetween 2012 and 2017, there were 33 patients (22 male [67%]) treated with a combination of fenestrated-branched stent grafts in the aortic arch and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Most of the patients (20/33 [61%]) had fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (fb-EVAR) of the thoracoabdominal aorta as a second-stage procedure after thoracic arch (fb-Arch) repair, 10 had fb-Arch repair as the first procedure, and three patients had a single-stage procedure. The mean age was 67 ± 13 years, and the mean interval between procedures was 13 ± 12 months. For fb-Arch repair, 20 fenestrated and 13 branched devices were used; for fb-EVAR, 23 fenestrated, 5 branched, and 5 composite devices were used. The use of spinal drainage was more common in fb-EVAR (20/33 [61%]). Technical success was 100%. Mean hospital stay was 15 ± 13 days for fb-Arch repair and 12 ± 9 days for fb-EVAR. Two patients died in the hospital after fb-EVAR, resulting in a 30-day mortality of 6% (2/33). No deaths occurred during the fb-Arch repair component or in the single-stage cases. Four patients developed spinal cord injury (12%), 1 had permanent paraplegia (3%), and 2 patients had a neurologic event (1 stroke [3%] and 1 transient ischemic attack [3%]). Six patients (18%) died during a mean follow-up of 23 ± 17 months. The survival at 12 months after the second procedure was 72%, and the freedom from any reintervention was 82%. The 12-month freedom from reintervention was 87% for fb-Arch repair and 81% for fb-EVAR.ConclusionsExtensive endovascular coverage of the aorta for aortic disease seems to be a feasible procedure in experienced centers, with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality. Spinal cord ischemia appears acceptable despite extensive aortic coverage.     

Five-year outcomes of physician-modified endografts for repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThere is paucity of data on the durability of physician modified endografts (PMEGs) for complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) despite widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early and long-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for CAAAs and TAAAs using PMEGs.MethodsWe reviewed clinical data and outcomes of patients treated by FB-EVAR using PMEGs for CAAAs (defined as short-neck infrarenal, juxtarenal, and pararenal AAAs) and TAAAs between 2007 and 2019. All patients were treated by a dedicated team with extensive manufactured device experience. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events, patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from secondary intervention, target artery (TA) patency, and freedom from TA endoleak and TA instability.ResultsOf 645 patients undergoing FB-EVAR, 156 patients (24%) treated with PMEG (121 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) were included. There were 89 CAAAs, 33 extent IV TAAAs and 34 extent I to III TAAAs. A total of 452 renal-mesenteric targets (3.1 ± 1.0 vessels/patient) were incorporated. Patients with TAAAs had significantly (P < .05) larger aneurysms (73 ± 11 vs 68 ± 14 mm), more TAs incorporated (3.4 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 1.0), and more often had previous aortic repair (54% vs 27%). Technical success was higher in patients treated for CAAAs (99% vs 91%; P = .04). Thirty-day and/or in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and was significantly lower for CAAAs compared with TAAAs (2% vs 10%; P = .04), with three of nine early mortalities (33%) among patients treated emergently. After a mean follow-up of 49 ± 38 months, there were 12 aortic-related deaths (7.6%), including nine early deaths (5.7%) from perioperative complications and three late deaths (1.9%) from rupture. At 5 years, patient survival was 41%. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher 5-year freedom from ARM (P = .016), TA instability (P = .05), TA endoleak (P = .01), and TA secondary interventions (P = .05) with a higher, but non-significant, freedom from sac enlargement ≥5 mm (P = .11). Primary and secondary TA patency was 91% ± 2% and 99% ± 1%, respectively. Sac regression ≥5 mm occurred in 67 patients (43%) and was associated with increased survival (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80) compared with those without sac regression.ConclusionsFB-EVAR using PMEGs was performed with acceptable long-term outcomes. Overall patient survival was low due to significant underlying comorbidities. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher freedom from ARM, TA instability, TA endoleak, TA secondary interventions, and a trend towards higher freedom from sac enlargement compared with patients treated for TAAAs. Sac regression was associated with improved patient survival.     

Outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveTo describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE).ResultsThere were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups.ConclusionsFB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure.     

Long-term outcomes comparing endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians

ObjectivePatients older than 80 years have significantly lower early mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), but long-term results remain poorly studied. We analyzed the results of both emergent and elective AAA repair in patients aged 80 years or older who had at least 5 years of follow-up.MethodsRetrospective review of a prospectively collected vascular surgery database was performed to identify all patients who underwent elective repair of an AAA between 2007 and 2012 and were 80 years of age or older at the time of surgery. Open and EVAR groups were compared using univariate statistics.ResultsThe study cohort was composed of 314 patients 80 years of age or older (median, 83 years; interquartile range, 5 years) who underwent repair (96 open, 218 EVAR). The groups had similar comorbidities, except that EVAR patients were more likely to be male and open repair patients were more likely to have larger aneurysms. Compared with open repair, elective early postoperative mortality was significantly lower for EVAR patients (1% vs 14%; P < .001). Overall mean life expectancy was 5.9 years (EVAR, 5.8 years; open repair, 5.8 years; P = .98). The 1-year survival was significantly higher for EVAR (92.9%) than for open repair (84.1%; P = .02). The 2-year survival (EVAR, 83.4%; open repair, 74.6%; P = .07) and 5-year survival (EVAR, 57.8%; open repair, 60.3%; P = .98) did not differ between EVAR and open repair. Reintervention rates (EVAR, 18%; open repair, 2%; P = .05) were higher in the endovascular treatment group.ConclusionsEVAR results in an improved 1-year mortality in octogenarians compared with open repair, although 5-year survival is similar between the groups. With average life expectancies of >5 years and an 18% reintervention rate, diligent follow-up is required after EVAR even in elderly patients.     

Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveExisting data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA.MethodsA population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair.ResultsA total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair.ConclusionsThis population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.     

Impact of preoperative pulmonary function on outcomes after open repair of descending and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective

To evaluate the impact of preoperative pulmonary function on outcomes after open repair of descending thoracic (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic (TAAA) aneurysms.

Safety and durability of infrarenal aorta as distal landing zone in fenestrated or branched endograft repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysm

Objective

Manufacturers often recommend the iliac arteries as the distal landing zone in fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aneurysm. It is not uncommon to choose distal landing at the infrarenal aorta for preservation of lumbar arteries or the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA); however, the safety and durability of this procedure have not been verified in the literature.

脑脊液引流在胸降及胸腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中对截瘫的预防保护

目的:探讨脑脊液引流在胸降、胸腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中对截瘫的预防保护作用。方法:回顾性分析我科于2007年9月至2009年12月期间的32例胸降、胸腹主动脉瘤行腔内修复术病人,在术中及术后予以脑脊液引流的效果。结果:所有病人痊愈出院,随访1个月~1年。4例病人术后出现轻瘫症状,经脑脊液引流后治愈;其余病人围手术期间及随访期间未出现截瘫表现,治疗期间无严重并发症。结论:脑脊液引流可在胸降、胸腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中有效地预防及治疗轻瘫及截瘫。     

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair using unilateral femoral access in patients with iliac occlusive disease

ObjectiveFenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) in patients with occluded iliac arteries is challenging owing to limited access for branch vessel catheterization and increased risk for leg and spinal ischemic complications. The aim of this study was to analyze technical strategies and outcomes of F/BEVAR in patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of all consecutive patients treated by F/BEVAR in two institutions (2003-2021). Patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease were included in the analysis. All patients had one patent iliac artery that was used for advancement of the fenestrated-branch component. Preloaded catheter/guidewire systems or steerable sheaths were used as adjuncts to facilitate catheterization. Primary endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events (stroke, spinal cord injury, dialysis or decrease in the glomerular filtration rate of more than 50%, bowel ischemia, myocardial infarction, or respiratory failure), primary iliac patency, and freedom from reinterventions.ResultsThere were 959 patients treated with F/BEVAR. Of these, 15 patients (1.56%; mean age, 74 years; 80% male) had occluded iliac arteries and 1 patent iliofemoral access and were treated for a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 8) or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 7). Brachial access was used in 14 of the 15 patients and preloaded systems in 7 of the 15 patients (47%). The remaining 53% had staggered deployment of stent grafts. There were seven physician-modified endovascular grafts, seven custom-made devices, and one off-the-shelf device used. Thirteen patients (87%) had distal seal using aortouni-iliac stent grafts and two (13%) had distal seal in the infrarenal aorta. Concomitant femoral crossover bypass (FCB) was performed in two patients and six patients had a prior FCB. Technical success was 100%. There were no intraoperative complications or early lower extremity ischemic complications, and all FCB were preserved. There was one mortality (7%) within 30 days owing to retrograde type A dissection. Major adverse events occurred in 20% of patients. The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0-85 months). Two patients (13%) required three reinterventions. One patient required proximal stent graft extension for an acute type B dissection (3 months) and another required iliac extension for type Ib endoleak of an aortouni-iliac graft (21 months) and thrombolysis of that extension (50 months). At last follow-up, all patients had primary graft patency except one with secondary graft patency without new claudication. One patient had a single renal artery stent occlusion at follow-up with no r-intervention. The overall survival rate was 60%, without aortic-related deaths.ConclusionsAlthough challenging, F/BEVAR with unilateral femoral/brachial approach is feasible in patients with occluded iliac limbs, with an important rate of ischemic complications, but satisfactory outcomes.     

不同手术方式行全胸腹主动脉替换的临床研究

目的 比较手术治疗的效果,探讨不同手术方式行全胸腹主动脉替换术的适应证和具体手术方法,明确常温非体外循环下全胸腹主动脉替换的可行性和安全性.方法 2009年2月到2011年5月,46例CrawfordⅡ型胸腹主动脉瘤(thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm,TAAA)患者行全胸腹主动脉替换术(total thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair,tTAAAR).根据术式不同,分为深低温停循环tTAAAR(A)组15例和常温非体外循环tTAAAR(B)组31例.计数资料采用精确概率的x2检验和计数资料经正态性检验后采用t检验等统计学方法,比较了患者的术前、术中和术后ICU治疗情况以及围术期病死率、并发症发生率等.结果 A组和B组术后早期死亡(26.67％对3.20％,P=0.033)和一过性脑功能障碍发生率(33.30％对3.30％,P=0.018)差异有统计学意义.两组手术时间(P＜0.0001)、降主动脉阻断时间(P ＜0.0001),输注红细胞(P=0.013)差异亦有统计学意义.术前情况、内脏缺血时间、脊髓缺血时间、ICU治疗时间、带气管插管时间、脊髓损伤、肾功能不全等差异无统计学意义,P＞0.05.结论 常温非体外循环全胸腹主动脉替换术安全、可靠.适应证为可在常温下建立降主动脉到髂动脉旁路循环的胸腹主动脉动脉瘤.肋间动脉重建是重要的脊髓保护手段.     

覆膜支架腔内隔绝和开腹手术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂疗效比较

目的比较开腹手术和腔内隔绝术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂的手术效果。方法 2000年3月-2011年7月,收治48例腹主动脉瘤破裂患者,其中40例行腹动脉瘤切除、人工血管移植术治疗(开腹组),8例行覆膜支架腔内隔绝术治疗(腔内隔绝组)。两组患者性别、年龄、瘤颈长度≤2 cm构成比、瘤颈成角≥60°构成比、髂外动脉严重扭曲构成比、术前收缩压、术前合并症组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。术后对两组患者输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间、术后并发症、二期手术率、术后24 h内死亡率和术后30 d内死亡率进行比较。结果两组术后24 h死亡率、术后30 d死亡率以及非移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);但组间手术时间、输血量、重症监护时间、二期手术率及移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论腔内隔绝术对解剖条件良好的腹主动脉瘤破裂患者是一种可行的手术方式,在输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间方面与传统开腹手术相比具有明显优势。     

Exclusion of complex aortic aneurysm with chimney endovascular aortic repair is applicable in a minority of patients treated with fenestrated endografts

OBJECTIVESThe Medtronic Endurant II stent graft has recently received Conformité Européenne (CE) approval for the use in chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR) for the treatment for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to assess the percentage of patients treated by fenestrated endovascular repair who would have been alternatively suitable for the treatment by the CE approved Medtronic ChEVAR. Open in a separate windowMETHODSPreoperative computed tomography scans of 100 patients who underwent fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) between April 2013 and February 2017 were retrospectively assessed for the applicability of the ChEVAR technique according to the Medtronic instructions for use. Eligibility criteria included an aortic neck diameter of 19–30 mm, a minimum infrarenal neck length of 2 mm, a total proximal sealing zone of at least 15 mm, thrombus in the aortic neck in ˂25% of the circumference, and maximum aortic angulations of 60° in the infrarenal, 45° in the suprarenal segment and ˂45° above the superior mesenteric artery.RESULTSAccording to CE-approved inclusion criteria, 19 individuals (19%) would have been eligible for ChEVAR. In 81 patients, at least 1 measure was found outside instructions for use: (i) excluding factor was detected in 26 patients, (ii) incongruous measures in 28 patients and in 27 patients, 3–5 measures were outside the instructions for use. The most frequently identified excluding factor was an insufficient infrarenal neck at ˂2 mm length (n = 63; 63%).CONCLUSIONSPatients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysm treated by FEVAR are in 19% of the cases alternatively suitable for the treatment by ChEVAR within CE-approved instructions for use. While ChEVAR is suitable in many emergency cases, FEVAR offers a broader applicability in an elective setting.     

Inner branched complex aortic repair outcomes from a national multicenter registry using the E-xtra design platform

BackgroundComplex aortic pathology still represents an open issue in contemporary endovascular management, with continuous technological advancement being introduced in practice over time aiming to improve outcomes. Thus far, the dualism between the fenestrated and branched configuration for visceral artery revascularization is yet unsolved, with each approach having its own pros and cons. The inner branched technology for endovascular aneurysm repair (iBEVAR) aims to take the best out of both strategies, offering wide applicability and stable bridging stent sealing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early outcomes obtained with a single manufacturer custom-made inner-branched endograft in a multicenter Italian experience.MethodsAll patients consecutively treated with E-xtra design devices in three Italian facilities were enrolled. Anatomic characteristics and perioperative data were analyzed. The main objective was to asses technical and clinical success after iBEVAR. Secondary end points were overall survival, aortic-related mortality, target visceral vessel (TVV) patency, and freedom from target vessel instability during follow-up.ResultsFrom 2016 to 2021, 45 patients were treated with an E-xtra design device revascularizing at least one visceral vessel through an inner branch. The mean age at the time of the procedure was 71.1 ± 9.3 years and 77.8% were males. The total number of target visceral arteries to be bridged with an inner branch was 159. The extent of aortic repair was thoracoabdominal in 91.1% of the cases. Technical success was achieved in 93.3% of the procedures (42/45) with all failures owing to a type I endoleak at final angiography. Each TVV was successfully connected to the graft’s main body as planned without complications. Following their intervention, five patients developed spinal cord ischemia and in three of these cases symptoms persisted after discharge (6.7%). At 30 days clinical success was 93.3% (42/45). No death as well as no TVV thrombosis occurred within 30 days from the primary procedures. The mean follow-up was 22.8 ± 14.2 months. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival and TVV patency at 36 months were 83.9% and 95.9%, respectively.ConclusionsInner branches seem to be a promising technology in the complex aortic repair landscape, with an applicability ranging from type II thoracoabdominal aneurysm to type I endoleak repair after infrarenal endografting. Whether iBEVAR could offer results comparable with those provided by fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair in terms of target vessel patency and stent stability is yet to be established and further studies are, therefore, needed.