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.

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.     

Comparison of commercially available versus customized branched-fenestrated devices in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms

Objective

To evaluate and compare the early outcomes of patients treated for complex aortic aneurysms using a commercially available Zenith fenestrated endograft (ZFEN) or an advanced customized fenestrated-branched endovascular repair, which includes custom-made device or off-the-shelf p-branch devices available for use in a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (PSIDE).

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.     

Preliminary results of Zenith Fenestrated abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular grafts

Background

Patients with juxtarenal aortic aneurysms who are unfit for open repair may be considered for fenestrated endovascular repair (fenEVAR). We report our initial experience with fenEVAR.

Methods

We reviewed the data on all our patients receiving fenEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.

Results

Eight patients, average age 75 years, underwent fenEVAR. Endografts were designed from details obtained from preoperative computed tomography angiography. There were 6 grafts with superior mesenteric scallops and bilateral renal fenestrations, 1 with bilateral renal scallops, and 1 with a single renal fenestration. All patients survived 30 days. There was no renal failure requiring dialysis. At 10 weeks, 1 patient died from acute intestinal ischemia and multisystem organ failure, and another died from respiratory failure.

Conclusions

It is feasible to offer fenEVAR to patients who are poor candidates for open repair. However, these procedures are technically challenging. Early outcomes are less favorable than other aortic endovascular procedures.     

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage complications during first stage and completion fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveTo determine the rates and risk factors of complications related to cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) during first stage and completion fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.MethodsWe reviewed the outcomes of 293 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized study to investigate outcomes of F-BEVAR between 2013 and 2018. Patients who received CSFD during first-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair, index F-BEVAR, or completion of temporary aneurysm sac perfusion procedures were included in the analysis. CSFD complications were graded as severe or moderate if they were life threatening, escalated the level of care, or prolonged the hospital stay. Presence of substantial degenerative lumbar disease (DLD) was identified based on review of preoperative computed tomography. End points included technical difficulties during CSFD placement and CSFD-related complications.ResultsA total of 187 patients (mean age, 73 ± 8 years; 70% male) treated for 20 pararenal and 167 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms received CSFD in 240 procedures, including 51 first-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repairs, 184 index F-BEVARs, and 5 completion temporary aneurysm sac perfusion procedures. Nineteen patients (10%) had 22 CSFD-related complications after 21 aortic procedures (9%). Complications were graded as severe to moderate in 17 patients (9%). There were 12 patients (6%) with intracranial hypotension, including three (2%) who had intracranial hemorrhage and nine (5%) with post dural puncture headache requiring blood patches in six. Another six patients (3%) developed spinal hematomas resulting in paraplegia in two (1%) and transient paraparesis in two (1%). One patient had CSF leakage from the puncture site (no intervention required). Four patients had bleeding during attempted drain placement, which required postponement of F-BEVAR. Technical difficulties were experienced in 57 drain insertions (24%), more often in patients with DLD than in those without DLD (35/113 [31%] vs 22/121 [18%]; P = .03). Fluoroscopic guidance was used in 44 drain placements (18%) with a lower rate of technical difficulties compared with the blind approach (9% vs 28%; P = .01). There was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward more complications in patients with technical challenges (14% vs 7%; P = .10). Of 13 study patients who developed spinal cord injuries during aortic procedures, 4 (31%) were attributed to CSFD.ConclusionsAlthough CSFD is widely used to prevent ischemic spinal cord injury during complex aortic repair, the risk of major CSFD-related complications is not negligible and should be carefully weighed against its potential benefits. One-third of spinal cord injuries were caused by CSF drain placement. The use of fluoroscopic guidance may decrease the risk of CSFD-related complications.     

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.     

Intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination for endoleak detection after complex and infrarenal endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveThe aim of this pilot study was to evaluate intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (iCEUS) examination for endoleak (EL) detection after complex endovascular aortic repairs (EVAR) in comparison with the standard angiographic completion control.MethodsTwenty-one patients (16 male; median age, 73 years [range, 54-81 years]) who underwent single-stage EVARs at our center between October 2016 and October 2018 were included prospectively. The procedures comprised fenestrated and/or branched EVAR (n = 14; 66%), infrarenal EVAR (n = 5; 24%), infrarenal EVAR with bilateral iliac side branch implantation (n = 1; 5%), and infrarenal EVAR with occluder implantation into the internal iliac artery (n = 1; 5%). The used endografts included 14 custom made devices (Cook, Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia, n = 6; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 8) and seven standard infrarenal endografts (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif, n = 5; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 1; Cook, n = 1). All patients underwent an angiographic completion control for EL detection followed by iCEUS examination. The iCEUS examination was performed by the same examiner who was blinded to the angiography result. In addition to the comparison of the angiographic results to iCEUS examination, iCEUS examination was also compared with the computed tomography angiography (CTA) before discharge (median time to CTA, 5 days [range, 1-7 days]).ResultsAngiography detected eight type II EL, defining the EL origin in four cases. In addition to detecting all of those eight EL, iCEUS examination revealed eight more type II EL not seen on angiography (P = .002) and allowed a definition of the EL origin in all cases. CTA before discharge showed a persistence of only 5 of the 16 type II EL detected by iCEUS examination (31%, P = .002).ConclusionsAn iCEUS examination can be used as another adjunct to decrease exposure to contrast agent and radiation during EVAR, including complex procedures. A replacement of the completion angiography by iCEUS examination is conceivable for infrarenal EVAR, but also for endovascular type IV or type V repairs. Future studies with larger patient numbers will help to further validate iCEUS examination during complex EVAR.     

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.     

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。     

Racial disparities in presentation and outcomes for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveIn the present study, we used a national database to identify racial differences in the presentation and outcomes for patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) and identified areas for improving their care.MethodsWe queried the EVAR-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2019) to identify patients who had undergone EVAR for both ruptured and nonruptured AAAs. The patients were categorized according to race (White, Black, and Asian). Patients with a history of abdominal aortic surgery or an indication other than AAAs were excluded. The data was analyzed using the χ² and Kruskal-Wallis tests, presented as frequencies and percentages or median and interquartile range (IQR) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.ResultsWe identified 3629 patients (16.6% female), including 3312 White (91.3%), 248 Black (6.8%), and 69 Asian (1.9%) patients. Black patients were more frequently women (27.0%) compared with White patients (15.9%) and were younger (median age, 71 years; IQR, 64-77 years) than White (median age, 73 years; IQR, 67-79 years) and Asian (median age, 76 years; IQR, 67-81 years) patients (P < .001 for both). The incidence of smoking, congestive heart failure, and dialysis dependency was highest for Black patients, and the incidence of obesity was lowest for Asian patients. The AAAs in Black patients extended more frequently beyond the aortic bifurcation (P = .047). In Asian patients, the internal iliac arteries were more involved (P = .040). For Black patients, 29.8% of the EVARs were performed in a nonelective setting compared with 20.2% for the White and 15.9% for the Asian patients (P < .001). The aneurysm diameter, nonruptured symptomatic rate, and rupture rate were similar across the groups (P = .807). The operative time was prolonged for Black (median, 128 minutes; IQR, 96-177 minutes) compared with White (median, 114 minutes; IQR, 84-162 minutes) patients (P < .001). Postoperatively, Black patients were more likely to require blood transfusion (16.5%) and had prolonged length of hospital stay (median, 2 days; IQR, 1-4 days) compared with White (10.0%; median, 1 day; IQR, 1-3 days) and Asian (4.3%; median, 1 day; IQR, 1-3 days) patients (P = .001 and P < .001, respectively). Black patients also had a higher 30-day readmission rate (P = .038). On multivariate analysis, Black race was an independent factor for length of stay >1 day after both elective and nonelective EVAR and 30-day readmission for elective EVAR, but not 30-day mortality after elective and nonelective EVAR.ConclusionsIn the present nationwide sample of EVAR cases, Black patients were more often women and younger. Despite similar rates of symptomatic and ruptured AAAs at presentation and 30-day mortality, Black patients more often presented and were treated during the same nonelective admission; they also had associated increased length of hospital stay and readmission. These findings signal a missed opportunity to diagnose, optimize, and treat this particular group of patients in an elective setting.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后各型内漏相关性分析（附272例报告）

目的: 探讨腹主动脉瘤（abdominal aortic aneurysm, AAA）腔内修复术后发生内漏的危险因素。方法: 回顾性分析2014年1月至2015年10月272例AAA病人行腔内修复术的临床资料和术后3、6、12、24、36个月随访结果。分析腔内修复术后各型内漏发生率及其与临床特征、支架类型、动脉瘤颈结构的关系。结果: 272例病人腔内修复术后内漏总发生率为15.8%(43/272),其中Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ或Ⅳ型以及张力性内漏（Ⅴ型）的发生率分别为7.4%(20/272)、6.3%(17/272)、1.5%(4/272)和0.7%(2/272)。Ⅰ型内漏多在随访3个月时发现,而其他类型内漏在随访12个月或更晚发现。动脉瘤近端瘤颈短（<1.5 cm）、重度扭曲（>45°）、形状不规则或钙化程度高（>25%）与Ⅰa型内漏发生显著相关（P<0.05）。持续通畅的肠系膜下动脉以及存在≥2根罪犯血管是Ⅱ型内漏发生的危险因素（P<0.05）。年龄、美国麻醉医师协会（American Society of Anesthesiologists, ASA）病情分级、吸烟以及合并高血压、糖尿病、冠心病、肺部疾病等对内漏发生率无影响。不同类型的人工血管支架对内漏发生有显著影响（P=0.047）。与其他类型支架相比,Endurant支架的内漏发生率最低（10.7%）。结论: 制定腔内修复手术方案时,应充分评估AAA的特征和内漏风险,以期达到较好的疗效。     

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.     

经食管超声心动图在胸主动脉瘤介入治疗中的应用

血管内修复术创伤性小，可应用于治疗多种主动脉疾病，如动脉瘤和主动脉夹层。经食管超声心动图(TEE)对主动脉疾病很敏感。术前可通过TEE找到撕裂的内膜片、发现内膜破口、区分类型、区分真假腔及了解心脏状况。术中TEE用于引导导管插至正确位置、观察支架放置过程、监测心功能和室壁运动状况、评价手术疗效。术后随诊通过TEE观察支架内血流情况、检出并发症如内漏等。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后髂支闭塞的危险因素分析

目的探讨腹主动脉瘤腔内修复手术(endovascular repair,EVAR)后髂支闭塞的危险因素。方法对2008年1月至2018年3月在新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院诊治的146例腹主动脉瘤EVAR病人的临床资料进行回顾性分析,按髂支闭塞情况分为闭塞组和非闭塞组,在单因素分析后,行多因素Logistic回归分析。结果 146例病人术后髂支闭塞17例(11.6%),两组间差异有检验效应(P<0.05)的因素为:合并高脂血症、慢性支气管炎,中性粒细胞百分比,活化部分凝血活酶时间,凝血酶比率,手术入路为切开显露,手术时间(min),右髂总动脉直径分层(≤12 mm、12～16 mm、≥16 mm),髂动脉狭窄或钙化≥50%,髂动脉扭曲成角≥60°,术后髂动脉流出道狭窄,髂内动脉流出道闭塞,支架远端延伸到髂外动脉。行多因素Logistic回归分析,EVAR术后髂支闭塞危险因素(OR>1)为:髂动脉狭窄或钙化≥50%[OR=7.727,95%CI(1.045,57.149),P=0.045];髂动脉扭曲成角≥60°[OR=5.258,95%CI(1.055,26.198),P=0.0...     

EndoSuture aneurysm repair versus fenestrated aneurysm repair in patients with short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare midterm results of EndoAnchors in EndoSuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) in short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).MethodsAll patients who underwent an ESAR procedure for a short neck AAA at our center between September 2017 and May 2020 were considered for analysis. To form the control group, preoperative computed tomography angiography of patients who underwent FEVAR for juxtarenal AAA between April 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed and patients who met short neck criteria selected. A propensity-matched score on neck length and neck diameter was calculated, resulting in 18 matched pairs. AAA shrinkage, type Ia endoleaks (EL), AAA-related reinterventions, and AAA-related deaths were compared.ResultsThe median AAA diameter was 54 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 52-61 mm) versus 58 mm (IQR, 53-63 mm) with a median neck length of 8 mm (IQR, 6-12 mm) vs 10 mm (IQR, 6-13 mm) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. Technical success was 100% in both groups. Procedural success was 94% in the ESAR group versus 100% in the FEVAR group. The median procedure duration was 138 mm (IQR, 113-182 mm) vs 240 mm (IQR, 199-293 mm) ( P < .001) and the median length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 2-3 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 6-7 days) (P < .001) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. No major hospital complications were observed in ESAR patients compared with two in FEVAR patients (11%) with one transient acute kidney injury and one transient paraplegia. The median follow-up was 23 months (IQR, 19-33 months) vs 36 months (IQR, 22-57 months) with 67% versus 61% AAA shrinkage in the ESAR and FEVAR groups, respectively (P = .73). No type Ia EL, proximal neck-related reinterventions, or AAA-related deaths were observed in either group. No AAA-related reintervention was observed in the ESAR group versus three reinterventions in the FEVAR group (P = .23).ConclusionsESAR seems to be a safe technique with no major postoperative complications or reinterventions observed during follow-up. It seems to offer similar midterm results as FEVAR in terms of type Ia EL, aneurysm shrinkage, and aneurysm-related mortality. ESAR seems to be a good off-the-shelf alternative to FEVAR in case of technical constraints.     

Risk factors for early and late mortality after fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aneurysms

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes after fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) performed in high-risk patients to treat pararenal (PR) aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) and to identify those patients likely to benefit from this treatment.MethodsA prospective single-center review of patients treated electively for PR aneurysm and TAAA using F-BEVAR between 2004 and 2016 was performed. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors associated with 30-day morbidity and mortality during follow-up were determined using multivariate statistical techniques and a Cox regression model including all variables that were significant on univariate analysis (P < .05).ResultsThere were 468 patients (median age, 71.6 years) identified, with American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 in 94.7%. There were 221 (47.2%) type I to type III TAAAs and 247 (52.8%) type IV and type V TAAAs and PR aneurysms, with a median diameter of 58 mm. Technical success for target vessel stenting was 99.1% (1493/1506). The 30-day mortality rate was 4.9% (23 patients). The spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.8% (18 patients). Twenty patients (4.3%) required postoperative dialysis and four patients (0.8%) long-term dialysis after discharge. Median follow-up was 29 months. Survival at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years was 86.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.1-89.6), 73.3% (95% CI, 68.3-77.6), and 59.6% (95% CI, 53.4-65.2), respectively. Freedom from any target vessel occlusion and freedom from secondary procedures were 96.2% (95% CI, 93.8-97.7) and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.8-90.9) at 1 year and 90.0% (95% CI, 84.5-91.9) and 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-75.6) at 5 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, early mortality was associated with procedure time (hazard ratio [HR], 1.007 per minute; 95% CI, 1.003-1.010; P < .001), TAAA preoperative diameter (HR, 1.053 per millimeter; 95% CI, 1.020-1.087; P = .001), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 3.139; 95% CI, 1.369-7.196; P = .007). Mortality during the first 24 months of follow-up was associated with Crawford types I to III (HR, 1.526; 95% CI, 1.061-2.196; P = .023) compared with infradiaphragmatic repairs, chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.874; 95% CI, 1.294-2.712; P < .001), and TAAA preoperative diameter (HR, 1.027 per millimeter; 95% CI, 1.010-1.044; P = .002). In addition to these risk factors, mortality after 24 months of follow-up was also associated with age at repair (HR, 1.055 per year; 95% CI, 1.021-1.090; P = .001).ConclusionsF-BEVAR performed in high-risk patients is associated with favorable outcomes. Judicious selection of patients should take into consideration the reported risk factors associated with early and late mortality.