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。     

腹主动脉瘤破裂行腔内修复术1例

患者女,80岁,因急性脑梗死伴腹痛9h入院。查体:下腹部左侧触及6～7cm搏动性包块,右侧中枢性面瘫,右上肢肌力0级,疼痛刺激无反应,右下肢外旋,可屈曲,无自主运动;左侧肢体肌力Ⅳ级,左侧Babinski征阳性,右侧病理征未引出。既往有糖尿病、高血压及腹主动脉瘤病史。     

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.     

A 12-year experience of endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in all patients

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been increasingly performed for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). However, multiple randomized trials have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit compared with open aortic surgery. During a 12-year period, 100% of patients without a history of aneurysm surgery had undergone EVAR for a rAAA at Örebro University Hospital, with no emergent open aortic surgery performed. In the present study, we evaluated the mortality and technical success during this “EVAR-only” period.MethodsA single-center, retrospective observational study was conducted. We identified all patients who had presented to Örebro University Hospital with a rAAA between October 2009 and September 2021. Patients with isolated iliac artery, thoracic, and thoracoabdominal aortic ruptures were not included. Patients who had received previous aortic interventions (open or endovascular) and patients who had received palliative treatment instead of surgical intervention were also excluded. The patient characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data, and mortality rate were investigated.ResultsEVAR had been performed in 100 patients. Preoperative hemodynamic instability had been present in 54 patients (54%), and 18 (18%) had undergone aortic balloon occlusion. The aneurysm location was infrarenal in 89 patients (89%). Bifurcated stent grafts had been used in 97 patients (97%), and adjunct endovascular techniques had been used for 27 patients (27%). Of 98 patients, EVAR had been performed with the patient under local anesthesia for 62 patients (63%). Peri- and postoperative complications at 30 days had occurred in 20 of 100 patients (20%) and 22 of 79 patients (28%), respectively. The overall mortality at 30 days was 27% (27 of 100 patients), and the mortality for those with an isolated infrarenal rAAA was 24% (21 of 89 patients). The overall mortality at 1 year was 39% (39 of 100 patients) and for those with an isolated infrarenal rAAA was 37% (33 of 89 patients). The presence of preoperative hemodynamic instability and the use of ABO were statistically significantly and independently associated with increased 30-day mortality on multivariate logistic regression analysis.ConclusionsAll 100 patients who had undergone surgery for a rAAA had been treated using EVAR and endovascular adjuncts, with a relatively low mortality rate, thus continuing the “EVAR-only” approach. A low proportion of rAAA patients were considered surgically unsuitable. These findings support the applicability of EVAR for the treatment of all rAAAs at suitable centers.     

腹主动脉瘤的血管腔内治疗

目的 探讨腹主动脉瘤(AAA)血管腔内治疗后的短期临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2009年4月～2010年7月我科收治的8例AAA患者的临床资料.结果 患者均接受血管腔内治疗,手术成功率7/8,死亡1人.5例植入分叉型支架,2例植入直型支架,1例支架释放不成功.1例术后第2天右髂动脉支架折叠成角,远端血栓形成,给予局部溶栓成功后第3天血栓再次形成,急诊行左股－右股动脉旁路转流术.1例术后第2天出现急性肾功能不全,2个月后出现结肠缺血表现,给予对症治疗后好转.1例术中主体支架释放不成功,急诊行开腹手术,取出支架,行AAA修补术,术后第2天因呼吸循环衰竭死亡.随访1～16个月,中位随访时间5个月,至最后一次随访(死亡)时止,无内漏发生,无支架明显移位及动脉瘤腔内血栓形成.结论 AAA血管腔内治疗后的短期临床疗效满意,远期疗效有待进一步随访.     

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.

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中特殊近端锚定区的处理

目的探讨腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术（EVAR）中特殊近端锚定区的处理方法。方法1997年7月至2005年7月对41例特殊类型腹主动脉瘤（瘤颈过短、严重成角、严重钙化、附壁血栓、形态不规则等）的腔内修复术中，根据情况分别采用近端裸支架跨肾动脉技术、覆盖部分肾动脉并肾动脉支架成形技术、针对成角选择合理产品、近端裸支架内支撑技术、近端延长支架型血管内支撑技术、“凹口”状支架型血管保留肾动脉技术来处理特殊近端锚定区的病变。结果41例EVAR中原发性近端Ⅰ型内漏发生率17．1％（7／41），随诊发现原发性内漏4例自愈，3例转化为持续性内漏，另发现4例继发性内漏。术后30d近端Ⅰ型内漏发生率17.1％（7／41）。无中转开腹手术及术中瘤体破裂、肾梗死等情况发生。结论对特殊近端锚定区的病例，通过相关技术处理可以使之适合腔内治疗。     

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.     

Evolution of open aneurysmorrhaphy for management of sac expansion after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveWe evaluated the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcomes of open aneurysmorrhaphy (OA) for the treatment of sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms.MethodsOA involves sac exposure without dissection of the proximal or distal neck, sacotomy and ligation of back-bleeding vessels, preservation of the prior stent graft, and tight closure of the sac around the stent graft. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone OA for nonruptured sac expansion after standard EVAR at our institution between January 2015 and June 2021. The primary end points were 30-day mortality and aneurysm-related death. The secondary end points were postoperative complications, overall survival, freedom from reintervention, and sac regrowth rate.ResultsA total of 28 patients had undergone OA. Their mean age was 76.9 ± 6.7 years. The median sac diameter at OA was 79 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 76-92 mm). The median duration from the index EVAR to OA was 82 months (IQR, 72-104 months). Preoperative computed tomography angiography confirmed a type II endoleak (EL) in 20 patients, 1 of whom had had a coexisting type Ia EL; a type IIIb EL was identified in 1 patient. Concomitant endovascular procedures had been performed in six patients to treat a type I or III EL or reinforce the proximal and distal seals. The OA technique has been modified since 2017, with the addition of more aggressive dissection of the sac and complete removal of the mural thrombus to further decrease the sac diameter. Postoperative complications occurred in two patients and included abdominal lymphorrhea and failed hemostasis of the common femoral artery requiring surgical repair in one patient each. The 30-day mortality was 0%. During the median follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 14-51 months), the overall survival was 92.7% and 86.9% at 12 and 36 months, respectively, without any aneurysm-related death. In the late (2017-2021) treatment group, the median sac diameter immediately after OA was smaller than that in the early (2015-2016) treatment group (early group: median, 50 mm; IQR, 39-57 mm; vs later group: median, 41 mm; IQR, 32-47 mm; P = .083). Furthermore, in the late group, the sac regrowth rate was lower (early group: median, 0.36 mm/mo; IQR, 0.23-0.83 mm/mo; vs late group: median, 0 mm/mo; IQR, 0-0.11 mm/mo; P = .0075) and the freedom from reintervention rate was higher (late group: 94.7% at both 12 and 36 months, respectively; early group: 71.4% and 53.6% at 12 and 36 months, respectively; log-rank P = .070).ConclusionsOur results have shown that OA for the management of post-EVAR sac expansion is feasible with acceptable mid-term outcomes. Aggressive dissection and tight plication of the sac might be imperative for better mid-term outcomes after OA.     

Predictors of acute kidney injury after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians

Objective

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, limited studies have investigated this complication in elderly patients. This study aims to evaluate AKI in octogenarians after open endovascular AAA repair (OAR) and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR).

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.     

Propensity score analysis in observational studies: outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE: Large databases composed of well-designed prospectively collected cohort data provide an opportunity to examine and compare healthcare treatments in actual clinical practice settings. Because the analysis of these data often leads to a retrospective cohort design, it is essential to adequately adjust for lack of balance in patient characteristics when making treatment comparisons. We used matched propensity scoring in a cohort of patients undergoing elective aneurysm repair as an illustrative example of this important statistical method that adjusts for baseline characteristics and selection bias by matching covariables. METHODS: By using prospectively collected clinical data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we studied 30-day mortality, 1-year survival, and postoperative complications in 1904 patients who underwent elective AAA repair (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR], n=717 (37.7%); open aneurysm repair, n=1187 [62.3%]) at 123 Veterans Health Administration's hospitals between May 1, 2001, and September 30, 2003. In bivariate analysis, patient characteristics and operative and hospital variables were associated with both type of surgery and outcomes of surgery. Therefore, the predicted probability of receiving EVAR was tabulated for all patients by using multiple logistic regression to control for 32 independent demographic and clinical characteristics and then stratified into 5 groups. Patients were matched within strata based on similar levels of the independent measures (a propensity score technique), creating a pseudo-randomized control design. The proportion of patients with the morbidity and mortality outcomes was then compared between the EVAR and open procedures within strata to control for selection. RESULTS: Patients undergoing EVAR had significantly lower unadjusted 30-day (3.1% versus 5.6%, P=.01) and 1-year mortality (8.7% versus 12.1%, P=.018) than patients undergoing open repair. By using propensity scoring, the proportions of EVAR patients experiencing 30-day mortality were equal or less than patients undergoing open procedures for all levels of probability and decreased as the probability of EVAR increased. Furthermore, propensity scoring also showed that patients having EVAR had lower 1-year mortality and experienced fewer perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: We used a propensity score approach to examine outcomes after elective AAA repair to statistically control for many factors affecting both treatment selection and outcome. Patients who underwent elective EVAR had substantially lower perioperative mortality and morbidity rates compared with patients having open repair, which was not explained solely by patient selection in an observational dataset.     

Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND: One adverse outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) is a significantly increased incidence of secondary interventions (SIs) required compared with traditional open aortic repair. We present a consecutive series of EVARs using a single endograft to identify the incidence and types of SIs performed. METHODS: From February 1, 2000, to January 31, 2005, we repaired 136 AAAs with the Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, Indiana) endograft. All patients met the same strict anatomic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Follow-up lasted from 1.5 to 61 months (median 36). The indications for SI group A were procedural and technical errors, for group B were aortic morphology, and for group C were device failures. RESULTS: Twenty-one SIs were required in 17 of 136 patients (12.5%). Three patients required multiple interventions. Nine patients were in group A, four were in group B, and six were in group C. All but 4 patients required SIs for late (>30 days) complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is a viable alternative to open aortic repair, EVAR is associated with a significantly higher rate of SIs. To maintain the efficacy of EVAR, patients must be followed-up in a vigilant graft surveillance protocol for life.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内隔绝术后支架内急性血栓形成闭塞1例

<正>患者男,68岁,体检发现腹主动脉瘤,左肾动脉狭窄9个月。查体:脐周偏右可触及搏动性包块,呈橄榄型,约5cm×13cm。腹主动脉CTA:动脉粥样硬化,腹主动脉瘤(肾下型)伴附壁血栓形成,左肾动脉起始部中度狭窄伴局限性混合斑块(图1)。入院后全麻行腹主动脉瘤覆膜支架腔内隔绝术,主体支架24mm×12mm×170mm,右髂支16 mm×12 mm×100mm。先用4.5 mm×12.0mm球囊预扩张左肾动脉狭窄处,在其内保留导丝;释放主动     

Chronic kidney disease impacts outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveChronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study stratifies outcomes of AAA repair by approach, CKD severity, and dialysis dependence.MethodsAll patients undergoing elective infrarenal open aneurysm repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: CKD stages 1 and 2, CKD stage 3a, CKD stage 3b, CKD stages 4 and 5, and dialysis. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of survival were identified by Cox multivariate regression models.ResultsIn total, 53,867 elective AAA repairs were identified: 5396 (10%) OARs and 48,471 (90%) EVARs. Most patients were White (90%) and male (81%), with a mean age of 73 ± 9 years. Patients who underwent EVAR were older and had more comorbidities. The use of elective EVAR for AAA increased from 52% in 2003 to 91% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications and short-term mortality. The CKD 1 and 2 group had the highest 1-year survival compared with the other groups after both OAR and EVAR. On Cox regression analysis, after EVAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.68; P = .13; CKD 3b: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.45; P < .050; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.13-4.88; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.90-10.6; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates. After OAR, compared with CKD 1 and 2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3a: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96-1.20; P = .20; CKD 3b: HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.41-1.81; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.39-3.41; P < .001), and dialysis (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.01-4.76; P < .001) were independently associated with worse 1-year survival rates.ConclusionsRegardless of the treatment approach, CKD severity is an important predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality rates after infrarenal AAA repair and may reflect the natural history of CKD. Open repair is associated with high perioperative mortality risk in patients with CKD stages 4 and 5, as well as end-stage renal disease. Individualization of patient decision-making is especially important in patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 45 and perhaps consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in these patients. Further studies focusing on appropriate size threshold for repair in these patients may be warranted.     

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...     

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair

BackgroundThe use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR.MethodsThe data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes.ResultsA total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010).ConclusionsThe results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.     

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.