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.     

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.     

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.

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.

Who should do endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms and how should they do them?

BackgroundCure of aneurysms which involve the aorta at the level of the visceral arteries and the thoracoabdominal segment remains a considerable surgical enterprise with a relatively high mortality and morbidity despite improvements of the surgical procedure and anesthetic technique. Fenestrated and branched endovascular stent grafts are currently available offering an attractive less invasive option especially for most frail patients. These grafts are relatively recent, technically more demanding to insert than the current stent graft for infrarenal aneurysm and besides, given the relative low frequency of the disease, they are much less used by practitioners. Thus, unconditional widespread of this sophisticated technique may not necessarily benefit patients.MethodsWe reviewed our experiences and articles regarding this concern, 1) who should perform this new technique and 2) in what kind of setting.ConclusionBased on the combined complexities of 1) patients selection, 2) proper planning and manufacturing of the graft, 3) the need for outstanding imaging and operating facilities, 4) and the required endovascular skill of physicians involved in the procedure, we feel that only highly specialized centers should be allowed to perform this complex procedure.     

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.     

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.

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.     

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.     

Comparative outcomes of open,hybrid, and fenestrated branched endovascular repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveOpen repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) is associated with substantial morbidity. Alternative strategies, such as hybrid operations combining proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair with either staged open distal TAAA repair or visceral debranching (hybrid), as well as fenestrated/branched endografts (FEVAR), have been increasingly reported; however, benefits of these approaches compared with direct open surgery remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these three different strategies in the management of extent II/III TAAA.MethodsAll extent II/III TAAA repairs (2002-2018) for nonmycotic, degenerative aneurysm or chronic dissection at a single institution were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), complications, unplanned re-operation, 90-day readmission, and out-of-hospital survival. To mitigate impact of covariate imbalance and selection bias, intergroup comparisons were made using inverse probability weighted-propensity analysis. Cox regression was used to estimate survival while cumulative incidence was used to determine reoperation risk.ResultsOne hundred ninety-eight patients (FEVAR, 92; hybrid, 40; open, 66) underwent repair. In unadjusted analysis, compared with hybrid/open patients, FEVAR patients were significantly older with more cardiovascular risk factors, but less likely to have a connective tissue disorder or dissection-related indication. Unadjusted 30-day mortality and complication rates were: 30-day mortality, FEVAR 4%, hybrid 13%, open 12% (P = .01); and complications, FEVAR 36%, hybrid 33%, open 50% (P = .11). Permanent SCI was not different among groups (FEVAR 3%, hybrid 3%, open 6%; P = .64). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality risk was greater for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = .01) with no difference for hybrid vs open/FEVAR. There was significantly lower risk of any SCI for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.96; P = .04); however, no difference in risk of permanent SCI was detected among the three groups. There was no difference in complications or unplanned reoperation, but open patients had the greatest risk of unplanned 90-day readmission. There was a time-varying effect on survival probability, with open repair having a significant survival disadvantage in the first 1 to 6 months after the procedure compared with hybrid/FEVAR patients (Cox model P = .03), but no difference in survival at 1 and 5 years (1- and 5-year survival: FEVAR, 86 ± 3%, 55 ± 8%; hybrid, 86 ± 5%, 60 ± 11%; open 69 ± 7%, 59 ± 8%; Cox-model P = .10).ConclusionsExtent II/III TAAA repair, regardless of operative strategy, is associated with significant morbidity risk. FEVAR is associated with the lowest 30-day mortality risk compared with hybrid and open repair when estimates are adjusted for preoperative risk factors. These data support greater adoption of FEVAR as first-line therapy to treat complex TAAA disease in anatomically suitable patients who present electively.     

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.     

Intraoperative adverse events and early outcomes of custom-made fenestrated stent grafts and physician-modified stent grafts for complex aortic aneurysms

ObjectivePhysician-modified fenestrated stent grafts (PMSGs) are a useful option for urgent or semiurgent treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs). The aim of this study was to describe in-hospital outcomes of custom-made fenestrated stent grafts (CMSGs) and PMSGs for the treatment of CAAAs and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).MethodsIn this single-center, retrospective study, all consecutives patients with CAAAs or TAAAs undergoing endovascular repair using Zenith CMSGs (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) or PMSGs between January 2012 and November 2017 were included. End points were intraoperative adverse events, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, reinterventions, target vessel patency, and endoleaks.ResultsNinety-seven patients were included (CMSGs, n = 69; PMSGs, n = 28). The PMSG group included more patients assigned to American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 (n = 14 [50%] vs n = 16 [23%]; P = .006) and more TAAAs (n = 17 [61%] vs n = 10 [15%]; P < .0001). Intraoperative adverse events were recorded in eight (11%) patients in the CMSG group vs six (21%) patients in the PMSG group. No intraoperative death or open conversion occurred. In-hospital mortality rates were of 4% (n = 3) in the CMSG group and 14% in the PMSG group (n = 4). Chronic renal failure was an independent preoperative risk factor of postoperative death or complications (odds ratio, 4.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-14.43; P = .004). Rates of postoperative complications were 22% (n = 15) and 25% (n = 7) in the CMSG and PMSG groups. Spinal cord ischemia rates were 4% (n = 3) and 7% (n = 2) in the CMSG and PMSG groups. Reintervention rates were 16% (n = 11) in the CMSG group and 32% (n = 9) in the PMSG group. At discharge, target vessel patency rate in CMSGs was 98% (n = 207/210). All target vessels (n = 98) were patent in the PMSG group. Endoleaks at discharge were observed in 24% of the CMSG group (n = 16) vs 8% of the PMSG group (n = 2).ConclusionsOur study showed clinically relevant differences of several important in-hospital outcomes in the CMSG and PMSG groups. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to allow direct comparison. PMSGs may offer acceptable in-hospital results in patients requiring urgent interventions when CMSGs are not available or possible.     

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.     

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.     

腹主动脉瘤手术的麻醉

腹主动脉瘤(AAA)多发生于55岁以上男性,是一种严重的血管外科疾病。调查显示[1]男性和女性发病率分别为8.9%和2.2%,破裂后死亡率高达50%~80%,手术是惟一有效的治疗手段。由于AAA患者常合并心、脑、肾、肺等多种疾病,加之手术复杂、创伤较大,麻醉风险大,易出现各种意外。1 AAA相     

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.     

我国腹主动脉瘤腔内修复技术发展现状和展望

近30年来,我国的主动脉腔内修复手术(EVAR)技术发展迅速,凭借其创伤小、恢复快、严重并发症少等优势在腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的手术治疗中得到了广泛应用.随着各类新型技术和支架等耗材的不断出现,诸多解剖条件复杂的AAA不再是EVAR的禁忌证.EVAR未来发展离不开临床医学、基础医学、材料科学、生物工程、3D打印甚至人工智...     

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.