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.     

Comparison of midterm results of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured and elective abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed.ResultsThe study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P = .16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P = .001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P < .001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P = .21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P = .81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P = .345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P = .004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P < .001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P = .16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P = .30).ConclusionsDurable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated outside the IFU are at greater risk for late complications. Surveillance protocols may be tailored according to individual anatomy and IFU compliance rather than timing of repair.     

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 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.     

Cloud-based fusion imaging improves operative metrics during fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveEndovascular treatment of complex aortic pathology has been associated with increases in procedural-related metrics, including the operative time and radiation exposure. Three-dimensional fusion imaging technology has decreased the radiation dose and iodinated contrast use during endovascular aneurysm repair. The aim of the present study was to report our institutional experience with the use of a cloud-based fusion imaging platform during fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR).MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained aortic database was performed to identify all patients who had undergone FEVAR with commercially available devices (Zenith Fenestrated; Cook Medical Inc, Bloomington, IN) between 2013 and 2020 and all endovascular aneurysm repairs performed using Cydar EV Intelligent Maps (Cydar Medical, Cambridge, UK). The Cydar EV cohort was reviewed further to select all FEVARs performed with overlay map guidance. The patient demographic, clinical, and procedure metrics were analyzed, with a comparative analysis of FEVAR performed without and with the Cydar EV imaging platform. Patients were excluded from comparative analysis if the data were incomplete in the dataset or they had a documented history of prior open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.ResultsDuring the 7-year study period, 191 FEVARs had been performed. The Cydar EV imaging platform was implemented in 2018 and used in 124 complex endovascular aneurysm repairs, including 69 consecutive FEVARs. A complete dataset was available for 137 FEVARs. With exclusion to select for de novo FEVAR, a comparative analysis was performed of 53 FEVAR without and 63 with Cydar EV imaging guidance. The cohorts were similar in patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and aortic aneurysm characteristics. No significant difference was noted between the two groups for major adverse postoperative events, length of stay, or length of intensive care unit stay. The use of Cydar EV resulted in nonsignificant decreases in the mean fluoroscopy time (69.3 ± 28 minutes vs 66.2 ± 33 minutes; P = .598) and operative time (204.4 ± 64 minutes vs 186 ± 105 minutes; P = .278). A statistically significant decrease was found in the iodinated contrast volume (105 ± 44 mL vs 83 ± 32 mL; P = .005), patient radiation exposure using the dose area product (1,049,841 mGy/cm² vs 630,990 mGy/cm²; P < .001) and cumulative air kerma levels (4518 mGy vs 3084 mGy; P = .02) for patients undergoing FEVAR with Cydar EV guidance.ConclusionsAt our aortic center, we have observed a trend toward shorter operative times and significant reductions in both iodinated contrast use and radiation exposure during FEVAR using the Cydar EV intelligent maps. Intelligent map guidance improved the efficiency of complex endovascular aneurysm repair, providing a safer intervention for both patient and practitioner.     

Transabdominal open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with higher rates of late reintervention and readmission compared with the retroperitoneal approach

ObjectiveLimited data exist comparing the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches to open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, especially late mortality and laparotomy-related reinterventions and readmissions. Therefore, we compared long-term rates of mortality, reintervention, and readmission after open AAA repair through a transabdominal compared with a retroperitoneal approach.MethodsWe identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) undergoing open AAA repair from 2003 to 2015. Patients with rupture or supraceliac clamp were excluded. We used the VQI linkage to Medicare to ascertain rates of long-term outcomes, including rates of AAA-related and laparotomy-related (ie, hernia, bowel obstruction) reinterventions and readmissions. We used multivariable Cox regression to account for differences in comorbidities, aneurysm details, and operative characteristics.ResultsWe identified 1282 patients in the VQI with linkage to Medicare data, 914 (71%) who underwent a transperitoneal approach and 368 (29%) who underwent a retroperitoneal approach. Patients who underwent a retroperitoneal approach were slightly more likely to have preoperative renal insufficiency but were otherwise similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities. They more often had a clamp above at least one renal artery (61% vs 36%; P < .001) and underwent concomitant renal revascularization (9.5% vs 4.3%; P < .001). Patients who underwent a transabdominal approach more often presented with symptoms (14% vs 9.0%; P < .01) and had a femoral distal anastomosis (15% vs 7.1%; P < .001). There was no difference in 5-year survival (62% vs 61%; log-rank, P = .51). However, patients who underwent a transabdominal approach experienced higher rates of repair-related reinterventions and readmissions (5-year: 42% vs 34%; log-rank, P < .01), even after adjustment for demographic and operative differences (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9; P < .01).ConclusionsA transabdominal exposure for AAA repair is associated with higher rates of late reintervention and readmission than with the retroperitoneal approach, which should be considered when possible in operative decision-making.     

Simple renal cyst and its association with sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectivePatients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) frequently have simple renal cyst (SRC), a common manifestation of connective tissue degeneration. This study aimed to determine whether SRC is a risk factor for failure of sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsBetween October 2013 and May 2017, there were 155 consecutive patients with an infrarenal AAA or a common iliac artery aneurysm who underwent EVAR with the GORE C3 Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) at Tokyo Medical University Hospital. All these patients were registered in a prospectively maintained database. Any kidney lesion >5 mm in diameter, with no evidence of contrast enhancement or septation and with low attenuation, was defined as SRC. A change in sac size of >5 mm from baseline was considered significant. The patients were divided into those with SRC and those without SRC, and sac shrinkage at 1 year and 2 years was compared. The presence of SRC was assessed with respect to being a risk factor for failure of sac shrinkage at 1 year using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe patients were divided into two groups: those with SRC (92 patients [59.0%]) and those without SRC (63 patients [41.0%]). At 1 year and 2 years, significant differences were observed in the proportion of sac shrinkage between patients with SRC and those without SRC (19.2% vs 42.4% [P = .003] and 19.6% vs 53.3% [P = .001], respectively). Patients with SRC showed significantly less sac shrinkage than those without SRC at 1 year and 2 years (−2.0 ± 5.5 mm vs −4.4 ± 6.2 mm [P = .002] and −1.8 ± 6.3 mm vs −6.4 ± 8.6 mm [P = .005], respectively). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that SRC (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.63; P = .002) and initial sac size (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09; P = .027) were positive and negative risk factors for sac shrinkage, respectively.ConclusionsThe presence of SRC is a risk factor for failure of sac shrinkage after EVAR. This suggests that AAA in patients with SRC has a more degenerated wall than in those without SRC. The property of the aneurysm wall may be associated with sac shrinkage after EVAR.     

Patients with large neck diameter have a higher risk of type IA endoleaks and aneurysm rupture after standard endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective

Standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the most common treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). EVAR has been increasingly used in patients with hostile neck features. This study investigated the outcomes of EVAR in patients with neck diameters ≥30 mm in the prospectively maintained Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE).

Visceral stent patency after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair using bare-metal stent extensions versus covered stents only

ObjectiveFenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is an alternative to treat complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. Patency of visceral vessels remains high when covered stents are used. The use of distal uncovered stents to prevent kinking has been associated with loss of branch patency. The aim of this study was to evaluate branch-related outcomes of FEVAR using covered stents only vs the use of uncovered stents distal to covered stents.MethodsDuring a 4-year period, 142 patients underwent FEVAR. Patients with suprarenal, juxtarenal, and type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were included. Patients treated with side branch devices were excluded. Covered iCAST (Maquet, Hudson, NH) stents were used as bridging stents in all cases. The primary end point was primary patency, defined as the absence of stenosis or occlusion that required intervention. Secondary end points included secondary patency, branch-related outcomes (kidney injury and gastrointestinal complications), branch instability, and mortality rates.ResultsA total of 442 target vessels were incorporated (49 scallops and 393 fenestrations). Uncovered stents were used in 38 (9.6%) visceral vessels. Median follow-up time was 11 (interquartile range, 6-13) months. Overall, visceral vessel primary patency was 91% at 12 and 24 months. The overall primary patency rate was 86% in the distal extension group vs 93% when only covered stents were used at 12 and 24 months (P = .8). Similarly, the rate of branch-related reinterventions at 12 months was 9% and 15% for each group, respectively, and 22% vs 32% at 24 months, respectively (P = .5). Overall, freedom from branch instability was 87% at 12 months and 81% at 24 months. Freedom from branch instability in the distal extension group was 82% at 12 and 24 months vs 89% at 12 months and 81% at 24 months when only covered stents were used (P =. 08). Mortality rate at 24 months was 15% for the bare-metal stent extension group vs 14% for the covered stent only group (P = .4). We found no statistical difference in acute kidney injury at any Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage (P = 1.0) or gastrointestinal complications (P = 1.0) between the groups.ConclusionsThe use of distal uncovered stents to prevent kinks was not associated with decreased early branch patency. The long-term outcomes of bare-metal stents remain to be determined. For now, the use of uncovered stents distal to covered stents may be considered to prevent kinks in complex anatomy.     

Anatomic predictors for late mortality after standard endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management involves a decision process that takes into account anatomic characteristics, surgical risks, patients' preferences, and expected survival. Whereas larger AAA diameter has been associated with increased mortality after both standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair, it is unclear whether survival after EVAR is influenced by other anatomic characteristics. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of baseline anatomic features on survival after EVAR.MethodsAll patients treated at a tertiary teaching center with EVAR for intact standard infrarenal AAA from 2000 to 2014 were included. The civil data registry was queried to determine survival status; causes of death were obtained from death certificates. The primary study end point was to determine the impact of baseline morphologic features on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after EVAR.ResultsThis study included 404 EVAR patients (12.1% women; mean age, 73 years) with a median follow-up of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 3.1-7.4 years). The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates for the entire population after EVAR were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66%-75%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-50%), respectively. Only AAA diameter >70 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.20-3.56) was identified as an independent anatomic predictor of all-cause mortality. Death due to cardiovascular causes occurred in 60 (38.5%) patients. Aneurysm-related mortality was responsible for six of the cardiovascular-related deaths. In multivariable analysis, both neck diameter ≥30 mm (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.05-4.43) and AAA diameter >70 mm (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.34-4.46) were identified as independent morphologic risk factors for cardiovascular mortality, whereas >25% circumferential neck thrombus (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) was protective.ConclusionsThis study suggests that patients with AAA diameters >70 mm are at increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In addition, patients with infrarenal neck diameters ≥30 mm have a greater risk of cardiovascular mortality, although AAA-related deaths were not more frequent in this group of patients. Consequently, a more aggressive management of cardiovascular medical comorbidities may be warranted to improve survival after standard EVAR in these patients.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

ObjectiveWomen face distinctive challenges when they receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment, and according to the previous studies, sex differences in outcomes after EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between women and men after EVAR for infrarenal AAA.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies reporting sex differences after EVAR for infrarenal AAA, which were retrieved from the MEDICINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database. The pooled results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and hazard ratios for time-to-event data using a random effect model.ResultsThirty-six cohorts were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that women were associated with a significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality (crude OR, 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-1.87; P < .001; adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.32-2.26; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.43-2.53; P < .001), limb ischemia (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.73-2.43; P < .001), renal complications (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.67; P = .028), cardiac complications (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.80; P = .046), and long-term all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.38; P = .001) compared with men; however, no significant sex difference was observed for visceral/mesenteric ischemia (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.91-2.88; P = .098), 30-day reinterventions (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.95-1.98; P = .095), late endoleaks (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.88-1.56; P = .264), and late reinterventions (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78-1.41; P = .741). In the intact AAA subgroup, women had a significantly increased risk of visceral/mesenteric ischemia (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.01-3.39; P = .046) and an equivalent risk of cardiac complications (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.85-3.17; P = .138) compared with men.ConclusionsCompared with male sex, female sex is associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, limb ischemia, renal complications, cardiac complications, and long-term all-cause mortality after EVAR for infrarenal AAA. Women should be enrolled in a strict and regular long-term surveillance after EVAR.     

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.     

Mortality analysis of endovascular aneurysm sealing versus endovascular aneurysm repair

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

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.     

Nationwide comparison of long-term survival and cardiovascular morbidity after acute aortic aneurysm repair in patients with and without type 2 diabetes

ObjectiveEpidemiologic data indicate decreased risk for development, growth, and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). We therefore evaluated mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after acute repair of AAA in diabetic and nondiabetic patients.MethodsIn this nationwide observational cohort study of patients registered in the Swedish Vascular Registry and the Swedish National Diabetes Register, we compared mortality and morbidity after acute open (n = 1357 [61%]) or endovascular (n = 860 [39%]) repair of ruptured (n = 1469 [66%]) or otherwise symptomatic (n = 748 [34%]) AAAs in 363 patients with and 1854 patients without DM with propensity score-adjusted analysis.ResultsFollow-up was 3.91 years for patients with DM and 3.18 years for those without. In propensity-adjusted analysis, diabetic patients showed lower total mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.95; P = .016) and cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50; P = .01) than those without DM, whereas there were no differences in rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42; P = .42), acute myocardial infarction (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.70-2.63; P = .37), or stroke (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.84-2.03; P = .23).ConclusionsPatients with type 2 DM had lower rates of both total and cardiovascular mortality after acute AAA repair than those without DM, whereas rates of cardiovascular events, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke did not differ between groups. This might be explained by putative protective effects of DM on the aortic wall.     

Sex differences in perioperative outcomes after complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveFemale sex is associated with worse outcomes after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. However, the impact of female sex on complex AAA repair is poorly characterized. Therefore, we compared outcomes between female and male patients after open and endovascular treatment of complex AAA.MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent complex aneurysm repair between 2011 and 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module. Complex repairs were defined as those for juxtarenal, pararenal, or suprarenal aneurysms. We compared rates of perioperative adverse events between female and male patients stratified by open AAA repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted logistic regression to identify independent associations between female sex and our outcomes.ResultsWe identified 2270 complex aneurysm repairs, of which 1260 were EVARs (21.4% female) and 1010 were open repairs (30.7% female). After EVAR, female patients had higher rates of perioperative mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .001) and major complications (15.9% vs 7.6%; P < .001) compared with male patients. In contrast, after open repair, perioperative mortality was not significantly different (7.4% vs 5.6%; P = .3), and the rate of major complications was similar (29.4% vs 27.4%; P = .53) between female and male patients. Furthermore, even though perioperative mortality was significantly lower after EVAR compared with open repair for male patients (2.4% vs 5.6%; P = .001), this difference was not significant for women (6.3% vs 7.4%; P = .60). On multivariable analysis, female sex remained independently associated with higher perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.9; P = .007) and major complications (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.2; P = .002) in patients treated with EVAR but showed no significant association with mortality (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6; P = .69) or major complications (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5; P = .74) after open repair. However, the association of female sex with higher perioperative mortality in patients undergoing complex EVAR was attenuated when diameter was replaced with aortic size index in the multivariable analysis (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .091).ConclusionsFemale sex is associated with higher perioperative mortality and more major complications than for male patients after complex EVAR but not after complex open repair. Continuous efforts are warranted to improve the sex discrepancies in patients undergoing endovascular repair of complex AAA.     

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.     

Long-term results after standard endovascular aneurysm repair with the Endurant and Excluder stent grafts

ObjectiveMany endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts.MethodsPatients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points.ResultsThe study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (β-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39).ConclusionsThis study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.     

Female sex is associated with comparable 5-year outcomes after contemporary endovascular aneurysm repair despite more challenging anatomy

BackgroundWomen with abdominal aortic aneurysms less often meet anatomic criteria for endovascular repair and experience worse perioperative and long-term survival.MethodsWe compared long-term survival, aneurysm-related mortality, and rates of endoleaks and reinterventions between male and female patients in the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE) using 2:1 propensity score matching.ResultsThere were 1130 male patients and 133 female patients, yielding 399 patients after matching (266 male patients, 133 female patients). Female patients were older, with smaller aneurysms, smaller iliac arteries, and shorter, more angulated necks, and they were more often treated outside the device instructions for use (all P < .001). Through 5 years, female patients experienced overall mortality comparable to that of well-matched male patients (34% vs 38%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89 [0.61-1.29]; P = .54) and lower aneurysm-related mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .047). Female patients experienced higher rates of any postoperative type IA endoleak through 5 years (10% vs 1%; P < .001) but comparable rates of secondary endovascular procedures (14% vs 16%; P = .40). Female sex was independently associated with significantly higher risk of long-term type IA endoleaks (hazard ratio, 4.8 [1.2-20.8]; P = .04), even after accounting for anatomic factors. No female patient experienced aneurysm rupture during follow-up, and only one female patient underwent conversion to open repair.ConclusionsDespite more challenging anatomy, female patients in the ENGAGE registry had long-term outcomes comparable to those of male patients. However, female patients experienced higher rates of type IA endoleaks. Although standard endovascular aneurysm repair remains a viable solution for most women, whether high-risk patients may be better served with open surgery, custom-made devices, EndoAnchors (Aptus Endosystems, Sunnyvale, Calif), or chimneys is worthy of further study.     

Midterm outcome of renal function after branched thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and impact of acute and chronic kidney dysfunction after branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (BEVAR) perioperatively and during follow-up.MethodsPatients with a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm were treated with BEVAR. Serum creatinine; estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, after 48 hours, at discharge, and after 1 and two years; perioperative results; and outcome during follow-up were evaluated.ResultsTreatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm using BEVAR was performed in 113 patients (mean age, 71 years; 79 male) with 434 side branches and two additional fenestrations (0.46%) for renovisceral perfusion. Sixty patients (53%) underwent staged procedures with temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and secondary side branch completion. Perioperative mortality was 9 of 113 (8%). Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) was observed in 41 of 113 patients (36%) with recovery of renal function after 2 years in most patients. However, chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage progression after 1 and 2 years was observed in 25 of 104 patients (24%) and 17 of 52 patients (32.7%), respectively. Seven patients (6.7%) required permanent dialysis during 2 years of follow-up. Risk factors for AKI were nonstaged procedures (P = .02) and multiorgan failure (P = .01). CKD progression was related to renal branch reinterventions (P = .047), all branch reinterventions (P = .03), and postoperative AKI (P = .001). During follow-up, survival was decreased in patients with AKI, especially in those with nonmalignant diseases (P = .01).ConclusionsPostoperative AKI after BEVAR was observed in about one-third of patients associated with increased CKD stages after 2 years. Preoperative CKD was not a risk factor for postoperative AKI or perioperative outcome. The prevention of AKI by staged procedures, early interventions for renal side branch complications, and regular surveillance is recommended to improve outcomes.