Outcomes of secondary interventions after abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair

PURPOSE: We assessed the distribution of secondary interventions after aortic stent grafting (EVAR) performed to treat infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and evaluated clinical success and survival in patients who underwent a secondary procedure (group 2) compared with patients who did not undergo a secondary procedure (group 1). METHODS: Two hundred fifty patients (mean age, 71.3 years) with asymptomatic AAAs (mean aneurysm diameter, 54.5 mm) underwent treatment with commercially available stent grafts. Mean follow-up was 28 months (median, 25 months). Secondary procedures were defined as any additional procedures performed after initial graft placement to treat endoleak, migration, kinking, stenosis, or occlusion. Overall clinical success was defined according to reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Association for Vascular Surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (27%) required 112 secondary procedures, with a mean time from initial graft placement of 18.2 months. Patients who received grafts since removed from the market required more secondary procedures (59%, procedure:patient ratio) compared with patients who received devices still on the market (21%; P =.001). Thirty-six patients (53%) required a single secondary procedure, 24 patients (35%) required two procedures, 5 patients (10%) required three procedures, 2 patients (3%) required four procedures, and 1 patient required five secondary procedures. Ninety-eight procedures (87%) were performed with endovascular methods, including placement of 42 additional covered stent grafts (36 iliac, 6 aortic), with a success rate of 85%; 35 embolization procedures (21 lumbar, 9 internal iliac artery, 5 mesenteric), with only 23 (65%) successful; 14 angioplasty procedures, with 85% successful; 4 thrombolysis procedures, 2 of them successful (50%); and 3 successfully placed new endografts within a previous endovascular graft. Surgical secondary operations included nine femorofemoral bypass procedures and three femoral thromboendarterectomies, all of which remain patent; one cerclage of an external iliac limb; and one laparoscopic repair of a type II endoleak, which was successful. Overall clinical success rate for EVAR was 84% (211 of 250) in this series. Clinical success rate in groups 1 and 2 was 91% (166 of 182) versus 66% (45 of 68; P =.001) if all endoleaks on the most recent computed tomography scans are taken into account, and 94% (171 of 182) versus 76% (52 of 68; P =.001) if type II endoleak without aneurysm growth is not considered failure. The survival rate and rupture-free survival in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively, 97.7% +/- 1.0% and 98.5% +/- 1.4% at 1 month, 95.9% +/- 1.5% and 96.9% +/- 2.1% at 6 months, 94.4% +/- 2.0% and 93.2% +/- 3.4% at 1 year, and 80.8% +/- 5.2% and 88.5% +/- 5.0% at 3 years (P =.273, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: With close follow-up and a significant number of secondary operations, this 8-year experience has not included any aneurysm ruptures to date. Secondary operations did not lead to increased mortality, but were associated with more surgical conversions and with a higher clinical failure rate.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

In treating uncomplicated abdominal aortic aenurysm, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been employed as a good alternative to open repair with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, the aneurysm can enlarge or rupture even after EVAR as a result of device failure, endoleak, or graft migration. We experienced two cases of aneurismal rupture after EVAR, which were successfully treated by surgical extra-anatomic bypass.     

Secondary procedures after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, distribution, and indications of secondary procedures after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EAR). METHODS: At a single institution, 179 patients underwent EAR with four different endografts (AneuRx, n = 117; Zenith, n = 49; Ancure, n = 12; and Talent, n = 1). The vascular section database was queried for patients who needed secondary procedures after the original EAR. The mean time from EAR to the termination of the study was 27.0 +/- 16.7 months. Type I or III endoleaks were treated aggressively. Type II endoleaks were treated only in the presence of aneurysm expansion. RESULTS: Thirty-five (35/179; 19.6%) secondary procedures were performed in 32 patients. Indications for secondary procedures included 14 limb occlusions or stenoses (40.0%), 13 endoleaks (37.1%), six endograft migrations (17.1%), one delayed aneurysm rupture (2.8%), and one device malfunction (2.8%). Seven of the 10 early (<90 days) limb failures (70%) occurred within the first 60 patients. At that time, a protocol with aggressive external iliac artery evaluation was adopted. In the next 125 patients, the rate of early limb occlusion or stenosis was 2.4% (P =.025, with Fisher exact test). Distribution of secondary procedures included 23 endoluminal interventions (65.7%; angioplasty +/- stent placement, thrombolysis, endocuff placement, embolization), eight traditional peripheral procedures (22.9%; femoral-femoral bypass, thrombectomy), two laparoscopic interventions (5.7%; inferior mesenteric artery ligation), and two laparotomies (5.7%; delayed conversions). Interventions for limb occlusion or stenosis occurred earliest (3.5 +/- 5.4 months; P <.05, with analysis of variance), followed by treatment of endoleaks (14.3 +/- 12.9 months) and migration (27.5 +/- 10.4 months). The one delayed rupture occurred at 15.3 months. CONCLUSION: Secondary procedures after EAR are common. Reinterventions can be grouped temporally on the basis of indication. Treatment for limb ischemia is predominately early (>/=3 months), whereas treatment for endoleaks occurs at approximately 1 year and interventions for migration predominate after 2 years.     

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to present the experience with aneurysm rupture after deployment of Guidant/EVT (Guidant) endografts and review previously reported cases with other devices. METHODS: Records from Guidant/EVT clinical trials and postmarket approval databases from February 1993 to August 2000 were analyzed to identify patients with rupture and to extract pertinent data. Previously reported cases were obtained with a Medline search. RESULTS: Seven ruptures were found with Guidant/EVT devices. Five of these occurred among the 686 patients in US Food and Drug Administration protocols (group I) who were followed for a mean of 41.8 +/- 21.9 months and limited to the subgroup of 93 first generation tube endografts. Two ruptures occurred in group II (3260 patients after market approval with limited follow-up), specifically in the subgroup of 166 patients who underwent treatment with second generation tube grafts. No ruptures were found in patients with bifurcation or unilateral iliac implants followed for a mean of 37.5 months. All ruptures were caused by distal aortic type I endoleaks on the basis of attachment system fractures (first generation devices only), aortic neck dilatations, persistent primary endoleaks, migration, overlooked imaging abnormalities, refused reintervention, and poor patient selection. The mortality rate was 57% (4/7) overall and was 50% for surgical repair (3/6). A literature search identified 40 additional ruptures related to other devices, for a total of 47. All 44 that were documented with adequate data were caused by endoleaks (26 type I, 2 type II, 11 type III, and 5 source not reported). Other contributing factors were graft module separation and graft wall deterioration. The overall mortality rate for the combined series was 50%, with an operative mortality rate of 41%. CONCLUSION: Postendograft AAA rupture is infrequent, although the true incidence rate is unclear because of inadequate follow-up of individual device designs. Tube endografts should be limited to the rare patient with ideal anatomy, no other alternatives, and at high risk for standard open repair. Prevention of aneurysm rupture requires long-term surveillance with attention to subtle imaging abnormalities and the establishment of reliable follow-up protocols for specific devices. The outcome of postendograft aneurysm rupture is similar to that of rupture without prior endograft therapy.     

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.     

Morbidity with retroperitoneal procedures during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal iliac procedures can enable successful endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in patients who otherwise would not be anatomically eligible. The purpose of this study was to determine perioperative outcome with adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures compared with standard bilateral femoral exposure. METHODS: Between August 1997 and November 2002, 164 patients underwent elective endovascular AAA repair at a single university medical center. Anatomic, demographic, and early postoperative outcome data gathered prospectively were analyzed. Thirty-two patients (20%) underwent 38 separate adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures. Indications included small external iliac arteries (16 of 32 patients; 50%) and concomitant iliac aneurysm that precluded fixation of the endograft limbs in the common iliac arteries (16 of 32 patients; 50%). The 38 procedures consisted of 8 iliac conduits only, 14 iliac conduits with iliofemoral bypass grafts, and 16 hypogastric revascularization procedures. Data for the study patients were compared with data for 132 patients who underwent endovascular AAA repair through femoral incisions. Primary end points were hospital length of stay, and early morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Retroperitoneal procedures enabled an additional 14% of patients with AAA to undergo endovascular techniques. However, there was a significantly higher proportion of women and patients at high risk for anesthesia (American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV or higher) in the group who underwent retroperitoneal procedures. On average, retroperitoneal procedures were associated with 2.6-fold greater blood loss, 82% longer procedure time, 1.5 days additional hospital stay, and 1.8-fold higher rate of perioperative complications, compared with endovascular AAA repair with femoral exposure alone. In contrast, early mortality was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive retroperitoneal procedures during endovascular AAA repair are associated with increased risk for complications and longer hospital length of stay, compared with AAA repair with standard femoral exposure only. They do not, however, increase early mortality, even in patients at high risk, and enable a larger subset of patients with AAA to undergo endovascular repair.     

Ischemic complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES: Limb and pelvic ischemia are known complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). The objective of this paper is to present our experience with the incidence, presentation, and management of such complications. METHODS: Over 9 years 311 patients with aortic aneurysms underwent EVAR. A retrospective review identified 28 patients (9.0%) with ischemic complications. RESULTS: Among 28 patients with ischemic complications, 21 had lower extremity ischemia and 7 had pelvic ischemia: colon (n = 4), buttock (n = 2), and spinal cord (n = 2). Of the 21 patients with lower extremity ischemia, 15 had limb occlusions (71.4%), 3 due to embolization (14.7%) and 3 the result of common femoral artery thromboses (14.7%). Limb occlusions were manifested as severe acute arterial ischemia (n = 6), rest pain (n = 3), intermittent claudication (n = 5), and decreased femoral pulse (n = 1). Limb occlusions were managed with thrombectomy and stent placement (n = 4), femorofemoral bypass (n = 7), eventual explantation because of persistent endoleak (n = 1), and expectant management (n = 3). The 3 patients with occlusions managed expectantly all had intermittent claudication, which has subsequently improved. In the 6 patients with lower extremity ischemia due to embolization or common femoral artery injury presentation was acute, and embolectomy was performed, followed by femoral artery endarterectomy and patch angioplasty or placement of an interposition graft. One patient who had a prolonged postoperative course including cardiac arrest subsequently required distal bypass and ultimately above- knee amputation. Among the 7 patients with pelvic ischemia, 2 patients had unilateral hypogastric artery embolization before the original surgery. Among the patients with colonic ischemia, 3 were seen immediately postoperatively, and required colectomy and colostomy. Two patients who required urgent colectomy subsequently had multiple organ failure, and died in the perioperative period. One patient had abdominal pain 1 week after surgery, which was managed with bowel rest, with subsequent improvement. In 2 patients spinal cord ischemia developed immediately after surgery, which resulted in persistent paraplegia. Buttock ischemia developed in 2 patients, 1 of whom required fasciotomy because of gluteal compartment syndrome, and had transient renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic complications are not uncommon after EVAR, and may exceed the incidence with open surgical repair. Limb ischemia is most often a result of limb occlusion, and can be successfully managed with standard interventions. Pelvic ischemia often results from atheroembolization despite preservation of hypogastric arterial circulation. Colonic and spinal ischemia are associated with the highest morbidity and mortality.     

Late rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare findings at presentation and surgical outcomes in patients in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) ruptured after endovascular repair and in patients in whom AAAs ruptured before any treatment during a defined period at a single center.

Renal transplantation after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

An increasing number of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) occur in renal failure patients because of strong association between atherosclerosis and chronic kidney disease. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has proven to be an effective modality to treat AAA, particularly in patients with renal disease, because of its several advantages over the standard open procedure, including lower morbidity, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. A Medline search showed a single publication on renal transplantation (RT) following EVAR of AAA. In this context, we report our case of successful RT in a patient who had undergone EVAR 2 years prior for a 5.7-cm AAA. No stent-related complications, such as graft occlusion, dislodgement, dissection, or endoleak, were observed in the perioperative period. The transplanted kidney had primary function leading to a stable serum creatinine of 115 micromol/L at 6 months. Although the long-term outcome of RT after endovascular repair of AAA remains unknown, currently available evidence shows favorable outcomes of EVAR in the normal population, in patients with renal diseases, and in RT recipients; hence, RT should not be denied to renal failure patients who have undergone EVAR in the past.     

Endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the role of endovascular techniques in the management of perigraft flow (endoleak) after endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHOD: We performed endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 114 patients, using a variety of Gianturco Z-stent-based prostheses. Results were evaluated with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and every year after the operation. An endoleak that occurred 3 days after operation led to repeat CT scanning at 2 weeks, followed by angiography and attempted endovascular treatment. RESULTS: Endoleak was seen on the first postoperative CT scan in 21 (18%) patients and was still present at 2 weeks in 14 (12%). On the basis of angiographic localization of the inflow, the endoleak was pure type I in 3 cases, pure type II in 9, and mixed-pattern in 2. Of the 5 type I endoleaks, 3 were proximal and 2 were distal. All five resolved after endovascular implantation of additional stent-grafts, stents, and embolization coils. Although inferior mesenteric artery embolization was successful in 6 of 7 cases and lumbar embolization was successful in 4 of 7, only 1 of 11 primary type II endoleaks was shown to be resolved on CT scanning. There were no type III or type IV endoleaks (through the stent-graft). Endoleak was associated with aneurysm dilation two cases. In both cases, the aneurysm diameter stabilized after coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery. There were two secondary (delayed) endoleaks; one type I and one type II. The secondary type I endoleak and the associated aneurysm rupture were treated by use of an additional stent-graft. The secondary type II endoleak was not treated. CONCLUSIONS: Type I endoleaks represent a persistent risk of aneurysm rupture and should be treated promptly by endovascular means. Type II leaks are less dangerous and more difficult to treat, but coil embolization of feeding arteries may be warranted when leakage is associated with aneurysm enlargement.     

Delayed paraplegia after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Paraplegia is rare after open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, and only two cases have been reported after endovascular repair, both due to atheroembolism. Incidence of renal failure after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) in patients with normal preoperative renal function is about 8.7%, but is much higher in those with preexisting renal impairment, possibly because of administration of nephrotoxic contrast media during EVAR. We report a case in which contrast medium-induced acute renal failure is believed to have led to delayed paraplegia after EVAR.     

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy after endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm

INTRODUCTIONMost gastroenterological surgeries, even pancreatic surgery, can now be performed laparoscopically. However, the management of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and intra-abdominal malignancy is controversial. The performance of endovascular repair (EVAR) for AAA has been increasing; however, there is no report of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy after EVAR.PRESENTATION OF CASEA pancreatic tumor was detected during follow-up after EVAR for AAA. The enlarging tumor was diagnosed as an intraductal papillary mucinous tumor with a nodule. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy was safely performed. After laparoscopic dissection around the pancreas head, an additional incision was made in the upper abdomen, and pancreatic reconstruction was performed through the incision. In spite of grade B pancreatic fistulae, the patient recovered with medical therapy. The pathological diagnosis was intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma with small foci of carcinoma in situ. The patient has been well with neither recurrence of the tumor nor any cardiovascular events for 18 months.DISCUSSIONThe management of concomitant malignancy and AAA is challenging, especially in patients with a pancreatic tumor. The reasons for the rarity of treatment include prognosis, anatomical vicinity, and postoperative complications. EVAR reduces retroperitoneal adhesions. A laparoscopic approach provides a small operative field and decreases mutual interference with AAA. Moreover, reconstruction is performed through an upper abdominal incision apart from the AAA. Hand-sewing provides more reliable stability of the anastomosis.CONCLUSIONThe increasing frequency of performance of EVAR for AAA and subsequent computed tomography may help to detect malignancy. Laparoscopic surgery appears to be a valid approach to malignancy after EVAR.     

Changes in aneurysm volume after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define changes in aneurysm volume after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A total of 154 consecutive patients who underwent endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with the Medtronic AneuRx stent graft at Stanford University Hospital were evaluated. During a mean follow-up period of 15.8 +/- 11.3 months, serial computerized measurements of aneurysm volume and orthogonal maximal diameter were performed on helical computed tomographic scan data sets and maximal transverse diameter was measured manually from transverse computed tomographic images. Aortoiliac length (renal to hypogastric artery origin) was measured along the median luminal centerline and along the straight line. RESULTS: Aneurysm volume increased immediately after endovascular repair (from 180.2 +/- 69.9 mL to 187.9 +/- 71.6 mL; P <.001), but orthogonal and transverse diameter and aortoiliac length did not change significantly. During the follow-up period, mean volume decreased to 171.9 +/- 70.2 mL (P <.05) and straight-line and centerline aortoiliac length remained unchanged from preoperative values. Overall, volume decreased at a rate of 1.7 +/- 5.9 mL/mo (P <.001). During periods without endoleak, the rate of decrease was 3.2 +/- 5.5 mL/mo (P <.001), and during periods with endoleak, aneurysm volume increased at a rate of 2.0 +/- 5.3 mL/mo (P <.005), without a difference between types of endoleak. Predictive values for the presence of endoleak were similar for transverse and orthogonal diameter and volume. Logistic regression analysis showed volume to be most closely associated with the presence of endoleak. CONCLUSION: Aneurysm volume increases immediately after endovascular repair. After repair, aneurysm volume gradually decreases and aortoiliac length remains unchanged. Changes in volume parallel changes in maximal aneurysm diameter, and their association with the presence of an endoleak does not appear to be appreciably stronger.     

Suprarenal stent perforation after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

A 66-year-old man with an abdominal aortic aneurysm previously repaired with an endovascular stent graft presented to our facility with worsening midabdominal and back pain. Previous postoperative surveillance computed tomography scans were unremarkable, showing excellent stent-wall apposition and a shrinking aneurysm sac; however, imaging done on his arrival identified a contained rupture at the level of the celiac artery containing a perforating suprarenal stent. We repaired this rupture with a surgeon-modified fenestrated stent graft. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of penetration of the native aorta by a suprarenal stent in the absence of infection or trauma.     

Delayed neurologic deficit after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Paraplegia or paraparesis secondary to spinal cord ischemia is an extremely rare complication after elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. We report delayed paraparesis after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in which one hypogastric artery was unintentionally occluded due to atheroembolism. A spinal catheter was immediately inserted after onset of paraplegia to promote cerebrospinal fluid drainage, which partially reversed the neurologic deficit. Our case underscores both the importance of the critical spinal collateral supply from the hypogastric artery and the role of spinal fluid drainage to maximize spinal cord perfusion in the setting of spinal cord ischemia.     

Delayed aortic aneurysm enlargement due to endotension after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) enlarges after successful endovascular repair, because of persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac, or endoleak. In the absence of detectable endoleak, AAA may still expand, in part because of persistent pressurization within the excluded aneurysm, or endotension. We report three patients who underwent successful endovascular AAA repair in whom postoperative surveillance showed aneurysm regression, yet delayed AAA enlargement without demonstrable endoleak developed in all three patients. Endotension was confirmed in all three patients at elective open conversion. Our study underscores the significance of endotension as a mechanism of delayed aneurysm enlargement after successful endovascular AAA repair.