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BackgroundThe use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.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.     

Acute renal failure after endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an increasingly used alternative to open surgical repair of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The effect of EVAR on postprocedure acute renal failure has not been determined. We hypothesized that EVAR would be associated with a lower risk of acute renal failure and acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of the 2002 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States, reflecting discharges from a representative sample of United States hospitals. We identified 6614 discharges with a primary diagnosis of unruptured AAA and a primary procedure code for open AAA repair or EVAR. We excluded 56 patients with end-stage renal disease and 42 patients who underwent concomitant aortorenal bypass. We compared EVAR vs open repair in this cohort. The main outcome measures were acute renal failure and acute renal failure requiring dialysis. RESULTS: A total of 6516 patient discharges met the inclusion criteria for the study, and postprocedure acute renal failure developed in 439 (6.7%). EVAR was associated with lower odds of acute renal failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.53) and acute renal failure requiring dialysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30, 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.63). Results were similar when EVAR and open AAA repair were compared within quintiles of the propensity score for the receipt of EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open AAA repair, EVAR is associated with a lower risk of postprocedure acute renal failure.     

Increasing use of open conversion for late complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveOpen procedures are often required for late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our aim was to describe the indications for open interventions and their postoperative outcomes and to specifically examine our experience with limited conversions in which problem endoleaks are targeted without endograft explantation.MethodsWe reviewed patients from 2002 to 2017 who underwent any surgical abdominal aortic operation after a previous EVAR. Baseline characteristics, preoperative imaging, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality.ResultsThere were 102 patients who underwent open conversion 3.8 ± 3.1 years after EVAR. The numbers increased significantly in recent years, with 18 cases performed in 2016; 48.5% of patients had undergone 1.9 ± 1.0 prior endovascular interventions. The indication for surgical conversion was an endoleak in 85 patients and infection in 15. One patient had a limb occlusion and another a proximal aneurysm. The 30-day mortality was 6.2% in 65 patients treated electively for endoleak but higher in 20 ruptures (40.0%) and 15 infections (40.0%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, independent predictors of 30-day mortality were rupture (odds ratio [OR], 6.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-25.60; P = .005), endograft infection (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 1.99-36.20; P = .004), and use of a supraceliac clamp (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.47-15.66; P = .009). Transient acute kidney injury (12.8%) and prolonged intubation (11.8%) were the most common postoperative complications. In 65 patients treated for endoleak without rupture, 37 underwent endograft explantation, whereas 28 had a graft-preserving intervention (branch vessel ligation for type II endoleak in 26, external banding of the aneurysm neck for type IA endoleak in 8). Mortality was 8.1% when the endograft was explanted and 3.6% when it was not (P = .63). During 3.0 ± 3.5 years of follow-up, there was one reintervention after endograft explantation (for rupture secondary to type IB endoleak) and two reinterventions after graft preservation (for a new type IA endoleak and a new type II endoleak). Survival was 87.4% at 1 year and 70.9% at 5 years.ConclusionsOpen conversion is playing an increasing role in the management of late EVAR complications. Endoleaks treated electively by open conversion are reasonably safe and show good midterm durability, even with graft-preserving interventions that avoid endograft explantation.     

Combined open and endovascular repair of a syphilitic aortic aneurysm

The use of endovascular stent grafts in the repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms has provided an alternative means of treatment, particularly in the high-risk patient who may not tolerate conventional open repair. The combination of conventional surgery and endovascular repair may allow for successful treatment in patients with anatomy unsuitable for repair entirely by endovascular means alone. We present the case of a patient with a syphilitic thoracic aortic aneurysm involving the aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta. He underwent a staged repair with an elephant trunk reconstruction of the aortic arch followed by endovascular repair of the descending thoracic aorta. This is the first reported case of the repair of a syphilitic aneurysm by means of endovascular techniques.     

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.     

Outcomes after endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A population-based study

ObjectiveWe sought to determine the early and late outcomes of endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.MethodsWe performed a multicenter population-based study across the province of Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2017. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were time to first event of a composite of mortality, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, and stroke, the individual end points of the composite, patient disposition at discharge, hospital length of stay, myocardial infarction, and secondary procedures at follow-up.ResultsA total of 664 adults undergoing surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (endovascular: n = 303 [45.5%] vs open: n = 361 [54.5%]) were identified using an algorithm of administrative codes validated against the operative records. Propensity score matching resulted in 241 patient pairs. Endovascular repairs increased during the study and currently comprise more than 50% of total repairs. In the matched sample, open repair was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital death (17.4% vs 10.8%, P = .04), complications (26.1% vs 17.4%, P = .02), discharge to rehabilitation facilities (18.7% vs 10.0%, P = .02), and longer length of stay (12 [7-21] vs 6 [3-13] days, P < .01). Long-term mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.50), nor were the other secondary end points, with the exception of secondary procedures, which were higher in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.55). At 8 years, overall survival was 41.3% versus 44.6% after endovascular and open repair (P = .62).ConclusionsEndovascular repair was associated with improved early outcomes but higher rates of secondary procedures after discharge. Long-term survival after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is poor and independent of repair technique.     

Systematic review of contemporary outcomes of endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe purpose of the study was to provide a systematic review of the literature reporting the contemporary early outcomes after endovascular and open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that reported either endovascular (using branched or fenestrated endografts) or open repair of TAAA in at least 10 patients. Outcomes of interest included perioperative mortality, spinal cord injury (SCI), renal failure requiring dialysis, and stroke. Pooled proportions were determined using a random-effects model.ResultsThe analysis included 71 studies, of which 24 and 47 reported outcomes after endovascular and open TAAA repair, respectively. Endovascular cohort patients were older and had higher rates of coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Endovascular repair was associated with higher rates of SCI (13.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-16.7%) compared with open repair (7.4%; 95% CI, 6.2%-8.7%; P < .01) but similar rates of permanent paralysis (5.2% [95% CI, 3.8%-6.7%] vs 4.4% [95% CI, 3.3%-5.6%]; P = .39), lower rates of postoperative dialysis (6.4% [95% CI, 3.2%-9.5%] vs 12.0% [95% CI, 8.2%-16.3%]; P = .03) but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis (3.7% [95% CI, 2.0%-5.9%] vs 3.8% [95% CI, 2.9%-5.3%]; P = .93), a trend to lower stroke (2.7% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.6%] vs 3.9% [95% CI, 3.0%-4.9%]; P = .06), and similar perioperative mortality (7.4% [95% CI, 5.9%-9.1%] vs 8.9% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.9%]; P = .21).ConclusionsThis systematic review summarizes the contemporary literature results of endovascular and open TAAA repair. Endovascular repair studies included patients with more comorbidities and were associated with higher rates of SCI but similar rates of permanent paraplegia, whereas open repair studies had higher rates of postoperative dialysis but similar rates of being discharged on permanent dialysis. Perioperative mortality rates were similar. Universally adopted reporting standards for patient characteristics, outcomes, and the conduct of contemporary comparative studies will allow better assessment and comparisons of the risks associated with the two surgical treatment options for TAAA.     

Renal transplantation after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: case report and literature review

An increased number of aortic aneurysms are expected to be diagnosed in chronic renal failure patients awaiting kidney transplantation because of its strong association with atherosclerosis. The development of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the 1990s, which is characterized by low morbidity as well as shorter operative time and length of hospital stay, is particularly suited to these patients who are at high risk for conventional surgery. Herein we describe a case of a 58-year-old, man who was diagnosed with a 5.5-cm aortic aneurysm in 2001 and treated with a Gore Excluder (WL Gore and Assoc, Flagstaff, Ariz) aorto-iliac stent-graft. In 2004, he underwent uneventful deceased donor kidney transplantation in the right iliac fossa. With a follow-up of 6 and 9 years, respectively, there is no evidence of an endoleak. The renal function remains normal. This promising new surgical technique has been the subject of only a few published cases. At our center, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is the first-intention treatment for these patients, as long as it is possible to preserve the iliac arteries for the renal anastomoses and the anatomic conditions are suitable for stent-graft deployment.     

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 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.     

Acute retrograde aortic dissection during endovascular repair of a thoracic aortic aneurysm

Endovascular aneurysm exclusion represents a valuable alternative treatment for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Although the minimally invasive character of this procedure is obvious, major complications are possible. We report a 77-year-old male who developed acute retrograde dissection of the aortic arch and ascending aorta during endovascular stent-grafting of a descending aortic aneurysm. Emergent open surgical repair provided a successful outcome.