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.     

Late conversion of endovascular to open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background

Failure of endovascular repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm can result in significant risk of morbidity and mortality. We review our experience with late conversions to open repair.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective database review to identify all EVAR procedures performed between 1997 and 2010 and the number converted to open repair at our university-affiliated medical centre. Late conversion was defined as those occurring at least 30 days after initial EVAR.

Results

In all, 892 EVARs took place during the study period. Six patients (0.7%) required late conversion to open repair. Their mean age was 71 (range 58–83) years, and half were women. Half of the initial EVARs were for ruptured aneurysms. The median time to conversion was 15.6 (range 1.7–61.3) months. Indications for secondary conversion (50% urgent, 50% elective) included persistent type I endoleak (n = 3), combined type II and III endoleak (n = 1), graft thrombosis (n = 1) and aneurysm rupture (n = 1). Supraceliac clamping was required in most patients (67%), and the mean transfusion requirement was 2.6 units. Total endograft explantation occurred in 2 patients (33%), whereas partial or total endograft preservation occurred in 4 (67%). Median length of stay in hospital after conversion was 7 (range 6–73) days. There were no instances of early or in-hospital mortality following conversion.

Conclusion

Our EVAR experience includes a low rate of late conversion to open repair, with most conversions being a result of persistent aneurysm perfusion. Although technically challenging, late conversion can be safe. Our experience supports ongoing surveillance after EVAR.     

Strategies and outcomes for aortic endograft explantation

Background

Failure of endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) requiring open conversion remains a major challenge. We analyzed indications for repair, operative strategies, and outcomes with a focus on iliac artery degeneration after endograft removal.

Standard endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with wide infrarenal aneurysm necks is associated with increased risk of adverse events

Objective

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has progressively expanded to treat more challenging anatomies. Although EVAR in patients with wide infrarenal necks has been reported with acceptable results, there is still controversy regarding the longer-term outcomes. Our aim is to determine the impact of infrarenal neck diameter on midterm outcome following EVAR with a single endograft with suprarenal fixation.

Late open conversions after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair in an urgent setting

Objectives

We report a multicenter experience of urgent late open conversion (LOC), with the goal of identifying the mode of presentation, technical aspects, and outcomes of this cohort of patients.

Impact of suprarenal neck angulation on endovascular aneurysm repair outcomes

BackgroundHostile infrarenal proximal neck (β) anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysm has been associated with increased risk of aneurysm-related complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, there is a paucity of literature addressing the suprarenal angle (α). The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes after EVAR in patients with severe suprarenal neck angulation (α >60 degrees).MethodsA retrospective review of the medical records of 561 patients who underwent EVAR between January 2005 and December 2017 was performed. The main exclusion criteria were preoperative aneurysm rupture and fenestrated or branched endograft placement. High-resolution computed tomography images of 452 patients were available. Patients were grouped into angulated (α >60 degrees) and nonangulated (α ≤60 degrees) groups. The primary end point was freedom from type IA endoleak. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, long-term survival, primary clinical success, and freedom from aneurysm rupture and graft migration. Primary clinical success was defined according to Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure.ResultsOf 452 patients, 45 (10%) were included in the angulated group (α >60 degrees). Median follow-up time was 34 months (interquartile range, 14-56 months). Compared with patients in the nonangulated group, those in the angulated group had larger neck diameter at the level of the renal arteries (mean [standard deviation], 25.6 [3.8] mm vs 24.6 [3.4] mm; P = .06) and increased β angle (mean [standard deviation], 50.5 [22.9] degrees vs 41.6 [23.9] degrees; P = .01). The 3-year freedom from type IA endoleak estimate was 80.2% for the angulated group compared with 97.8% for the nonangulated group (P < .001). The angulated group showed significantly higher 30-day mortality (11.1% vs 0.25%; P < .001).The 3-year results showed that patients in the nonangulated group had higher rates of primary clinical success (90.2% vs 67.1%; P < .001), freedom from rupture (99% vs 97.1%; P = .02), freedom from migration (100% vs 92.4%; P < .001), and long-term survival (91.6% vs 75.8%; P = .006) compared with those in the angulated group. After adjustment for age, sex, neck diameter, and β angle, severe suprarenal neck angulation was associated with higher odds of type IA endoleak (adjusted hazard ratio, 8.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-27), loss of primary clinical success (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.6-8.9), and 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 52.5; 95% CI, 5.3-514) compared with α ≤60 degrees (all P < .001).ConclusionsThis is the first report to show a significant increase in operative mortality in patients undergoing EVAR with severely angulated suprarenal neck. Patients who survive the operation are at increased risk of secondary interventions. These findings suggest that EVAR should be used with caution in patients with severe α angulation and underpin the role of close follow-up in this particular population.     

Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Complicated by Persistent Endotension After Endovascular Repair: Report of a Case

Endoleak and endotension may prevent the successful exclusion of an aneurysm after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). The pressurization in the excluded aneurysm sac caused by endotension may lead to rupture of the aneurysm; however, the cause of endotension and its underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We report a case of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) complicated by persistent endotension after EVAR. Although no endoleaks were found on conventional double-phase computed tomographic scans, a thrombosed endoleak existed in the side branch and attachment site of the endograft. After treating the undetectable thrombosed endoleaks, physical examination revealed that the pressure of the excluded aneurysm had diminished, with shrinkage of the aneurysm. This case report suggests that a high-pressure undetectable type I or type II endoleak could be a major cause of endotension. Thus, postoperative evaluation of the attachment site of an endograft is important after EVAR.     

Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices

BackgroundOur objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time.ResultsWe identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time (P = .019).ConclusionsStandard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery.     

One-year sac regression is associated with freedom from fatal adverse events after endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveAlthough the predictors of long-term prognosis after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have been investigated, several reports have suggested that early sac shrinkage (ESS) is associated with superior long-term prognosis. However, it was not clear whether ESS was associated with aneurysm-related mortality. The aim of this study was to define fatal adverse events and to examine their association with ESS.MethodsAll consecutive patients who underwent EVAR for an abdominal aortic aneurysm at Nagoya University Hospital between June 2007 and August 2018 were identified. We defined ESS as an aneurysm diameter decrease of 10 mm or more at 1 year after EVAR, and we defined fatal adverse events as aneurysm-related death, aneurysm sac rupture, open conversion, secondary type Ia endoleak, or secondary type IIIa/b endoleak. Then, we evaluated the association between ESS and fatal adverse events and identified predictors of ESS.ResultsDuring the study period, 553 patients were identified and included. Fatal adverse events occurred in 42 patients (7.6%), and the details of the fatal adverse events were as follows: 13 aneurysm-related deaths, 17 aneurysm sac ruptures, 14 open conversions, 13 type Ia endoleaks, and 6 type III endoleaks. ESS occurred in 146 patients (26.4%). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the ESS group had a significantly lower incidence of fatal adverse events (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that there were significant differences in terms of 5 or more preoperatively patent lumbar arteries (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; P = .049; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.00), chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.49; P < .01; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84), and Zenith endograft use (OR, 1.76; P < .01; 95% CI, 1.16-2.67). Furthermore, the percentage of cases that achieved an aneurysm diameter of less than 40 mm was significantly higher in the ESS group (76.0% vs 15.5%; P < .01). The use of Zenith endografts showed a significantly higher rate of aneurysm disappearance than the use of Endurant endografts (P < .01) and Excluder endografts (P < .01). In addition, it was found that ESS was more likely to occur with the use of Zenith endografts, even when propensity score matching was performed for the neck morphology.ConclusionsESS was associated with a lower rate of life-threatening adverse events after EVAR. The use of Zenith endografts was a predictor of ESS and was associated with increased rates of long-term sac shrinkage and aneurysm disappearance compared with the Endurant and Excluder endografts. Using the predictors of ESS identified in this study, we may be able to expand the indications for EVAR to patients with a longer life expectancy.     

Simulation training streamlines the real-life performance in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveDifficulties in distributing endovascular experience among all operating room (OR) personnel prevented full-scale use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in emergencies. To streamline the procedure of EVAR for ruptured aneurysm (rEVAR) and to provide this method even to unstable patients, we initiated regular simulation training sessions.MethodsThis is an observational study of 29 simulation sessions performed between January 2015 and December 2017. We analyzed the development of time from OR door to aortic balloon occlusion during simulations and OR door to needle times in real-life rEVARs as well as the outcome of the 185 ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) patients who arrived at the university hospital between January 2013 and December 2017. A questionnaire was sent for simulation attendants before and after the simulation session.ResultsIn the first simulations, the door to occlusion time was 20 to 35 minutes. After adding a hemodynamic collapse to the simulation protocol, the time decreased to 10 to 13 minutes in the 10 recent simulations, including a 5-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = .01). The electronic questionnaire performed for attendees before and after the simulation session showed significant improvement in both confidence and knowledge of the OR staff regarding rEVAR procedure. In the real-life rEVARs, 75 of the 185 patients with rAAAs underwent EVAR. Among rEVAR patients, the median OR door to needle time was 65 minutes before and 16 minutes after the onset of simulations (P = .000). The overall 30-day mortality among all rAAA patients was 44.8% and 30.6% accordingly (P = .046). When patients who were turned down from the emergency surgery were excluded, the 30-day operative mortality was 39.2% and 25.1% during the periods, respectively (P = .051). The 30-day mortality was 16.2% after rEVAR and 40.6% after open surgery (P = .001).ConclusionsSimulation training for rEVAR significantly improves the treatment process in real-life patients and may enhance the outcome of rAAA patients.     

Delayed open conversion following endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair: partial (or complete) endograft preservation as a useful adjunct

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to review our experience with delayed open conversion (>30 days) following endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to introduce the concept and advantages of endograft retention in this setting. METHODS: From January 1992 to January 2003, a total of 386 EVARs using a variety of endografts were successfully deployed. Eleven (2.8%) patients required delayed conversion to open repair at an average of 30 months (range, 10-64). Data from all patients undergoing both EVAR and open conversion were prospectively collected. RESULTS: EVARs were performed using grafts made by Talent (4), Vanguard (2,) AneuRx (1), and Surgeon (4). Conversion to open repair (9 transabdominal, 1 retroperitoneal, 1 transabdominal plus thoracotomy) was performed for aneurysm rupture in 7 patients (4 type 1 endoleak, 2 type 2 endoleak, 1 aortoenteric fistula) and aneurysm enlargement in 4 patients (1 type 1 endoleak, 1 type 2 endoleak, 1 type 3 endoleak, 1 endotension). Patients with aneurysm rupture were treated on an emergent basis. Complete removal of the endograft with supraceliac cross-clamping was performed in two cases. One patient (rupture) did not survive the operation, and one patient (aortoenteric fistula) died 2 weeks postoperatively. In the remaining nine cases, the endograft was either completely (1) or partially (6) removed, or left in situ (2). Supraceliac balloon control (2), supraceliac clamping (1), suprarenal clamping (1), or infrarenal clamping (5) was used in these cases. All nine of these patients survived the operation. In one procedure in which the endograft was left intact (endotension), repair was accomplished by exposing the endograft and by placing a standard tube graft over it as a sleeve. In the second procedure in which the graft was left in situ (rupture), the graft was well incorporated, and bleeding lumbar arteries were oversewn and the sac was closed tightly over the endograft. In the remaining 7 cases, the endograft was transected and the proximal portion only (6) or the proximal and distal portions (1) were excised. All surviving patients continue to do well and remain without complications associated with the endograft remnant at a mean follow-up of 22 months (range, 3-56) from the time of open conversion and 46 months (range, 10-73) from the time of original EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair in the setting of a long-standing endograft offers several unique technical challenges but can be successfully accomplished in most patients. Preservation of all or part of the endograft is possible in many patients. This technique simplifies the operative approach and is preferred over complete endograft removal if possible.     

Infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair with large device (34- to 36-mm) diameters is associated with higher risk of proximal fixation failure

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for infrarenal aneurysms. Endografts are commercially available in proximal diameters up to 36 mm, allowing proximal seal in necks up to 32 mm. We sought to further investigate clinical outcomes after standard EVAR in patients requiring large main body devices.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database for all patients undergoing elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms at a single institution from 2000 to 2016. Only endografts with the option of a 34- to 36-mm proximal diameter were included. Requisite patient demographics, anatomic and device-related variables, and relevant clinical outcomes and imaging were reviewed. The primary outcome in this study was proximal fixation failure, which was a composite of type IA endoleak and stent graft migration >10 mm after EVAR. Outcomes were stratified by device diameter for the large-diameter device cohort (34-36 mm) and the normal-diameter device cohort (<34 mm).ResultsThere were 500 patients treated with EVAR who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 108 (21.6%) patients received large-diameter devices. There was no difference between the large-diameter cohort and the normal-diameter cohort in terms of 30-day (0.9% vs 0.95%; P = .960) or 1-year mortality (9.0% vs 6.2%; P = .920). Proximal fixation failure occurred in 24 of 392 (6.1%) patients in the normal-diameter cohort and 26 of 108 (24%) patients in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). There were 13 (3.3%) type IA endoleaks in the normal-diameter cohort and 16 (14.8%) in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). Stent graft migration (>10 mm) occurred in 15 (3.8%) in the normal-diameter cohort and 16 (14.8%) in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). After multivariate analysis, only the use of Talent (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) endografts (odds ratio [OR], 4.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-17.21) and neck diameter ≥29 mm (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.12-5.08) remained significant independent risk factors for development of proximal fixation failure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.75-9.11).ConclusionsStandard EVAR in patients with large infrarenal necks ≥29 mm requiring a 34- to 36-mm-diameter endograft is independently associated with an increased rate of proximal fixation failure. This group of patients should be considered for more proximal seal strategies with fenestrated or branched devices vs open repair. Also, this group likely needs more stringent radiographic follow-up.     

Clinical presentation,operative management,and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsWe reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II).ResultsOf 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta.ConclusionsLAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.     

A multicenter experience with infected abdominal aortic endograft explantation

Objective

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is widely used with excellent results, but its infectious complications can be devastating. In this paper, we report a multicenter experience with infected EVAR, symptoms, and options for explantation and their outcome.

Persistent type 2 endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with adverse late outcomes

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 endoleak occurs in up to 20% of patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), but its long-term significance is debated. We reviewed our experience to evaluate late outcomes associated with type 2 endoleak. METHODS: During the interval January 1994 to December 2005, 873 patients underwent EVAR. Computed tomography (CT) scan assessment was performed < or =1 month of the operation and at least annually thereafter. Sequential 6-month CT scan follow-up was adopted for those patients with persistent type 2 endoleaks, and reintervention was limited to those with sac enlargement >5 mm. Study end points included overall survival, aneurysm sac growth, reintervention rate, conversion to open repair, and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. Preoperative variables and anatomic factors potentially associated with these endpoints were assessed using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 164 (18.9%) patients with early (at the first follow-up CT scan) type 2 endoleaks. Mean follow-up was 32.6 months. In 131 (79.9%) early type 2 endoleaks, complete and permanent leak resolution occurred < or =6 months. Endoleaks persisted in 33 patients (3.8% of total patients; 20.1% of early type 2 endoleaks) for >6 months. Transient type 2 endoleak (those that resolved < or =6 months of EVAR) was not associated with adverse late outcomes. In contrast, persistent endoleak was associated with several adverse outcomes. AAA-related death was not significantly different between patients with and without a type 2 endoleak (P = .78). When evaluating patients with no early endoleak vs persistent endoleak, freedom from sac expansion at 1, 3, and 5 years was 99.2%, 97.6%, and 94.9% (no leak) vs 88.1%, 48.0%, and 28.0% (persistent) (P < .001). Patients with persistent endoleak were at increased risk for aneurysm sac growth vs patients without endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 25.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.8 to 57.4; P < .001). Patients with a persistent endoleak also had a significantly increased rate of reintervention (OR, 19.0; 95% CI, 8.0 to 44.7); P < .001). Finally, aneurysm rupture occurred in 4 patients with type 2 endoleaks. Freedom from rupture at 1, 3, and 5 years for patients with a persistent type 2 endoleak was 96.8%, 96.8%, and 91.1% vs 99.8%, 98.5%, and 97.4% for patients without a type 2 endoleak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated persistent type 2 endoleak to be a significant predictor of aneurysm rupture (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent type 2 endoleak is associated with an increased incidence of adverse outcomes, including aneurysm sac growth, the need for conversion to open repair, reintervention rate, and rupture. These data suggest that patients with persistent type 2 endoleak (>6 months) should be considered for more frequent follow-up or a more aggressive approach to reintervention.     

Partial and complete explantation of aortic endografts in the modern era

ObjectiveDespite the progressive advancement of devices for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), endografts continue to fail, requiring explant. We present a single-institutional experience of EVAR explants, characterizing modern failure modes, presentation, and outcomes for partial and complete EVAR explantation.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed of all EVARs explanted at an urban quaternary center from 2001 to 2020, with one infected endograft excluded. Patient and graft characteristics, indications, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Partial versus complete explants were performed per surgeon discretion without a predefined protocol. This process was informed by patient risk factors; asymptomatic, symptomatic, or ruptured aneurysm presentation; and anatomical or intraoperative factors, including endoleak type.ResultsFrom 2001 to 2020, 52 explants met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. More than one-half (57.7%) were explants of EVAR devices placed at outside institutions, designated nonindex explants. Most patients were male (86.5%), the median age was 74 years (interquartile range, 70-78 years). More than one-half (61.5%) were performed in the second decade of the study period. The most commonly explanted grafts were Gore Excluder (n = 9 grafts), Cook Zenith (n = 8), Endologix AFX (n = 7), Medtronic Endurant (n = 5), and Medtronic Talent (n = 5). Most grafts (78.8%) were explanted for neck degeneration or sac expansion. Five were explanted for initial seal failure, five for symptomatic expansion, and seven for rupture. The median implant duration was 4.2 years, although ranging widely (interquartile range, 2.6-5.1 years), but similar between index and nonindex explants (4.2 years vs 4.1 years). Partial explantation was performed in 61.5%, with implant duration slightly lower, 3.2 years versus 4.4 years for complete explants. Partial explantation was more frequent in index explants (68.2% vs 56.7%). The median length of stay was 8 days. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 3 days, without significant differences in nonindex explants (4 days vs 3 days) and partial explants (4 days vs 3 days). Thirty-day mortality occurred in two nonindex explants (one partial and one complete explant). Thirty-day readmission was similar between partial and complete explants (9.7% vs 5.0%), without accounting for nonindex readmissions. Long-term survival was comparable between partial and complete explants in Cox regression (hazard ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-7.56; P = .12).ConclusionsExplants of EVAR devices have increased over time at our institution. Partial explant was performed in more than one-half of cases, per operating surgeon discretion, demonstrating higher blood loss, more frequent acute kidney injury, and longer intensive care unit stays, however with comparable short-term mortality and long-term survival.     

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.     

Preliminary results of endovascular aneurysm sealing from the multicenter Italian Research on Nellix Endoprosthesis (IRENE) study

Objective

Because of advances in technology and experience of the operator, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has supplanted open repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The low 30-day mortality and morbidity of EVAR make the endovascular approach particularly suitable for patients at high surgical risk. However, endoleak or endograft migration requiring secondary intervention or open surgical conversion is a limitation of EVAR. The Nellix system (Endologix, Inc, Irvine, Calif) has been designed to seal the entire AAA to overcome these limitations with EVAR. We report the results of a retrospective, multicenter study with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) aimed to assess technical success, procedure-related mortality, complications, and reinterventions.

Prospective assessment of health-related quality of life after endovascular repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated-branched endografts

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate changes in health-related quality of life (QOL) in patients treated for pararenal aortic aneurysms (PAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) with fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR).MethodsA total of 159 consecutive patients (70% male; mean age, 75 ± 7 years) were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study using manufactured F-BEVAR (2013-2016). All patients were observed for at least 12 months (mean follow-up time, 27 ± 12 months). Patients' health-related QOL was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire at baseline (N = 159), 6 to 8 weeks (n = 136), 6 months (n = 129), and 12 months (n = 123). Physical component scores (PCSs) and mental component scores (MCSs) were compared with historical results of patients enrolled in the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) 1 trial who were treated by standard EVAR for simple infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.ResultsThere were 57 patients with PAAs and 102 patients with TAAAs (50 extent IV and 52 extent I-III TAAAs). There were no 30-day deaths, in-hospital deaths, conversions to open surgery, or aorta-related deaths. Survival was 96% at 1 year and 87% at 2 years. Major adverse events occurred in 18% of patients, and 1-year reintervention rate was 14%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 30-day outcomes. Patients treated for TAAAs had lower baseline scores compared with those treated for PAAs (P < .05). PCS declined significantly 6 to 8 weeks after F-BEVAR in both groups and returned to baseline values at 12 months in the PAA group but not in the TAAA group. Patients with TAAAs had significantly lower PCSs at 12 months compared with those with PAAs (P < .001). There was no decline in mean MCS. Major adverse events were associated with decline in PCS assessed at 6 to 8 weeks (P = .021) but not in the subsequent evaluations. Reinterventions had no effect on PCS or MCS. Overall, patients treated by F-BEVAR had similar changes in QOL measures as those who underwent standard EVAR in the EVAR 1 trial, except for lower PCS in TAAA patients at 12 months.ConclusionsPatients treated for TAAAs had lower scores at baseline in their physical aspect of health-related QOL. F-BEVAR was associated with significant decline in PCSs in both groups, which improved after 2 months and returned to baseline values at 12 months in patients with PAAs but not in those with TAAAs. Patients treated for PAAs had similar changes in QOL compared with those treated for infrarenal aortic aneurysms with standard EVAR.     

Fourteen-year outcomes of abdominal aortic endovascular repair with the Zenith stent graft

Objective

Long-term results of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair are affected by graft design renewals that tend to improve the performance of older generation prostheses but usually reset the follow-up times to zero. The present study investigated the long-term outcomes of endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) using the Zenith graft, still in use without major modification, in a single center experience.