The use of iliac branch devices for preservation of flow in internal iliac artery during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveCommon iliac artery aneurysms are present in more than a third of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and may pose a challenge during open and endovascular repair. Although embolization of the internal iliac artery is an established method, it may be complicated with buttock claudication, erectile dysfunction, colon ischemia, and pelvic necrosis. Iliac branch devices (IBDs), which permit preservation of the hypogastric artery, have been used to prevent these complications. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the safety and outcomes of IBDs and to explore potential differences between the commercially available types of IBDs.MethodsThe meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. After review of the literature, 36 eligible studies with a total of 1502 patients were included in our study. A meta-analysis was performed with investigation of the following outcomes: technical success rate, 30-day mortality, 30-day patency, follow-up patency, endoleak, buttock claudication, and IBD-associated reintervention. Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup meta-analysis by commercial type of endograft among the outcomes of interest.ResultsAmong all eligible studies, technical success of the method was 97.35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.27-98.29). The endoleak rate postoperatively and during the follow-up period was 12.68% (95% CI, 8.80-17.07). The 30-day patency of IBDs was estimated at 97.59% (95% CI, 96.49-98.54), whereas follow-up patency was 94.32% (95% CI, 91.70-96.54). Furthermore, reintervention rate associated with IBDs was 6.96% (95% CI, 5.10-9.03), and buttock claudication during the follow-up period was 2.15% (95% CI, 1.25-3.22).ConclusionsIBD seems to be a safe, feasible, and effective technique for the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms in select patients with suitable anatomy. Further results are awaited to explore the long-term efficacy and durability of these devices.     

The iliac bifurcation device for endovascular iliac aneurysm repair: indications,deployment options and results at 1‐year follow‐up of 25 cases

Background: The iliac bifurcation device (William A Cook Australia, Brisbane, QLD, Australia) is a new endovascular device for iliac aneurysm repair. We review the indications for use, device characteristics, deployment options and the results of our case series. Methods: The most common indication for deployment is endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with common iliac aneurysm repair. The standard deployment sequence can be adapted to increase the utility of the device. Data were collected prospectively. Follow‐up was performed with plain X‐ray, ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) scan. Results: Between 2004 and 2007, 25 patients had their common iliac artery aneurysm repaired using the iliac bifurcation device. There were 23 male and 2 female patients. Median age was 75 years (range 60–85). The median follow‐up was 12 months (range 1–38). Twenty‐one procedures were combined with EVAR. The median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was 60 mm (range 31–97), and the median common iliac artery aneurysm diameter was 37 mm (range 24–71). Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. There were no acute branch vessel occlusions. There was one early type I endoleak (4%). There was one death (4%) in the 30‐day period post‐procedure. There was one late type I endoleak (4%). Conclusions: The iliac bifurcation device achieves endovascular common iliac artery aneurysm repair with preservation of internal iliac artery flow. There are multiple different applications of the device and complementary deployment techniques. High rates of technical success and low rates of branch vessel occlusion are possible.     

Anaesthesia for endovascular aneurysm repair

The surgical management of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can be undertaken via an open or endovascular approach. The use of an endovascular approach has benefits for the patient by being less invasive with initially lower mortality and morbidity and a shorter hospital stay, although the long-term outcomes match open techniques. The endovascular technique requires more specialist resources, including stents and imaging equipment. In the UK, endovascular techniques are usually performed in specialist hospitals with specialist teams of interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons and anaesthetists. Patients requiring endovascular repair of their AAA can present the anaesthetist with a range of complex comorbidities that require specific management and optimization preoperatively. The intraoperative management of the patient can vary, depending on patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors and from local, regional or general anaesthesia techniques. The postoperative complications are generally minimal, but patients require lifelong follow up making the procedure more expensive than an open operation.     

Anaesthesia for endovascular aneurysm repair

A patient with an abdominal aortic aneurysm can have surgical management through either an open or endovascular approach. The use of an endovascular approach has benefits for the patient by being a less invasive approach with initially lower mortality and morbidity and lower lengths of hospital stay, although longer term outcomes match open techniques. The endovascular technique requires more specialist equipment, including stents and imaging equipment. In the UK they are usually performed in specialist hospitals with teams of interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons and anaesthetists working together. Patients presenting for endovascular repair of their abdominal aortic aneurysm can present the anaesthetist with range of complex comorbidities which require specific management and optimization pre-operatively. The intraoperative management of the patient can vary, depending on patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors, from local anaesthetic, regional techniques or general anaesthesia. The postoperative complications are generally minimal, but the patients require lifelong follow up, making the procedure more expensive than an open procedure.     

Delayed rupture of an internal iliac artery aneurysm following proximal ligation for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

This is a report of a patient presenting with a contained rupture of an internal iliac aneurysm following proximal ligation after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair three years earlier. The patient presented with a large pelvic mass with symptoms of urgency, frequency, dysuria, tenesmus and fevers associated with anemia. Following evacuation of the aneurysm and direct suture ligation of the distal branches of the internal iliac artery, the patient's aortic graft was covered with omentum which also filled the pelvic cavity. The importance of proximal and distal control of aneurysms and/or the importance of complete luminal control of internal iliac artery aneurysms is emphasized by this case.     

Endovascular repair of an aortoiliac aneurysm with bilateral bifurcated branched iliac stent‐grafts

Extension of abdominal aortic aneurysms to involve one or both common iliac arteries occurs in 20–30% of patients. In treating aneurysmal diseases involving the common iliac arteries, preservation of blood flow to the pelvic circulation is desirable. The development of branched stent‐grafts has made this possible with the endovascular approach. We herein describe our technique of endovascular repair of an aortoiliac aneurysm with bilateral bifurcated branched iliac stent‐grafts.     

腔内修复术与开放手术治疗腹主动脉瘤的对比分析

目的 对比分析传统开放手术与血管腔内修复术治疗腹主动脉瘤的疗效.方法 回顾性分析我科2009年至2012年经外科治疗的43例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料,行腔内治疗患者25例,行传统手术的18例,对比分析两组患者术前、术中情况,术后并发症及6个月内死亡情况.结果 两组患者在手术时间、术中失血及输血量方面,两组差异均有统计学意义（t值分别为8.377,5.124,5.043,P均＜0.001）;术后30d内并发症比较,差异有统计学意义（X2=0.09,P＜0.05）;术后6个月内死亡率比较,差异无统计学意义（x2=4.21,P＞0.05）.结论 血管腔内修复术比传统手术创伤小,手术时间短,术中失血及输血量少,术后短期并发症发生率低,但中远期死亡率无明显差别.     

腔内修复术治疗破裂性主动脉瘤

目的探讨腔内修复术（EVR）治疗破裂性主动脉瘤（RAA）的安全性、可行性、有效性和存在的问题。方法术前应用CT、磁共振成像对14例RAA患者进行诊断,评估病变近、远端血管锚定区条件。对存在休克的患者进行积极的抗休克治疗。支架型人工血管在X线透视下经股动脉被释放在RAA的预定位置。结果瘤体破裂距实施EVR时间50min～21d;3例存在大量左侧胸腔积血,2例患者在出血性休克的状态下进行手术。5例应用分叉形支架型人工血管,9例应用直筒形支架型人工血管。随访1～38个月,1例破裂性胸主动脉瘤术后第4个小时死亡,1例创伤后腹主动脉假性动脉瘤术后9个月因左侧脓胸死亡,其余患者均生存,无并发症。结论EVR治疗RAA是安全、可行和有效的,可能成为治疗RAA的有效方法。但对近、远端锚定区条件差的病变和不能熟练完成常规主动脉瘤EVR的单位应慎重进行RAA的腔内治疗。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复与开放手术疗效比较

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内治疗的效果.方法 对2002年1月至2007年7月收治的223例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者进行网顾性分析.手术组141例,男性118例,女性23例;腔内治疗组82例,男性66例,女性16例.对手术相关情况、围手术期并发症发生率、病死率、随访中并发症发生率等进行对比分析.结果 腔内修复组手术时间、术中出血量、输血量均少于开放手术组(P<0.01),围手术期并发症两组无显著差异(P>0.05),SF-36量表评估显示术后6个月开放手术组优于腔内治疗组,术后2年生存率两组无明显差异(P>0.05),但腔内修复组并发症发生率高于开放手术组(P<0.01).住院费用腔内修复组明显高于开放手术组(P<0.01).结论 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复具有手术时间短、微创的特点,但具有较高的远期并发症,开放手术组6个月健康生存质量优于腔内修复组.     

新型覆膜支架在腹主动脉瘤腔内修复中的应用

目的 总结腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术使用Endurant支架的经验及体会.方法 回顾分析2010年5月至2011年5月北京协和医院血管外科收治的19例肾下腹主动脉瘤使用Endurant支架行腔内修复术的病例特点、术后并发症和近期随访结果.结果 19例患者均获得手术成功,其中9例为复杂解剖形态的病例.术中同时进行的肾动脉支架、髂内动脉栓塞和髂动脉扩张也均获得成功.术后无Ⅰ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ型内漏发生,4例残余Ⅱ型内漏留待观察.围手术期无死亡病例,30 d并发症主要包括血栓消耗性凝血功能障碍,心肌梗死合并心衰,伤口感染和血肿.全组随访1～12个月,无死亡病例.8例患者完成至少1次CT动脉重建(computer tomography angiography,CTA)检查,5例动脉瘤体直径缩小,3例无改变.1例患者出现单侧髂腿延长支闭塞,行股股动脉转流.1例患者出现继发性ⅠB型内漏,继续观察.结论 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术使用Endurant支架安全,有效.Endurant支架增加了对于复杂解剖形态的病例的手术成功率,近期疗效满意.     

高危复杂腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术临床分析

目的 评估应用多种腔内技术治疗高危复杂腹主动脉瘤的可行性.方法 2001年1月至2010年12月,共138例腹主动脉瘤患者接受腹主动脉腔内修复术(EVAR),其中9例患者为高危复杂性腹主动脉瘤.男性8例,女性1例,年龄26～87岁,平均67岁.其中2例近肾腹主动脉假性动脉瘤,5例近肾腹主动脉瘤,1例腹主动脉瘤合并双髂总动脉瘤及左侧髂内动脉瘤,1例EVAR术后右髂内动脉瘤.所采用的腔内技术包括:主动脉支架开窗技术和扇形技术2例,烟囱技术5例,球囊辅助下髂内动脉瘤腔内治疗1例和球囊辅助反转支架技术1例.结果 所有腔内技术均获得成功.术中支架释放后即刻发现内漏4例,其中1例患者为Ⅰ型和Ⅲ型内漏,经大动脉球囊扩张后内漏消失;2例Ⅰ型内漏,其中1例行弹簧栓栓塞成功,另1例行近端裸支架成功.1例Ⅱ型内漏,经随访瘤腔直径未增大,未处理.随访4～79个月,平均25.9个月.无动脉瘤破裂,动脉瘤瘤体直径均有不同程度的缩小.随访过程中7例患者的靶血管(肾动脉、肠系膜上动脉和髂内动脉)均保持通畅.1例髂内动脉重建支架术后18个月血栓形成,但无盆腔缺血等症状.结论 对于不能耐受手术的高危复杂腹主动脉瘤患者,选择合适的腔内技术可以增加EVAR术的成功率,近、中期效果满意.     

术中自制髂动脉分支支架治疗主髂动脉瘤的单中心经验

目的:总结术中自制髂动脉分支支架(IBD)在主髂动脉瘤腔内修复术中保留髂内动脉的经验。方法:回顾性分析2018年1月至2018年12月在南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院13例主髂动脉腔内修复术中使用自制髂动脉分支支架重建髂内动脉患者资料,其中2例重建双侧髂内动脉,11例单侧髂内动脉,术后观察盆腔缺血症状发生、髂内分支支架通畅率、有无内漏及瘤体扩张等情况。结果:应用自制IBD保留髂内动脉技术成功率为100%,术中出现2例Ⅲ型内漏,1例Ⅱ型内漏,围术期无其他并发症发生。术后平均随访9(4~12)个月,无瘤体扩张,支架内未见明显血栓形成,无瘤体相关性死亡,2例Ⅲ型内漏消失,1例Ⅱ型内漏持续存在,但瘤体无增大;IBD支架和髂内动脉通畅率为100%。1例对侧髂内栓塞患者术后出现对侧臀肌跛行,随访3个月后症状消失,无勃起、大小便功能障碍等症状出现。结论:术中自制IBD的应用是一种安全、有效的选择,近期效果理想,远期管腔通畅率还有待进一步随访。     

Strategic 2-step surgery using thoracic endovascular aortic repair for an infected thoracic aortic aneurysm

An 81-year-old man with multiple comorbidities developed infected thoracic aortic aneurysm, and we employed a strategic 2-step surgical approach combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair and local debridement with an omental flap during the active phase of infection. No signs of reinfection were observed at the 1-year follow-up. This strategy can be a safe and less invasive alternative to conventional open surgery in patients with high surgical risk.     

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.     

人工血管移植治疗孤立性髂动脉瘤的手术探讨

目的探讨孤立性髂动脉瘤的手术治疗方法,包括复杂病理情况下动脉瘤切除、人工血管移植以及吻合口处理和缝合问题。方法回顾性总结1997年1月至2007年6月间收治的33例孤立性髂动脉瘤的临床资料,其中单侧髂动脉瘤29例,双侧4例。均在全身麻醉下行动脉瘤切除、人工血管移植血管重建术。结果4例双侧病变中,行主动脉-双侧股动脉人工血管移植1例,主动脉-双侧髂总动脉人工血管移植3例;29例单侧病变中,主动脉-髂总动脉人工血管移植1例,髂动脉-股动脉人工血管移植3例,髂总动脉-髂外动脉人工血管移植21例,髂总-髂总动脉转流4例。33例平均随访5（0.5-10）年。2例分别于术后3年和6年死于急性脑梗塞和心肌梗塞,1例术后2年死于交通事故,余健康存活,无复发,无吻合口狭窄或下肢缺血表现。结论动脉瘤切除人工血管移植是治疗孤立性髂动脉瘤的良好措施,仍然是目前医疗条件下有效治疗本病的主要手术方式。     

Outcome of endoleak following endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND: The most important complication of endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is endoleak, in which there is persistent blood flow outside the graft but within the aneurysm sac. Depending on endoleak type, there is an ongoing potential for aneurysm expansion or rupture. Conversely, some endoleaks may resolve spontaneously. Absolute indications for interventional management of endoleaks remain elusive due to the heterogeneous nature of leaks and uncertainty in predicting their outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on all endoluminal graft recipients with endoleaks at Repatriation General Hospital over a 3-year period. Data were collected via a database maintained by the Department of Vascular Surgery, and hospital casenotes. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients underwent endoluminal graft insertion in the study period. Fourteen endoleaks were observed in 11 patients, representing an endoleak rate of 21.2%. There were three type I leaks and 11 type II leaks. One type I leak resolved spontaneously, one resolved immediately following interventional management, and one resolved 6 months after interventional management. Interventional treatment was undertaken in seven cases of type II leak due to increase in aneurysm diameter by 5 mm. Two type II endoleaks resolved spontaneously. Aneurysm diameter increased in two patients following radiographic resolution of their endoleaks. There were no cases of aneurysm rupture. CONCLUSIONS: Initial observation is a reasonable management option in most cases of type II endoleak, because some will spontaneously resolve during follow up. Those associated with increase in aneurysm size should undergo interventional treatment. Conservative management of type I endoleaks may be undertaken in extreme isolated cases.     

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.