Complex endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with higher perioperative mortality but not late mortality compared with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair among octogenarians

Objective

As our collective experience with complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has grown, an increasing number of older patients are being offered endovascular repair of juxtarenal aneurysms. Outcomes after complex EVAR in this older subpopulation are not well-described. We sought to specifically evaluate clinical outcomes after complex EVAR compared with infrarenal EVAR in a cohort of octogenarians.

EndoSuture aneurysm repair versus fenestrated aneurysm repair in patients with short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare midterm results of EndoAnchors in EndoSuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) in short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).MethodsAll patients who underwent an ESAR procedure for a short neck AAA at our center between September 2017 and May 2020 were considered for analysis. To form the control group, preoperative computed tomography angiography of patients who underwent FEVAR for juxtarenal AAA between April 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed and patients who met short neck criteria selected. A propensity-matched score on neck length and neck diameter was calculated, resulting in 18 matched pairs. AAA shrinkage, type Ia endoleaks (EL), AAA-related reinterventions, and AAA-related deaths were compared.ResultsThe median AAA diameter was 54 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 52-61 mm) versus 58 mm (IQR, 53-63 mm) with a median neck length of 8 mm (IQR, 6-12 mm) vs 10 mm (IQR, 6-13 mm) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. Technical success was 100% in both groups. Procedural success was 94% in the ESAR group versus 100% in the FEVAR group. The median procedure duration was 138 mm (IQR, 113-182 mm) vs 240 mm (IQR, 199-293 mm) ( P < .001) and the median length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 2-3 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 6-7 days) (P < .001) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. No major hospital complications were observed in ESAR patients compared with two in FEVAR patients (11%) with one transient acute kidney injury and one transient paraplegia. The median follow-up was 23 months (IQR, 19-33 months) vs 36 months (IQR, 22-57 months) with 67% versus 61% AAA shrinkage in the ESAR and FEVAR groups, respectively (P = .73). No type Ia EL, proximal neck-related reinterventions, or AAA-related deaths were observed in either group. No AAA-related reintervention was observed in the ESAR group versus three reinterventions in the FEVAR group (P = .23).ConclusionsESAR seems to be a safe technique with no major postoperative complications or reinterventions observed during follow-up. It seems to offer similar midterm results as FEVAR in terms of type Ia EL, aneurysm shrinkage, and aneurysm-related mortality. ESAR seems to be a good off-the-shelf alternative to FEVAR in case of technical constraints.     

A reliable method for renal volume measurement and its application in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveRenal volume has been shown to correlate with renal function. Renal volume and renal function both decline steadily in the sixth decade of life and beyond. We sought to assess (1) the inter-rater reliability for manually measuring renal volume using computed tomography and (2) change in renal volume over time as it relates to renal function in fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR).MethodsThis study was conducted as part of a physician-sponsored investigational new device (#NCT01538056). First, 30 consecutive kidneys of preoperative FEVAR patients were independently measured by two raters using manual segmentation and three-dimensional modeling software. Renal volumes were calculated and compared. Intraclass correlation was calculated between the two observers. Second, renal volumes were then recorded for 85 patients undergoing FEVAR with follow-up out to 5 years. Demographic data, comorbidities, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), renal artery stenosis or occlusion, and bilateral renal volume measurements were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was performed to delineate association of these variables with total renal volume (TRV).ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient for our renal volume measurements was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.99), indicating excellent correlation. Renal volume was strongly correlated with GFR. Our multivariate analysis model predicts a 17.9 mL/min increase in GFR with each 20% increase in TRV. After adjustment for all other known correlates of renal function, renal volume remained as the only significant predictor of renal function.ConclusionsRenal volume can be measured with high reliability using manual segmentation and computed tomography scans. In our baseline analysis, TRV was strongly correlated with renal function. These findings support the potential for renal volume as a surrogate for renal function.     

Risk of spinal cord ischemia after fenestrated or branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms

Objective

The aim of our study was to analyze the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients presenting with complex aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to identify risk factors associated with this complication.

Two-year evaluation of fenestrated and parallel branch endografts for the treatment of juxtarenal,suprarenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms at a single institution

ObjectiveDespite numerous recent pivotal and small-scale trials, real-world endovascular management of juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA), suprarenal aneurysms (SRA), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) remains challenging without consensus best practices. This study evaluated the mortality, graft patency, renal function, complication, and reintervention rates for fenestrated and parallel endografts in complex aortic aneurysms repairs.MethodsThis retrospective review of consecutive included patients with JRA, SRA, or TAAA who underwent complex endovascular repair from August 2014 to March 2017 at one high-volume institution. Treatment modality was a single surgeon decision based on patients anatomy and the urgency of the repair. Patient demographics, hospital course, and follow-up visits inclusive of imaging were analyzed. Ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Survival rates and outcomes were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.ResultsSeventy complex endovascular aortic repairs were performed; 38 patients with TAAA were treated with snorkel/sandwich parallel endografts (21 celiac, 28 superior mesenteric arteries, 58 renal arteries) and 32 patients with JRA/SRA were treated by fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with 94 total fenestrations (2 celiac, 30 SMA, 62 renal). The mean patient age was 74.8 ± 10.0 years. Sixty percent were male, and the mean aortic aneurysm diameter was 6.0 ± 1.4 cm. Perioperative mortality was 3.1% (1/32) for FEVAR compared with 2.6% (1/38) for parallel endografts (P = .9). All-cause reintervention rates were 15.6% in FEVAR (5/32) vs 23.6% with parallel endografts (9/38; P = .4). Branch reintervention rates per each branch endograft were 4.3% for FEVAR (4/94; 2 renal stent occlusions, 1 colonic ischemia without technical issue found on reintervention, 1 perinephric hematoma) vs 3.7% for parallel endografts (4/107; 2 renal and 1 celiac stent thromboses, and 1 renal stent kink; P = .41). The endograft branch thrombosis rate was 2.1% in FEVAR (2/94) vs 2.7% in parallel endografts (3/109; P = .77). Reinterventions owing to endoleaks were performed in five patients (2 type I, 2 type III, and 1 gutter endoleak; 13.1%) with parallel grafts vs no endoleak reinterventions in FEVAR. The overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related mortality at 24 months was 78% and 96.9% in FEVAR vs 73% and 93.4% for parallel endografts (P = .8 and P = .6). The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 1-32 months).ConclusionsParallel and fenestrated endografts have acceptable and comparable mortality and patency rates in endovascular treatment of JRA, SRA, and TAAA. This study reaffirms that parallel endografts are a safe and viable alternative to fenestrated devices for complex aortic aneurysmal disease despite often treating more urgent patients and more complicated anatomy unable to be treated with FEVAR.     

Long-term outcomes comparing endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians

ObjectivePatients older than 80 years have significantly lower early mortality with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), but long-term results remain poorly studied. We analyzed the results of both emergent and elective AAA repair in patients aged 80 years or older who had at least 5 years of follow-up.MethodsRetrospective review of a prospectively collected vascular surgery database was performed to identify all patients who underwent elective repair of an AAA between 2007 and 2012 and were 80 years of age or older at the time of surgery. Open and EVAR groups were compared using univariate statistics.ResultsThe study cohort was composed of 314 patients 80 years of age or older (median, 83 years; interquartile range, 5 years) who underwent repair (96 open, 218 EVAR). The groups had similar comorbidities, except that EVAR patients were more likely to be male and open repair patients were more likely to have larger aneurysms. Compared with open repair, elective early postoperative mortality was significantly lower for EVAR patients (1% vs 14%; P < .001). Overall mean life expectancy was 5.9 years (EVAR, 5.8 years; open repair, 5.8 years; P = .98). The 1-year survival was significantly higher for EVAR (92.9%) than for open repair (84.1%; P = .02). The 2-year survival (EVAR, 83.4%; open repair, 74.6%; P = .07) and 5-year survival (EVAR, 57.8%; open repair, 60.3%; P = .98) did not differ between EVAR and open repair. Reintervention rates (EVAR, 18%; open repair, 2%; P = .05) were higher in the endovascular treatment group.ConclusionsEVAR results in an improved 1-year mortality in octogenarians compared with open repair, although 5-year survival is similar between the groups. With average life expectancies of >5 years and an 18% reintervention rate, diligent follow-up is required after EVAR even in elderly patients.     

Results of chimney endovascular aneurysm repair as used in the PERICLES Registry to treat patients with suprarenal aortic pathologies

BackgroundThe prevailing evidence calls for using chimney/snorkel endovascular repair (ch-EVAR) with one or two chimney grafts. No studies up to now focus on its applicability and results for the treatment of suprarenal aortic pathologies (SRAP). Hence, we evaluated the clinical and radiologic results of ch-EVAR treatment for SRAP placing three or more chimney grafts within the PERICLES Registry.MethodsData from 517 patients suffering complex aortic pathologies treated by ch-EVAR between 2008 and 2014 at 13 European and U.S. centers were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsSixty-seven ch-EVAR-treated patients (12.9% of the entire PERICLES cohort) presented SRAP (83.5% elective, 16.5% urgent). The majority of patients (95.5%) received three chimney grafts; four patients received four chimney grafts. The Endurant device was the most commonly used (35.8%) followed by the Zenith abdominal endograft (19.4%). Overall, 204 chimney grafts were placed (56.7% covered self-expandable, 40.3% covered balloon-expandable stents, and 10.4% bare metal balloon-expandable stents). At a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 0.1-67.0 days), 30-day mortality was 6.1% (4 patients), and the overall mortality was 16.4% (11 patients). Overall survival was 87.4% (range, 79.5%-96.0%) at 1 year, 81.8% (range, 72.2%-92.2%) at 2 years and thereafter. Type IA endoleak was noted in nine patients (13.4%) intraoperatively and successfully treated in seven cases (97.1% technical success). Aneurysm sac diameter significantly decreased from 70.5 ± 19.3 mm to 66.9 ± 20.6 mm (P < .001) at last follow-up. Ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack were noted in two patients (2.9%). Chimney occlusion was detected in six renal arteries (9.5%) and two superior mesenteric arteries (3.2%). No patients required chronic hemodialysis. All occluded superior mesenteric artery grafts were successfully rescued using endovascular approaches.ConclusionsThe midterm use of ch-EVAR for the treatment SRAP seems to be safe, highlighting its applicability for the treatment of rupture threatening pathologies and seal zone lengthening as in type IA endoleaks after EVAR. However, the incidence of type IA endoleaks, chimney graft occlusions, and ischemic stroke rates is higher compared with the prevailing single chimney evidence. Longer follow-up with more cases is needed to establish the exact performance of this treatment in SRAP.     

Five-year outcomes of physician-modified endografts for repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThere is paucity of data on the durability of physician modified endografts (PMEGs) for complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) despite widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early and long-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for CAAAs and TAAAs using PMEGs.MethodsWe reviewed clinical data and outcomes of patients treated by FB-EVAR using PMEGs for CAAAs (defined as short-neck infrarenal, juxtarenal, and pararenal AAAs) and TAAAs between 2007 and 2019. All patients were treated by a dedicated team with extensive manufactured device experience. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events, patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from secondary intervention, target artery (TA) patency, and freedom from TA endoleak and TA instability.ResultsOf 645 patients undergoing FB-EVAR, 156 patients (24%) treated with PMEG (121 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) were included. There were 89 CAAAs, 33 extent IV TAAAs and 34 extent I to III TAAAs. A total of 452 renal-mesenteric targets (3.1 ± 1.0 vessels/patient) were incorporated. Patients with TAAAs had significantly (P < .05) larger aneurysms (73 ± 11 vs 68 ± 14 mm), more TAs incorporated (3.4 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 1.0), and more often had previous aortic repair (54% vs 27%). Technical success was higher in patients treated for CAAAs (99% vs 91%; P = .04). Thirty-day and/or in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and was significantly lower for CAAAs compared with TAAAs (2% vs 10%; P = .04), with three of nine early mortalities (33%) among patients treated emergently. After a mean follow-up of 49 ± 38 months, there were 12 aortic-related deaths (7.6%), including nine early deaths (5.7%) from perioperative complications and three late deaths (1.9%) from rupture. At 5 years, patient survival was 41%. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher 5-year freedom from ARM (P = .016), TA instability (P = .05), TA endoleak (P = .01), and TA secondary interventions (P = .05) with a higher, but non-significant, freedom from sac enlargement ≥5 mm (P = .11). Primary and secondary TA patency was 91% ± 2% and 99% ± 1%, respectively. Sac regression ≥5 mm occurred in 67 patients (43%) and was associated with increased survival (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80) compared with those without sac regression.ConclusionsFB-EVAR using PMEGs was performed with acceptable long-term outcomes. Overall patient survival was low due to significant underlying comorbidities. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher freedom from ARM, TA instability, TA endoleak, TA secondary interventions, and a trend towards higher freedom from sac enlargement compared with patients treated for TAAAs. Sac regression was associated with improved patient survival.     

Who should do endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms and how should they do them?

BackgroundCure of aneurysms which involve the aorta at the level of the visceral arteries and the thoracoabdominal segment remains a considerable surgical enterprise with a relatively high mortality and morbidity despite improvements of the surgical procedure and anesthetic technique. Fenestrated and branched endovascular stent grafts are currently available offering an attractive less invasive option especially for most frail patients. These grafts are relatively recent, technically more demanding to insert than the current stent graft for infrarenal aneurysm and besides, given the relative low frequency of the disease, they are much less used by practitioners. Thus, unconditional widespread of this sophisticated technique may not necessarily benefit patients.MethodsWe reviewed our experiences and articles regarding this concern, 1) who should perform this new technique and 2) in what kind of setting.ConclusionBased on the combined complexities of 1) patients selection, 2) proper planning and manufacturing of the graft, 3) the need for outstanding imaging and operating facilities, 4) and the required endovascular skill of physicians involved in the procedure, we feel that only highly specialized centers should be allowed to perform this complex procedure.     

The different effect of branches and fenestrations on early and long-term visceral vessel patency in complex aortic endovascular repair

BackgroundAortic endovascular treatment with fenestrated or branched devices (f/bEVAR) requires a connection between the aortic graft and the visceral vessel (VV). However, data on the perioperative and long-term fate of the VVs remain scarce. The aim of our study was to evaluate the VV loss (VVL) according to the type of revascularization performed (fenestrations vs branched) and the necessity for adjunctive visceral procedures (AVPs).MethodsFrom 2012 to 2017, all f/bEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAAs), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (PAAAs), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) were considered. The perioperative VVL, AVPs, and graft configuration were considered and evaluated during the follow-up period.ResultsIn 158 patients, 523 VVs were considered, 140 (26%) in JAAAs, 165 (32%) in PAAAs, and 218 (42%) in TAAAs. Branches were used for 114 vessels (52%) in TAAAs, 8 (5%) in PAAAs, and 0 (0%) in JAAAs. The overall perioperative VVL was 20 (3.8%) and was significantly greater in TAAAs than in PAAAs or JAAAs (6.4% vs 2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .03). The branches resulted in greater perioperative VVL compared with fenestration (9% [11 of 122] vs 2% [9 of 401]; P = .0001). A significant VVL difference between the branches and fenestrations was identified selectively only for the renal arteries: 11 of 52 (21%) vs 6 of 224 (2.5%; P = .001). The results of the multivariate analysis confirmed the independent greater risk of VVL for branches and renal arteries (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 12.5-1.7; P = .04; odds ratio, 7.1; 95% confidence interval, 52.6-1.05; P = .05, respectively). AVPs were performed in 43 VVs (8.2%) because of dissection (n = 2; 0.4%), stenosis (m = 3; 0.6%), bleeding (n = 3; 0.6%), or kinking between the bridging stent graft and the VV (n = 35; 7%). A significant difference between the branches and fenestrations was seen only for kinking between the bridging stent graft and VV (12% [15 of 112] vs 5% [20 of 401]; P = .005). At 5 years, the incidence of VVL was 2% ± 1%. The fenestrations had significantly greater freedom from VVL compared with the branches (100% vs 87% ± 6%; P = .04), which was confirmed selectively for TAAAs (100% vs 87% ± 6%; P = .04). The use of AVPs did not affect long-term visceral patency.ConclusionsEarly and late VVL was infrequent in complex aortic procedures but seemed to occur more frequently in branches than in fenestration, especially for renal arteries. AVPs were often required to correct artery kinking but this did not affect the long-term patency.     

Risk factors for target vessel endoleaks after physician-modified fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair for postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectivePatients with postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) have been more likely to develop endoleaks than those with degenerative TAAAs after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). In the present study, we aimed to determine the risk factors for target vessel (TV)-related endoleaks after visceral segment F/BEVAR for postdissection TAAAs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with degenerative and postdissection TAAAs treated with F/BEVAR between 2017 and 2021. All the patients had undergone computed tomography angiography before and 3 months, 6 months, and annually after discharge. Two experienced vascular surgeons had used data from computed tomography angiography and vascular angiography to judge the presence of endoleaks. The study end points were mortality, aneurysm rupture, and the emergence of and reintervention for TV-related endoleaks.ResultsA total of 195 patients (mean age, 66 ± 10 years; 69% men) had undergone F/BEVAR for 99 postdissection TAAAs and 96 degenerative TAAAs. During a mean follow-up of 16 ± 12 months, we found that the patients with postdissection TAAAs were younger (age, 64 ± 10 years vs 69 ± 9 years; P = .001), had required more prior aortic repairs (58% vs 40%; P = .012), and had had a higher body mass index (26.1 ± 3.4 kg/m² vs 24.8 ± 3 kg/m²; P = .008), a larger visceral segment aortic diameter (47.1 ± 7.5 mm vs 44.5 ± 7.5 mm; P = .016), and more TV-related endoleaks (18% vs 7%; P = .023) compared with those with degenerative TAAAs. Of the 99 patients with postdissection TAAAs, 327 renal–mesenteric arteries were revascularized using 12 scallops, 141 fenestrations, and 174 inner or outer branch stents. A total of 25 TV-related endoleaks were identified among 18 patients during follow-up, including 6 type Ic (retrograde from the distal end of the branch), 3 type IIIb (bridging stent fabric tear), and 16 type IIIc endoleaks (detachment or loose connection of the bridging stent). The patients with an endoleak had had a larger visceral aortic diameter (52.7 ± 6.4 mm vs 45.8 ± 7.2 mm; P < .001) and had undergone revascularization of more TVs (3.7 ± 0.7 vs 3.2 ± 0.9; P = .032). In contrast, true lumen compression did not seem to affect the occurrence of TV endoleaks (39% vs 27%; P = .323). The use of presewn branch stents in the fenestration position was associated with a lower risk of TV-related endoleaks (5% vs 11%; P = .025). In addition, TVs derived entirely or partially from the false lumen were more prone to the development of endoleaks after reconstruction (19% vs 4% [P < .001]; and 15% vs 4% [P = .047], respectively).ConclusionsWe found that patients with postdissection TAAAs were more likely to have TV-related endoleaks after F/BEVAR in the visceral region than those with degenerative TAAAs. Additionally, patients with a larger aortic diameter and a greater number of fenestrations in the visceral region were more likely to have experienced TV-related endoleaks. Branch vessels deriving from the false lumen were also more likely to develop endoleaks after reconstruction, and prefabricated branch stents were related to a lower possibility of TV-related endoleaks.     

Long-term durability of a physician-modified endovascular graft

We present a unique assessment confirming the long-term durability of a physician-modified endograft deployed as part of an Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial (NCT# 01538056). After receiving an intact postmortem aorta 7 years after the index procedure, we performed microcomputed tomography, necropsy, and metallurgical analysis on the specimen. Microcomputed tomography showed a single strut fracture not noted during previous surveillance. Necropsy revealed no graft fabric compromise, and examination of all three visceral fenestrations showed excellent alignment with no evidence of degradation. Analysis of the strut fracture implicated an initially small, fatigue-induced crack that likely succumbed during postmortem handling.     

Mycotic aortic aneurysms treated by endovascular repair: initial experience in a single center

Introduction: Mycotic aortic aneurysm (MAA) is an uncommon cause of aneurysmal aortic disease. However, it may have an aggressive presentation and a complicated early outcome. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of MAA is emerging as an alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of these aneurysms, particularly in high-risk surgical patients. We report a single-center experience with the endovascular management of mycotic aortic aneurysms.

Material and methods: Two mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysms were treated with an endovascular stent graft at Centre Hospitalier Régional du Val de Sambre, Belgium. The mean follow-up was 15 months. Technical success was achieved in all two patients. CT-scan follow up showed shrinkage of the aneurysm sac, with no evidence of infection along the stent graft and no signs of endoleakage in all patients. One patient died during the follow-up period from a cause unrelated to the aneurysm.

Conclusion: EVAR is an effective and safe option and might be a suitable alternative to OR in the absence of predictors of poor prognosis for the treatment of non-complicated forms of MAA.     

Financial implications of coding inaccuracies in patients undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Objective

Previous cost analyses have found small to negative margins between hospitalization cost and reimbursement for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Hospitals obtain reimbursement on the basis of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding to distinguish patient encounters with or without major comorbidity or complication (MCC). This study's objective was to evaluate coding accuracy and its effect on hospital cost for patients undergoing EVAR.

Preliminary results of Zenith Fenestrated abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular grafts

Background

Patients with juxtarenal aortic aneurysms who are unfit for open repair may be considered for fenestrated endovascular repair (fenEVAR). We report our initial experience with fenEVAR.

Methods

We reviewed the data on all our patients receiving fenEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.

Results

Eight patients, average age 75 years, underwent fenEVAR. Endografts were designed from details obtained from preoperative computed tomography angiography. There were 6 grafts with superior mesenteric scallops and bilateral renal fenestrations, 1 with bilateral renal scallops, and 1 with a single renal fenestration. All patients survived 30 days. There was no renal failure requiring dialysis. At 10 weeks, 1 patient died from acute intestinal ischemia and multisystem organ failure, and another died from respiratory failure.

Conclusions

It is feasible to offer fenEVAR to patients who are poor candidates for open repair. However, these procedures are technically challenging. Early outcomes are less favorable than other aortic endovascular procedures.     

Aneurysm sac failure to regress after endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with lower long-term survival

Background

The early survival advantage of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair reverses over time, possibly because of higher rates of reintervention related to endoleaks and aneurysm sac expansion. Therefore, we sought to examine the association between sac behavior, endoleaks, reintervention, and long-term survival.

Outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveTo describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE).ResultsThere were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups.ConclusionsFB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure.     

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

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

Comparative outcomes of open,hybrid, and fenestrated branched endovascular repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveOpen repair of extent II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) is associated with substantial morbidity. Alternative strategies, such as hybrid operations combining proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair with either staged open distal TAAA repair or visceral debranching (hybrid), as well as fenestrated/branched endografts (FEVAR), have been increasingly reported; however, benefits of these approaches compared with direct open surgery remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these three different strategies in the management of extent II/III TAAA.MethodsAll extent II/III TAAA repairs (2002-2018) for nonmycotic, degenerative aneurysm or chronic dissection at a single institution were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), complications, unplanned re-operation, 90-day readmission, and out-of-hospital survival. To mitigate impact of covariate imbalance and selection bias, intergroup comparisons were made using inverse probability weighted-propensity analysis. Cox regression was used to estimate survival while cumulative incidence was used to determine reoperation risk.ResultsOne hundred ninety-eight patients (FEVAR, 92; hybrid, 40; open, 66) underwent repair. In unadjusted analysis, compared with hybrid/open patients, FEVAR patients were significantly older with more cardiovascular risk factors, but less likely to have a connective tissue disorder or dissection-related indication. Unadjusted 30-day mortality and complication rates were: 30-day mortality, FEVAR 4%, hybrid 13%, open 12% (P = .01); and complications, FEVAR 36%, hybrid 33%, open 50% (P = .11). Permanent SCI was not different among groups (FEVAR 3%, hybrid 3%, open 6%; P = .64). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality risk was greater for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = .01) with no difference for hybrid vs open/FEVAR. There was significantly lower risk of any SCI for open vs FEVAR (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.96; P = .04); however, no difference in risk of permanent SCI was detected among the three groups. There was no difference in complications or unplanned reoperation, but open patients had the greatest risk of unplanned 90-day readmission. There was a time-varying effect on survival probability, with open repair having a significant survival disadvantage in the first 1 to 6 months after the procedure compared with hybrid/FEVAR patients (Cox model P = .03), but no difference in survival at 1 and 5 years (1- and 5-year survival: FEVAR, 86 ± 3%, 55 ± 8%; hybrid, 86 ± 5%, 60 ± 11%; open 69 ± 7%, 59 ± 8%; Cox-model P = .10).ConclusionsExtent II/III TAAA repair, regardless of operative strategy, is associated with significant morbidity risk. FEVAR is associated with the lowest 30-day mortality risk compared with hybrid and open repair when estimates are adjusted for preoperative risk factors. These data support greater adoption of FEVAR as first-line therapy to treat complex TAAA disease in anatomically suitable patients who present electively.