Symptomatic sac enlargement and rupture due to seroma after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with polytetrafluoroethylene graft: Implications for endovascular repair and endotension

OBJECTIVE: We report 5 patients in whom a symptomatic perigraft seroma developed within the aortic sac, without vascular endoleak, after open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft. We also discuss possible relationships of this phenomenon to endovascular repair of AAAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over 18 years, 1156 patients underwent repair of an AAA by one of the authors (B.M.B.). Of these, 1084 underwent open repair, 256 with PTFE grafts. Five patients in the PTFE group (2.3%) returned at a mean of 4.5 years with acute abdominal or back pain and enlargement of the aortic sac. Mean diameter of the aneurysms was 5.9 cm preoperatively and 8.1 cm at readmission. There was no evidence of vascular endoleak on computed tomography scans, but 1 patient had a retroperitoneal hematoma. RESULTS: Laparotomy in 4 patients disclosed a seroma containing firm rubbery gelatinous material under tension, histologically identified as amorphous eosinophilic material containing thrombus and degenerate blood cells in all cases. Rupture of the sac was confirmed in the patient with a retroperitoneal hematoma. The sac contents were evacuated and the integrity of the underlying grafts and anastomoses was confirmed before sac reduction, with imbricating sutures, and closure was performed. One patient died at 8 months of an unrelated cause; the other 3 patients remain well at mean follow-up of 12 months. The fifth patient received conservative treatment and remains asymptomatic 3 years after acute presentation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings of sac enlargement without vascular endoleak after open AAA repair are reminiscent of sac enlargement in the absence of endoleak after endovascular AAA repair. This has been referred to as endotension. The comparatively benign outcome in 5 patients with symptomatic sac enlargement, including 2 patients with rupture, after open AAA repair provides data to support a circumspect approach to endotension, especially in patients with asymptomatic disease, which has been reported as occurring in almost half of patients who received a PTFE Excluder endograft.     

Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is reported to result in less initial patient morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional AAA repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval. METHODS: The records of all admissions for all patients who underwent AAA repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-seven (337) patients underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuRx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P =.24 to P =.92) or configuration (P =.24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P =.009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the patients who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with patients who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after AAA repair at 12 months was 95% for patients for open AAA repair versus 71% for patients for endovascular repair (P <.001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent AAA-related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for patients who underwent endovascular versus open AAA procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P =.21). The patients for endovascular AAA repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of endoleak (n = 31), wound infection (n = 12), and graft limb thrombosis (n = 9). Although women had similar LOS to men for endovascular repair (P =.44), they had longer initial LOS for open AAA repair (15 versus 10 days; P =.03). After endovascular repair, women were more likely than men to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P =.03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P =.006). No gender differences were identified for patients after open AAA repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P =.09) or LOS on readmission (P =.98). CONCLUSION: Although initial LOS was shorter for the patients who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional AAA repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, chiefly endoleak. These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and endovascular AAA repair.     

Laparoscopy-assisted aneurysm resection as a minimal invasive alternative in patients unsuitable for endovascular surgery

OBJECTIVE: So far, endovascular surgery has been the only minimal invasive way to treat patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). With hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), laparoscopic transperitoneal endoaneurysm repair can be performed through a 6-cm mini-incision only. We wanted to evaluate whether this laparoscopic technique can be offered as a minimal invasive alternative in patients unsuitable for endovascular AAA repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients were referred for endovascular AAA repair. Three patients had to be excluded from the study. Endovascular AAA exclusion was finally performed in 13 patients. Laparoscopic AAA resection was performed in 24 patients. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery with transperitoneal access and endoaneurysm repair was accomplished in all patients unsuitable for an endovascular procedure. The outcome after endovascular repair was compared with the outcome of patients who underwent laparoscopy. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic group, conversion to an open procedure was necessary in one case. One patient in this group died (4.1%) postoperatively. There were four complications in each group. In the endovascular group we had one endoleak type II and one graft thrombosis, which required a reoperation. After endovascular treatment, patients were transferred significantly less frequently to the intensive care unit, and they could resume oral feeding earlier. Mobilization and postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic AAA resection with the use of the technique described can be routinely offered to patients unsuitable for endovascular AAA exclusion with excellent long-term results similar to open surgery. A controlled study is clearly indicated to evaluate the role of laparoscopic techniques in aneurysm surgery.     

一期杂交手术治疗弓部和胸腹段主动脉病变

目的 总结单中心手术结合微创的杂交技术,同期治疗弓部、胸腹段主动脉病变的经验.方法 回顾性分析2007年6月至2008年5月在澳门仁伯爵综合医院应用杂交技术,同期治疗主动脉病变5例的临床资料.其中胸降主动脉瘤累及半弓合并夹层1例,弓降主动脉瘤1例,DebarkeyⅢ型急性主动脉夹层1例,累及双侧髂总、髂内动脉的肾下腹主动脉瘤2例.弓部近端锚定区分类,ZAP 0区2例,ZAP 2区1例.弓降主动脉瘤正中开胸行升主动脉至双侧颈总人工血管搭桥+左颈总动脉至左锁骨下动脉搭桥术,同期导管室血管造影(digital seduction angiogram,DSA)下经股动脉释放Zenith覆膜支架.Debakey Ⅲ型夹层行左颈总至左锁骨下动脉搭桥后释放覆膜支架封闭破口.对于累及双侧髂内动脉的腹主动脉瘤,预先髂内、外动脉搭桥后释放腹主动脉分叉支架.结果 手术5例均获成功,术后即刻造影和随访CTA无内漏发生,随访期2～10个月.出血量约200～600 ml之间,均未输血.1例弓部杂交术后相继发生成人呼吸窘迫综合征(adult respiratory distresssyndrome,ARDS),及急性左心衰,经积极治疗后痊愈.1例术后因心肌梗塞死亡.2例弓部杂交治疗病例各颈动脉阻断时间均小于10 min,均无神经并发症或者轻微神经症状.另1例腹主动脉瘤患者杂交术后恢复正常,无并发症.结论 应用手术结合微创这一新型杂交技术治疗胸腹各段主动脉病变,有利于减少外科创伤和体外循环等所带来的血流动力学改变.     

Life-table Analysis of Primary and Assisted Success Following Endoluminal Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: the Role of Supplementary Endovascular Intervention in Improving Outcome

AIM: the aim of this study was to analyse the effect of supplementary endovascular intervention on the outcome of primary endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: between May 1992 and December 1998, 266 patients underwent endoluminal repair of AAA. Minimum period of follow-up was 6 months. Those patients in whom the endoprosthesis could not be deployed were converted to open repair at the primary operation. Patients developing an early endoleak, within 31 days, were treated by a period of observation and secondary endovascular intervention in persistent cases. Patients developing a late endoleak were treated similarly, without a period of observation. Outcome was analysed by the life-table method. Primary success was defined as exclusion of the aneurysm from the circulation resulting from the original operation. Assisted success occurred when aneurysms with endoleaks became excluded from the circulation as a result of supplementary endovascular intervention. RESULTS: endoluminal repair failed in 17 patients requiring conversion to open repair at the original operation. Supplementary endovascular intervention was undertaken in 26 patients, with early endoleaks (n=6) and late endoleaks (n=20). Interventions involved deployment of secondary endoluminal grafts within the primary grafts (n=22), and coil embolisation (n=4). Successful exclusion of the aneurysm sac was achieved in 22 of 26 (85%) patients undergoing supplementary endovascular procedures. Conditional cumulative incidence of primary graft failure and secondary graft failure in the presence of all-cause mortality at 6 years was 47% and 25% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: supplementary endovascular intervention is an important adjunct to endoluminal AAA repair with the potential to improve outcome and avoid conversion to open repair. Successful supplementary endovascular intervention was achieved in 85% of patients in whom it was attempted. Life-table analysis showed these supplementary procedures to be durable in the long term.     

Zenith AAA endovascular graft: intermediate-term results of the US multicenter trial

PURPOSE: The intent of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft compared with conventional aneurysm repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, concurrent control manner. Physiologically similar patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) underwent either open surgery or repair with the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft. Separate analyses of physiologically challenged patients were performed. Follow-up was conducted at hospital discharge and at 1, 6, and 12 months (endovascular repair group) or 1 and 12 months (open surgical repair group). Evaluation included computed tomography, abdominal radiography, laboratory tests, and physical examination. Mortality (AAA-related and overall), morbidity, in-hospital recovery, renal function, and secondary interventions were assessed. Patients in the endovascular repair group were evaluated for change in aneurysm size, endoleak, graft migration, conversion, rupture, and device integrity. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, Blackwelder test, propensity score assessment, two-sample t test, Yates-corrected Pearson chi(2) test, and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Conventional open surgery was used in 80 patients, and 200 patients underwent repair with the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft. Technical success was accomplished in 98.8% of patients in the open repair group and 99.5% in the endovascular repair group. Patients in the endovascular repair group had fewer significant adverse events within 30 days (80% vs 57%; P <.001). All-cause mortality was similar (endovascular, 3.5%; open surgery, 3.8%). Aneurysm-related mortality was higher with conventional surgery at 12 months (3.8% vs 0.5%; P =.04). In-hospital recovery and procedural measures were better for endovascular repair in all categories (P <.001). The incidence of endoleak was 17% at 30 days, 7.4% at 12 months, and 5.4% at 24 months. Aneurysm shrinkage (>5 mm) was noted in more than two thirds of patients at 12 months and three fourths of patients at 24 months. Renal dysfunction rate did not differ between groups. Migration (>5 mm) was detected in four (2%) patients through 12 months; none was greater than 10 mm or associated with adverse events through 24 months. Three conversions were performed within 12 months, one because of aneurysm rupture. Secondary procedures were more common in the endovascular group (11% vs 2.5%; P =.03). In total, 351 patients had endografts implanted, and 6 patients were noted to have barb separations through 12-month follow-up. No stent fractures were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft is safe and effective for treatment of infrarenal AAAs. The high likelihood of decrease in aneurysm size provides evidence that treatment of aneurysms with this device reverses the natural history of aneurysmal disease. The importance of long-term follow-up is underscored by the small but defined incidence of barb separation and the potential for unforeseen failure modes.     

Acute and chronic open conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a 14-year review

OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed outcomes of patients requiring surgical conversion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS: Records for all patients undergoing open conversion after endovascular AAA repair were reviewed. RESULTS: From 1993 to 2006, 574 patients underwent endovascular repair for AAA. Seventeen patients, including three patients who underwent prior endovascular repair at other centers, required surgical conversion with complete (n = 9) or partial graft removal (n = 8). Five patients required immediate conversion (acute), and 12 underwent delayed conversion 4 to 72 months after endovascular repair. Indications for acute conversion were large type I endoleak (n = 3, 60%), including one patient with graft migration, and retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 2, 40%). Indications for chronic conversion were endoleak with increasing aneurysm size (n = 9, 75%), stent fracture without endoleak (n = 1, 8%), delayed retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1, 8%), and infection (n = 1, 8%). Suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was required in two patients (12%), and endograft components were retained in eight (47%). An aortic occlusion balloon placed through the body of the existing endograft facilitated proximal control in three patients. There were two perioperative deaths in the acute conversion group (2/5; 40%) and none in the delayed conversion group (P = .04). Five-year actuarial survival was 71.9%. Mean follow-up was 41.6 +/- 32.2 months. Retained endovascular components in patients with partial graft removal remained stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical conversion after endovascular AAA repair can be performed without suprarenal clamping in most patients. Endovascular aortic control with a balloon avoids suprarenal exposure. Partial endograft removal in selected patients facilitates open conversion and appears durable. Acute conversion is associated with increased mortality.     

Analysis of renal function after aneurysm repair with a device using suprarenal fixation (Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft) in contrast to open surgical repair

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to assess the effect on renal function of open surgery and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair with suprarenal fixation with the Zenith device. METHODS: Data for 279 patients with similar preoperative comorbid conditions were prospectively analyzed after AAA repair. One hundred ninety-nine patients underwent endografting with the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft, which incorporates suprarenal fixation (Zenith standard risk group, ZSR), and 80 patients underwent open surgery (standard surgical risk group, SSR). Endovascular repair was also performed in 100 patients considered poor candidates for open repair (Zenith high risk group, ZHR). Serum creatinine concentration (SCr) and anatomic defects were assessed before the procedure, before discharge, and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months in all patients who underwent endovascular repair, and before the procedure and at 1 and 12 months in patients who underwent open surgical repair (only SCr was measured before discharge). Renal function was also analyzed, with a creatinine clearance calculation (Cockcraft-Gault). Renal insufficiency was defined as an increase in SCr greater than 30% from a preoperative baseline value, any SCr concentration in excess of 2.0 mg/dL, or any need for dialysis. Cumulative renal infarction and arterial occlusion rates were calculated with computed tomographic, ultrasonographic, and angiographic data, and reported as cumulative values. RESULTS: Despite the initially superior renal function in the ZSR group at the pre-discharge evaluation (P =.01), there were no differences at 12 months with respect to rise in SCr greater than 30% (ZSR, 16%, vs SSR, 12%; P =.67), SCr rise greater than 2.0 mg/dL (ZSR, 2.5%, vs SSR, 3.4%; P =.66), incidence of renal artery occlusion (ZSR, 1%, vs SSR, 1.4%; P >.99), or infarction (ZSR, 1.5%, vs SSR, 1.4%; P >.99). Only one patient in each group required hemodialysis. Of note, both groups of patients demonstrated a reduction in creatinine clearance over 12 months, which then stabilized or improved by 24 months for ZSR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction occurs in a subset of patients regardless of type of repair (open or endovascular with suprarenal fixation). The cause of renal dysfunction after open or endovascular repair with a suprarenal stent is probably multifactorial. The observed dysfunction occurs in a small number of patients, and the effect in the endovascular group (no data for the surgical group at 24 months) appears to be transient. The initial dysfunction, apparent in both groups over 12 months of follow-up, stabilizes or improves at 12 to 24 months.     

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

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

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm--a challenge to open repair? Results of a single centre experience in 20 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains in the region of 50% despite advances in critical care. Endovascular repair of AAA has been shown to be associated with reduced physiological stress in the elective setting. It is hypothesised that the reduced physiological stress associated with EVAR may improve the outcome in patients with ruptured AAA. METHODS: A feasibility study of endovascular repair of ruptured AAA was undertaken at the University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K. between 1994 and 2000. Patients admitted with ruptured AAA were assessed by a team familiar with endovascular techniques for elective repair of AAA. After giving informed consent patients underwent spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in the majority of cases. Patients were then transferred to the operating theatre for EVAR. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent repair of ruptured AAA. Of these 20 patients, seven were referred from another hospital. Eight patients were considered unfit for open repair. The median duration of procedure was 180 min (range 120-480) and median blood loss was 1200 ml (range 750-2000 ml). The overall peri-operative mortality was 45%. A number of intra-operative and peri-operative procedures (both open and endovascular) were required to ensure aneurysm exclusion and to deal with the complications of endovascular surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ruptured AAA remains a particularly hazardous condition to treat. There are a number of advantages of EVAR in this condition. A number of the problems early in the experience of EVAR have been addressed, but further experience is required to demonstrate its efficacy when compared with open repair.     

Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm – a Challenge to Open Repair? Results of a Single Centre Experience in 20 Patients

Introduction: the mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains in the region of 50% despite advances in critical care. Endovascular repair of AAA has been shown to be associated with reduced physiological stress in the elective setting. It is hypothesised that the reduced physiological stress associated with EVAR may improve the outcome in patients with ruptured AAA. Methods: a feasibility study of endovascular repair of ruptured AAA was undertaken at the University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K. between 1994 and 2000. Patients admitted with ruptured AAA were assessed by a team familiar with endovascular techniques for elective repair of AAA. After giving informed consent patients underwent spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in the majority of cases. Patients were then transferred to the operating theatre for EVAR. Results: twenty patients underwent repair of ruptured AAA. Of these 20 patients, seven were referred from another hospital. Eight patients were considered unfit for open repair. The median duration of procedure was 180 min (range 120–480) and median blood loss was 1200 ml (range 750–2000 ml). The overall peri-operative mortality was 45%. A number of intra-operative and peri-operative procedures (both open and endovascular) were required to ensure aneurysm exclusion and to deal with the complications of endovascular surgery. Conclusions: ruptured AAA remains a particularly hazardous condition to treat. There are a number of advantages of EVAR in this condition. A number of the problems early in the experience of EVAR have been addressed, but further experience is required to demonstrate its efficacy when compared with open repair.     

Endovascular Treatment of Failed Prior Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Failure of endovascular or conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair may occur as a result of attachment site endoleak (type I) or paraanastomotic aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm formation. This study examined the results of the use of secondary endovascular grafts for the treatment of failed prior infrarenal AAA repair procedures. Forty-seven patients were treated with endovascular grafts. These included 14 patients with type I endoleaks (5 proximal, 8 distal, 1 proximal and distal) and 33 patients with paraanastomotic aneurysms after standard open surgical AAA repair (3 proximal aorta, 5 distal aorta, 21 iliac, 4 proximal and distal). The interval between the primary aortic procedure and the endovascular repair was significantly shorter for failed endovascular procedures (mean, 18.2 months; range, 1-42 months) than for failed conventional procedures (mean, 108.9 months; range, 12-216 months) (p <0.01). The endovascular devices used for correction of the failed AAA repairs were Talent (23), physician-made (19), AneuRx (2), Vanguard (2), and Excluder (1). Transrenal fixation was used for repair of all proximal anastomotic failures. Mean follow-up after reintervention was 12.2 months in patients with failed endovascular grafts and 10.6 months in patients with failed conventional grafts. Patient demographics were as follows: average age, 78 years; 36 male and 11 female; and 4.1 comorbid medical conditions per patient. The endovascular graft was successfully deployed in all 47 cases; 1 patient experienced a persistent proximal attachment site endoleak after endograft deployment. Endovascular grafts may be used to treat previously failed endovascular and conventional AAA repair procedures with good short- and intermediate-term results. Endovascular treatments in these cases may avoid the difficulties of aortic reoperation or AAA repair in the setting of prior endovascular aortic grafting.     

Outcome after emergency repair of symptomatic, unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: results in 42 patients and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of our experience in the management of patients with symptomatic, unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), to identify the predictors of immediate outcome and to define the worldwide postoperative mortality rate through a review of previous studies on this condition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients underwent emergency repair for symptomatic, unruptured AAA. RESULTS: Four patients (9.5%) died during the in-hospital stay, three of myocardial infarction and one of multiorgan failure. Only preoperative creatinine was predictive of postoperative death (p = 0.04, OR 1.31). The Glasgow Aneurysm Score tended to be predictive of postoperative death (p = 0.06), survivors having had a median score of 76.0 (IQR, 75.5-82.1) and patients who died of 87.1 (78.9-89.9). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the Glasgow Aneurysm Score had an area under the curve of 0.789 (95% CI: 0.596-0.983, SE: 0.099, p = 0.06). Its best cut-off value in predicting postoperative death was 85 (specificity 86.8%, sensitivity 75.0%). The postoperative mortality rate among patients with a Glasgow Aneurysm Score <85 was 2.9%, whereas it was 37.5% among those with a score >85 (p = 0.003). A review of the results of previous studies on this condition, including also the present series, showed that 207 out of 1312 patients (15.8%) died after emergency operation for symptomatic, unruptured AAA. CONCLUSION: Emergency open repair of symptomatic, unruptured AAA is associated with a high risk of postoperative death. The results of this study suggest that a rather good postoperative survival rate can be expected in patients with a Glasgow Aneurysm Score <85. A watchful waiting policy or, alternatively, emergency endovascular repair should be advocated in patients with a higher score.     

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm: concurrent comparison of outcome of those occurring after endovascular repair versus those occurring without previous treatment in an 11-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this single-center study was to compare findings at presentation and surgical outcome in patients in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) ruptured after endovascular repair and patients in whom AAAs ruptured before any treatment, over a defined period. METHODS: From May 1992 to September 2003, 1043 patients underwent elective repair of intact infrarenal AAAs. Endovascular repair was performed in 609 patients, and open repair in 434 patients. Eighteen of 609 patients (3%) who underwent endovascular AAA repair required treatment because of rupture of the aneurysm after a mean of 29 months (group 1). During the same 11-year period, another 91 patients without previous treatment required urgent repair of a ruptured AAA (group 2). Rupture was diagnosed at contrast material-enhanced computed tomography or by presence of extramural extravasation of blood at open repair. Except for a higher incidence of women in group 2, patients in both groups were similar with regard to demographics and clinical characteristics but differed in findings at presentation. Eight patients in group 1 had a known endoleak before AAA rupture, whereas contrast-enhanced computed tomography, performed in 15 patients at presentation, demonstrated an endoleak in all. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg) was noted at presentation in 4 of 18 patients (22%) in group 1 and 76 of 91 patients (84%) in group 2. All patients underwent open repair via a transperitoneal approach, except for 4 patients in group 1 and 3 patients in group 2 who underwent endovascular repair of ruptured AAAs. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with hypotension at presentation in group 1 (4 of 18) was significantly less than in group 2 (76 of 91; P < .01). The difference in perioperative (30 day) mortality rate in group 1 (3 of 18; 16.6%) compared with group 2 (49 of 91; 53.8%) was also significant (P < .01). The outcome in group 1 was therefore superior to that in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that endovascular AAA repair complicated by endoleak does not prevent rupture. The data suggest, however, that rupture, when it occurs in these circumstances, may not be accompanied by such major hemodynamic changes and high mortality as rupture of an untreated AAA. Further long-term follow-up and analysis in a larger group of patients are required to confirm the apparent intermediate level of protection afforded by failed endovascular repair, which does not prevent rupture but enhances survival after operation to treat rupture, possibly by ameliorating the hemodynamic changes associated with the rupture process.     

The Zenith AAA endovascular graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical update

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide an update regarding the US clinical trial assessing the performance of the Zenith AAA Endovascular Graft in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized, concurrent control-based study design was used to contrast conventional repair of infrarenal aneurysms with endovascular repair in patients that would otherwise be candidates for open surgical procedures. Additional study arms allow high-physiologic-risk patients and roll-in patients to be treated using the same endovascular device in a registry format. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically computed tomography (CT) and abdominal radiographs) before any intervention, at hospital discharge, 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Data were analyzed with the intent of assessing acute and chronic morbidity and mortality, radiographic parameters indicative of successful aneurysm repair, and device integrity. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were treated with the Zenith graft (one patient did not receive an implant in the standard-risk group), and 80 patients underwent conventional surgical repair. Two hundred patients were enrolled in the standard-risk group, 100 in the high-risk group, and 52 underwent endovascular repair as roll-in patients. All cause mortality, aneurysm-related deaths, and ruptures were statistically identical between the groups. Procedural morbidity was significantly lower for patients treated with endovascular grafts with respect to cardiac, pulmonary, renal, and vascular complications. Secondary interventions were more commonly required in the endovascular group. The endoleak rate was 4.9% at 12 months in the standard-risk endovascular group. There was one rupture in the high-risk subset of patients and 3 elective conversions. A total of 1.6% of the endovascular patients were noted to have a barb separation without evidence of significant migration or clinical events. No other device integrity issues were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of the Zenith endovascular graft was superior to conventional management with respect to morbidity and clinical utility. The short-term device efficacy was satisfactory; however, longer-term follow-up will be necessary to establish the duration of this observation.     

Endovascular repair of early rupture of Dacron aortic graft--two case reports

Complications after open aortic surgery pose a challenge both to the vascular surgeon and the patient because of aging population, widespread use of cardiac revascularization, and improved survival after aortic surgery. The perioperative mortality rate for redo elective aortic surgery ranges from 5% to 29% and increases to 70-100% in emergency situation. Endovascular treatment of the postaortic open surgery (PAOS) patient has fewer complications and a lower mortality rate in comparison with redo open surgical repair. Two cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were managed with the conventional open surgical repair. Subsequently, spiral contrast computer tomography scans showed reperfusion of the AAA sac remnant mimicking a type III endoleak. These graft-related complications presented as vascular emergencies, and in both cases endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedure was performed successfully by aortouniiliac (AUI) stent graft and femorofemoral crossover bypass. These 2 patients add further merit to the cases reported in the English literature. This highlights the crucial importance of endovascular grafts in the management of such complex vascular problems.     

The utilization of the double-bubble aortic configuration to seal infra-renal aortic aneurysms: a case report and review of literature

An 80-year-old Caucasian female with a symptomatic pararenal aortic aneurysm (AAA) presented with severe abdominal pain radiating to the back, which was associated with a significantly tender pulsating abdominal mass. The patient was deemed unfit for open repair, secondary to her significant multiple comorbidities. Her preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiography showed a 6 cm pararenal AAA with a short hostile neck; however, her aneurysm had a double-bubble sign, which we utilized as an adjunct for sealing zones. A 36-mm Cook Zenith device was deployed with complete exclusion of the AAA. The patient recovered uneventfully with complete resolution of her abdominal pain. On her 2-month follow-up CT angiography, there was no migration or endoleak, with a decrease in the aneurysm sac size. This case report highlights the benefit of having such an aortic configuration as an adjunct tool for proximal sealing zones and demonstrates that certain anatomy may be beneficial in selected patients.     

Outcomes of endovascular AAA repair in patients with hostile neck anatomy using adjunctive balloon-expandable stents

Hostile neck anatomy remains the predominant reason that patients are denied endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We reviewed our experience of EVAR with use of prophylactic adjunctive proximal balloon-expandable stents in patients with hostile neck anatomy and adjunctive proximal balloon-expandable stents in patients with type I endoleaks. Of 140 patients who underwent EVAR between 2000 and 2004, we reviewed data for 19 patients in whom we used proximal balloon-expandable stents. By high-resolution computed tomography scan or angiography, hostile neck anatomy was classified as length <15 mm, neck diameters > or =26 mm, circumferential thrombus at the proximal neck, angulated neck > or =60 degrees, and neck bulge or reverse taper necks. Patients were considered to have hostile anatomy if they met 1 or more of the above-cited criteria. All patients underwent AAA repair with commercially available endograft systems, Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, IN) and AneuRx (Medtronic/AVE, Minneapolis, MN). Balloon-expandable stents utilized included Cordis-Palmaz stents (17/19) and eV3 Max stents (2/19). Stents were deployed in the proximal graft with transrenal extension. AneuRx (18/19) and Zenith (1/19) endografts were used in all of the patients. Of the 19 patients, 15 had prophylactic stent placement for known hostile neck anatomy and 4 patients had stent placement for type I endoleak. Assisted primary technical success was achieved in all patients. Three patients had maldeployment of the endograft or proximal stent requiring additional endovascular interventions at the time of surgery. No endografts were deployed too low requiring stent placement. Procedure-related complications occurred in 2 of 19 patients. These included 1 operative death secondary to pneumonia and 1 patient who developed progressive renal failure. Short-term clinical success was achieved in 17 of 19 patients. Two patients required secondary interventions, 1 due to device migration with secondary conversion to open repair, and an endoleak, which, on angiogram, was a large type II endoleak successfully treated with coiling of the inferior mesenteric artery. One patient was observed to have a type II endoleak with no associated aneurysm enlargement. Short-term results suggest the use of prophylactic adjunctive balloon-expandable stents may decrease the incidence of secondary interventions related to hostile neck anatomy when used as an adjunctive measure with EVAR. Based on our experience, we feel EVAR may be offered to an expanded patient population with hostile neck anatomy with use of prophylactic balloon-expandable stents.     

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

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

Long-term outcome after aortic endovascular repair: the Sydney experience

BACKGROUND: Since the inception of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair there has been concern about the unknown long-term outcome following this method of repair. AIM: The purpose of this study is to present the outcome of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) who were treated by endovascular repair between 5 and 11 years ago. METHODS: Between May 1992 and November 1997, 190 patients (175 males 15 females, mean age 72 years) were treated at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Overall, 1 of 3 patients were considered to have comorbidities that precluded open repair. Endoprostheses used were first generation in two thirds of patients and second generation in one third of patients. RESULTS: Eight patients (4.2%) died in the perioperative period. Endovascular repair failed in 20 patients (10.5%) who required conversion to open repair. Secondary conversion at a subsequent operation was necessary in 25 patients with rupture (n = 10), persistent endoleak (n = 11), endotension (n = 2), and inadvertent covering of the renal arteries by their prostheses (n = 2). Eight of the 20 patients presenting with rupture survived conversion to open repair. A long-term study of morphological changes in the proximal neck after endovascular AAA repair revealed a high probability (0.943 at 7 years) of no enlargement. Patients alive with successfully excluded AAA for 5-6, 6-7, 7-8, 8-9 year intervals of time, number 51, 36, 25, and 15, respectively. CONCLUSION: Considering that one third of patients were unfit for open repair and two thirds were treated with first generation prostheses, these results support the continued use of the endovascular method to treat AAA.