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.     

Short-term and Midterm Results of Fenestrated Anaconda Endograft in Patients with Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose

To review short-term and midterm results of the fenestrated Anaconda stent graft in management of patients with pre-existing endovascular aortic stent graft and persistent type 1a endoleak.

Outcomes over Time in Patients with Hostile Neck Anatomy Undergoing Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Purpose

To assess differences in outcome in an early and later time period in patients with hostile neck anatomy who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

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

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

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.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair-induced acute kidney injury does not result in chronic renal dysfunction

ObjectiveAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common physiologic complication after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR). This investigation was initiated to determine the unknown impact of post-FEVAR AKI on long-term renal function after index hospital discharge.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of an institutional FEVAR database capturing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables related to the implantation of consecutive Zenith Fenestrated endografts (ZFEN; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) between October 2012 and April 2018. AKI in this study was bimodally defined as qualification by either Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage (RIFLE) criteria or a postoperative serum creatinine (sCr) concentration increase of 0.5 mg/dL from baseline. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated using the validated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation.ResultsDuring the study period, 120 FEVARs were performed at our institution. Twenty-four (20%) patients exhibited postoperative AKI by our established definitions. Two in-hospital deaths occurred in the AKI cohort compared with none in the remaining FEVARs (P = .04). Four (16.7%) AKI patients required perioperative (<30-day) renal replacement therapy, three of whom were successfully weaned before discharge. FEVARs uncomplicated by AKI exhibited no differences in sCr concentration from baseline to 1-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up (mean, 1.8 ± 1.4 years). In contrast, patients exhibiting AKI experienced an sCr concentration increase of 57.1% (P = .01) at 1 month after the procedure. This elevation decreased to 14.3% (P = .35) at 6 months after the procedure and was maintained at baseline values at 1- and 2-year office visits (follow-up, 1.3 ± 1.5 years). A similar pattern of gradual recovery during follow-up was also observed with respect to calculated GFR.ConclusionsAKI is common after FEVAR but rarely results in permanent renal dysfunction as both sCr concentration and GFR return to baseline by 6 months after the procedure.     

The “bare branch” for safe spinal cord ischemia prevention after total endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms

ObjectiveStaged endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) with temporary perfusion of the sac through a branch left unstented or a dedicated branch is a strategy intended to reduce the risk of postoperative spinal cord ischemia (SCI). However, potential complications of this approach are aneurysm sac progression between stages, visceral embolism, and occlusion or displacement of components. We here present the “bare branch” technique, a safe adjunct to TAAA repair in terms of interstage complications.MethodsIn the first step, one branch, preferentially the one for the celiac trunk, is stented by a bare stent; in the second step, the bare branch is relined with a covered stent. There were 32 TAAAs (5 type I, 6 type II, 16 type III, 5 type IV) treated by this approach at our center from January 2015 to December 2017 (median follow-up, 13 months [range, 2-24 months]). Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Primary end points were aneurysm sac exclusion and freedom from major adverse events, which included SCI. Secondary end points were freedom from aneurysm growth between the stages and freedom from minor adverse events.ResultsPreoperative mean maximum diameter was 68.4 mm; 32 endografts (8 off-the-shelf and 24 custom-made devices) were used. The mean aortic coverage was 364 mm. The mean interval time between the two stages was 10.5 weeks (range, 7-20 weeks). In-hospital mortality was 0%. Type I or type III endoleak rate was 3.2%, whereas one type II endoleak was registered (3.2%). Two patients showed paraparesis, one after the first stage and one after the second stage, both noted at 4/5 on the Tarlov scale, and fully recovered so that the SCI rate was 6.4% with 0% permanent neurologic deficit. Interstage mean maximum diameter was 68.6 mm (P > .05). After the second step, there was an average of 4.7 spinal arteries (standard deviation, 1.4; P < .05) per patient with an increase in visibility and of diameter by 0.7 mm (standard deviation, 0.4 mm).ConclusionsThis is a reproducible adjunct to staged TAAA endovascular repair. The use of a bare branch instead of a branch left completely open has the clear advantage of an easy catheterization in the second step. Furthermore, by having the target vessel stented with a bare stent, the risk of embolism is avoided. In this experience, there was no significant aneurysm sac growth in between the steps. Further comparative studies may determine whether there are different hemodynamic forces with this technique with respect to those already described in the literature.