Search

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess clinical and contemporary costs associated with elective endovascular repair of intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA) into the mid-term follow-up. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained clinical database including 29 consecutive patients from July 2005 to December 2009 treated with elective endovascular repair (TEVAR) or TEVAR and surgical infrarenal repair (hybrid) of intact DTAA was performed. Mean age was 74.5 years old (±7.1). Primary clinical endpoints include mortality and major morbidity. Additionally a comprehensive economic appraisal of individual in-hospital and follow-up costs was executed. Economic endpoints include in-hospital and follow-up costs and patient discharge status. Elective endovascular and open repairs' clinical and economical outcomes in contemporary literature were assessed for comparison according to PRISMA standards. RESULTS Immediate mortality was 6.9% (1/24 TEVAR and 1/5 hybrid). Three respiratory complications were recorded (11%; 2 TEVAR, 1 hybrid). Renal and cardiac complication rates were 7.4% (1 TEVAR, 1 hybrid) and 3.7% (1 TEVAR) respectively. Routine discharge home was achieved for 85% of patients (95.7% TEVAR, 25% hybrid). Three endoleaks were treated throughout the follow-up (2 TEVAR, 1 hybrid; mean 30.4 mo, ±19.9) rendering an 11% (3/27) reintervention rate. Average immediate cost was €21,976.87 for elective endovascular repair and €33,783.21 for elective endovascular hybrid repair. Additional reintervention and routine follow-up costs augmented immediate costs by 12.4%. CONCLUSIONS This study supports satisfying immediate clinical outcomes for TEVAR and TEVAR+surgical infrarenal procedures. Although limited by a small population size and difficulties in economic comparisons, this study presents the real world social and economic cost scenario for both elective TEVAR and TEVAR hybrid treatment of DTAA of both the in-hospital and at mid term follow-up periods.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports the 4-year safety and effectiveness of the INCRAFT® AAA Stent-Graft System (Cordis Corp., Milpitas, CA, USA), an ultra-low-profile device for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: The INNOVATION Trial is the prospective, first-in-human, multicenter trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the INCRAFT® System. Patients underwent annual clinical and computed tomography angiography examination as part of the study protocol. The IN CRAF T® AAA Stent-Graft System is a customizable tri-modular design, with an ultra-low profile (14-Fr) delivery system. Patient were treated under approved protocol, the prescribed clinical and imaging follow-up at annually through 5 years. Results analyzed and adjudicated by a clinical events committee, independent core laboratory, and a data safety and monitoring board. This manuscript reports results through 4 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the trial, all of whom were successfully treated. Follow-up rates at 1 and 4 years were 93% (56/60) and 85% (51/60), respectively. All-cause mortality at 4 years was 17.6% and no death was AAA-, device-, or procedure-related. The secondary reintervention rate at 1 year was 4.6%, primarily the result of stent thrombosis. In total, 10 patients required 13 post-procedure interventions within 4-years of follow-up (2 to repair a type I endoleak, 4 to repair a type II endoleak, 1 for stent thrombosis, 1 for renal stenosis, 1 for aneurysm enlargement, 2 for limb migration and 2 for prosthesis stenosis or occlusion). There were 4 cases (10%) of aneurysm enlargement reported at the 4 year follow-up. At 4 years, 38 out of 39 patients were free from type I and III endoleaks. There were no proximal type I or type III endoleaks at 4-year follow-up. Core laboratory evaluation of the postoperative imaging studies indicated absence of endograft migration while a single fracture was demonstrated without any clinical sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The INCRAFT® AAA Stent-Graft System provides a minimally invasive and durable solution for patients undergoing EVAR that has been associated with a low frequency of device-related events through 4 years of follow-up.

Optimal treatment for synchronous aortic aneurysms is still debated. Staged repair is advocated as the standard of care. Its disadvantage however is the consistent risk of rupture of the untreated aortic segment during recovery; moreover a considerable percentage of patients either refuse the second stage or is lost to follow-up. We present the case of a patient with a ruptured aortic arch aneurysm after open-surgery for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Our therapeutic decision is described and discussed, with all the related advantages and disadvantages.