Search

Proximal type 1 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) remains challenging to solve with no existing consensus. This work aims to compare two different surgical strategies to remedy type IA endoleak: endograft explantation (EXP) and aortic reconstruction or relining by custom made fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR). A retrospective single centre analysis between 2009 and 2018 was conducted including patients treated for type IA endoleak after EVAR with either EXP or F-EVAR. The choice of surgical technique was based on morphological factors (F-EVAR eligibility), sac growth rate, emergency presentation and/or patient symptoms. Technical success, morbidity, secondary interventions, 30 day mortality, and long term survival according to Kaplan–Meier were determined for each group and compared. Fifty-nine patients (91% male, mean age 79 years) underwent either EXP (n = 26) or F-EVAR (n = 33) during the study period. The two groups were equivalent in terms of comorbidity and age at the time of procedure. The median time from initial EVAR was 60.4 months (34–85 months), with no difference between groups. The maximum aneurysm diameter was greater in the EXP group compared with the F-EVAR group, 86 mm (65–100) and 70 mm (60–80), respectively (p =.008). Thirty day secondary intervention (EXP: 11.5% vs. F-EVAR: 9.1%) and mortality (EXP: 3.8% vs. F-EVAR: 3.3%) rates did not differ between groups, while major adverse events at 30 days, defined by the current SVS guidelines, were lower in the F-EVAR group (2.4% vs. 13.6%; p =.016). One year survival rates were similar between the groups (EXP: 84.0% vs. F-EVAR: 86.6%). Open explantation and endovascular management with a fenestrated device for type IA endoleak after EVAR can be achieved in high volume centres with satisfactory results. F-EVAR is associated with decreased early morbidity. Open explantation is a relevant option because of acceptable outcomes and the limited applicability of F-EVAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The respective place of endovascular repair (ER) versus open surgery (OS) in thoracic dissecting aneurysm treatment remains debatable. This comprehensive review seeks to compare the outcomes of ER versus OS in chronic type B aortic dissection treatment. Methods Embase and Medline searches (2000 to 2017) were performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Outcomes data extracted comprised (1) early mortality and major complications: stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), dialysis, and respiratory complications; and (2) late survival and reinterventions. Reintervention causes were divided into proximal, adjacent, and distal. Comparative studies allowed comparative meta-analysis. Noncomparative studies were analyzed in pooled proportion meta-analyses for each group. Results A total of 39 studies were identified after exclusions, of which 4 were comparative. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated lower early mortality for ER (odds ratio [OR], 4.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 15.4), stroke (OR, 4.33; 95% CI, 1.02 to 18.35), SCI (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.97 to 11.25), and respiratory complications (OR, 6.88; 95% CI,1.52 to 31.02), but higher reintervention rate (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.69). Midterm survival was similar (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.32). Noncomparative studies demonstrated that most reinterventions were related to the aortic segment distal to primary intervention in both groups (OS 73%, ER 59%). Reintervention procedures were mainly surgical for OS (85%), mainly endovascular for ER (75%). Rupture rates were 1.2% (OS) and 3% (ER). Conclusions Endovascular repair is associated with significant early benefits, but this is not sustained at midterm. Reintervention is more frequent, but the OS is not exempt from reintervention or late rupture. Both techniques have their place, but patient selection is key. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review analyzed the incidence, mechanisms, and risk factors of aortic-related reintervention after endovascular repair of chronic dissections. The systematic review identified 28 studies describing 1,249 patients at median 27 months follow-up (range, 10.3 to 64.4). There were six reinterventions, 0.7 ruptures, and 1.2 surgical conversions per 100 patient-years of follow-up. Stent-related reinterventions were more frequent than nonstent related (80.2% vs 19.8%). Distal false lumen perfusion was the most common complication (40.5%). No individual risk factor—treatment timing, disease extent, covered aorta length, or remodelling—was associated with reintervention. Further investigation based on consistent reporting standards is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present study, we reviewed the results of secondary iliac branch device (IBD) implantation for patients with a type Ib endoleak after prior fenestrated and/or branched (F/B) or infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using either brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique. We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis between January 2016 and October 2021 of consecutive patients who had undergone IBD to correct a type Ib endoleak after prior EVAR or F/B-EVAR. The groups were defined by arterial access, which was either brachial (group 1) or transfemoral (group 2). All implanted IBDs had been manufactured by Cook Medical, Inc (Bloomington, IN). The demographics, anatomic features, technical success, and 30-day major adverse events were recorded in accordance with the current Society for Vascular Surgery standards. The survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method were calculated. Branch instability was a composite end point of any internal iliac artery (IIA) branch-related complication or reintervention indicated to treat endoleak, kink, disconnection, stenosis, occlusion, or rupture. Overall, 28 patients (93% male; median age, 74 years), who had received 32 IBDs, were included, with 14 patients in each group. The prior endovascular aortic repairs included 23 cases of EVAR and 5 cases of F/B-EVAR, with an interval from the initial repair of 58 months (interquartile range [IQR], 48-70 months). The median pre-IBD maximal aneurysm diameter was 63.5 mm (IQR, 59.0-78.0 mm). The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for pulmonary status. All procedures were performed in a hybrid operative room. The median total operating time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product was 120 minutes (IQR, 86-167 minutes), 23 minutes (IQR, 15-32 minutes), and 54 Gyċcm2 (IQR, 40-62 Gyċcm2), respectively. The total operating time was shorter for group 2 (P =.006). The technical success rate was 100%, and no early deaths occurred. One 30-day major adverse event, medically treated colonic ischemia, had occurred in one patient in group 2. Aortic-related secondary interventions had been required for seven patients (five in group 1 and two in group 2), including three cases of surgical explantation. The median follow-up was 31 months (IQR, 24-42 months) and 6 months (IQR, 3-10 months) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. For group 1, the 2-year freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 84.6% (IQR, 67.1%-100%) and 92.3% (IQR, 78.9%-100%), respectively. For group 2, the 6-month freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 87.5% (IQR, 67.3%-100%) and 91.7% (IQR, 77.3%-100%), respectively. The results from the present study have shown that secondary implantation of an IBD to correct a distal type I endoleak from a previous aortic stent graft is safe with a high technical success rate. The "up-and-over" technique can be considered an alternative to brachial access for patients with suitable anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a systematic review that compares outcomes after intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery during thoracic endovascular repair with and without prior surgical revascularization. According to Preferred Items for Reporting of Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed and Embase searches identified studies reporting patients with left subclavian artery coverage during thoracic endovascular repair and their subsequent outcomes. Analyzing a varied patient cohort, there are nonstatistically significant trends that favor left subclavian artery revascularization in preventing stroke (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 1.18) and spinal cord ischemia (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 1.38); that was significant in reducing arm-related ischemia ( p = 0.02). Further investigations should try to define subgroups of patients who might benefit from revascularization or who would derive no benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular treatments of Stanford type B aortic dissection may help to promote aortic remodeling and reduce the incidence of aortic-related complications. The aim of this study was to review published literature describing aortic remodeling after endovascular treatment of aortic dissection. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed which was compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The type of aortic morphology measurements made and the methods used to make them were characterized. The endpoints of interest were the change in these measurements over time. Results: After initial screening, 77 articles were identified; 16 of which met the inclusion criteria. Few studies used three-dimensional reconstruction software and none had validated their measurement protocol. True lumen (TL) and false lumen (FL) diameters, areas, and in some cases volumes were measured. Studies assessed the aorta at a variety of different levels and over different periods of follow-up. Acute dissection patients displayed more consistent degree of remodeling (thoracic FL thrombosis in 80% to 90%) than chronic dissection patients (38% to 91%). Less remodeling was seen below the diaphragm in both groups. Conclusions: Aortic remodeling after treatment for dissection is described in a highly heterogeneous manner. Despite this there appears to be a greater degree of complete FL resolution in patients with acute dissection than chronic. Factors such as length of aortic coverage and timing of treatment may explain the variation seen in the chronic dissection group. Consensus-based reporting standards are required to synthesize evidence and inform clinical decisions regarding patient selection and operative timing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We evaluated whether a combination of intraoperative contrast-enhanced cone beam computed tomography (ceCBCT) and postoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) after infrarenal endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) could reduce late stent graft–related complications and, consequently, reintervention. All consecutive patients who had received infrarenal bifurcated stent grafts in our hybrid room (IGS 730; GE Healthcare, Île-de-France, France) during two discrete periods were included in the present study. From November 2012 to September 2013, two-dimensional completion angiography was performed after each EVAR, followed by computed tomography angiography (CTA) before discharge (group 1). From October 2013 to January 2015, intraoperative ceCBCT was performed, followed by CEUS within the first postoperative days (group 2). Comparative analyses of the outcomes were performed. The primary endpoint was late stent graft–related complications, a composite factor incorporating aneurysm-related death, type I or III endoleaks, kink or occlusion of the iliac limb, and aortic sac enlargement after the first 30 postoperative days. The secondary endpoint was all stent graft–related reinterventions. All-cause and aneurysm-related deaths were also recorded. Overall, 100 consecutive patients (50 each in groups 1 and 2) were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 60 months (interquartile range, 41-69 months). At 60 months after the index procedure, the freedom from late stent graft–related complications in each group was 61.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.0%-80.6%) for group 1 and 81.7% (95% CI, 70.1%-95.2%) for group 2 (P =.033). The use of intraoperative ceCBCT was independently associated with a reduced rate of late stent graft–related complications on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.95; P =.038) but did not appear to significantly protect against stent graft–related reinterventions (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.20-1.39; P =.198) or all-cause death (P =.47). To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to report the influence of routine ceCBCT on late outcomes after EVAR. The use of ceCBCT shows the potential for reducing late stent graft–related complications associated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Available data on outcomes of combined proximal stent grafting with distal bare stenting for management of aortic dissection are limited. This is a systematic review of outcomes of this approach. Methods: Studies involving combined proximal stent grafting with distal bare stenting for management of aortic dissection were systematically searched and reviewed. Results: A total of 4 studies were included, with 108 patients treated for acute (n = 54) and chronic (n = 54) aortic dissection. Technical success rate was 95.3% (range, 84-100). The 30-day mortality was 2.7% (range, 0%-5%). Morbidity rate within 30 days was 51.8% (range, 0%-65%) and included stroke (2.7%), paraplegia (2.7%), retrograde dissection (1.8%), renal failure (14.8%), severe cardiopulmonary complications (5.5%), and bowel ischemia (0.9%). Incidence of type I endoleak was 9.2% (10/108). During follow-up, 5 patient deaths (4.6%) were related to aortic rupture or aortic repair. Reintervention rate was from 12.9%. Two cases of delayed retrograde type A dissection (1.9%) and 1 case of aortobronchial fistula (0.9%) were reported. Most common delayed complication was thoracic stent-graft migration (4.7%). Device failure rate was 9.2%. Favorable aortic remodeling was observed: studies reporting midterm follow-up of the true lumen demonstrated high rates of false-lumen regression and true-lumen expansion. At 12 months, complete false-lumen thrombosis was observed at the thoracic level in 70.4% and at the abdominal level in 13.5%. Conclusions: Combined proximal stent grafting with distal bare stenting for management of aortic dissection appears to be a reasonable approach for type B aortic dissection, clearly improved true-lumen perfusion and diameter although failing to suppress false-lumen patency completely. Contemporary information on this approach is mainly provided by small series with a wide range of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVR) has developed from endovascular treatment of infra-renal aortic aneurysms, and is now considered first line treatment for a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies. In contrast to infra-renal repair, with its large evidence base and randomised control trials, most of the existing data on TEVR is from smaller industry run trials designed to evaluate the safety of a particular device. The aim of this review is to describe these studies with respect to peri-operative adverse events, frequency of device failure, mid-term aortic death, mid-term overall survival and freedom from re-intervention. The results are discussed in the context of their implications for clinical practice, taking into account the relative strengths and weakness of the available data. Where the individual trial design allows, direct comparison is made between TEVR and open surgical controls. The role of TEVR for specific pathologies is also discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Improving the safety of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has become an imperative. Five well-described risk-scoring systems developed on open aneurysm repair (OR) were tested on a multicenter contemporary sample of patients undergoing endovascular repair of AAA (EVR) to determine if they predicted 30-day morbidity and mortality. Methods: The Glasgow score (GAS), combined prognostic index (CPI), and its modification (M-CPI), the Leiden score and the Vascular Biochemical and Haematological Outctome Model (VBHOM) score were studied using a retrospective database of 846 patients. Thirty-day mortality and serious morbidity were used as end-points. A receiver-operator characteristic curves was plotted and the area under this (known as the c-statistic) was calculated to determine discriminatory ability of each model. Results: Incidence of postoperative mortality was 2.2% and serious morbidity was 12.3%. All scores were predictive of mortality except the Leiden score, which had a c-statistic of 0.603 (95% CI, 0.485-0.720; P = .123). The VBHOM score and the M-CPI had a c-statistic of 0.649 (95% CI, 0.514 -0.783; P = .026) and 0.653 (95% CI, 0.544-0.763; P = .026), respectively. The best performing scores were the GAS and CPI, which had a c-statistic of 0.677 (95% CI, 0.559-0.795; P = .008) and 0.679 (95% CI, 0.572-0.787; P = .007), respectively. No score effectively predicted morbidity. Conclusion: None of the available scores predicted the outcome of EVR with enough accuracy to be recommended for clinical use. To improve preoperative risk prediction in EVR validation of new systems is required, taking into account morphologic features of the aneurysm to predict medium-term morbidity and re-intervention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract Background Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) represents a novel approach to the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It uses polymer technology to achieve an anatomic seal within the sac of the aneurysm. This cohort study reports the early clinical outcomes, technical refinements, and learning curve during the initial EVAS experience at a single institution. Methods Results from 150 consecutive EVAS cases for intact, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are reported here. These cases were undertaken between March 2013 and July 2015. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected for each patient prospectively. Results The median age of the cohort was 76.6 years (interquartile range, 70.2-80.9 years), and 87.3% were male. Median aneurysm diameter was 62.0 mm (IQR, 58.0-69.0 mm). Adverse neck morphology was seen in 69 (46.0%) patients, including aneurysm neck length <10 mm (17.3%), neck diameter >32 mm or <18 mm (8.7%), and neck angulation >60 degrees (15.3%). Median follow-up was 687 days (IQR, 463-897 days); 37 patients (24.7%) underwent reintervention. The rates of unresolved endoleak are 1.3% type IA, 0.7% type IB, and 2.7% type I. There were no type III endoleaks. There have been seven secondary ruptures in this cohort; all but one of these patients survived after reintervention. Only one rupture occurred in an aneurysm that had been treated within the manufacturer's instructions for use (IFU). Conclusions The rate of unresolved endoleaks is satisfactorily low. The incidence of secondary rupture is of concern; however, when the IFU are adhered to, the rate is very low. The results of this study suggest that working within the IFU yields better clinical results. Graphical Abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Procedural mortality is of paramount importance for patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Previous comparative studies have demonstrated international differences in the care of ruptured AAA. This study compared the use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and in-hospital mortality for elective AAA repair in England and the United States. Methods The English Hospital Episode Statistics and the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) were interrogated for elective AAA repair from 2005 to 2010. In-hospital mortality and the use of EVAR were analyzed separately for each health care system, after within-country risk adjustment for age, gender, year, and an accepted national comorbidity index. Results The study included 21,272 patients with AAA in England, of whom 86.61% were male, with median (interquartile range) age of 74 (69-79) years. There were 196,113 AAA patients in the United States, of whom 76.14% were male, with median (interquartile range) age of 73 (67-78) years. In-hospital mortality was greater in England (4.09% vs 1.96 %; P < .01) and EVAR less common (37.33% vs 64.36%; P < .01). These observations persisted in age- and gender-matched comparison. In both countries, lower mortality and greater use of EVAR were seen in centers performing greater numbers of AAA repairs per annum. In England, lower mortality and greater use of EVAR were seen in teaching hospitals with larger bed capacity. Conclusions In-hospital survival and the uptake of EVAR are lower in England than in the United States. In both countries, mortality was lowest in high-caseload centers performing a greater proportion of cases with endovascular repair. These common factors suggest strategies for improving outcomes for patients requiring elective AAA repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of various pathologies has been associated with peri-interventional neurologic complication rates of up to 15%. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of the management of the left subclavian artery (LSA) on neurologic complications and to define subgroups that might benefit from LSA revascularization. Methods The Medtronic Thoracic Endovascular Registry (MOTHER; Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif), consists of data from five sponsored trials and one institutional series incorporating 1010 patients undergoing TEVAR from 2002 to 2010. Perioperative stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) rates were described according to the management of the LSA and presenting pathology. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with perioperative neurologic complications. Results Of 1002 patients included in the analysis, stroke occurred in 48 (4.8%), and SCI developed in 42 (4.2%) ≤30 days of surgery. The stroke rate was 2.2% in patients with no coverage of the LSA vs 9.1% with coverage alone and 5.1% in patients who underwent LSA revascularization before coverage ( P < .001). This relationship was strongest in the aneurysm group. Coverage of the LSA without revascularization was independently associated with stroke (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-7.1), specifically in the posterior territory (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 2.5-54.6), as was previous cerebrovascular accident (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.2-23.1; P = .001), whereas a covered LSA was not associated with an increased risk of SCI. Conclusions Coverage of the LSA without revascularization is an important modifiable risk factor for stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR for a thoracic aortic aneurysm. Prior revascularization appears to protect against posterior circulation territory stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Junctional vascular trauma such as that at the thoracic outlet poses particular challenges in surgical management. The use of endovascular techniques for such injuries is attractive as repair may be facilitated without the need for thoracotomy; however, the utility of such techniques is currently based on opinion, small retrospective series, and literature reviews of narrative and not systematic quality. The objective of this study is to provide a complete and systematic analysis of the literature pertaining to open surgery (OS) and endovascular management (EM) of thoracic outlet vascular injuries. Methods: An electronic search using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, and LILACS databases was performed for articles published from 1947 to November 2011. The review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement standards. Prospective studies and retrospective cohorts of more than 10 patients were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: One prospective noncomparative study and 73 retrospective series met the inclusion criteria. There were no randomized studies. All studies were at high risk of bias. Fifteen studies described outcomes for both OS and EM (549 patients). The majority of these studies described EM for traumatic arteriovenous fistulas or false aneurysms in stable patients. Direct comparison between OS and EM was possible in only three studies (comprising 23 OS and 25 EM patients), which showed no difference in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-4.05), but a shorter operating time with EM (mean difference = 58.34 minutes; 95% CI, 17.82-98.85). These three series included successful EM of unstable patients and those with vessel transection. There were 55 studies describing only OS (2057 patients) with a pooled mortality rate of 12.4% (95% CI, 9.9%-15.2%). Four studies described only EM (101 patients) with a pooled mortality rate of 26% (95% CI, 8%-51%), but these represented a distinct subgroup of cases (mainly iatrogenic injuries in older patients). Conclusions: The current evidence is weak and fails to show superiority of one modality over the other. EM is currently used primarily in highly selected cases, but there are reports of a broader applicability in trauma. High-quality randomized studies or large-scale registry data are needed to further comment on the relative merits or disadvantages of EM in comparison to OS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]