Search

Objective: With an increasing life expectancy, more octogenarian patients are referred with complex aortic aneurysms (cAAA). The aim of this study was to evaluate short and mid-term outcomes following fenestrated aortic repair (FEVAR) in octogenarians., Summary Background Data: Few studies looking at octogenarian-specific outcomes with diverging results., Methods: Retrospective, multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing elective FEVAR for cAAAs or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2007-2022 in eight high-volume centres. Octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1, 2 and 5-year survival and reintervention rates., Results: A total of 729 patients (median age of 74.8 years [IQR 69.2 - 79.14]) were included, 169 (23%) of which were octogenarians, with 316 (43.3%) patients undergoing juxta/pararenal aneurysm repair. Although octogenarians presented less complex but larger (61 mm vs. 58 mm) aneurysms, the number of fenestrations was similar across groups. No differences in in-hospital mortality (4.1 vs. 3.0%), MAE (16.6% vs 12.2%) or reintervention rates (11.2 vs. 10%) were found. Multivariable logistic regression of in-hospital mortality identified BMI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.95, P=0.003), chronic heart failure (OR 7.70, 95% CI 1.36-36.15, P=0.003) and GFR<45 ml/min/1.73 m2 (OR 5.25, 95% CI 1.20-22.86, P=0.027) as independent predictors. Median follow-up was 41 months. The 1, 2 and 5-year survival rates were 91.3%, 81.8% and 49.5% in octogenarians vs 90.6%, 86.5% and 68.8% in non-octogenarian patients (Log-rank: =0.001). Freedom from aortic-related death and freedom from reintervention at five-years were similar across groups (log-rank=0.94 and .76, respectively). Age>80 was not an independent predictor of 30-day or long-term mortality on multivariable and Cox regression analysis., Conclusions: Elective FEVAR in octogenarians appears to be safe, with similar outcomes as in younger patients. Future studies looking at improved patient selection methods to ensure long-term survival benefits in both octogenarians and younger patients are warranted., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While most European Regions perform well in global comparisons, large discrepancies within stroke epidemiological parameters exist across Europe. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the stroke burden across European regions and countries in 2019 and its difference to 2010., Methods: The GBD 2019 analytical tools were used to evaluate regional and country-specific estimates of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years of stroke for the European Region as defined by the World Health Organization, with its 53 member countries (EU-53) and for European Union as defined in 2019, with its 28 member countries (EU-28), between 2010 and 2019. Results were analyzed at a regional, subregional, and country level., Results: In EU-53, the absolute number of incident and prevalent strokes increased by 2% (uncertainty interval [UI], 0%-4%), from 1 767 280 to 1 802 559 new cases, and by 4% (UI, 3%-5%) between 2010 and 2019, respectively. In EU-28, the absolute number of prevalent strokes and stroke-related deaths increased by 4% (UI, 2%-5%) and by 6% (UI, 1%-10%), respectively. All-stroke age-standardized mortality rates, however, decreased by 18% (UI, -22% to -14%), from 82 to 67 per 100 000 people in the EU-53, and by 15% (UI, -18% to -11%), from 49.3 to 42.0 per 100 000 people in EU-28. Despite most countries presenting reductions in age-adjusted incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life year rates, these rates remained 1.4×, 1.2×, 1.6×, and 1.7× higher in EU-53 in comparison to the EU-28., Conclusions: EU-53 showed a 2% increase in incident strokes, while they remained stable in EU-28. Age-standardized rates were consistently lower for all-stroke burden parameters in EU-28 in comparison to EU-53, and huge discrepancies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-year rates were observed between individual countries., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Feigin has intellectual property disclosure for Prevents/MD and Stroke Riskometer app, Dr Stavroulakis is a consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Philips, ShockWave Medical, Inc, and Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corporation, and Dr Tsilimparis is a consultant for Cook Medical. The other authors report no conflicts.

Objective: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR)., Methods: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm., Background: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes., Results: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%)., Conclusions: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)