Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Research Articles

Serious Failure Modes After EVAR Are Device Specific.

Type I and III endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can lead to catastrophic events that require major re-interventions. We reviewed our experience with aortic endograft re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks and other serious failures among different devices. We retrospectively reviewed patients with a prior EVAR who underwent open conversion (OC) or major endovascular intervention (MEI) (re-lining, cuff/limb extension, parallel graft) for type I/III endoleaks at our institution from 2002 to 2019. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, re-interventions, and outcomes were collected. A total of 229 patients (194 men) underwent re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks after EVAR (90 OC, 139 MEI) for devices implanted between 1997 and 2019. Average age at re-intervention was 78±8.5 years. A total of 135 (59%) were implanted at our institution, whereas 93 (41%) were referred. Median time to re-intervention was 4 years with 25% to 75% interquartile range (IQR) of 2.2-6.6 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics or type of re-interventions (OC/MEI) between device types. 42/229 (18%) presented with ruptured aneurysms, 20/229 (9%) were symptomatic, whereas the rest presented with asymptomatic radiographic findings. Type 1A endoleak was present in 146/229 (63.8%-72 with proximal migration), type IB in 46/229 (20.1%), type IIIA in 37/229 (16.6%), type IIIB in 15/229 (6.5%), and persistent aneurysm sac growth with no radiographic evidence of an endoleak in 6/229 (2.6%). Devices included most commercial products: AFX, Excluder, AneuRx, Ancure, Endurant, and Zenith. A smaller number of investigational devices accounted for the rest. Type 1A endoleak was the most common indication for re-intervention among all devices except for AFX and ancure devices, proximal migration was a frequent presentation with AneuRx. AFX devices more frequently presented with a type III and ancure devices more frequently presented with a type IB endoleak. Serious failure modes after EVAR differ between endografts and occur throughout the follow-up period. This is important to guide targeted interrogation of surveillance studies and follow-up schedules, even for discontinued devices, as well as comparisons between various series and estimation of EVAR failure rates. Surveillance after EVAR is critical for long term success of the repair, understanding of the differential modes of failure of every graft available is important in the longitudinal evaluation of these endografts. Equally important is the understanding of the modes of failure of legacy endografts that are no longer on the market but still being followed, in order to be able to tailor a surveillance regiemn and the evntual repair if needed.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) represents a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as treatment of failed EVARs. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine mid-term outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression/stable/expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi-square tests, and linear mixed effect models. In total, 196 patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001)). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). FEVAR after EVAR showed high rates of sac expansion and needed more secondary procedures than patients with primary FEVAR, although this did not affect mid-term survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

Acute kidney injury after surgical treatment of failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

This study aims to report the incidence of acute kidney injury following surgical reconstruction after a failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. This retrospective study included 44 patients (39 males, 5 females; mean age: 70±11.3 years; range, 35 to 84 years) who underwent emergency or elective surgical reconstruction after failed EVAR between February 2015 and January 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: acute kidney injury group and no acute kidney injury group. The primary end-point of the study was to evaluate the development of acute kidney injury following surgery. The secondary end-points included the 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Surgical reconstruction of the abdominal aorta was performed electively in 29 (65.9%) patients and urgently in 15 (34.1%) patients. Acute kidney injury occurred in 12 (27.3%) patients. The interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to surgical reconstruction was statistically significantly higher in the no acute kidney injury group than in the acute kidney injury group (24.6±11.5 and 18.1±13.3 months, respectively; p=0.145). The mean abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter, neck angulation, and neck diameter were statistically significantly higher in the acute kidney injury group than in the no acute kidney injury group (p=0.001, p=0.009, and p<0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between the acute kidney injury and no acute kidney injury groups for the overall 30-day mortality (p=0.185) and oneyear mortality (p=0.999). Acute kidney injury is not uncommon after the surgical reconstruction of a failed EVAR. Aneurysm-related anatomical factors may have an impact on the development of postoperative acute kidney injury. Comprehensive surgical planning should be performed for open abdominal aortic surgery after a failed EVAR.

The Use of the Off-the-Shelf Inner Branch E-nside Endograft for the Treatment of Elective and Emergent Complex Aortic Aneurysms—A Single-Center Experience

The aim of this single-center study was to evaluate the early results of the off-the-shelf inner branch E-nside endograft in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all patients treated with the E-nside endograft at our institution during the years 2021-2023. Parameters evaluated were technical success, early major adverse events, target vessel patency, and the presence of endoleaks. In total 16 patients underwent treatment with the E-nside endograft. Six additional patients were evaluated for the device but were excluded due to anatomical considerations. Mean age was 71 (range 59-84) and 14 (88%) were males. Mean aneurysm diameter was 66mm(range 54-85). Aneurysms treated included thoracoabdominal in 9 (56%), juxtarenal aneurysms in 5 (31%), postdissection aneurysm in 1 (6%) and a type 1A endoleak after a failed endovascular aneurysm repair in 1 (6%). Five of the treated aneurysms were symptomatic. A total of 58 side branches were placed into target visceral arteries. Mean operative time was 190min (range 150-360). Technical success was achieved in 15/16 of the patients (94%). At 30days, 1 perioperative mortality and 3 major adverse events occurred, 2 of them branch related. The E-nside endograft is a feasible option for the treatment of a broad spectrumof aortic pathologies. As it is an off-the-shelf device, it can be used selectively inelective and emergent settings with acceptable30-day mortality and morbidity. Further follow-up is required to determine the durability of this treatment option and patency of side branches.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveEndovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. MethodsA prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. ResultsA total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. ConclusionsPM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Open conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair is increasing and its 30-day mortality is higher than that after primary open repair.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Recent studies have demonstrated that cases of EVAR failure repair and subsequent open conversion have increased. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the national trend of annual cases and assess the 30-day outcomes of conversion to open repair after failed EVAR compared with primary open repair. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for relevant Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, codes to identify patients who had undergone conversion to open repair or primary open repair of nonruptured AAAs from 2009 to 2018. The annual trend of cases was assessed, and the perioperative outcomes of both procedures were compared. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent perioperative factors associated with mortality. Of the 9635 patients with nonruptured AAAs included in the present analysis, 9250 had undergone primary repair and 385 had required open conversion. During the 10-year period, the annual number of cases of open conversion had steadily increased and that of primary repair had decreased. The incidence of postoperative complications was similar between both groups, except for cardiac arrest, which had occurred more frequently in the open conversion group. The 30-day mortality was higher in the open conversion group than in the primary group (9.6% vs 3.9%; P< .0001). Open conversion was also independently associated with higher odds of death (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.4; P< .0001). When the average mortality in both groups was compared between the first and last 5years, no difference was found (open conversion: 9.8% vs 9.5% [P= 1.00]; primary repair: 3.6% vs 4.2% [P= .19]). Other perioperative factors independently associated with mortality included increased age (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.1; P< .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥III (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.6; P= .029), insulin-dependent diabetes (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3; P= .005), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; P= .006), the presence of dyspnea at rest (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8-6.1; P< .0001), and a high preoperative hematocrit (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97; P< .0001). Open conversion to treat nonruptured AAAs after failed EVAR was independently associated with higher mortality. Also, the annual cases of open conversion have continued to increase without any significant changes in postoperative mortality. This highlights the danger of open conversion and stresses the need for better solutions to prevent and manage EVAR failure.

Open conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair is increasing and its 30-day mortality is higher than that after primary open repair: Presented at the oral session of the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Eastern Vascular Society, Charleston, SC, September 23-26, 2021.

Open conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair is increasing and its 30-day mortality is higher than that after primary open repair: Presented at the oral session of the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Eastern Vascular Society, Charleston, SC, September 23-26, 2021.

Early and midterm outcomes following open surgical conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair from the "Italian North-easT RegIstry of surgical Conversion AfTer Evar" (INTRICATE).

To report the early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using data from a multicentric registry. A retrospective study was carried out on consecutive patients undergoing OSC after failed EVAR at eight tertiary vascular units from the same geographic area in the North-East of Italy, from April 2005 to November 2019. Study endpoints included early and follow-up outcomes. A total of 144 consecutive patients were included in the study. Endoleaks were the most common indication for OSC (50.7%), with endograft infection (24.6%) and occlusion (21.9%) being the second most prevalent causes. The overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.9% (n= 20); 32 patients (22.2%) experienced at least one major complication. Mean length of stay was 13± 12.7days. On multivariate logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1-19; P= .02), renal clamping time (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13; P= .01), and suprarenal/celiac clamping (OR, 6.66; 95% CI, 1.81-27.1; P= .005) were identified as independent predictors of perioperative major complications. Age was the only factor associated with perioperative mortality at 30days. Renal clamping time >25minutes had sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 70% in predicting the occurring of major adverse events (area under the curve, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82). At 5years, estimated survival was significantly lower for patients treated due to aortic rupture/dissection (28%; 95% CI, 13%-61%), compared with patients in whom the indication for treatment was endoleak (54%; 95% CI, 40%-73%), infection (53%; 95% CI, 30%-94%), or thrombosis (82%; 95% CI, 62%-100%; P= .0019). Five-year survival rates were significantly lower in patients who received emergent treatment (28%; 95% CI, 14%-55%) as compared with those who were treated in an urgent (67%; 95% CI, 48%-93%) or elective setting (57%; 95% CI, 43%-76%; P= .00026). Subjects who received suprarenal/celiac (54%; 95% CI, 36%-82%) or suprarenal (46%; 95% CI, 34%-62%) aortic cross-clamping had lower survival rates at 5years than those whose aortic-cross clamp site was infrarenal (76%; 95% CI, 59%-97%; P= .041). Using multivariate Cox proportional hazard, older age and emergency setting were independently associated with higher risk for overall 5-year mortality. OSC after failed EVAR was associated with relatively high rates of early morbidity and mortality, particularly for emergency setting surgery. Endoleaks with secondary sac expansion were the main indication for OSC, and suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was frequently required. Endograft infection and emergent treatment remained associated with poorer short- and long-term survival.

Cases of Late Open Conversion After Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair is Increasing and its 30-Day Mortality Remains High

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the preferred treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The use of EVAR has been pushed to its limits since its inception and has evolved to include the treatment of patients beyond the recommendations in the guidelines from the Society for Vascular Surgery and instructions for use for endovascular devices. Recently, cases of failure and subsequent open conversion have increased. We evaluated the national trend of yearly cases and assessed the 30-day outcomes of nonurgent secondary open repair after failed EVAR compared with primary open repair.

Maybe Neck Dilation Matters after All?

Durability and long term success of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) depends upon achieving and maintaining an appropriate proximal seal and fixation within the infrarenal aortic neck. Aortic neck dilation (AND) has been well documented in the existing literature and has been suggested as a potential source of critical EVAR failure through endoleaks and stent migration. Although other reports have suggested that AND occurs generally without clinical consequence, here, Oliveira et al. report that AND does in fact have an important relationship with EVAR failure in longer follow up in their large single centre experience.

Late Open Conversion Following Failure of EVAR and TEVAR: "State of the Art".

Abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) have changed the aortic surgery, due to several advantages in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality. However, increasing rate of late complications requiring secondary procedures has been observed over time. Even if the majority of them may be treated by means of endovascular techniques, late open surgical conversion (LOSC) is required in specific situations. This paper aims to provide our single-center experience with LOSCs and an updated review of the literature. From 1995 to 2020, indications and outcomes of patients treated with LOSC for failed EVAR and TEVAR, at our institutions, were analyzed. LOSC was required to treat a broad range of complications that were classified into two main groups: "disease related" and "stent-graft (SG) related." Among the 121 patients treated with LOSC after EVAR, endoleak (75.2%) represented the most common indication. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.3%. A higher mortality rate was associated with infection after EVAR (p. 006). Among the 81 patients treated with LOSC after TEVAR, endoleak (32.1%) was the most common indication. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 13.6% with a higher incidence in the SG-related group (p. 02). LOSC is associated with an increased surgical complexity, in both the abdominal and thoracic area, that results in higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with standard open repair. Depending on the indication to LOSC, specific surgical maneuvers are required to improve clinical outcomes.

Long Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Ectatic Common Iliac Arteries

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long term results of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and ectatic common iliac arteries (CIAs). In a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database in two high volume centres, patients with AAAs undergoing elective standard EVAR were divided into two groups: those with both CIA diameters <18mm, and those with at least one ectatic iliac artery (CIA≥18mm). Patients with an intentional external iliac artery landing zone were excluded. Primary outcomes were survival and freedom from re-intervention. Secondary end points were EVAR failure and iliac related endoleak and iliac re-intervention. From 2000 to 2015, 648 patients were included in the study, 277 (43%) had at least one CIA≥18mm. Pre-operative risk factors were similar between the two groups, with the exception of chronic renal insufficiency (p=.010) and cerebrovascular events (p=.040), which were higher in the ectatic CIA group. At 30 days from primary procedure, there was a higher rate of type Ib endoleak in patients with ectatic iliacs (p=.020). A statistically significant increase in the incidence of late type Ib endoleak in patients with ectatic iliac arteries was confirmed at a mean follow up of 74.8 months (p=.01). The need for iliac related re-intervention was higher in patients with CIAs ≥18mm (odds ratio 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.1-3.2). Ectatic iliac arteries are considered suitable landing zones for EVAR, although there is an increased risk of secondary interventions in time mainly due to late CIA dilation and secondary type Ib endoleak. Patients receiving EVAR with flared iliac limbs may benefit a more intensive surveillance to avoid late failures.

Predictive Factors for Major Complications During Surgical Conversion After Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: 15-Year Multicenter Experience

The aim of this study was to report the 15-year experience with open conversion (OC) after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to identify predictors of perioperative mortality and complications.

A novel physician-assembled endograft for the repair of pararenal, paravisceral, Crawford type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aneurysms requiring treatment after prior repair

ObjectiveIn the present study, we reviewed the 30-day and 1-year clinical results of the use of the investigational unitary manifold (UM) stent graft system (Sanford Health, Sioux Falls SDak) for the repair of Crawford type IV, pararenal, paravisceral, juxtarenal, and short-neck infrarenal aneurysms (<10 mm). MethodsThe present study was a single-center, multiarm, prospective review of the first 44 patients who had undergone repair of Crawford type IV, pararenal, juxtarenal, and short-neck infrarenal aneurysms (<10 mm) using the physician-modified UM under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. The primary end point was freedom from major adverse events at 30 days, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, paraplegia, bowel ischemia, respiratory failure, and renal failure. ResultsTechnical success was achieved in all 44 patients (100%), with a large number of these patients having undergone previous aortic repair (20 of 44; 45.5%). All the intended 170 visceral vessels (100%) had been successfully cannulated and stent grafted. No episodes of paraplegia or in-hospital deaths were recorded. One patient had died of aneurysm-related ischemic stroke (2.3%). The rate of transient nonclinically significant spinal cord ischemia was 4.5%. At the last follow-up, one reintervention had been required owing to branch patency from a thrombotic event. Of the 170 bridging stent grafts, 169 have remained patent through a mean follow-up of 8.8 months (range, 0-36 months). No type I or III endoleaks, migration, or component separation in the investigational device has occurred. ConclusionsThe early and midterm results with the use of the UM suggest it could be a viable option for the repair of Crawford type IV, pararenal, paravisceral, juxtarenal, and short-neck infrarenal aneurysms (<10 mm) without exposing patients to the increased risk of permanent spinal cord ischemia, renal failure, visceral vessel ischemia, or aneurysm-related mortality that results from open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The high technical success rate, in native and previous repairs, supports the utility of this device as a bail-out technique for failed endovascular aneurysm repair or proximal extension of disease after previous aortic repair. However, experience is limited, and this approach requires further study before widespread adoption.

Results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair after failed infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveFailure of infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to loss of proximal seal is increasingly common. Open surgical conversion can be challenging and has been associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of patients with prior EVAR failure. MethodsConsecutive patients enrolled as part of the Aortic Research Consortium in six prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies evaluating F/BEVAR between 2012 and 2018 were included in this study. The cohort was stratified according to whether the F/BEVAR procedure was performed after EVAR failure. Demographics, operative details, perioperative complications, and length of stay were compared between groups. Postprocedural survival, type I or type III endoleak, target artery patency, target artery instability, and reintervention rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups. ResultsA total of 893 patients underwent F/BEVAR; 161 (18%) were treated after failed EVAR and 732 (82%) were treated without prior EVAR. Patients with failed EVAR were more often men (84% vs 66%; P < .01) with larger aneurysms (6.9 cm vs 6.4 cm; P < .01). There were no differences in aneurysm extent (P = .20) between groups; for the entire cohort, there were 19% juxtarenal, 9.2% suprarenal, and 72% thoracoabdominal aneurysms. The average number of targeted arteries per patient was 3.6 in both groups. The procedural technical success (99% vs 97%; P = .15) did not differ between groups, but radiation dose (4750 vs 2920 mGy; P = .02), dose-area product (154,572 vs 82,842 mGy·cm2; P < .01), and operative time (5.2 vs 4.6 hours; P < .01) were significantly higher in the failed EVAR group. Median intensive care unit length of stay (2.9 days) and total length of stay (6.3 days) did not differ between groups. The 30-day mortality rate (failed EVAR, 2.5%; no EVAR, 1.1%; P = .25) and 30-day major adverse event rates did not differ between groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from type I or type III endoleak (91.9% vs 92.5%; P = .65), target artery patency (97.3% vs 97.0%; P = .91), freedom from target artery instability (86.3% vs 88.8%; P = .53), and freedom from reintervention at 1 year (84.7% vs 88.7%; P = .10) did not differ between the failed EVAR and no EVAR groups, respectively. One-year survival was decreased in the failed EVAR group (86.3% vs 91.9%; P = .02), but this effect did not persist on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.62; P = .14). ConclusionsIn this multicenter study, F/BEVAR was safe and effective in patients with prior failed EVAR, with nearly identical outcomes to those of patients without prior EVAR. However, differences in procedural metrics indicate higher level of technical challenge in performing F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR.

Endovascular aneurysm sealing as an alternative for the treatment of failed endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective The Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) system has offered a novel approach in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). While it is currently indicated as a primary procedure in patients with infrarenal AAA with suitable anatomy according to the indications for use, a few studies aimed to address its potential interest in failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients with prior EVAR who underwent EVAS. Design of the study A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in May 2019 and included patients with prior EVAR who underwent EVAS. The publications had to report at least one of the basic postoperative outcomes (technical success rate, all-cause complications, mortality, length of in-hospital stay, length of stay in intensive care unit, the need of re-intervention). Results Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, for a total of 46 patients. EVAS was used to treat endoleaks in 45 cases (97.8%): 29 type Ia endoleaks (63%), 6 type IIIa endoleaks (13%), and 10 type IIIb endoleaks (21.7%). Standard EVAS procedure was performed in 21 patients (45.7%), and 25 patients (54.3%) had chimney-EVAS. The technical success was achieved in all the studies. Two patients (4.9%) died during the 30-day postoperative period, but no aneurysm-related mortality was reported. The presence of endoleaks was reported in five patients (9.8%) during the follow-up. Conclusion The results suggest the safety and the efficiency of EVAS in the treatment of complications following EVAR including type Ia, type IIIa, and type IIIb endoleaks. Further studies on larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm the interest of EVAS in the endovascular management of failed EVAR.

Strategy to avoid open surgical conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.

PurposeOpen surgical conversion (OSC) is the last treatment option for patients with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)failure. We investigated the underlying causes of EVAR failure requiring OSC and attempted to determine strategies to avoid OSC after EVAR.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the database of patients who underwent OSC after EVAR from 2005 to 2018 in a single institution. Twenty-six OSCs were performed in 24 patients (median age, 74.5 years; 79.2% of males) who had undergone standard EVAR. We investigated pre-, intra-, and postoperative computed tomography or angiographic images and outcomes of the OSCs.ResultsTwo main indications for OSC were persistent endoleak (50.0%) and endograft infection (EI) (38.5%). All 13 patients who underwent OSC due to endoleaks received EVAR outside of indications for use. Among 10 patients who underwent OSC due to EI, we found overlooked infection sources in 7 (70.0%) at the time of EVAR or during the surveillance period. OSC was performed at a median of 31.8 months (interquartile range, 9.4–69.8) after EVAR as an emergency (15.4%) or elective (84.6%) surgery. Aortic endograft was removed in 84.6% of cases (totally, 57.7%; partially, 26.9%), whereas it was preserved in 4 cases (15.4%). After 26 OSCs, 2 early deaths (7.7%) and 2 aortoenteric fistulae (7.7%) developed as major complications.ConclusionOSC after EVAR was associated with relatively higher perioperative morbidity and mortality. To avoid OSC after EVAR, we recommend careful assessment of coexisting infection sources and avoidance of EVAR for patients with especially unfavorable anatomy for EVAR, particularly the in proximal neck.

Twenty years outcomes in a single center experience after endovascular aneurysm repair with unibody endograft and anatomical fixation.

To assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment with unibody endograft deployed on aortic bifurcation (anatomical fixation). A retrospective, observational, single-center study of patients treated from 1999 to 2002 with unibody bifurcated endograft. Follow-up protocol required clinical and doppler-ultrasound at 1 and 6 months and annually thereafter, computed tomography angiography at 1-, 6- and 12-months and then every year. Primary endpoints included technical and treatment success, survival and freedom from late EVAR failure; secondary endpoints were freedom from late open conversion (LOC), freedom from late re-interventions and endoleaks. Seventy-three patients, mean age of 73±6 years were enrolled. Median follow-up was 6±0.5 years. Technical success was 98.6% (N.=71/73; causes of failure: 1 open conversion and 1 type Ib endoleak). A treatment success of 96% (N.=69/72) was recorded due to endoleaks (N.=2; 1 type Ia and 1 type Ib) and limb occlusion (N.=1). Survival at 1, 5, 10, 15 and 18 years was 90%, 58%, 40%, 32% and 23% respectively. One aneurysm-related death for infection of the endograft was registered. EVAR failure was 14% (N.=10/71). Three LOC were recorded and freedom from reinterventions at 1, 5, 10 and 18 years was 99%, 91%, 86% and 86%. Fourteen endoleaks were recorded: Ia (N.=6; 42.8%), Ia+Ib (N.=1; 7.1%), Ib (N.=2; 14.2%) and II (N.=5; 35.6%). Four endoleaks were observed, 9 endovascular correction and 1 LOC were required. Endoleaks free survival of 90% at 1-year and 75% at the end of the study. Aneurysm sac shrinkage was observed in 79% (N.=56/71). This small, retrospective cohort of anatomically fixed EVAR demonstrated long-term safety and effectiveness. The design of the unibody graft did not substantially change and newer generation should guarantee the same performance.

Salvage endovascular septectomy in patients with chronic abdominal aortic dissection after failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of salvage endovascular septectomy in patients with abdominal chronic aortic dissection (CAD) after endovascular aneurysm repair. A study cohort comprising 6 patients with chronic abdominal aortic dissection after failed endovascular aortic repair [mean age 62.5 (36-69) years] were enrolled to undergo salvage endovascular septectomy. The procedure involved entering the false lumen via the intrinsic visceral entry to perform a confined septectomy using a 'Gigli wire' to merge the true and false lumens. The outcomes were assessed by Digital angiography and computed tomography angiography. All 6 patients were successfully operated on; the diameters of the visceral abdominal aorta and the infrarenal abdominal aorta were similar at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the baseline; the patency of the visceral branch arteries was also stable at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the baseline; no occlusion of the visceral branch arteries was noted; no major vascular adverse events or deaths were observed. In this preliminary study, it was proven that salvage endovascular septectomy is a potentially advantageous technique that is safe and effective in the treatment of patients with CAD after failed endovascular aortic repair.

Explant of aortic stent grafts following endovascular aneurysm repair.

Background Failure of endovascular aneurysm repair may require explant of the stent graft in a subset of patients. We sought to assess outcomes in a cohort of patients undergoing explant of endovascular aneurysm repair in both emergency and elective settings. Methods Patients undergoing explant of endovascular aneurysm repair were identified from a prospectively maintained database, with additional information obtained through retrospective analysis of medical records. Results Over a 21-year period, 1997–2018 (May), there were 597 endovascular aneurysm repair procedures performed in our institution for abdominal aortic aneurysm. There were 19 endovascular aneurysm repair explants; five of these were referrals from other vascular centres. The median age was 73 years (range 46–81). The median length of time from insertion to explant was 39.2 months (range 0–153). Indications for elective explant were type Ia endoleak (n = 4), type 1b endoleak (n = 1), type II endoleak with increasing sac size (n = 1), type I/III endoleak (n = 1), type IV endoleak (n = 1), and increasing sac size without evident endoleak (type V, n = 2). The remaining nine cases were emergency procedures, with four patients presenting with rupture post endovascular aneurysm repair, four patients presenting with acute stent thrombosis, of which one also had a type 1a endoleak and one aorto-enteric fistula. There were no mortalities in the elective group and three mortalities in the emergency group (0 vs 33.3%, p = 0.087). Overall 30-day mortality was 15.8% Conclusion Explant of aortic stent grafts can be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, especially in the emergent setting. Patient and device selection and post-operative surveillance remain vitally important to optimise outcomes post endovascular aneurysm repair.