Hostile Neck Anatomy Research Articles

Hostile neck anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Hostile neck anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Novel conformable stent-graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with hostile neck anatomy: A single-centre experience.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) demonstrating hostile neck anatomy (HNA) are associated with increased perioperative risk and mortality. A number of these patients are not suitable for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and are high risk for open surgery. We present our experience with the first implantations in Scotland of a novel conformable aortic stent-graft designed to overcome some of the challenges of HNAs. From May 2018 to March 2022, 24 consecutive patients with non-ruptured AAAs demonstrating HNAs (neck length < 15mm, or angulation > 60°) were treated with GORE Excluder Conformable AAA endoprosthesis (CLEVAR) (CEXC Device, W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) at a Scottish vascular centre. We assessed clinical outcomes and technical success of CLEVAR during deployment, primary admission and the post-operative period at 3- and 12-month clinical follow-up alongside CT angiography. Twenty-four patients (20 males, mean age 75.6) were included. Primary technical success of proximal seal zones and CLEVAR deployment (no type 1/3 endoleaks, no conversion to open repair, AAA excluded and patient leaving theatre alive) was achieved in 100% of patients. All patients were alive and clinically stable at 3- and 12-month follow-up. There were five patients requiring re-intervention; at the 3-month follow-up, one patient (4.2%) developed a type 1b endoleak requiring graft limb extension, one patient developed a right common femoral artery dissection requiring open repair and one patient required a limb extension of the right iliac limb due to risk of developing a type 1b endoleak. At the 12-month follow-up, two patients required embolization of type 2 endoleaks and no patients demonstrated type 1 or type 3 endoleaks.Conclusions: In-hospital and post-operative 3- and 12-month clinical and angiographic outcomes demonstrate safety and efficacy with CLEVARs in treating unruptured AAAs with HNA. Further research involving larger heterogenous sample sizes is warranted to determine long-term clinical outcomes.

Early Experience with Ovation Alto Stent-Graft

Alto is the latest generation of the Ovation stent-graft platform for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Its ultra-low profile and its proximal sealing zone close to the lowest renal artery (≥7mm) increase standard EVAR eligibility. We report early clinical and technical outcomes with the Alto stent-graft in our University Hospital Center after CE Mark approval in August2020. Seven patients (all male, mean age 76.1±6.2years) underwent EVAR with Ovation Alto stent-graft between June 2021 and February 2022. All the EVAR procedures were performed by a team of vascular surgeons experienced on EVAR with previous generation of Ovation platform. Follow-up consisted of duplex ultrasound examination at 1, 3, and 6months and of a 1-month control computed tomography angiography (CTA). Patients treated gave consent to participate in this case series and publication. A descriptive analysis of variables was performed. SPSS (version 25) and Excel were used for statistical analysis. Most of the patients had a fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=5; 71.4%). The median maximal transversal aortic diameter was 5.06cm (range, 3.98-6.99). Because of hostile aortic neck anatomy, on-label EVAR was considered feasible only with Ovation Alto stent-graft. Narrow iliac arteries (<6mm) were also present in 2 cases. All procedures were performed according to the instruction for the use of the device. Technical success was achieved in all cases. No type IA/IB/III endoleak occurred at completion angiography. No distal migration (>10mm) but 2 distal displacements (≥2mm) were observed at control CTA. During follow-up, duplex ultrasound and CTA showed no type I/III endoleak, no stent-graft migration (>10mm), and no proximal aortic neck variations (P=not statistically significant). Three patients (42.8%) are under strict surveillance because of low-flow type II endoleak not associated with sac variations. Our early experience shows promising technical and clinical success with Alto stent-graft. The proximal relocation of the proximal sealing rings and the ultra-low profile delivery system allow on-label EVAR in a wider range of aortic anatomies. Notwithstanding, further studies, meta-analysis, and prospective registries are mandatory to evaluate mid- and long-term efficacy and safety of this latest Ovation platform.

Endografts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with a hostile neck anatomy: A systematic review.

BackgroundEndovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has emerged as a better alternative to conventional open surgery for AAAs. The purpose of the review is to define the improvement in the clinical management of the patient with hostile neck AAAs due to the introduction of new endografts while giving a thorough description of their instructions for use (IFUs), main characteristics and part sizing, reporting their outcomes from clinical studies and categorizing their usability.MethodsA MEDLINE search was conducted using keyword-specific combinations. Clinical studies were searched via the clinicaltrials.gov website. Relevant articles' references were also hand-searched.ResultsWe retrieved 640 records describing Alto, Ovation iX, Treovance, Aorfix, Anaconda, Conformable, and Endurant II/IIs endografts. Aortic necks >60° can be managed with Anaconda, Aorfix, and Conformable, which can treat up to 90° necks requiring ≥15 mm (Anaconda ≥20 mm), and Treovance, which is eligible for necks ≤75° with ≥15 mm length. Ovation's innovation of combining polymer-filled O-rings with integral anchors can treat conical necked AAAs giving Ovation iX and Alto an advantage. Short-necked AAAs can be treated with Alto, eligible for necks as short as 7 mm, and Endurant II, which can treat ≥10 mm necks or 4 mm if used in conjunction with the EndoAnchors system, respectively. Alto and Conformable report a 100% technical success rate, absence of AAA-related death, migration, ruptures, and limb occlusion during follow-up. Endurant II and Ovation iX report >99% technical success rate and are almost free from the AAA mortality rate, ruptures, migration, and limb occlusion, while Ovation iX has a high rate of sac dilation (15.5%) in a 5-year follow-up. Anaconda is slightly better than Aorfix and Treovance, which are related to the lowest technical success rates, 98.3%, 96.3%, and 96%, respectively. Aorfix has the highest AAA mortality rate, 4% in a 60 month follow-up.ConclusionMost new generation endografts described have comparable results. They broaden the eligibility of patients for EVAR due to their unique technical characteristics described. There is a lack of comparative studies for newer endografts and postmarket clinical studies with long-term results concerning the most recently approved devices described, Alto and Conformable.

“Aortic Balloon Molding” during Ovation Endograft Implantation Expands Graft Use for Hostile Neck Anatomy

Challenging aortoiliac anatomy such as short neck and narrow access vessels is responsible for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) ineligibility in up to 50% of cases. The Ovation stent graft helped widen the range of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) suitable for EVAR thanks to its low-profile delivery system and polymer-filled sealing rings. However, its advantages are offset by a tight sizing chart that can lead to increased risk of type Ia endoleak or endograft infolding from under- or oversizing, respectively. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of a novel endovascular technique developed to expand the use of the Ovation endograft while avoiding these issues. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent EVAR with the Ovation endograft at our institution between March 2019 and December 2020. "Aortic Balloon Molding" or ABM is a novel endovascular technique in which the graft is pre-cannulated and a compliant aortic balloon is inflated at the site of the graft's sealing rings during polymer administration. The technique was preferentially performed in patients with hostile neck anatomy (HNA) defined as any or all of angulation >60°, reverse taper configuration, ≥50% circumferential thrombus, or calcification. Patients undergoing traditional deployment were compared to those in whom ABM was performed. End points included neck-related adjunctive procedures, technical success, type Ia endoleak at completion angiogram, and 1-year freedom from type Ia endoleak and migration. A total of 43 patients were included in the study, of which 26 (60.5%) were treated with the ABM technique. Mean follow-up was 7.9±6months. Patients in the ABM group were more likely to have a reverse taper neck (61.5% vs. 41.2%, P=0.1), have significant circumferential thrombus or calcium (23.1% vs. 5.9%, P=0.1), and be treated outside of the Ovation indications for use regarding anatomic characteristics (65.4% vs. 41.2%, P=0.1). Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. However, patients in the ABM group were less likely to require a neck-related adjunctive procedure (7.7% vs. 23.5%, P=0.1). Only 1 type Ia endoleak was observed at completion angiogram in a patient treated without ABM. At 1 year, freedom from type Ia endoleak or migration was 100% for both groups. ABM proves to be a safe and effective adjunctive technique for the treatment of AAAs with HNA using the Ovation stent graft. This may allow optimal endograft sizing to achieve adequate seal in complex aortic anatomies. Further research is warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of this technique.

Transcarotid artery revascularization is safe in necks with anatomy hostile for carotid endarterectomy

ObjectiveThe outcomes associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) have proved to be noninferior to the historical results established for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Therefore, TCAR has been increasingly offered to patients with neck anatomy hostile for traditional CEA. The present investigation was completed to evaluate whether a difference exists for patients undergoing TCAR in de novo anatomy with unviolated surgical planes compared with those undergoing TCAR in necks with hostile anatomy. MethodsThe demographic data and outcomes were captured at two high-volume TCAR institutions from December 2015 to December 2021 via a query of two parallel, prospectively maintained, carotid intervention databases at these two health institutions. A hostile neck anatomy was defined as a history of previous ipsilateral neck radiation, oncologic dissection, or CEA. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the two cohorts at an α of 0.05. ResultsDuring the inclusion period, the data from 750 TCARs were captured, including 108 procedures in hostile neck anatomy and 642 in de novo necks. No significant differences were found in the baseline comorbidity burden using the Charlson comorbidity index or the indication for revascularization. Intraoperatively, no significant increase in case complexity was observed with respect to those with a hostile neck, except for the operative time, which was 10% longer (69.5 vs 63.4 minutes; P = .01). The flow reversal and fluoroscopic times, blood loss, radiation exposure, and contrast use were identical. Postoperatively, no differences were observed between the hostile and de novo necks with respect to stroke (0.9% vs 2.5%; P = .49), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0.2%; P = .27), and death (0% vs 1.5%; P = .37). Additionally, hematoma formation and the need for reintervention did not seem to vary between the two groups. Similarly, no differences in the two cohorts were noted during follow-up. ConclusionsAccording to the findings from our large, dual-institutional series, the performance of TCAR in surgical fields traditionally hostile for CEA was not associated with increased intraoperative complexity or postoperative morbidity.

Evaluating Postoperative Outcomes in Patients With Hostile Neck Anatomy Undergoing Transcarotid Artery Revascularization and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting

With hostile neck anatomy a relative contraindication to carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting is frequently used for carotid revascularization for these patients. However, this could potentially increase the risk of periprocedural complications. As transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has progressively replaced transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the past few years, evidence pertaining to hostile neck anatomy and TCAR is necessary to establish its safety and feasibility for this subgroup of patients.

Effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac shrinkage after endovascular repair on long-term outcomes between favorable and hostile neck anatomy

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac shrinkage on the long-term outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between patients with favorable and hostile neck anatomy. MethodsIn the present study, we retrospectively analyzed data from 268 patients with fusiform aneurysm and sac behavior who had been evaluated for ≥1 year after EVAR. Hostile neck anatomy was defined as a proximal aneurysmal neck length of <10 mm or proximal neck angle of ≥60°. The primary end point was sac shrinkage, and the secondary end points included reintervention and a composite of rupture, type Ia endoleak, and late open conversion. ResultsNo differences were found in sac shrinkage between the patients with favorable and hostile neck anatomy (P = .47). Multivariate analysis revealed that an occluded inferior mesenteric artery (P = .04), the presence of posterior thrombus (P < .01), and no antiplatelet therapy (P = .01) were positive factors for sac shrinkage. The reintervention-free survival rate was better for patients with sac shrinkage compared with those without sac shrinkage regardless of the proximal neck anatomy (P < .01). The event-free survival rate of the composite end point at 5 and 10 years was 97.5% and 83.5% for patients with favorable neck anatomy and 86.8% and 81.0% for those with hostile neck anatomy, respectively (P = .02). In the subgroup with sac shrinkage, the event-free survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 98.7% and 98.7% for those with favorable neck anatomy and 92.7% and 82.4% for those with hostile neck anatomy, respectively (P = .02). In contrast, the event-free survival for patients without sac shrinkage did not differ between those with favorable and hostile neck anatomy (P = .08). Multivariate analysis showed that a hostile neck anatomy (hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-8.80; P = .02) and no sac shrinkage (hazard ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-12.0; P = .02) were significant risk factors for the composite end point of rupture, type Ia endoleak, and late open conversion. ConclusionsProximal neck anatomy did not affect sac shrinkage after EVAR. Sac shrinkage has been a good surrogate marker of better long-term outcomes after EVAR for patients with favorable neck anatomy. In contrast, critical events such as rupture and type Ia endoleak can occur even after sac shrinkage has been achieved in patients with hostile neck anatomy.

The correlation of aortic neck length to late outcomes following EVAR with the Ovation stent graft

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed outside manufacturers’ instructions for use due to short aortic neck for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with unfavorable outcomes. Newer endografts now have an indication for shorter neck aneurysms that previous endografts do not, but this cohort has yet to be evaluated individually. The aim of this study is to evaluate 5-year outcomes after EVAR in patients with short aortic necks (<10 mm) using the Ovation stent graft. MethodsThe study comprised 238 patients who underwent EVAR as part of the prospective international multicenter Ovation stent graft trials. The main inclusion criteria were AAA diameter ≥ 5 cm, proximal parallel neck length ≥7 mm, neck angulation ≤60°, and bilateral iliac fixation length ≥10 mm. A clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events through 1 year, an independent imaging core laboratory analyzed imaging through 5 years, and a data safety and monitoring board provided study oversight. Patients were divided into short neck (<10 mm) and standard neck (≥10 mm) groups. End points included long-term survival, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), freedom from type Ia endoleak, and freedom from reintervention. ResultsPatients were predominantly male (81%) with a mean age of 73 ± 8 years. Median follow-up time was 58 months (interquartile range, 36-60 months). Of 238 patients, 41 (17.2%) had a proximal neck length <10 mm and would be considered outside the instructions for use with other stent grafts. Baseline characteristics were relatively similar between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival estimates were 77.8% for the standard neck group compared with 59.5% for the short neck group (P = .03). There were no differences in the 5-year freedom from ARM (99.2% vs 100%; P = .7), freedom from type Ia endoleak (96.3% vs 96.3%; P = .8), and freedom from reintervention (77.9% vs 79.7%; P = .7) between the standard and short neck groups, respectively. After adjusting for age and other potential confounders, short proximal neck was associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.8; P = .04]. ConclusionsThe Ovation endograft performed well in short AAA neck with no difference in 5-year type Ia endoleak, reintervention, and ARM rates. However, short proximal neck was independently associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years. These findings confirm the prior literature on the association of hostile neck anatomy with late mortality following EVAR.

Otvorena reparacija aneurizme aorte u endovaskularnoj eri

Open repair (OR) of aortic aneurysms is still relatively mutilating and risky in older and high-risk patients. Since the introduction of EVAR, a significantly lower perioperative mortality has been noted. Apart from advantages, endovascular treatment has some disadvantages as well, due to which OR still has a very important role in the endovascular era. In a vast majority of the patients younger than 65, with good overall condition, long life expectancy and favorable anatomy, as well as in patients with hostile aneurysm neck anatomy, heritable connective tissue disorders, complete thrombosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and potent accessory renal arteries, OR is the first treatment option in comparison with the endovascular treatment. EVAR is recommended as the first treatment option in patients with inflammatory aneurysms and OR should be considered only in better shaped patients with inflammatory AAA and significant hydronephrosis. Late open surgical conversion (LOSC) is a noted event after endovascular treatment and is associated with a significantly higher perioperative mortality and other serious perioperative complications compared to primary OR. Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) did not find a significant difference regarding 30-day mortality between open and endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. However, not all ruptured AAA are suitable for endovascular repair. In a hemodynamically unstable patients, when there is no time for MDCT angiography, EVAR is not possible, and OR is the only option. The incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome after OR is significantly lower in comparison with EVAR thanks to surgical evacuation and drainage of retroperitoneal hematoma. The improvement of the results of aortic aneurysm treatment largely depends on the volume of yearly aortic operations. Having in mind all the mentioned advantages and disadvantages of OR and endovascular repair, we can conclude that in high volume centers, younger generations of vascular surgeons should be educated in standard and complex open aortic surgery.

Predictors of the multiwire technique use in carotid artery stenting

ObjectivesThe multiwire technique (MWT) in carotid artery stenting (CAS), characterized by the use of more than one guidewire to support guiding catheter in patients with hostile neck anatomy, increases procedural time, enhancing the risk of periprocedural stroke. The aim of the present study was to identify which factors are predictors of the MWT use in CAS, in order to stratify patients with longer procedure at potential higher risk of periprocedural stroke. MethodsThe study retrospectively included patients who underwent CAS for stenotic plaque between January 2015 and December 2019. Exclusion criteria was incomplete clinical data. For each patients were registered clinical data, main aortic arch and supra-aortic vessel anatomical features, carotid plaque characteristics, and procedural details. The sample was divided in two group on the basis of the number of guides used during the stenting procedure: one guide (standard technique, ST) or more than one guidewire (MWT) to support the guiding catheter. Differences between groups were tested by Chi-square text or Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for the use of the MWT. The area under the ROC (AUC) curve was used to assess performance of the model to predict the use of the multiwire technique. ResultsThe final sample included 146 of the 204 (71%) patients who underwent CAS during the study period. The median age of the patients was 79 years (IQR 71–83 years) with 47/146 (32%) females. CAS was performed with MWT in 17/146 (12%) of the cases. MWT was used more likely in patients with aortic arch type II or III as compared to ST (71% vs 37%, P = 0.02) while plaques with heavy concentric calcifications were more frequent in ST as compared to MWT (38% vs 12%, P = 0.03). At multivariable analysis aortic arch type II or III (OR 5.08, 95% CI 1.48–17.93, P < 0.01), plaque stenosis > 79% (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.03–16.61, P = 0.04), and plaque heavy concentric calcifications (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04–0.94, P = 0.04) were independent predictors of MWT use. The model showed an AUC of 0.827 (95% CI 0.756–0.884) for the prediction of the MWT use during CAS. ConclusionsAortic arch type II or III, carotid plaque with stenosis higher than 79% of the lumen or without heavy concentric calcifications were predictors for the use of the MWT during CAS. These features should be considered during planning of CAS as hallmark of vascular stiffness and therefore of higher procedure complexity.

Profile of the Ovation ALTO abdominal stent graft for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: overview of its safety and efficacy

ABSTRACT Introduction The Ovation ALTO is the next generation aortic stent graft from Endologix for the treatment of infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The device uses polymer-injected rings to create a proximal seal at the aneurysm neck. Areas Covered Results from the first clinical study of the ALTO graft are analyzed and the potential benefits of the graft in minimizing post-treatment aneurysmal neck dilation discussed. The implications of the ALTO’s Instructions-For-Use (IFU) and low-profile delivery system are also reviewed. Expert Opinion The re-positioning of the sealing rings higher on the graft and an integrated compliant balloon are the most significant improvements on the Ovation iX, facilitating accurate placement of the proximal sealing ring and prompt balloon dilation of the polymer rings. The expansion the IFU to include neck lengths of ≥7 mm will mean more patients are eligible for infra-renal EVAR within IFU with the ALTO device. The published data on the device to date is limited. With over 1000 implants worldwide we would hope for more published data to become available. If this demonstrates similar mid-term results to that seen with the Ovation iX in arguably more hostile neck anatomy, then the Ovation ALTO is likely to be more widely used.

Analysis of Prognostic Factors for Postoperative Complications and Reinterventions After Open Surgical Repair and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

A retrospective, single-center review was performed between 2006 and 2017. Although the operative mortality rate was the same (0.5%) for both groups, the 405 patients who had undergone endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) had experienced significantly fewer postoperative complications (13%) than had the 176 patients who had undergone open surgical repair (OSR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (36%). Patients who had undergone hostile neck EVAR had a significantly lower 5-year reintervention-free survival rate (63%) than the patients who had undergone favorable neck EVAR (83%) and those who had undergone OSR (86%). Patients with hostile neck EVAR also had a significantly lower 5-year overall survival rate (52%) compared with favorable neck EVAR (73%) and OSR (79%). Age, hemodialysis, and modified frailty index (mFI) were the risk factors for complications, increased reintervention, and decreased 5-year survival on multivariate analysis. Age, mFI, hemodialysis, and hostile neck anatomy are useful predictors for reintervention and 5-year survival and could be useful for selecting treatment between OSR and EVAR.

Late Type 1A Endoleaks: Associated Factors, Prognosis and Management Strategies

Unlike periprocedural Type 1A endoleaks, late appearing proximal endoleaks have been poorly described. We studied all elective EVAR from 2010 -2018 in a single institution. Late endoleaks were defined as those appearing after 1 year. We used Cox regression to study factors associated with late Type 1A endoleaks and survival. Of 477 EVAR during the study period, 411 (86%) had follow-up imaging, revealing 24 Type 1A endoleaks; 4 early and 20 late. Freedom from Type 1A endoleaks was 99%, 92-81% at 1, 5 and 8 years with a median time to occurrence of 2.5 years (.01-8.2 years). On completion angiogram, only 10% of patients with a late Type 1A had a proximal endoleak, and 60% had no endoleak. Only 21% of late Type 1As were diagnosed on routine 1-year CT angiogram, but 79% had stable or expanding sacs. Two thirds (65%) of the patients eventually diagnosed with late Type 1A endoleaks had previously been treated for other endoleaks, mostly Type 2 (10/13). Age (HR 1.07/year [1.02-1.12], P=0.01), neck diameter >28mm (HR 3.5 [1.2-10.3], P=0.02), neck length <20mm (HR 3.0 [1.1-8.6], P=0.04), and neck angle>60 degrees (HR 3.4 [1.5-7.9], P=0.004) were associated with higher rates of Type 1A endoleak, but not female sex, endograft, or the use of suprarenal fixation. 2 patients had proximal degeneration and 5 experienced graft migration. There were 2 ruptures (10%), and 13 patients underwent repair with 5 open conversions. Median survival after late Type 1A repair was 6.6 years (0-8.4 years). Late appearing Type 1A endoleaks have a high rate of rupture and present significant diagnostic and management challenges. Careful surveillance is needed in patients with hostile neck anatomy and those who undergo intervention for other endoleaks. Adverse neck anatomy may be better suited for open repair or fenestrated/branched devices rather than conventional EVAR.

Analysis of prognostic factors for postoperative complications and reinterventions after open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

A definitive treatment for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm considering age and comorbidities has not been identified. In the present study, we retrospectively validated treatment outcomes in Japanese patients and proposed the treatment strategy of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We retrospectively analyzed data for patients undergoing EVAR or OSR between 2006 and 2017. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were excluded. We examined post-operative complications, operative mortality, re-intervention and prognosis. Throughout the study period, 405 patients underwent EVAR and 176 patients underwent OSR. The percentage of patients with post-operative complications was 35.8% in the OSR group, compared with 13.1% in the EVAR group (P < 0.01). The operative mortality rate was 0.49% in the EVAR group and 0.57% in the OSR group (P=1.00). With a multivariate analysis, age, hemodialysis, modified Frailty Index (mFI), and OSR were risk factors for post-operative complications. The 5-year re-intervention free survival rate was 63.0 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 83.1 % with favorable neck EVAR and 86.1 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, hemodialysis, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were risk factors for re-intervention. The 5-year overall survival rate was 51.9 % with hostile neck EVAR compared with 73.2 % with favorable neck EVAR and 79.0 % with OSR group (P < 0.01). With a multivariate analysis, age, mFI, and hostile neck EVAR were poor prognostic factors. Age, mFI, hemodialysis and hostile neck anatomy are useful predictors of post-operative complications, re-intervention and overall survival, and could be useful for informing treatment selection between OSR and EVAR.

Ipsilateral carotid bypass outcomes in hostile neck anatomy

ObjectiveTo determine differences in outcomes among patients undergoing ipsilateral carotid bypass with hostile or normal neck anatomy. MethodsSingle-center retrospective review of all ipsilateral extracranial carotid bypasses performed between 1998 and 2018. ResultsForty-eight patients underwent ipsilateral carotid bypass from the common carotid artery to either the internal carotid artery or carotid bifurcation during the study period. Seven patients were excluded owing to either a lack of follow-up or missing data. The indications for intervention included infected patches, aneurysmal degeneration, symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis or restenosis, carotid body tumors, neck malignancy, and trauma. In 25 procedures (61%), there was a hostile neck anatomy defined as a prior history of external beam neck irradiation or neck surgery. Among this group, 12 pectoralis muscle flaps were performed for reconstructive coverage. Conduits included polytetrafluorethylene (n = 21), great saphenous vein (n = 9), superficial femoral artery (n = 7) and arterial homograft (n = 4). All superficial femoral artery conduits were used in the hostile neck group (P = .03). The overall mean time of follow-up was 22 months, with all bypasses remaining patent with no significant clinical stenosis. The 30-day ipsilateral stroke and myocardial infarction rates were 4.88% each, all within the hostile neck group, with no 30-day mortalities for the entire cohort. One-third of the muscle flaps were performed in the setting of infected patches (P = .02) with no significant differences in perioperative outcomes with use. The overall median hospital length of stay was significantly increased in patients receiving muscle flap coverage (3.0 vs 7.0 days; P = .04). ConclusionsIn patients with a complex carotid pathology, ipsilateral carotid bypass is an effective solution for carotid reconstruction. Different conduits should be used depending on the indication. Muscle flap coverage should be considered in hostile settings when primary wound closure is not feasible.

Endovascular aortic repair with EndoAnchors demonstrate good mid-term outcomes in physician-initiated multicenter analysis-The PERU registry.

We aim to describe real-world outcomes from multicenter data about the efficacy of adjunct Heli-FX EndoAnchor usage in preventing or repairing failures during infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), so-called EndoSutured-aneurysm-repair (ESAR). The current study has been assigned an identifier (NCT04100499) at the US National Library of Medicine (https://ClinicalTrials.gov). It is an observational retrospective study of prospectively collected data from seven vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019. Patients included in the ANCHOR registry were excluded from this analysis. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. Follow-up imaging was scheduled according to each center's protocol, which necessarily included either abdominal ultrasound or radiography or computed tomographic scan imaging. The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (IaEL), all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, and sac variation and trends evaluated for those with at least six months imaging follow-up. Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent ESAR in participating centers during the study period. After exclusions, 221 patients (184 males, 37 females, mean age 75 ± 8.3 years) were finally included for analysis. Median follow-up for the cohort was 27 (interquartile range 12-48) months. A median 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed at ESAR, 175 (79%) procedures were primary and 46 (21%) revision cases, 40 associated with type IaEL. Technical success at operation (initial), 30-day, and overall success were 89, 95.5, and 96.8%, respectively; the 30-day success was higher due to those with subsequent spontaneous proximal endoleak seal. At two years, freedom from type IaEL was 94% for the whole series; 96% and 86% for the primary and revision groups, respectively; whereas freedom from all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and reintervention was 89%, 98%, and 87%, respectively. Sac evolution pre-ESAR was 66 ± 15.1 vs. post ESAR 61 ± 17.5 (p < 0.001) and for 180 patients with at least six-month follow-up, 92.2% of them being in a stable (51%) or regression (41%) situation. This real-world registry demonstrates that adjunct EndoAnchor usage at EVAR achieves high rates of freedom from type IaEL at mid-term including in a high number of patients with hostile neck anatomy, with positive trends in sac-size evolution. Further data with longer follow-up may help to establish EndoAnchor usage as a routine adjunct to EVAR, especially in hostile necks.

Endovascular aortic repair with the Gore Excluder Conformable endograft in severe neck angulation: Preliminary experience and technical aspects.

Endovascular procedures are now the standard of care for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair but treatment of hostile proximal neck anatomy is still challenging. New endografts were brought to the market specifically designed to accommodate severe neck angulation. Authors describe a preliminary experience and early results using the Gore Excluder Conformable endograft (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) and its active control system in severe neck angulation with a standardized technical approach to achieve precise deployment in this hostile anatomy. From June 2019 to May 2020, five patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and severe neck angulation (≥70°) were treated with the Gore Excluder Conformable endograft at two different centers. Deployment of this endograft in this kind of anatomy should be aggressive starting over the level of renal arteries due to risk of distal migration downward on the external curvature and difficulty in upward repositioning. Authors suggested a standard technique with a routine through-and-through axillary-femoral approach, using a floppy guidewire together with preventive cannulation of the lower renal artery if a short neck (<15 mm) is associated. Endovascular aortic procedures were successfully completed in all patients. Final deployment of the stent graft using our standardized technical approach was extremely precise in all cases even if redeployment of the graft was necessary in all cases. No other secondary procedures were needed. At 30 days, no type IA endoleak was recorded and no aneurysm-related secondary procedures were performed. Median follow-up for this group of patients was 5.2 months (range 1-11). Early results revealed no type IA endoleak and no migration at Ct angiogram. No aneurysm-related secondary procedures were required. Routine use of through-and-through axillary-femoral guidewire associated with selective pre-cannulation of the lower renal artery allows a precise deployment of the Gore Excluder Conformable endograft in difficult anatomies possibly affecting early outcomes.

Natural History of Late Type IA Endoleaks

Although early type IA endoleaks are well described, late-appearing proximal endoleaks are less understood. All patients who underwent elective endovascular aneurysm repair without prior aortic surgery at a single institution from 2010 to 2018 were studied. Only type IA endoleaks diagnosed on postoperative computed tomography scans were considered, not completion angiograms. Late endoleaks were defined as those appearing after 1 year. We used Cox regression to study factors associated with late type IA endoleaks. There were 477 patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair, of whom 411 (86%) had adequate follow-up. There were 24 type IA endoleaks, 4 early and 20 late. The freedom from type IA endoleaks was 99%, 92%, and 81% at 1 year, 5 years, and 8 years, with a median time to occurrence of 2.5 years (3 days-8.2 years). Only 40% of patients with type IA endoleaks were treated within the initial graft instructions for use. Although 75% of the early type IA endoleaks appeared on completion angiography, only 10% of patients with a late type IA endoleak had a proximal endoleak on completion angiography, and 60% had no endoleak at the completion of the index case. Only 21% of late type IA endoleaks were evident by 1 year, but 79% had stable or expanding sacs. Twelve (60%) late type IA endoleaks had prior interventions for other endoleaks, mostly type II (10/12). Age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 per year [1.02-1.12]; P = .01), neck diameter >28 mm (HR, 3.5 [1.2-10.3]; P = .02), neck length <20 mm (HR, 3.0 [1.1-8.6]; P = .04), and neck angle >60 degrees (HR, 3.4 [1.5-7.9]; P = .004) were all independently associated with higher rates of type IA endoleak, but not female sex, endograft, or the use of suprarenal fixation. Two patients had proximal degeneration and five experienced graft migration. There were two ruptures (10%), and 14 patients underwent repair (5 open, 9 endovascular), 3 of whom underwent multiple interventions. Median survival after late type IA endoleak repair was 6.6 years (0-8.4 years). Late-appearing type IA endoleaks have a high rate of rupture and present significant diagnostic and management challenges. Careful follow-up is needed, especially in patients with hostile neck anatomy and those undergoing intervention for other endoleaks.

Outcomes of endosutured aneurysm repair with the Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants.

Endovascular aneurysm repair has gained field over open surgery for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, type Ia endoleak represents a common complication especially in hostile neck anatomy that is recently faced using endoanchors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to collect and analyse all the available comparative evidence on the outcomes of the endosuture aneurysm repair in patients with or without hostile neck in standard endovascular aneurysm repair. The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the prospective and retrospective studies reporting primary use of the Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants were considered eligible for inclusion in this study. The main study outcomes (technical success of endoanchor implantation, incidence of type Ia endoleak, aortic stent graft migration and the percentage of patients who presented regression or expansion of aneurysm sac throughout the follow-up) were subsequently expressed as proportions and 95% confidence intervals. Eight studies with a total of 968 patients were included in a pooled analysis. The technical success of the primary endoanchor fixation was 97.12% (95%CI: 92.98-99.67). During a mean six months follow-up period, a pooled rate of 6.23% (95%CI: 0.83-15.25) of the patients developed a persistent type Ia endoleak despite the primary implantation. Migration of the main graft was reported in five studies, in which a 0.26% (95%CI = 0.00-1.54) of the patients required an additional proximal aortic cuff. Regression of the aneurysm sac was observed at 68.82% (95%CI: 51.02-84.21). An expansion of the aneurysm sac was found in 1.93% (95%CI: 0.91-3.24) of the participants. The overall survival rate was 93.43% (95%CI: 89.97-96.29) at a mean six months follow-up period. Endosuture aneurysm repair with the Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants seems to be technically feasible and safe either for prevention or for repair of intraoperative type Ia endoleak. Despite the primary implants of endoanchors, few cases of persistent type Ia endoleak and migration are still conspicuous. Long-term follow up is needed to determinate the role of this therapeutic option in the treatment of aortic aneurysms.