Late Endoleaks Research Articles

Impact of Stent Size Selection and Vessel Evaluation on Skull Base Cerebrovascular Diseases Treated With Willis Covered Stents: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the diverse stent size selection on the clinical and angiographic outcomes of Willis covered stent (WCS) for the treatment of skull base cerebrovascular diseases. A total of 147 patients with 151 skull base cerebrovascular diseases treated with WCS in 3 centers between January 2015 and July 2022 were included in this study. Several parameters depicting stent size and parent artery condition were incorporated into the analysis of the outcomes. Complete occlusion was found in 106 cases (68.2%) immediately after deployment and 126 cases (83.4%) after technical adjustment. In the multivariate logistics analysis, the difference between stent diameter and parent artery diameter (DD) was significantly associated with immediate endoleak without adjustment (odds ratio [OR]=0.410; p=0.005) and late endoleak (OR=0.275; p=0.028). In addition, differences between stent diameter and parent artery diameter at wide landing point (DSW) and differences between stent diameter and parent artery diameter at narrow landing point (DSN) was also was significant associated with immediate endoleak without adjustment and balloon re-dilation respectively. This study demonstrated that the diameter selection of the WCS was associated with the occurrence of endoleak during the treatment of skull base cerebrovascular diseases. Precise selection and evaluation of stent size and vessel condition were significant factors for skull base cerebrovascular diseases treated by WCS. This study demonstrates a significant association between the diameter selection of the Willis covered stent (WCS) and the occurrence of endoleak in the management of skull base cerebrovascular diseases. The results offer valuable medical evidence that can inform stent selection for WCS. The study emphasizes the significance of precise evaluation of stent size and vessel condition as crucial factors in WCS procedures. These findings underscore the importance of meticulous consideration and individualized approaches to stent selection, ultimately improving treatment outcomes in clinical practice.

Hybrid Technique Outcomes for High-Risk Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection With Landing Zone 1

In this report, we analyzed the outcomes of the hybrid technique for high-risk uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with landing zone 1. We enrolled 80 patients from January 2016 to January 2020 and retrospectively analyzed their outcomes, including mortality, aortic-related adverse events, and aortic remodeling. The mean age was 51.6 ± 9.9years, and 68.0% (54 of 80) were men. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases (80 of 80), and 30-day mortality was 4% of patients (n=3), including 2 dissection-related deaths. Immediate endoleaks occurred in 16 patients, including 11 type Ia and 5 type II. Four patients (5%) developed minor strokes postoperatively, and no short-term spinal cord ischemia and re-intervention occurred. The average length of stay was 20 ± 8days. The overall mortality was 8% after a median follow-up of 44 months (38 to 52). Five patients (7%) developed strokes, and 11 (16%) had late endoleaks, including 1 type Ia, 5 type Ib, and 3 type II. Four re-interventions (5%) were necessary, 3 for endoleaks and 1 for retrograde type A dissection. Three bypass graft occlusions (5%) and 5 stoma stenoses (8%) were observed in the latest follow-up computed tomography. In conclusion, the hybrid technique with landing zone 1 might be a viable alternative to open aortic arch replacement in patients at high risk with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with acceptable early and late outcomes. However, stroke and endoleak complications should be further addressed.

Sac Behavior Serves as a Strong Prognosticator for Development of Late Endoleak in Patients Without Early Endoleak

Sac Behavior Serves as a Strong Prognosticator for Development of Late Endoleak in Patients Without Early Endoleak

Comprehensive Learning Curve Analysis of a Long-Term Experience With Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To analyze the learning curve for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in a single center over a period of 25 years. Materials and Methods: In total, 390 consecutive standard TEVAR procedures undertaken between 1996 and 2021 were included in a retrospective, observational, single-center study. Cumulative sum charts were elaborated for the entire center experience (primary outcome) as well as for the first and second implanting physicians. Data on procedural variables (contrast volume, operative and fluoroscopy time), 30-day major adverse events (MAEs) and clinical success, and endoleak and reintervention rates were secondary outcomes and subdivided into 4 quartiles of experience (Q1–Q4) or presented as first 2 versus latest 2 quartiles (Q1–Q2 vs Q3–Q4). Results: The mean follow-up was 4.3±4.0 years. The center’s learning curve was achieved after 75 procedures, and it was similar for the first implanting physician. The surgeon coming thereafter had a significantly shorter curve (10 TEVARs). Comparing Q1–Q2 with Q3–Q4, 30-day MAEs (16.1 vs 11.3%, p=0.164), 30-day mortality (11.4% vs 3.6%, p=0.003), and intraoperative additional maneuvers (21.5% vs 13.3%, p=0.033) were reduced along with an improvement in clinical success (85.9% vs 90.3%, p=0.190). From Q1 to Q4, operative time (139.8±65.5 to 76.7±43.7 min, p=0.001), fluoroscopy time (15.1±8.8 to 7.1±5.1 min, p<0.001), and contrast volume (244.0±112.1 to 104.3±46.1 mL, p<0.001) showed a considerable reduction. Late endoleak and aortic-related mortality declined significantly from Q1–Q2 to Q3–Q4 (24.1% to 15.5%, p=0.033 and 18.6% vs 8.2%, p=0.006, respectively). Operative time (p=0.021), contrast volume (p=0.016), and fluoroscopy time (p=0.004) were independent risk factors for endoleak, causing a 1.3-fold risk increase for both each 60 minutes of additional operative time (p=0.021) and every 100 mL of additional contrast medium (p=0.016). Each 10-minute increase in fluoroscopy time determined a 1.4-fold risk increment (p=0.004). Conclusion: The learning curve shortened significantly over time with non-negligible clinical outcome improvements, suggesting that specific endovascular training is mandatory to become an effective TEVAR performer. Clinical Impact For the first time in literature, the standard TEVAR’s learning curve has been evaluated at a single vascular surgery center over a period of 25 years. The learning curve for the center and the first physician historically undertaking TEVAR was achieved at the 75th treated patient. The learning curve of the surgeons coming thereafter was significantly shorter (10 cases). This quarter-century demonstrated that intraoperative learning-related variables were associated with long-term clinical outcomes and all have improved over time. Centers approaching TEVAR for the first time and training program providers could use these data to aim to offer better clinical outcomes.

Surgical treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch

ObjectiveIn the present report, we have described the outcomes of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B1-2, D). MethodsCases of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair performed between January 2015 and December 2019 for aortic dissection designated as B1-2, D by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons classification were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at follow-up. The secondary end points included early mortality, early morbidities, and aortic-related late events. Kaplan-Meier curves were created to analyze survival from all-cause mortality and freedom from aortic-related late events in the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups. Propensity score matching and stratification (stratified by proximal dissection extension: B1, D and B2, D) were performed as sensitivity analyses to compare the outcomes among the three treatment patterns after controlling for major confounders. ResultsThe present study included 151 patients (men, 79.5%; mean age, 47.3 ± 10.5 years), with 72 (47.7%) in the endovascular group, 46 (30.5%) in the hybrid group, and 33 (21.8%) in the open group. No significant difference was noted in early mortality between the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups (1.4% vs 2.2% vs 3.0%; P = .791). The incidence of early endoleak was significantly greater (33.3% vs 13.0% vs 6.1%; P = .002) and the incidence of renal function deterioration was less (4.2% vs 26.1% vs 24.2%; P = .001) after endovascular repair vs hybrid arch repair and open surgery. After a median follow-up of 40.0 months (range, 0-84.0 months), no significant differences were found in all-cause mortality (5.6% vs 4.3% vs 3.0%; P = 1.0), aortic-related late events (16.7% vs 15.2% vs 12.1%; P = .834), or late endoleak (9.7% vs 4.3% vs 6.1%; P = .630) after endovascular, hybrid, and open surgery. The propensity score matching and stratification analyses displayed consistent outcomes for early mortality, all-cause mortality, and aortic-related late events among the three groups. ConclusionsThe mid- to long-term outcomes after endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B1-2, D) were favorable and comparable in selected patients. Extensive experience and multidisciplinary teamwork are prerequisites for individualized strategies for repair of B1-2, D.

Open Repair of a Complicated Late Endoleak Induced by Another Endoleak

A 66-year-old man had an enlarging aortic aneurysm sac after an endovascular aortic replacement procedure that had been performed at another institution 4 years previously; it was without any endoleak but was complicated by the occlusion of the left limb, requiring cross-femoral bypass. Current computed tomography revealed dilatation of the proximal neck and the right common iliac artery. A type Ib endoleak was found from the distal end of the right limb of the endograft, possibly secondary to the dilatation of the artery around it; it then pressurized and caused the dilatation of the juxtarenal aorta around the proximal landing zone and induced a concomitant type Ia endoleak. The patient was operated on owing to the risk of rupture. Pelvic ischemia was a concern during decision-making. The patient underwent removal of the endograft and replacement of a bifurcated aortoiliac and femoral graft with good outcome. Midline laparotomy and a supraceliac clamping approach enable the removal of endografts with suprarenal fixation and revascularization of internal iliac arteries. Open repair offers a definitive solution for complicated endoleaks when endovascular options could be risky and ineffective.

Multicenter comparison between open conversions and semi-conversions for late endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare early and follow-up outcomes of late open conversions (LOC, with complete or partial endograft explantation) and semi-conversions (SC, with endograft preservation) after endovascular aneurysm repair in a multicenter experience.

The Impact of the Proctor Assistance for a Safe Learning Curve in the Development of a Complex Aortic Endovascular Program

Introduction: Initiating an endovascular aortic program for treatment of complex aortic aneurysms with fenestrated and branched grafts (FB-EVAR) is challenging. Using a Proctor is one option for training and development of the team. However, this approach has not been formally analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the learning curve and the effect of the Proctor regarding safety and effectiveness in FB-EVAR. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed, including all consecutive elective patients submitted to FB-EVAR (including both thoraco-abdominal-TAAA and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms-C-AAA) from 2013 to 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups, the first operated with the Proctor present and the second without. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality (safety) and technical and procedure success (efficacy). Secondary outcomes included treatment performance (procedure time, blood loss, contrast, and radiation use), re-interventions, aneurysm shrinking, target vessel patency, 30-day mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and overall mortality. Results: Overall, 105 patients were included in the study, 35 operated with Proctor and 70 operated without. The first 20 patients were operated always with the Proctor, and the remaining were operated with the Proctor selectively. Mean age was 71.8 (±7.3) years and 95 patients were male (90.5%). Overall, 62 (65%) patients had C-AAA or extent IV TAAAs and 43 (35%) had extensive TAAAs. There were no significant differences regarding 30-day mortality (Log Rank=0.99), technical success (p=0.4), or procedure success (p=0.8). Mean surgical time was longer in the non-Proctor group (p=0.005), as well as significant intra-operative blood loss (p=0.042). Contrast use (p=0.5) and radiation (p=0.53) were non-significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences regarding length of stay (p=0.4), major adverse events (p=0.6), target vessel patency (Log Rank=0.97), early (p=0.7) and late endoleaks (0.7), aneurysm shrinking (p=0.6), re-interventions (p=0.2), and overall mortality (Log Rank=0.87). Conclusion: In our experience, the use of a Proctor to start and accompany our complex endovascular aortic program for FB-EVAR was both safe and effective and may serve as a template by other countries and centers that aim to developing their programs.

Endovascular and Hybrid Repair in Patients with Heritable Thoracic Aortic Disease

In individuals with heritable thoracic aortic disease (HTAD), endovascular repair for treatment of aortic aneurysm and dissection may be lifesaving, but is associated with increased risk of failure of endovascular repair and adverse outcomes. This study reports our experience with early and late outcomes of endovascular aortic and branch vessel repair in patients with HTAD. A retrospective case series was performed by chart review of individuals with HTAD followed at Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes-Jewish Hospital who underwent endovascular aortic and/or branch vessel repair. Clinical features, imaging characteristics, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected. Twenty-nine patients with HTAD (20 male; mean age 45±13years) underwent 37 endovascular procedures between 2006 and 2020 with mean follow up of 54±41months. Seven patients underwent two or more separate endovascular procedures. Each procedure was considered separate for data collection and analysis. Underlying conditions included Marfan syndrome (n=16 procedures), Loeys-Dietz syndrome (n=14 procedures), vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (n=3 procedures), and nonsyndromic HTAD (n=4 procedures). Twenty patients (69%) had prior open surgical aortic repair. Indications for endovascular aortic repair (n=31) included urgent repairs of acute complications of aortic dissection (n=10) or aneurysm rupture (n=3), and elective aortic repair (n=18; 10 chronic dissections and eight chronic aneurysms). Six patients underwent elective endovascular repair of six branch vessel aneurysms or dissections. Six patients underwent hybrid open surgical and endovascular repair. Of the 37 procedures, 25 (68%) proximal landing zones were in the native aorta or branch vessel, 11 (30%) were in a surgical graft or elephant trunk and one was in a previously placed endograft. Thirty-six (97%) procedures were technically successful, and none required emergency surgical conversion. Two patients died: one from sepsis and one from presumed late pseudoaneurysm rupture, for a 5% per-procedure mortality rate. Two procedures were complicated by stroke and one patient developed paraparesis. Of the 31 aortic procedures, seven aortic endografts (23%) developed a stent-induced new entry (SINE) discovered with imaging at 20±15days post-procedure. Seven endografts (23%) developed a Type I endoleak and eight (26%) developed a Type II endoleak. No Type III endoleaks were seen. Within 30days, two endografts (of 37, 5%) required reintervention. After 30days, fifteen additional endografts (of 37, 41%) required reintervention. Two patients (of 6, 33%) who underwent hybrid repair required reintervention. This study is the largest single-center case series examining outcomes of HTAD patients following endovascular repair. Urgent and elective endovascular repairs in patients with HTAD can manage acute and chronic complications of aortic aneurysm and dissection with relatively low risk. However, risk of early and late endoleaks and SINE is high. Close post-procedural surveillance is required, and many individuals will require additional interventions. Hybrid repair shows promise and requires further investigation.

Late Outcomes of Elective Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Tertiary Low-Volume Hospital in Brazil

The aim of this study is to report early and long-term results of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in a tertiary low-volume hospital in Brazil. Between October 2006 and May 2017, 120 patients underwent elective EVAR for infrarenal aortic aneurysm. The interventions were reviewed retrospectively, focusing on 30-day mortality, long-term survival, and freedom from reintervention. Late outcomes were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. The follow-up's median and interquartile range was 3 (1-5) years. Overall, most patients were males (75%) and the median age was 74years. Mostly patients were at a high risk for intervention (79.1%) and the majority was classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists III (53.3%). Preoperative aneurysm diameter median was 60mm, interquartile range was 52.7-69. As per the postoperative aneurysm sac evolution, the number of patients with a reduction, stabilization, or an increase was 93 (77.5%), 18 (15%), and 9 (7.5%), respectively. The 30-day mortality was 6.6% and no late aneurysm-related deaths were identified. The overall incidence of late endoleaks was 24.1%, with the predominance of type II (23.3%), followed by type IA (0.8 %). Secondary interventions were necessary for 9 patients (7.5%). The 6-year analyses revealed freedom from reintervention and overall survival of 87.9% and 57.7%, respectively. The Cox regression analyses identified age > 75years as an adverse factor for overall survival (hazard ratio=2.5; P=0.021). In the present study, EVAR in a low-volume center was associated with high 30-day mortality, but satisfactory long-term results were identified.

Branched versus fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the aortic arch: A multicenter comparison

ObjectiveFor thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the arch, branched and fenestrated endografts are available with different limitations regarding anatomy and extent of the pathology. Comparisons are lacking in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 currently commercially available devices for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair. MethodsIn a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, a consecutive patient series treated with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair or fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies was assessed. Baseline characteristics, procedural fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and outcome were analyzed. Furthermore, the potential anatomic feasibility of the respective alternate device was assessed on the preoperative computed tomography scans. ResultsThe branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohorts consisted of 20 and 34 patients, respectively, with similar comorbidities; indication was aneurysm in 65% and 79%, penetrating aortic ulcer in 20% and 9%, and dissection in the remaining procedures, respectively. Technical success was achieved in all but 1 patient. Perioperative mortality and major stroke rate were both 10% in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 0% and 3% in fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, respectively. During follow-up of 31 and 40 months, 1 branch occlusion occurred in the branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohort, and 2 late endoleaks occurred in the fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair group. One aortic death occurred. Although 35% of patients undergoing branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair were anatomically suitable for fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 91% of those undergoing fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair were suitable for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair. ConclusionsBoth branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair show excellent technical success and acceptable complication rates, whereas branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair tends toward higher morbidity, especially stroke rates. By offering fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair along with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair, aortic centers could potentially lower complication rates and simultaneously still treat a wide range of anatomies.

Multicenter comparison between open conversions and semi-conversions for late endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare early and follow-up outcomes of late open conversions (LOC, with complete or partial endograft explantation) and semi-conversions (SC, with endograft preservation) after endovascular aneurysm repair in a multicenter experience. MethodsAll LOC and SC performed from 1997 to 2020 in 11 vascular centers were compared. Endograft infections or thrombosis were excluded. Primary endpoints were early mortality and long-term survival estimates. Secondary endpoints were differences in postoperative complication rates and conversion-related complications during follow-up. ResultsIn the considered period, 347 patients underwent surgery for endovascular aneurysm repair complications. Among these, 270 were operated on for endoleaks (222 LOC, 48 SC). The two groups were homogeneous in terms of American Society of Anesthesiologists score (LOC, 3.2 ± 0.7; SC, 3 ± 0.5; P = .128) and main endograft characteristics (suprarenal fixation, bifurcated/aorto-uni-iliac configuration). The mean age was 75 ± 8 years for LOC and 79 ± 7 years for SC (P = .009). Reasons for LOC were: 62.2% (138/222) type I endoleak, 21.6% (48/222) type II endoleak, 7.7% (17/222) type III endoleak, and 8.5% (19/222) endotension. Indications for SC were: 64.6% (31/48) type II endoleak, 33.3% (16/48) type I endoleak, and 2.1% (1/48) type III endoleak. Thirty-day mortality was 12.2% (27/222) in the LOC group, and 10.4% (5/48) in the SC group (P = .73). Postoperative complication rate was higher in the LOC group (45.5% vs 29.2%; P = .04). The estimated survival rate after LOC was 80% at 1 year and 64% at 5 years; after SC, it was 72% at 1 year and 37% at 5 years (log-rank P = .01). During the median follow-up of 21.5 months (interquartile range, 2.4-61 months), an endoleak after SC was found in the 38.3% of the cases; sac growth was recorded in the 27.7% of SC patients. ConclusionsSC has an early benefit over LOC in terms of reduced postoperative complications but has a significantly inferior mid-term survival. The high rates of persistent and/or recurrent endoleaks reduce SC durability.

Short-Term Outcomes of In Situ Fenestration in Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Treatment

The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term outcomes of in situ fenestration and discuss its feasibility and safety for the treatment of aortic dissection or aneurysm involving aortic arch. A retrospective single-center review was conducted on patients who were treated with ISF technique to revascularize supra-arch branches from Jun 2017 to Oct 2019. Computed tomographic angiography was performed to assess the patency of bridging stents, endoleaks and prognosis prior to discharge, after 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed and then discussed in this paper. A total of 21 patients were diagnosed with arch pathologies, 5 type A aortic dissections, 12 type B aortic dissections and 4 thoracic aortic aneurysms. There were 19 men and 2 women (mean age 60.7 ± 15.3). 8 cases were treated with three-fenestration stent grafts, 1 case with two-fenestration stent graft, and 12 cases with single-fenestration stent grafts. Overall technical success rate was 95.2%. Mean operation time was 227.4 ± 143.8 minutes. Complications were intraoperative hemorrhage (>1000 ml, 2), stroke (2), hydropericardium (1) and endoleaks (2 type Ⅲ, 1 type Ⅰ). There was no aorta-related mortality or late endoleaks during the mean follow-up of 25.5 ± 6.2 months. All the bridging stents remained patent and there was no migration according to follow-up Computed tomographic angiography. With low complication and mortality rate, ISF is an effective and feasible method for the total endovascular aortic arch repair. Long-term follow-up study is needed to evaluate its durability.

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.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch with zone zero endografting-Case series with review of the literature.

We present single-institution results of types I and II hybrid procedures for aortic arch disease with 30-day and long-term results and review of the literature. This is a retrospective study of all patients that underwent zone 0 endografting and open bypass from ascending aorta to the arch vessels at our institution between January 2013 and 2020. The following data for the systematic review were extracted from eligible studies: 30-day/in-hospital mortality, stroke rate, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate, renal failure requiring dialysis, development of retrograde dissection, early (<30 days) types I and III endoleak, follow-up length, late (>30 days) endoleak, and late (>30 days) mortality. Twelve patients underwent hybrid aortic arch treatment in our institution. The most common aortic arch pathology was degenerative aortic aneurysm. The rate of retrograde dissection and SCI was 8.33%. Regarding the literature data, a total of 768 patients undergoing types I and II hybrid aortic arch debranching procedure. The pooled rate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 10.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.21-14.06), SCI pooled rate was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.76%-4.33%), and retrograde dissection pooled rate was 3.22% (95% CI, 1.99-4.72). Hybrid arch techniques provide safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and midterm results.

Complicated embolisation of late endoleak via direct sac puncture: not all endoleaks are a type II endoleak

BackgroundEndoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) occur frequently with type 2 being the most common. Treatment of type 2 endoleaks is indicated if the aneurysmal sac increases in size.Case reportIn this case report, we will discuss a patient who presented with aneurysmal sac size increase 11 years after undergoing EVAR for an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm which extended into the iliac arteries. Multi-phase CT demonstrated an endoleak with features commonly seen in type 2 endoleaks; pooling of contrast near a lumbar artery orifice on the angiographic phase which increases during the delayed phase. Both internal iliac arteries were sacrificed during the initial EVAR. Percutaneous direct sac puncture was therefor performed and angiogram during the procedure revealed no feeding or draining lumbar arteries. During attempts to embolize the perfused part of the aneurysmal sac non-target embolization into the main body of the graft occurred and the presence of type 3b endoleak was confirmed. The non-target embolization did not result in permanent sequelae.ConclusionsType 3b endoleaks are rare and can mimic type 2 endoleaks, which can cause serious complications if not identified properly. Rapid increase in aneurysmal sac size is uncommonly seen in type 2 endoleaks and if present needs to trigger further diagnostic investigations.

The fate of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair and the impact of oral anticoagulation on their persistence

BackgroundThe impact of anticoagulation on late endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is unclear despite multiple investigators studying the relationship. The purpose of this study was to determine if long-term anticoagulation impacted the development of late endoleaks and if specific anticoagulants were more likely to exacerbate the development of endoleaks. MethodsUsing the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database, patients undergoing EVAR between 2003 and 2019 for abdominal aortic aneurysms were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: those without a late endoleak and those with a late endoleak. Bivariate analysis was performed to assess preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and long-term follow-up variables. A multivariable analysis was done to determine associations of independent variables with late endoleaks. Patients were further subcategorized based on anticoagulation status before and after EVAR, specific type of anticoagulation, and the presence of an index endoleaks (diagnosed at the time of EVAR) to determine the subsequent frequency of late endoleaks. ResultsA total of 29,783 patients were analyzed with 2169 (7.3%) having a late endoleak identified. Several risk factors were related to late endoleaks, including anticoagulation before and after EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.57-6.96; P < .001), anticoagulation after EVAR (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.43-2.49; P < .001), and index endoleak (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.26-1.66; P < .001). The frequency of late endoleaks in patients anticoagulated before and after EVAR and after EVAR as compared with those never anticoagulated was 16.89% and 14.40% vs 6.95%, respectively (both P > .001). No difference in late endoleaks were noted for patients treated with warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants. The most common type of index and late endoleak identified was type II, but patients with type I, type II, and type IV index endoleaks were more commonly found to have type I, type II, and type IV late endoleaks, respectively. The frequency of late endoleaks in patients with both an index endoleak and anticoagulation after EVAR was 20.42% as compared with patients with only anticoagulation after EVAR (14.63%; P = .0015) and with patients with index endoleaks not anticoagulated (10.06%; P < .00001). ConclusionsLate endoleaks were more common in patients treated with anticoagulation after EVAR. No difference in late endoleak frequency was detected between anticoagulation with warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants. Patients on anticoagulation and those with an index endoleak were at a higher risk of having a late endoleak.

Update of a Model to Predict Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Risk assessment models must be continuously validated and updated to ensure that predictions remain valid. Here, the Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Risk Assessment Model, developed in 2008, is updated and improved. We used prospectively collected data from Australian patients who underwent elective endovascular aneurysm repair between 2009 and 2013 (n = 695). Data were provided by treating surgeons and the National Death Index. Key outcomes were early and midterm survival, early complications (endoleak, operative, and graft-related) and late complications (endoleak and graft-related). Multinomial logistic regression determined which preoperative variables best predicted each outcome. Area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), model P-value and internal validation statistics were used to select the best model. Ten preoperative variables were included in the modeling for 10 key outcomes. The most valid outcomes with AUROC>0.7 were 1- and 3-year survival, 30 and 90-day mortality, early and late endoleak (types I, III and IV) and type II endoleak (with an increase in sac size ≥5 mm). The 10 preoperative variables that contributed to outcome models were self-reported fitness, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, history of stroke/transient ischemic attack, age, aneurysm angle, infrarenal neck length, white cell count, respiratory assessment, diabetes and statin therapy. Fitness alone statistically significantly predicted 30 and 90-day deaths better than any other preoperative variable; achieving high AUROCs (0.78 and 0.80), and high odds ratios (12.8 [95% CI: 1.5-110.4] and 18.1 [95% CI: 2.2-149]). An updated interactive predictive model of outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair has been created. Many of the variables used in the 2008 model continued to be significant, however, new variables including fitness and respiratory assessment, improved the model. The new model uses variables routinely collected preoperatively, and hence can better support surgeon-patient discussions prior to operation. Informing patients of potential risks or likely outcomes following elective surgery can assist with preoperative shared decision-making.

Long-term results of hybrid aortic arch repair using landing zone 0: a single-centre study.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been gradually extended to the aortic arch region, with improved results. However, the rates of strokes and endoleaks in a hybrid TEVAR remain high. The goal of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing using our treatment strategy. From April 2008 to March 2020, a total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 3.2 years. The procedures included total debranching TEVAR with graft replacement of the ascending aorta in 62 patients, total debranching TEVAR with ascending aorta banding in 19 patients and total debranching TEVAR without ascending aorta banding in 21 patients. Thirty-day mortality and hospital deaths were 1.0% (n = 1) and 3.9% (n = 4), respectively. The rates of aortic complications and endoleaks during the first 30 days postoperatively were 8.8% (n = 9) and 4.9% (n = 5), respectively. There was no type 1a endoleak, whereas retrograde type A dissection occurred in 2 (2.0%) patients. The rate of late aortic events was 3.9% (n = 4); there were no late endoleaks or aneurysm ruptures. The 10-year survival rate was 73.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3-83.8%]. The 10-year rates of aorta-related deaths and aortic events when performing a competitive-risk analysis were 29.4% (95% CI 16.3-42.5%) and 7.2 (95% CI 23.0-51.4%), respectively. Satisfactory early and long-term results of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing were achieved using our treatment strategy. When performing hybrid TEVAR in zone 0, postoperative aortic events may be reduced by accurate preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta.

Artifacts in Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound during Follow-up after Endovascular Aortic Repair: Impact on Endoleak Detection in Comparison with Computed Tomography Angiography

The study described here systematically analyzed how specific artifacts in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can affect the detection of endoleaks during follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Patients undergoing EVAR of atherosclerotic or mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysms using various standard and branched stent-graft material for visceral and iliac preservation were enrolled over 5 y and followed up with computed tomography angiography (CTA) and CEUS simultaneously. CEUS artifacts were frequently identified after EVAR procedures (59% of examinations) and were caused mainly by contrast agent, different prosthesis or embolization material and postinterventional changes in the aneurysm sac. This article describes how to identify important artifacts and how to avoid false-negative or false-positive interpretations of endoleaks. Despite artifacts, CEUS had higher sensitivity for endoleak detection after EVAR than CTA. CEUS was superior to CTA in the identification of late endoleaks type II and in follow-up examinations after embolization procedures, where beam-hardening artifacts limited CTA.