Long-term Outcomes Of Endovascular Repair Research Articles

Long-term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A 10 Year Multi-center Experience.

This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes in patients treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). From January 2010 to December 2019, this retrospective observational study was conducted at 3 centers, involving 62 consecutive BTAI patients who underwent TEVAR. Computed tomography angiography scans were planned to be conducted at 6 months post-procedure, and annually thereafter. Technical success was achieved in all 62 procedures (100%), which included cases of dissection (n=35, 56.45%), pseudoaneurysm (n=20, 32.26%), and rupture (n=7, 11.29%). Mean injury severity score was 31.66±8.30. A total of 21 supra-arch branches were revascularized by chimney technique, with 12 cases involving the left subclavian artery (LSA) and 9 cases involving the left common carotid artery. In addition, 11 LSAs were covered during the procedure. The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.61% (n=1). The mean follow-up time was 86.82±30.58 months. The all-cause follow-up mortality rate was 3.28% (n=2). Stenosis or occlusion of 3 supra-arch branches (4.92%) was identified at follow-up, with 2 cases (3.28%) requiring re-intervention. No spinal cord ischemia, endoleak, or migration was observed. Despite only including patients with long-term follow-up, this study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of TEVAR for BTAI. For young BTAI patients, as the thoracic aorta increases with age, longer follow-up is needed to observe the potential mismatch between the endograft and the aorta. This study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI). For young BTAI patients, as the thoracic aorta increases with age, longer follow-up is needed to observe the potential mismatch between the endograft and the aorta. Through a remarkably extended follow-up period (86.82±30.58 months) conducted at multiple centers in China, this study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for BTAI.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR. The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion. The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045-2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418-3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343-5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055-3.388). Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention. Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines on the management of heritable aortopathies

BackgroundTo support the development of clinical practice guidelines on the management of patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and searched multiple databases for studies addressing six questions identified by the Society for Vascular Surgery guideline committee about evaluating and managing patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. ResultsWe included 12 studies in this systematic review. We did not identify studies about the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysm in patients with heritable aortopathy or about new aortic events in pregnant women with a history of aortic dissection (AD) or aneurysm. A small case series demonstrated a 100% survival rate and 100% aortic intervention-free survival at 15 months (range, 7-28 months) after endograft repair for type B AD. A positive genetic diagnosis was discovered in 36% of patients with aortic aneurysms and dissections who had no risk factors for hereditary aortopathies, and these patients had a mortality rate of 11% at a median follow-up duration of 5 months. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality than White patients (5.6% vs 9.0%, respectively), but they had a higher overall aortic reintervention rate at 30 days after AD repair (47% vs 27%, respectively). Aortic reinterventions owing to aneurysmal expansion and endoleak at 30 days were higher in Black patients than White patients. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low across all the outcomes evaluated in this systematic review. ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests high survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B AD in young patients with heritable aortopathies, but with limited long-term follow-up. Genetic testing in patients with acute aortic aneurysms and dissections had a high yield. It was positive for most patients with risk factors for hereditary aortopathies and in more than one-third for all other patients, and was associated with new aortic events within 15 years.

Mid-term outcomes with adult endovascular treatment of coarctation of the aorta

BackgroundThis study examines the contemporary medium- and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair of aortic coarctation in the adult. MethodsWe reviewed the clinical and imaging data of 56 consecutive adult patients with aortic coarctation who underwent endovascular repair at the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, from 2003 to 2018. ResultsThere were 20 (35.7%) female and 36 (64.3%) male patients (including 9 re-intervention cases) with a mean age of 33.6 ± 13.6 years. Thirty-seven (66.1%) were treated with balloon-expandable covered stent and 12 (21.4%) were treated with balloon-expandable bare-metal stent. Pressure gradients decreased from baseline level of 27.99 ± 12.75 (8–70) mm Hg to 5.33 ± 4.42 (0–17.5) mm Hg following the procedure. There were 2 (3.6%) procedure related complications (aortic dissection [n = 1] and stent malposition [n = 1]). During a median (Q1 - Q3) follow up of 5.36 (2.28–7.58) years, 2 deaths (4.2%) and 9 (19%) re-interventions occurred, and the overall survival was 95.8%. ConclusionPercutaneous coarctoplasty, with either covered or bare metal stents, is a safe and durable option for aortic coarctation repair with excellent long-term survival.

Comparison of the Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair and Open Surgical Repair in the Treatment of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BackgroundAlthough the initial results of endovascular repair (EVAR) were promising, a comparison of its long-term efficacy against open surgical repair (OSR) remains largely elusive, and late-onset adverse events have not been systematically evaluated. Since OSR and EVAR are currently the only treatment options available in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the main question arising in clinical practice is whether EVAR or OSR confers more favourable short and long-term outcomes for patients presenting with unruptured AAAs.AimsThe present meta-analysis aims to draw a head-to-head comparison between EVAR and OSR and facilitate the formulation of an evidence-based approach to the clinical management of unruptured AAAs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using three databases to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on EVAR vs. OSR. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Procedural outcomes, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, renal complications, rupture, and reintervention rates, were determined as secondary outcomes.ResultsSixteen studies were included for comparative analysis, including four randomised-controlled trials and six non-randomised comparative clinical trials. EVAR conferred a clear perioperative survival advantage as compared to OSR (P < 0.00001). However, this survival advantage did not persist beyond two years post-procedure; all-cause mortality rates were comparable between the two treatment groups at two years (P = 0.09), four years (P = 0.58), and six years (P = 0.88) post-procedure. Although no statistically significant differences in aneurysm-related mortality, postoperative stroke, or myocardial infarction were identified, the OSR group had a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative renal complications. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant higher rate of rupture and reintervention following EVAR.ConclusionWhether the initial survival advantage afforded by EVAR is sufficient to justify the long-term risk of rupture, reintervention, and long-term mortality should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the multidisciplinary team overseeing the clinical care of the patient. Currently, it is reasonable to conclude that EVAR is as efficacious as OSR, but it would be invalid to claim it as superior. Ultimately, longer follow-up data must be presented before any definitive conclusions can be established for this potentially revolutionary technique. Presently, one can neither advocate nor refute EVAR over OSR.

Early- and long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury: a single-centre experience.

Endovascular repair has been proposed as an alternative to classical surgical repair for the management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury. However, the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair and the risks of left subclavian coverage remain unclear. From April 2001 to August 2018, 33 patients with blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury underwent endovascular repair in our institution. A follow-up computed tomography and a clinical examination were performed before discharge and at 1 month, and yearly or every 2 years thereafter. The mean age was 45 ± 19 years. The technical success rate was 100%. Complete coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSCA) was performed in 20 patients (60.6%). Among 20 patients with coverage of the LSCA, revascularization was performed in 1 patient. No in-hospital deaths occurred. The clinical follow-up rate was 97%, with a mean period of 7 years and a maximum of 18 years. The survival rates were 100% at 1 year, 95% at 5 years and 88.7% at 10 years after the event. Among the 5 patients (20%) who developed neurological complications, 1 who had undergone implantation of a 200-mm long stent graft and LSCA coverage without revascularization developed paraplegia during the long-term follow-up. This study demonstrates that the endovascular treatment of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury is a safe and effective therapeutic method over a long-term follow-up period. LSCA coverage and long stent graft placement might be indications for revascularization to prevent spinal cord injury.

Long-term outcome of endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThe position of endovascular treatment in the algorithm of popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair is still a matter of debate. Although several studies have described results similar to those of open surgery, follow-up of the endovascular group has been relatively short so far. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of PAA with endografts. MethodsAll patients with a PAA treated with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene stent graft between June 1998 and November 2014 in a tertiary referral center were prospectively gathered in a database and retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point of this study was primary patency. Secondary end points included primary assisted and secondary patency, survival of the patient, stent fractures, secondary interventions, and limb loss. ResultsA total of 75 PAAs were treated in 64 patients with a mean age of 68.1 ± 9.4 years. Unilateral PAA was present in 39 patients (61%) and bilateral PAAs in 25 patients (39%), of which 11 (17%) were treated bilaterally. Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 2-187 months). Primary patency at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was 84%, 60%, and 51%, respectively; primary assisted patency, 84%, 65%, and 57%; and secondary patency, 89%, 71%, and 60%. Stent fractures occurred in 28% of the cases (n = 21) in a median follow-up time of 47 months (range, 14-187 months). One-third of the fractures were associated with an occlusion that mainly presented with claudication, and only one was associated with acute ischemia. Reinterventions were performed in 12 cases (16%) during a median follow-up of 14 months (range, 1-47 months). The reintervention-free survival after 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was 93%, 79%, and 79%, respectively. No major amputations were performed. The overall survival rate after 5 years and 10 years was 78% and 46%, respectively. ConclusionsEndovascular repair has established a definitive role in the treatment protocol for PAAs. It is associated with acceptable long-term patency rates. Stent fractures occurred in almost one-third of cases but never led to limb loss. Future developments should focus on the design of more dedicated and durable stents for this specific indication.

Long-term Comparison of Endovascular and Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Retrospective Analysis of Matched Cohorts with Propensity Score

Although recent guidelines recommend endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for robust younger patients, we have been limiting our indication to older patients or those who are physically frail. This study compares long-term outcomes of our series of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated with endovascular repair (ER) and open surgery (OS), using propensity score matching. Between June 2007 and October 2014, 819 patients with infrarenal AAA underwent elective repair at our institution. Among them, 737 patients (386 ERs and 351 OSs) with over 1-year follow-up or any events (reintervention or mortality) were enrolled. Covariates for matching included age, sex, hypertension, coronary arterial disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, stroke, malignancy, hemodialysis, ejection fraction, serum creatinine, and respiratory function. After propensity score matching, 157 pairs were selected. In the original cohort, overall survival at 5years was 84.1% in ER and 89.3% in OS; the difference was significant (P=0.019). The freedom-from-reintervention rates at 5years were also significantly different, 81.8% in ER and 92.8% in OS (P=0.007). In the matched cohort, age and comorbidities were similar both in ER and OS. The overall survival at 5years was 85.4% and 90.1% in ER and OS, respectively; the difference was not significant (P=0.242). The freedom-from-reintervention rates at 5years were 81.1% in ER and 89.1% in OS; these were also not significantly different (P=0.178). Risk-adjusted comparisons revealed that long-term outcomes of ER and OS were comparable among our relatively frail patients in their age 70s. Our results failed to show the long-term advantage of EVAR in rather high-risk patients and provided no supportive evidence for our selection criteria.

Grey Relational Analysis of Benefit of Surgical Management for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Grey relational analysis was used to compare the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open repair for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Patients with AAA undergoing open repair (n = 133) or EVAR (n = 88) from July 1995 to January 2009 were studied retrospectively. Compared with EVAR, longer periods of postoperative intubation and hospital stay (P < 0.001) were required for open repair. The operation time was significantly longer in open surgery than in EVAR (P < 0.001). Patients in the open repair group required larger volumes of intraoperative blood transfusion than those in EVAR (P < 0.001), and they had more of a trend of cardiac failure after surgery than those in the EVAR group. The operative mortality was similar in both groups. On follow-up, the all-cause mortality and the rates of ischemic legs within 5 years had no significant differences between the 2 procedures (P > 0.05). The grey relational grades in EVAR and open repair were 0.673 and 0.936, respectively. Compared with open repair, patients with AAAs undergoing EVAR had fewer complications in the short term and had a similar all-cause mortality in the long term.

Long-term Outcome of Endovascular Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Presents a Credible Alternative to Open Surgery

Endovascular repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAA) has become increasingly popular; however, long-term patency and limb salvage rates are not fully established. A retrospective review of all endovascular PAA repairs at our institution (from 2005 to 2012) identified 34 PAAs in 26 patients, of which 32% presented with acute symptoms. PAA were repaired with either Hemobahn(®) or Viabahn(®) endografts, using an entirely percutaneous approach. All patients were given Clopidogrel and/or aspirin postoperatively. Mean follow-up duration was 40 (range 4-86) months. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine primary patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage rates. Complications and reintervention rates also were examined. At 1, 3, and 5years follow-up, the primary graft patency was 88, 82, and 82%, respectively, and secondary patency was 90, 86, and 86%. Amputation-free survival at 1, 3, and 5years was 97, 94, and 94%, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 100%. There were five graft occlusions: one was asymptomatic, one was treated with thrombolysis successfully, and one was thrombolysed but reoccluded resulting in nondisabling claudication. Two were not suitable for thrombolysis and required amputation. The overall reintervention rate was 12%. The primary and secondary patency rates of endovascular repair of PAA are equivalent to the reported outcome of open repair. Reintervention and limb salvage rate appears better than open repair. With improved long-term outcomes, endovascular repair can be considered a credible treatment strategy for routine uncomplicated PAA.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Endovascular Options and Outcomes — Proliferating Therapy, But Effective?

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a reported prevalence rate of 1.4% in the US. AAA rupture accounts for an estimated 15,000 deaths per year, rendering it the 10th leading cause of death in men over the age of 55. Endovascular repair (EVR) has proliferated in the last two decades as an increasingly popular alternative to traditional open surgery, and is now the default treatment in the majority of centres worldwide. This review article outlines the evidence supporting this stance. The development of EVR is reviewed, alongside trends in utilisation of this therapy over time. The evidence for the relative short-term and long-term outcomes of EVR and open AAA repair is discussed, and ongoing controversies surrounding the use of EVR are considered.

Comparison of Long-term Outcomes Following Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Based on Size Threshold

Size threshold for operative repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has been determined based on risks and outcomes of open repair vs surveillance. The influence of endovascular repair (EVAR) on this threshold is less established. The purpose of this study is to determine whether long-term outcomes of EVAR are affected by maximum diameter at time of treatment. All patients who underwent EVAR with modular stent grafts between January 2000 and December 2011 at a single academic institution were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were stratified based on maximum aortic diameter at time of repair: small (4.0-4.9 cm), medium (5.0-5.9 cm), and large (6.0 cm). Comparisons of demographics, indications for repair, and perioperative complications were made among the groups. Long-term follow-up was reviewed for expansion of the native aneurysm sac 5 mm, secondary intervention involving the native aneurysm or stent graft, and all-cause mortality. Statistical analyses were made using analysis of variance, χ2, and Kaplan-Meier plots. During the study period, 740 patients underwent EVAR with modular stent grafts: 157 small (21.2%), 374 medium (50.5%), and 209 large (28.2%). Preoperative patient characteristics were similar among the groups with exception to mean age (69.3 ± 8.09, 71.7 ± 8.55, and 73.6 ± 8.77 years for small, medium, and large, respectively; P < .001), history of coronary artery disease (42% small, 57% medium, 51.2% large; P = .01), prior coronary angioplasty (14.6% small, 18.2% medium, 9.6% large; P = .02), congestive heart failure (5.7% small, 15.2% medium, 19.6% large; P = .01), prior vascular surgery (7% small, 15.8% medium, 10% large; P = .016), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21% small, 27% medium, 33% large; P = .038). Clinical classification differed significantly as a larger percentage of small AAAs were symptomatic (19.7% small, 7.5% medium, 8.1% large; P < .001). No difference in perioperative complication rates (P = .399) or all-type endoleak at any surveillance visit (40.8% small, 41.7% medium, 44.5% large; P = .73) was observed among the groups. However, the small AAA group developed fewer type I endoleaks (5.1% vs 6.95% medium and 14.8% large; P = .001). Aneurysm sac expansion of 5 mm was observed in 2.6% of small, 5.6% of medium, and 7.2% of large AAAs during the follow-up period but did not achieve a significant difference (P = .148). Secondary intervention rates differed significantly as 5.1% of small, 7.5% of medium, and 12.9% large AAAs required secondary intervention (P = .018). In direct comparison with small AAAs, medium (P = .39) and large (P < .001) groups both required secondary intervention more frequently, with hazard ratios of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.045-5.156) and 4.74 (95% confidence interval, 2.115-10.637), respectively. Overall 10-year survival was 72% in the small, 63.1% in the medium, and 49.8% in the large group (P < .001) with no known AAA-related deaths. Age-adjusted all-cause mortality differed significantly among the group aged 75 to 84 years (30.4% small, 51.6% medium, 55.7% large; P = .017). EVAR for small AAAs demonstrates improved long-term outcomes when compared with EVAR for medium and large AAAs. These data suggest that EVAR for AAAs ranging from 4 to 5 cm may have better outcomes than EVAR for age-matched patients with larger aneurysms.

Eight-year follow-up of endovascular repair of a brachiocephalic trunk aneurysm due to Takayasu's arteritis

Aneurysms of the brachiocephalic trunk are rare but their clinical outcomes are potentially devastating; they include rupture, cerebral or arm ischemia secondary to thromboembolism, and compression of the surrounding structures. Although open repair has proven successful, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Endovascular treatment, if anatomically feasible, may offer a safer and less invasive approach to these lesions, especially in high-surgical-risk patients. We report the good long-term outcome of endovascular repair of a large innominate artery true aneurysm due to Takayasu's arteritis. A stent graft was safely and successfully deployed to exclude the aneurysm; assessment by vascular imaging at 8-year follow-up demonstrated the efficacy of the procedure.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

To compare the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We retrospectively reviewed consecutive AAA patients treated with EVAR (n = 89) or open repair (n = 136) from January 1998 to December 2008. More patients in the open repair group had a longer duration of hospital stay. The operation time was significantly longer in open surgery than in EVAR (p <0.001), and the percentage of patients requiring a transfusion was higher in the open repair group than in EVAR. Patients in the open repair group had a higher incidence of cardiac insufficiency after surgery than did those in the EVAR group. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the proportion of patients without complications in the EVAR group was significantly less than that in the open repair group (68.1% vs. 91.1%; p <0.0001), and the long-term survival rate in EVAR group was similar to open surgery group (87.5% vs. 91.1%; p = 0.555). Thrombosis was found inside of the aneurysm; postoperative complications in the EVAR group included ischemic legs, graft stenosis, and endoleaks that required further endoluminal treatment. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm causes less trauma in patients with AAAs in the short term, and patients treated with EVAR have similar survival rate with open repair in the long term, but have postoperative complications requiring further interventional treatment.

Endovascular versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.)

A retrospective multicenter study of endovascular treatment of popliteal artery aneurysm

To evaluate the feasibility of endovascular exclusion of popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) using stent grafts. The clinical data of all patients who underwent endovascular exclusion of PAA at three French vascular departments between December 1999 and December 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Outcome measures included graft patency and endoleak. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the primary and secondary patency curves. A total of 57 PAA in 50 patients (48 men; mean age, 72 +/- 11 years; range, 57-96 years) were treated. The type of stent graft used was Hemobahn/Viabahn in 42 (73.7%) cases, Wallgraft in 14 (24.5%) and Passager in one. The mean duration of hospitalization was 5 +/- 1.8 days (range, 3-11 days). No patients were lost from follow up (mean, 36 +/- 19.4 months; range, 6-96 months). Nine (16%) occlusions and six (10.5%) endoleaks occurred. The global limb salvage rate was 96.5% (55 of 57 PAA). Kaplan-Meier estimates for primary and secondary patency were 85.8% and 87.5% at one year and 82.3% and 87.5% at three years. Endovascular treatment of PAA is feasible in selected patients. The main determinants of success are suitable aneurysm anatomy and dual antiplatelet postoperative therapy. Further studies are warranted to determine long-term outcomes of endovascular repair for PAA.

Endovascular aneurysm repair at 5 years: does aneurysm diameter predict outcome?

The appropriate size threshold for endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is unclear. We studied the outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as a function of preoperative aneurysm diameter to determine the relationship between aneurysm size and long-term outcome of endovascular repair. We reviewed the results of 923 patients treated in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of EVAR. Small aneurysms were defined according to two size thresholds of 5.5 cm and 5.0 cm. Two-way analysis was used to compare patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm, n = 441) to patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm, n = 482). An ordered three-way analysis was used to compare patients with small AAA (<5.0 cm, n = 145), medium AAA (5.0 to 5.9 cm, n = 461), and large AAA (> or =6.0 cm, n = 317). The primary outcome measures of rupture, AAA-related death, surgical conversion, secondary intervention, and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates at 5 years. Median aneurysm size was 5.5 cm. The two-way comparison showed that 5 years after EVAR, patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm) had a lower AAA-related death rate (1% vs 6%, P = .006), a higher survival rate (69% vs 57%, P = .0002), and a lower secondary intervention rate (25% vs 32%, P = .03) than patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm). Three-way analysis revealed that patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) were younger (P < .0001) and were more likely to have a family history of aneurysm (P < .05), prior coronary intervention (P = .003), and peripheral occlusive disease (P = .008) than patients with larger AAAs. Patients with smaller AAAs also had more favorable aortic neck anatomy (P < .004). Patients with large AAAs were older (P < .0001), had higher operative risk (P = .01), and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .005), obesity (P = .03), and congestive heart failure (P = .004). At 5 years, patients with small AAAs had better outcomes, with 100% freedom from rupture vs 97% for medium AAAs and 93% for large AAAs (P = .02), 99% freedom from AAA-related death vs 97% for medium AAAs and 92% for large AAAs (P = .02) and 98% freedom from conversion vs 92% for medium AAAs and 89% for large AAAs (P = .01). Survival was significantly improved in small (69%) and medium AAAs (68%) compared to large AAAs (51%, P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that aneurysm size was a significant independent predictor of rupture (P = .04; hazard ratio [HR], 2.195), AAA-related death (P = .03; HR, 2.007), surgical conversion (P = .007; HR, 1.827), and survival (P = .001; HR, 1.351). There were no significant differences in secondary intervention, endoleak, or migration rates between small, medium, and large AAAs. Preoperative aneurysm size is an important determinant of long-term outcome following endovascular repair. Patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) are more favorable candidates for EVAR and have the best long-term outcomes, with 99% freedom from AAA death at 5 years. Patients with large AAAs (> or =6.0 cm) have shorter life expectancy and have a higher risk of rupture, surgical conversion, and aneurysm-related death following EVAR compared to patients with smaller aneurysms. Nonetheless, 92% of patients with large AAAs are protected from AAA-related death at 5 years. Patients with AAAs of intermediate size (5 to 6 cm) represent most of the patients treated with EVAR and have a 97% freedom from AAA-related death at 5 years.

Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms is a rapidly evolving technique that has gained broad acceptance in the treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods A review of the English literature was done to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Reports of complications such as endoleak, graft migration, graft limb occlusion, aneurysm rupture, and aneurysm enlargement were evaluated. Results Short-term results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms are excellent. The necessity for open conversions is less than 5%. The cumulative risk of aneurysm rupture is approximately 1% per year. The coverall incidence of graft limb occlusion was 2.8% in the follow-up period. The cumulative risk for a secondary procedure was 12% at 1 year, 24% at 2 years, and 35% at 3 years. Moderate and severe neck angulation was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events in the follow-up period. Endografts have the potential to become infected and develop aortoduodenal fistula. The treatment of ruptured aneurysms with endovascular grafts has been successful and a technique that is increasingly used. Conclusion Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm is an effective technique with excellent short-term results. The long-term results remain to be determined. Ongoing surveillance is necessary to avoid late complications of aneurysm rupture.