Outcomes Of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Research Articles

Late Neck Related Adverse Events are Rare Among Patients with Wide Aortic Neck Undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with the Ovation Endograft

Patients with wide aortic necks undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) have been shown to be at a higher risk for neck-related complications. We aim to examine outcomes of EVAR with an endograft exerting minimal outward pressure (Ovation-Endologix) in patients with a large baseline neck diameter. We performed a retrospective single center study, including consecutive patients undergoing EVAR with the Ovation system from May 2011 to April 2021. Patients were divided in Groups 1 and 2 if the 20, 23, 26, 29 mm or the 34mm proximal diameter main body was used, respectively. According to the instructions for use of the device, for neck diameters 27-30mm the 34mm main body is required. Primary endpoint was rate of neckrelated complications during follow-up, (type Ia endoleak, migration >10mm and neck-related re-interventions) and rate of aortic neck dilatation (AND). AND was determined based on multiple aortic neck diameters that were recorded and compared between the 1-month computed tomography angiography (CTA) after EVAR and the last available follow-up CTA.Secondary endpoints were peri-procedural and follow-up outcomes such as endoleaks, reinterventions and overall mortality. In total 281 patients were included, 222 in Group 1 and 59 in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 presented significantly shorter neck length, higher neck angulation and more common reversed tapered configuration. Median follow-up was 36months (Range: 6-106). Early and late type Ia endoleak was observed in 4 and 2 patients in each group, respectively (P=0.063 and P=0.195, respectively). Distal migration was observed in 2 patients in Group 2 and AND was recorded in 2 patients in each group (P=0.195). Freedom from the primary endpoint was estimated at 98%, 94%, 94% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and at 98%, 95%, 86% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.266). Probability of survival was 95%, 86%, 75% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and 83%, 77%, 72% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.226).Multivariate regression analysis identified neither Group 1 versus Group 2 nor absolute value of aortic neck diameter as significant predictors of neck-related adverse events. Neck diameters did not display significant differences over time in any of the levels evaluated. EVAR with the Ovation endograft results in low rates of late neck related complications which is also true for patients with wide baseline aortic necks.

Early and Late Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Infected Abdominal Aortic and/or Iliac Aneurysms

Infected abdominal aortic and/or iliac aneurysm (AAIA) is a rare condition with a high mortality rate when treated with open surgery. In the past decade, the condition has increasingly been treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, early and late outcomes, including the continued need for antibiotic treatments and predictors of persistent infection, are poorly understood. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who underwent EVAR for infected AAIA from January 2010 to October 2017. We collected data including patient age, gender, clinical presentation, aneurysm location, culture results, intraoperative details, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, persistent infection, reintervention, and survival. Among 792 patients diagnosed with AAIA, 64 were diagnosed with primary infected aneurysm, underwent EVAR, and were included in this study (81.3% male; median age, 72years; range, 18-94years). The most commonly isolated organisms were Salmonella species (34%), followed by Streptococcus (21%), and Staphylococcus species (21%). Aneurysms were intact in 48 patients (75%) and were ruptured in 16 (25%). The perioperative mortality was 4.7% (3 patients) of whom one was diagnosed with ruptured infected AAIA. Six (9.4%) patients died during hospitalization, 5 of severe sepsis with multiorgan failure and one of myocardial infarction. Among the 58 surviving patients, 34 (58.6%) had persistent infection, of whom 13 (22.4%) required early and late reintervention, including 2 with endograft infection, 8 with primary and secondary aortoenteric fistula, 2 with recurrent new aortic infection, and one with graft limb occlusion. The remaining 24 patients were able to discontinue antibiotics and had no recurrence or need for reintervention. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5years in the antibiotic-discontinuation group were 91.7%, 87.5%, and 68.0%, respectively, and 82.4%, 52.6%, and 32.9%, respectively, in the persistent-infection group (P=0.009). In multivariable analysis, primary aortoenteric fistula (Adjusted OR [aOR], 20.469; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.265-331.320; P=0.034) and preoperative serum albumin level <3g/dL (aOR, 7.399; 95% CI, 1.176-46.558; P=0.033) were preoperative parameter that predicted persistent infection. AC-reactive protein level more than 5mg/L (aOR, 34.378; 95% CI, 4.888-241.788; P<0.001) was observed in patients with persistent infection. EVAR is a feasible treatment with acceptable perioperative mortality for infected AAIA. Patients able to discontinue antibiotics have better survival and lower reintervention rates than those with persistent infection. A preoperative albumin level below 3g/dL and primary aortoenteric fistula predicted persistent infection in this population.

Percutaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Has Lower Complication Rates Than Open Based on National Data

Multiple trials and studies have demonstrated the noninferiority of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), leading to an increase in the use of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to assess whether this proliferation has led to any shift in the outcomes of percutaneous EVAR in common clinical practice using recently available national data.

A radiomics model for predicting the outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair based on machine learning.

This study aimed to develop a radiomics model to predict the outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), based on machine learning (ML) algorithms. We retrospectively reviewed 711 patients with infra-renal AAA who underwent elective EVAR procedures between January 2016 and December 2019 at our single center. The radiomics features of AAA were extracted using Pyradiomics. Pearson correlation analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), least absolute shrinkage, and selection operator (LASSO) regression were applied to determine the predictors for EVAR-related severe adverse events (SAEs). Eighty percent of patients were classified as the training set and the remaining 20 percent of patients were classified as the test set. The selected features were used to build a radiomics model in training set using different ML algorithms. The performance of each model was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the test set. A total of 493 patients were enrolled in this study, the mean follow-up time was 32months. During the follow-up, 156 (31.6%) patients experienced EVAR-related SAEs. A total of 1223 radiomics features were extracted from each patient, of which 30 radiomics features were finally identified. The quantitative performance assessment and the ROC curves indicated that the logistics regression (LR) model had better predictive value than others, with accuracy, 0.86; AUC, 0.93; and F1 score, 0.91. The Rad-score waterfall plot showed that the overall amount of error was small both in the training set and in the test set. Calibration curve showed that the calibration degree of the training set and the test set were good (p > 0.05). Decision curve analysis (threshold 0.32) demonstrated that the model had good clinical applicability. Our radiomics model could be used as an efficient and adjunctive tool to predict the outcome after EVAR.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Endovascular device manufacturers have defined specific anatomic criteria for the aneurysm characteristics that should be observed as instructions for use (IFU) for specific grafts. In clinical practice, the prevalence of performing EVAR outside the IFU has been high. In the present study, we aimed to determine the effects of nonadherence to the IFU on the outcomes. MethodsPatients who had undergone EVAR for an infrarenal AAA between 2005 and 2013 were included. IFU nonadherence was defined as any violation of device-specific IFU criteria and was compared with IFU adherence. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including limb-related adverse events, and type Ia endoleaks. A second aim was to study whether the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time. ResultsA total of 258 patients were included, 144 (55.8%) of whom had been treated according to the IFU and 114 (44.2%) outside the IFU. In the IFU nonadherence group, all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.89; P = .037) and aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.4-18.6; P = .015), and the incidence of AAA rupture (HR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.1-26.6; P = .036) and GRAEs (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .025). No significant association was found between the incidence of type Ia endoleaks and neck-related IFU or limb-related adverse events and iliac-related IFU. However, neck length was a risk factor for type Ia endoleaks (HR, 18.2, 95% CI, 6.3-52.2; P < .001), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 8.7; 95% CI, 1.8-41.6; P = .007), AAA rupture (HR, 21.7; 95% CI, 2.8-166; P = .003), and GRAEs (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7; P < .001). An IFU violation regarding neck angulation was also a risk factor for all-cause mortality (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .032), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.4-42.8; P = .021), AAA rupture (HR, 79.4; 95% CI, 6.3-999; P = .001), and GRAEs (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.5; P < .001). The prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU did not increase over time. ConclusionsPerforming EVAR outside the IFU had a negative effect on outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, and GRAEs. Neck angulation and neck length seemed to be the most crucial aneurysm characteristics.

A Statistical Shape Model of the Morphological Variation of the Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Neck.

Hostile aortic neck characteristics, such as short length and large diameter, have been associated with type Ia endoleaks and reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, such characteristics partially describe the complex aortic neck morphology. A more comprehensive quantitative description of 3D neck shape might lead to new insights into the relationship between aortic neck morphology and EVAR outcomes in individual patients. This study identifies the 3D morphological shape components that describe the infrarenal aortic neck through a statistical shape model (SSM). Pre-EVAR CT scans of 97 patients were used to develop the SSM. Parameterization of the morphology was based on the center lumen line reconstruction, a triangular surface mesh of the aortic lumen, 3D coordinates of the renal arteries, and the distal end of the aortic neck. A principal component analysis of the parametrization of the aortic neck coordinates was used as input for the SSM. The SSM consisted of 96 principal components (PCs) that each described a unique shape feature. The first five PCs represented 95% of the total morphological variation in the dataset. The SSM is an objective model that provides a quantitative description of the neck morphology of an individual patient.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aortic repair with flared iliac limb endografts in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and aneurysmal common iliac arteries.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair with flared iliac limb grafts in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and aneurysmal common iliac arteries (CIAs). This is a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study that involves four tertiary referral hospitals between May 1, 2005, and April 30, 2019. Primary outcomes were freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), and freedom from iliac-related reintervention. We studied 995 aneurysmal iliac limbs in 795 (85.2%) patients who met the inclusion criteria. Median AAA diameter was 55mm (IQR: 51-60). Early mortality occurred in 3 (0.4%) patients. The median of follow-up time was 52 months (IQR: 26-88). Estimated freedom from ARM was 99±0.002% (95% CI: 99-99.9) at 1 year, and 99±0.004% (95% CI: 97.9-99.6) at 5-years. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR=6.4, 95% CI: 1.7-24.0, P=0.006), chronic kidney disease (HR=5.5, 95% CI: 1.4-21.9, P=0.016), and the presence of an aneurysmal left CIA (HR=5.3, 95% CI: 1.0.5-27.4, P=0.044) was associated with ARM. There were 42 (7.3%) late iliac-related events (limb occlusion, N.=5; iliac-related endoleaks, N.=37). Estimated freedom from iliac-related reintervention was 98±0.003% (95% CI: 97-99) at 1 year, and 95±0.01% (95% CI: 92.7-96.7) at 5-years, which was associated with an aneurysmal right CIA (HR=2.2, 95% CI: 1.3-3.9; P=0.005), and age ≥78 years (HR=1.9, 95% CI: 1.01-1.3; P=0.039). EVAR flared iliac limb grafts showed a high rate of freedom from ARM and a low reintervention rate. Owing to these results, it can be a durable and stable alternative for patients aged >78 years.

Nationwide Analysis of Persistent Type II Endoleak and Late Outcomes of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Japan: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Background:We reviewed the results of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients from the Japanese Committee for Stentgraft Management registry to determine the significance of persistent type II endoleak (p-T2EL) and the risk of late adverse events, including aneurysm sac enlargement.Methods:The prospectively captured medical records of 17 099 patients <75 years of age who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm from 2006 to 2015 were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without p-T2EL) and compared to examine the correlation between p-T2EL and the occurrence of aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair.Results:Of the patients, 4957 (29.0%) had p-T2EL and 12 142 (71.0%) had no p-T2EL (non-T2EL). Mean age was significantly higher (P<0.001), and there were fewer men (P<0.001) in the p-T2EL group. Among comorbidities, hypertension (P=0.019) and chronic kidney disease (P=0.040) were more prevalent and respiratory disorders were less prevalent (P<0.001) in the p-T2EL group. From each group, 4957 patients were matched according to propensity score to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. The cumulative incidence rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm–related mortality (p-T2EL: 52 of 4957 [1.0%] versus non-T2EL: 21 of 12 142 [0.2%]), rupture (p-T2EL: 38 of 4957 [0.8%] versus non-T2EL: 13 of 12 142 [0.1%]), sac enlargement (≥5 mm; p-T2EL: 1359 of 4957 [27.4%] versus non-T2EL: 332 of 12 142 [2.7%]), and reintervention (p-T2EL: 739 of 4957 [14.9%] versus non-T2EL: 91 of 12 142 [0.7%]) were significantly higher in the p-T2EL than the nonpT2EL group (P<0.001). Propensity score matching yielded higher estimated incremental risk, including abdominal aortic aneurysm–related mortality, rupture, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and reintervention for p-T2EL (P<0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed older age (P=0.010), proximal neck diameter (P=0.003), and chronic kidney disease (P<0.001) as independent positive predictors and male sex as an independent negative predictor (P=0.015) of sac enlargement.Conclusions:The Japanese Committee for Stentgraft Management registry data show a correlation between p-T2EL and late adverse events, including aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, rupture, and abdominal aortic aneurysm–related mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair. Besides p-T2EL, older age, female sex, chronic kidney disease, and dilated proximal neck were associated with sac enlargement.

A meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair in aneurysm patients with severe angulated infrarenal neck.

ObjectivesA growing number of abdominal aortic aneurysms with severe angulated neck anatomy is treated by endovascular means. However, contradictory early and late outcomes have been reported. Our review and outcome analysis attempted to evaluate the available literature and provide clinicians with a base for clinical implementation and future research.Materials and methodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with severe infrarenal neck angulation (SNA ≥ 60°) vs non-severe neck angulation (NSNA). Outcome measures included perioperative complications, type 1a endoleak, neck-related secondary procedures, stent graft migration, aneurysm rupture, increase (>5mm) in sac diameter, all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality (PROSPERO Nr.: CRD42021233253).ResultsSix observational studies reporting on 5981 patients (1457 with SNA and 4524 with NSNA) with a weighted mean follow-up period of 1.8 years were included. EVAR in SNA compared with NSNA was associated with a higher rate of type 1a endoleak at 30 days (4.0% vs 1.8%; p< 0.00001), at 1 year (2.8% vs 1.9%; p<0.03), at 2 years (4.9% vs 2.1%; p< 0.0002), at 3 years (5.6% vs 2.6%; p< 0.0001). The rate of neck-related secondary procedures was significantly higher at 1 year (6.6% vs 3.9%; p<0.05) and at 3 years (13.1% vs 9%; p<0.05). Graft migration, aneurysm sack increase, aneurysm rupture and all-cause mortality were not statistically different at mid-term.ConclusionsThe use of EVAR in severely angulated infrarenal aortic necks is associated with a high rate of early and mid-term complications. However, aortic related and all-causes mortality are not higher compared to patients with NSNA. Therefore, EVAR should be cautiously used in patients with SNA.

Follow-up Results of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Following Abdominal Visceral Debranching.

The aim of this study is to present a series of six cases with thoracoabdominal aneurysm treated with hybrid technique in our center. Between May 2015 and December 2018, the data of six patients with thoracoabdominal aneurysms and various comorbidities who underwent visceral debranching followed by endovascular aortic aneurysm repair were reviewed retrospectively. Patients' mean age was 65.3±19.6 years. All of them were male. Comorbidities were old age, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous surgical interventions, and/or esophageal hemangioma. Except for one patient who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (inflow was taken from ascending aorta), debranching was performed from the right iliac artery. Debranching of four visceral arteries (superior mesenteric artery, celiac trunk, and bilateral renal right arteries) was performed in three patients, of three visceral arteries (superior mesenteric artery, celiac trunk, right renal artery) was performed in one, and of two visceral arteries (superior mesenteric artery, celiac trunk) was performed in two patients. Great saphenous vein and 6-mm polytetrafluoroethylene grafts were used in one and five patients, respectively, for debranching. Endovascular aneurysm repair was performed following debranching procedures as soon as the patients were stabilized. In total, three patients died at the early, mid, and long-term follow-up due to multiorgan failure, pneumonia, and unknown reasons. Hybrid repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms may be an alternative to fenestrated or branched endovascular stent grafts in patients with increased risk factors for open surgical thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair; however, the procedure requires experience and care.

Similar long-term outcomes between endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarian patients: a single-center study.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has lower perioperative mortality and morbidity rates and shorter hospital stays when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in octogenarian patients. However, its long-term results remain unclear. Hence, we aimed to analyze and compare the long-term outcomes of OSR and EVAR in this aging population. This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed the data of patients older than 80 years who underwent primary repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) between 2011 and 2016 in our hospital. The primary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day mortality, while the secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reintervention rate. Among the 48 patients with elective AAA repair, 13 underwent OSR and 35 underwent EVAR. In-hospital complications occurred in 10 patients (20.8%), 5 for OSR (38.5%) and 5 for EVAR (14.3%) with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.067). In the OSR group, pulmonary complications were the most common events; in the EVAR group, 2 patients had ischemic colitis diagnosed with sigmoidoscopy and recovered by conservative treatment. The 1- and 5-year survival rates were 77.8% and 55.6% in the OSR group, and 66.0% and 54.9% in the EVAR group, respectively. The reintervention rate was 8.6% for the EVAR group; none of the OSR group were readmitted. The difference in procedures did not affect patient survival. Therefore, OSR does not necessarily have a worse prognosis than EVAR. Individual risk stratification must be preceded before the selection of an appropriate treatment method.

Meta-analysis finds recurrent infection is more common after endovascular than after open repair of infected abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Controversy has continued regarding the use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs open aneurysm repair (OAR) for infected abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). In the present study, we investigated the comparative outcomes of EVAR and OAR for the treatment of infected AAAs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through May 2021. We included studies that had described both EVAR and OAR for the treatment of infected AAAs. The primary endpoints were the rates of recurrent infection and related rupture and/or death. Perioperative and 1-year mortality and readmissions and reinterventions were also analyzed. Fourteen observational studies describing a total of 1203 patients (EVAR, 359 [29.8%]; OAR, 844 [70.2%]) were eligible for qualitative analysis. The baseline characteristics included diabetes mellitus (33.2%), fever at presentation (71.6%), rupture at diagnosis (26.1%), and positive blood cultures (52.5%). The mean follow-up period ranged from 12 to 40months. The use of EVAR became more prevalent in recent years (2016-2020, 32.4%) compared with the former period (2010-2015, 13.8%; P< .0001). Fenestrated, branched, or concomitant visceral debranching EVAR was performed in 6.1% of cases. In OAR, surgical debridement was consistently performed, and in situ reconstruction was applied in 82.2% and an omental flap in 51.5%. In nine studies considered for quantitative analysis, the patients' background (EVAR, n= 264; OAR, n= 274) were statistically balanced. The crude rates of recurrent infection and related rupture or death were 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8%-18.5%) and 4.9% (95% CI 1.8%-8.0%), respectively. The pooled analyses depicted significantly higher rates of recurrent infection after EVAR than after OAR (relative risk [RR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.80-3.27; P< .0001; I2= 0%). Recurrent infection-related rupture or death (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.70-3.23; P= .29; I2= 0%), perioperative death (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.39-1.65; P= .55; I2= 35%), 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28; P=.13; I2= 0%), and readmission or reintervention (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.82; P=.52; I2= 0%) were not significantly different statistically between the two groups. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. Sensitivity analyses of leave-one-out meta-analysis confirmed higher rates of recurrent infection after EVAR. EVAR has become more prevalent as the initial treatment of infected AAAs. Although operative and 1-year survival were similar between OAR and EVAR groups, recurrent infection was more frequent after EVAR. This limitation should be weighed in selecting patients for EVAR in infected AAAs. Postoperative graft and infection surveillance are critical, especially after EVAR.

The impact of obesity on perioperative and postoperative outcomes after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Obesity is a common and growing health problem in vascular surgery patients, as it is in all patient groups. Evidence regarding body mass index (BMI) on endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes is not clear in the literature. We aimed to determine the impact of obesity on perioperative and midterm outcomes of elective EVAR between obese and non-obese patients. Under a retrospective study design, a total of 120 patients (109 males, 11 females, mean age: 74.45 ± 8.59 (53-92 years)) undergoing elective EVAR between June 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into two groups: obese (defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30kg/m2) and non-obese (mean BMI < 30kg/m2 (32.25 ± 1.07kg/m2 vs 25.85 ± 2.69kg/m2)). Of the 120 patients included in the study, 81 (67.5%) were defined as "nonobese," while 39 (32.5%) were obese. The mean BMI of the study group was 27.93 ± 3.78kg/m2. In obese patients, the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product (DAP) values were longer than those of non-obese patients: 89.74 ± 20.54 vs 79.69 ± 28.77 min (p = 0.035), 33.23 ± 10.14 vs 38.17 ± 8.61 min (p = 0.01) and 133.69 ± 58.17 vs 232.56 ± 51.87Gy.cm2 (p < 0.001). Although there was no difference in sac shrinkage at 12-month follow-up, there was a significant decrease at 6-month follow-up in both groups (p = 0.017). Endoleak occurred in 17.9% (n = 7) of the obese group versus 11.1% (n = 9) of the non-obese group (p = 0.302). Iliac branch occlusion developed in four patients, 3 (3.7%) in the non-obese group and 1 (2.6%) in the obese group (p = 0.608). The all-cause mortality rate was slightly higher in the obese group; however, it did not differ between the groups (p = 0.463). In addition to the longer procedure times, fluoroscopy times, and DAP values in obese patients, regardless of obesity, significant sac shrinkage in the first 6months of follow-up was observed in both groups. No difference was documented with regards to mortality or morbidity following EVAR.

Meta-Analysis of the Crossed Versus Standard Limb Configuration in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

To investigate whether the crossed-limb technique confers better or worse clinical outcomes compared to the standard straight limb configuration in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR with the crossed versus standard limb configuration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched in March 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Summary estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. Random-effects models were employed. Four observational studies qualified for inclusion, reporting a total of 1132 patients. All presented contemporary experiences. Baseline clinical characteristics were largely similar between patients with and without the crossed-limb configuration, but the anatomy tended to be less favourable in patients treated with the crossed-limb technique. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcomes: limb occlusion (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 - 3.19), type Ib endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.04), type III endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 - 0.03); or secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.03), type Ia endoleak (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.02), type II endoleak (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 - 3.74), procedure duration (MD 18.07 min, 95% CI -1.14-37.29). Inconsistency across studies was low for all outcomes. The studies were judged to be of high quality on the NOS. The main bias identified using the ROBINS-I tool was due to confounding. The crossed-limb technique was not found to confer inferior clinical outcomes in the medium term compared to the standard limb configuration in patients who undergo standard EVAR.

Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with Adjunctive Stenting

Endovascular aneurysm repair is the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, however data regarding adjunctive stenting at the time of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are limited. The study aims to evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing EVAR with and without adjunctive stenting. Patients undergoing EVAR with stenting (EVAR-S) and without stenting (EVAR) (2008 - 2017) were selected from Cerner HealthFacts database using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Chi-square analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate the association of patient characteristics with medical and vascular outcomes. 4,957 patients undergoing EVAR procedures were identified (3,816 EVAR and 1,141 EVAR-S). Demographic analysis revealed that patients who underwent EVAR-S had higher Charlson comorbidity scores (2.35 vs. 2.13, P=0.0001). EVAR-S was associated with a greater frequency of vascular complications such as thrombolysis/percutaneous thrombectomy (0.9% vs. 0.2%; P < 0.0004). There were no differences seen in access complications between EVAR and EVAR-S. Multivariable analysis revealed that EVAR-S was associated with prolonged length of stay (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.82), readmission < 30 days (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.68), major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09-2.32), respiratory complications (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.16-1.88) and renal failure (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16-2.11). Endovascular aneurysm repair with adjunctive stenting (EVAR-S) was associated with vascular complications requiring reintervention, although the overall rate was very low. As well, readmission within 30 days, cardiac complications, respiratory problems and renal failure were more likely when compared to standard EVAR. The need for adjunctive stenting acts as a marker for an overall sicker and more complex population, not just in terms of vascular complications but across all medical complications as well. Staging the procedure may be helpful in terms of spreading out the operative risk into smaller portions. Furthermore, consideration of a non-operative strategy should be discussed with the patient if the risk of the procedure outweighs the risk of aneurysm rupture in high-risk groups.

Effect of Anticoagulation on Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Outcomes and Development of Endoleaks

Effect of Anticoagulation on Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Outcomes and Development of Endoleaks

Use of Chimney Technique Does Not Improve the Outcome of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With a Hyperangulated and Short Proximal Aortic Neck

Purpose: We hypothesized that extending the proximal landing zone with the chimney technique could be beneficial in patients with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck, defined as more > 60 degrees. Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of prospectively collected data of patients treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic aneurysm with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck. In all, 104 out of 130 patients were treated without (Group A) and 24 with the chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR, Group B). Primary outcome was technical and clinical success according to the reporting standards of the Society of Vascular Surgery. Results: The use of the chimney technique was associated with a significantly longer operation duration (167 vs. 93 min, p < .001), longer fluoroscopy time (44 vs.30 min, p = < .001), and larger amount of contrast medium used (149 vs. 127 ml, p = .03) but did not significantly improve technical (79.2% vs. 87.7%) and clinical success (54.2% vs. 68.9%). Aneurysm-related mortality was higher in group B (8.3% vs. = 0%, p < .001). Type IA endoleak was high in both groups at completion angiography (11.3% in Group A vs. 12.5% in Group B) and at follow-up (10.4% in Group A vs. 4.5% in Group B) without significant difference between the groups. Conclusions: Our data did not show a benefit of the primary use of the chimney technique in patients with a hyperangulated and short neck, although more studies are required to support this conclusion. Other strategies or new technologies are required for improving EVAR results in aneurysm patients with severe angulated proximal and short neck.

Prognostic Role of Severe Infrarenal Aortic Neck Angulation in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

To investigate whether patients with severe infrarenal aortic neck angulation have worse outcomes than those without severe angulation after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The HDAS (Healthcare Database Advanced Search) interface developed by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) was used to search electronic bibliographic databases. Studies comparing outcomes of standard EVAR in patients with and without severe neck angulation were considered. Pooled outcome estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using the Mantel–Haenszel or inverse variance method, as appropriate. Random effects models of meta-analysis were applied. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Ten studies reporting a total of 7 371 patients (1 576 with severe neck angulation and 5 795 without) were included. The studies reported medium term follow up. No statistically significant difference was found for the primary outcomes (overall mortality: HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.88 – 1.85, low certainty; aneurysm related mortality: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 – 1.44, moderate certainty; aneurysm rupture: HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.66 – 2.99, low certainty). The hazard of type Ia endoleak (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32 – 2.61) and re-intervention was higher in patient with severe angulation (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 – 1.54), but there was no significant difference in the odds of adjunctive procedures (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.48 – 3.11), or the hazard of sac expansion (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 – 1.55) or stent migration (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.78 – 1.92). Meta-analysis of studies that conducted multiple Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference for any of the primary outcomes. Severe neck angulation may not be a poor prognostic indicator for overall/aneurysm related mortality and rupture in the medium term after EVAR but may increase the risk of late type 1 endoleaks and re-intervention; therefore, patients require close surveillance.

Survival and durability after endovascular aneurysm repair reflect era-related surgical judgement

ObjectiveAbdominal aortic aneurysm management guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2020, based heavily on randomized controlled trials in an early era of infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), suggested that the long-term outcomes after EVAR jeopardize its use in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We hypothesized that, in a rapidly evolving surgical field, the era of aneurysm repair may have a significant influence on long-term patient outcomes. MethodsUsing a single-center retrospective cohort design, we identified two EVAR cohorts, the early cohort (n = 166) who underwent EVAR from 2008 to 2010, and a contemporary late cohort (n = 129) from 2015 to 2017. We assessed patient preoperative demographics and era of repair against the primary outcomes of reinterventions, reintervention-free survival, and mortality, addressing their relationships to anatomic selection criteria, graft durability, endoleak, and aneurysm diameter to 5 years after the procedure. ResultsEarly cohort patients had decreased reintervention-free survival (early 80.1% vs late 93.3%) and decreased overall survival (early 71.3% vs late 81%) at 3 years and throughout follow-up. The preoperative anatomy judged suitable for EVAR in early cohort patients was more variable than for late cohort patients, including 104% larger proximal and 106% larger distal landing zone diameters, with a mean 11.6-mm shorter length infrarenal aortic and 13.3-mm shorter length iliac sealing zones in the early group. Early cohort patients had more complications during follow-up, including graft kinking and endoleaks, and 24.4% of early vs 8.5% of late patients underwent one or more reinterventions. ConclusionsAlthough technical skill in EVAR implantation may not evolve significantly after a threshold of cases, surgical judgement, relating to anatomic selection and device sizing, requires feedback from long-term sequalae and significantly impacted EVAR outcomes by era. EVAR patients from an early repair era had significantly worse outcomes, with more complications, reinterventions, and a decrease in survival.

Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Young and Low Surgical Risk Patients in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

Purpose: To investigate early- and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in young and low surgical risk patients. Methods: The global registry for endovascular aortic treatment (GREAT) was queried for all patients with AAA undergoing standard EVAR; patients were excluded if had previous AAA repair or underwent concomitant procedures. Young patients were defined if age <60; surgical risk was assessed through the validated Medicare perioperative risk score (MPRS) based on age, sex, renal function, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Patients were classified as low (MPRS<3), average (MPRS 3–11), or high (MPRS>11) risk. Young versus older patients and low-risk versus average/high-risk patients were compared. The primary endpoints were early (30 days) major adverse events (MAEs), 5-year freedom from overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and freedom from device-related reinterventions. Time-to-event endpoints were calculated by Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: Of 3217 included patients, 182 (6%) were <60 years old, 956 (30%) had a low surgical risk, 1561 (49%) an average risk, 700 (22%) a high risk. Young patients had a less angulated proximal neck (27.2±18.4° vs 30.9±21.5°; p=0.05); in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients, a longer neck length (3±1.8 vs 2.8±1.4 cm; p=0.01) and lower neck angulation (29.7±21.8° vs 33.2±22.2°; p=0.01) were present. Young age alone had no significant impact on early mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p=0.62.) and MAEs (3.9% vs 6.1%; p=0.20), while these were significantly lower in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients (early mortality: 0.1% vs 0.7%, p=0.04; MAEs: 4.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.005). At 5 years, overall survival was significantly higher in young (88% vs 76%; p<0.001) and lower-risk (77% vs 54%; p<0.001) patients; low-risk patients also had significantly decreased aortic-related mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.04) and reintervention rates (6% vs 11%; p=0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.42) and reintervention rate (10% vs 10%; p=1.00) between young and older patients. Conclusion: In this real-world registry, EVAR was more often offered in cases with suitable anatomy in young and low-risk patients. Low operative risk, rather than young age alone, predicted excellent early outcomes and low 5-year mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.