Outcomes after Partial Endograft Explantation

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elective Open Conversion versus Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair for Previous Non-Infected Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of patients electively undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) or open conversion for failed previous non-infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHOD

The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023404091). The review followed the PRISMA guidelines; certainty was assessed through the GRADE and quality through MINORS tools. Outcomes data were pooled separately for F/B-EVAR and open conversion. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted; heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Thirty eight studies were included, for a total of 1 645 patients of whom 1 001 (60.9%) underwent an open conversion and 644 (39.1%) a F/B-EVAR. The quality of evidence was generally limited. GRADE certainty was judged low for 30 day death (in both groups) and F/B-EVAR technical success, and very low for the other outcomes. Pooled 30 day death was 2.3% (I2 33%) in the open conversion group and 2.4% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR conversion group (p = .36). Technical success for F/B-EVAR was 94.1% (I2 23%). The pooled 30 day major systemic complications rate was higher in the open conversion (21.3%; I2 74%) than in the F/B-EVAR (15.7%; I2 78%) group (p = .52). At 18 months follow up, the pooled re-intervention rate was 4.5% (I2 58%) in the open conversion and 26% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR group (p < .001), and overall survival was 92.5% (I2 59%) and 81.6% (I2 68%), respectively (p = .005).

CONCLUSION

In the elective setting, and excluding infections, the early results of both open conversion and F/B-EVAR after failed EVAR appear satisfactory. Although open conversion presented with higher complication rates in the first 30 days after surgery, at follow up it seemed to be associated with fewer re-interventions and better survival compared with F/B-EVAR.

Partial and complete explantation of aortic endografts in the modern era

OBJECTIVE

Despite the progressive advancement of devices for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), endografts continue to fail, requiring explant. We present a single-institutional experience of EVAR explants, characterizing modern failure modes, presentation, and outcomes for partial and complete EVAR explantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all EVARs explanted at an urban quaternary center from 2001 to 2020, with one infected endograft excluded. Patient and graft characteristics, indications, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Partial versus complete explants were performed per surgeon discretion without a predefined protocol. This process was informed by patient risk factors; asymptomatic, symptomatic, or ruptured aneurysm presentation; and anatomical or intraoperative factors, including endoleak type.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2020, 52 explants met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. More than one-half (57.7%) were explants of EVAR devices placed at outside institutions, designated nonindex explants. Most patients were male (86.5%), the median age was 74 years (interquartile range, 70-78 years). More than one-half (61.5%) were performed in the second decade of the study period. The most commonly explanted grafts were Gore Excluder (n = 9 grafts), Cook Zenith (n = 8), Endologix AFX (n = 7), Medtronic Endurant (n = 5), and Medtronic Talent (n = 5). Most grafts (78.8%) were explanted for neck degeneration or sac expansion. Five were explanted for initial seal failure, five for symptomatic expansion, and seven for rupture. The median implant duration was 4.2 years, although ranging widely (interquartile range, 2.6-5.1 years), but similar between index and nonindex explants (4.2 years vs 4.1 years). Partial explantation was performed in 61.5%, with implant duration slightly lower, 3.2 years versus 4.4 years for complete explants. Partial explantation was more frequent in index explants (68.2% vs 56.7%). The median length of stay was 8 days. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 3 days, without significant differences in nonindex explants (4 days vs 3 days) and partial explants (4 days vs 3 days). Thirty-day mortality occurred in two nonindex explants (one partial and one complete explant). Thirty-day readmission was similar between partial and complete explants (9.7% vs 5.0%), without accounting for nonindex readmissions. Long-term survival was comparable between partial and complete explants in Cox regression (hazard ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-7.56; P = .12).

CONCLUSIONS

Explants of EVAR devices have increased over time at our institution. Partial explant was performed in more than one-half of cases, per operating surgeon discretion, demonstrating higher blood loss, more frequent acute kidney injury, and longer intensive care unit stays, however with comparable short-term mortality and long-term survival.

Explant of the Aortic Endograft: Today's Solutions, Tomorrow's Problems

Type 2 endoleaks remain the Achilles heel of abdominal aortic endografting. They drive imaging costs and repeat intervention. We believe that after two endovascular interventions, patients should be considered for either graft explantation or graft salvage through an open abdominal exploration. Graft explantation has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality but remains necessary in the face of non-correctible type 1a endoleaks, graft failure, or graft infection. In the majority of cases AAA expansion due to persistent type 2 endoleak is the culprit. In this situation, open repair, with oversewing of the lumbar or inferior mesenteric arteries, can be accomplished providing the seal zones and component overall zones are adequate. This approach does not require aortic clamping. We provide detailed descriptions and videos to facilitate the surgeon in performing these complex procedures.

Aortoduodenal fistulas after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and open aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we have reported and compared aortoduodenal fistulas (ADFs) after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs after open aortic repair (OAR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from patients treated for ADFs from January 2015 to May 2020 in our hospital. The clinical data, diagnostic procedures, and surgical options were evaluated. The primary endpoints of the present study were 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary endpoints were major postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients (20 men; median age, 69 years; range, 53-82 years) were admitted with ADFs after EVAR (n = 9) or OAR (n = 15). These patients accounted for ∼4.3% of all abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs in our hospital. The median interval from the initial aortic repair and the diagnosis of ADF was 68 months (range, 6-83 months) for the ADF-EVAR group and 80 months (range, 1-479 months) for the ADF-OAR group. Three patients in the ADF-EVAR group had refused surgical treatment owing to their high surgical risk. One patient in the ADF-OAR group had undergone removal of the aortic prosthesis without replacement. Of the remaining 20 patients, 12 (ADF-EVAR group, n = 4; ADF-OAR group, n = 8) had undergone in situ replacement of the aorta and 8 (ADF-EVAR group, n = 2; ADF-OAR group, n = 6) had undergone extra-anatomic reconstruction with aortic ligation. After a mean follow-up of 26 months, no patient had experienced early limb loss. However, one case of rupture of the venous graft (ADF-EVAR), one case of aortic stump blowout (ADF-OAR), and one case of a ureteroarterial fistula with a homograft (ADF-OAR) had occurred. Overall, the incidence of postoperative complications was significantly greater after ADF-OAR (93% vs 33%; P = .036). The most frequent bacteria involved in the blood cultures were Escherichia coli (25% of patients), and Candida spp. (61%) were the predominant pathogens found on intra-abdominal smears. The in-hospital mortality rates for the ADF-EVAR and ADF-OAR group were 22% and 13%, respectively. The corresponding 1 -year mortality rates were 22% and 33%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ADFs after EVAR or OAR have limited overall survival. In addition to the similar therapeutic approaches, we found no significant differences in postoperative mortality between these two uncommon pathologic entities. In our study, the overall postoperative morbidity seemed greater for the ADF-OAR group.

Management of Type IA Endoleak After EVAR by Explantation or Custom Made Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Proximal type 1 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) remains challenging to solve with no existing consensus. This work aims to compare two different surgical strategies to remedy type IA endoleak: endograft explantation (EXP) and aortic reconstruction or relining by custom made fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective single centre analysis between 2009 and 2018 was conducted including patients treated for type IA endoleak after EVAR with either EXP or F-EVAR. The choice of surgical technique was based on morphological factors (F-EVAR eligibility), sac growth rate, emergency presentation and/or patient symptoms. Technical success, morbidity, secondary interventions, 30 day mortality, and long term survival according to Kaplan-Meier were determined for each group and compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (91% male, mean age 79 years) underwent either EXP (n = 26) or F-EVAR (n = 33) during the study period. The two groups were equivalent in terms of comorbidity and age at the time of procedure. The median time from initial EVAR was 60.4 months (34-85 months), with no difference between groups. The maximum aneurysm diameter was greater in the EXP group compared with the F-EVAR group, 86 mm (65-100) and 70 mm (60-80), respectively (p = .008). Thirty day secondary intervention (EXP: 11.5% vs. F-EVAR: 9.1%) and mortality (EXP: 3.8% vs. F-EVAR: 3.3%) rates did not differ between groups, while major adverse events at 30 days, defined by the current SVS guidelines, were lower in the F-EVAR group (2.4% vs. 13.6%; p = .016). One year survival rates were similar between the groups (EXP: 84.0% vs. F-EVAR: 86.6%).

CONCLUSION

Open explantation and endovascular management with a fenestrated device for type IA endoleak after EVAR can be achieved in high volume centres with satisfactory results. F-EVAR is associated with decreased early morbidity. Open explantation is a relevant option because of acceptable outcomes and the limited applicability of F-EVAR.

Elective late open conversion after endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with comparable outcomes to primary open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Three of four patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm are now treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The incidence of secondary procedures and surgical conversions is increasing for a population theoretically unfit for open surgery. The indications and outcomes of late open surgical conversions after EVAR in a high-volume tertiary vascular unit are reported.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study includes all patients who underwent a late open conversion between January 1996 and July 2018. Data were collected from records on patient demographics, operative indications, surgical strategy, perioperative outcomes, and medium-term survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-two consecutive patients (88.7% male) with a mean age of 77.5 years are included. The median duration since index EVAR was 38.5 months; 65% of stent grafts requiring late open conversion had suprarenal fixation. Indications included 22.6% type IA, 16.1% type IB, and 45.2% type II endoleaks; 12.9% graft thrombosis; and 14.5% endoprosthesis infection. Complete endograft explantation was performed in 37.1% of patients and a partial explantation in 54.8%, whereas 8.1% of stent grafts were wholly preserved in situ. Overall 30-day mortality was 12.9% (n = 8) in the cohort and 2.7% for elective patients. The all-cause morbidity rate was 40.1%, and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days. After follow-up of 28.4 months (range, 1.8-187.3 months), all-cause survival was 58.8%. Avoidance of aortic clamping (P = .006) and elective procedures (P = .019) were associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay. Moreover, the 30-day mortality (P = .002), occurrence of postoperative renal dysfunction (P = .004), and intestinal ischemia (P = .017) were increased in the emergency setting. Excluding cases with rupture or infection, survival estimates were 97%, 97%, and 71% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Technically more complex than primary open surgery, late open conversion is a procedure that generates an acceptable perioperative risk when it is performed in a high-volume aortic surgical center. Elective open conversion is associated with excellent early and late outcomes. Endograft preservation strategies decrease perioperative morbidity.