Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Hostile Neck Anatomy after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Five-year outcomes of endosuture aneurysm repair in patients with short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm from the ANCHOR registry

OBJECTIVE

Hostile aortic neck anatomies such as proximal short necks are known to put patients at an increased risk for type IA endoleaks, migration, and need for reinterventions. The Heli-FX EndoAnchor System was designed to improve seal of aortic stent grafts. Endosuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) using EndoAnchors with the Endurant stent graft has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of patients with short necks through one year. This study reports the 5-year patient outcomes of the Aneurysm Treatment using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System Global Registry (ANCHOR) short neck regulatory cohort.

METHODS

The 70 patients from the ANCHOR Registry were cohort submitted to regulators for approval of the Endurant short neck indication. Patients had an infrarenal neck length of ≥ 4 mm and <10 mm. At 5 years, this short neck cohort had clinical and imaging follow-up compliance rates of 85% (28/33) and 70% (23/33), respectively.

RESULTS

The short neck cohort had a mean age of 71.3±8.1 years and was 27.1% (19/70) female. Kaplan Meier freedom from all-cause mortality was 68.5 ± 6.2%, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 90.1 ± 4.5%, freedom from any endovascular or surgical secondary procedure was 76.9 ± 7.2%, and freedom from rupture was 95.6 ± 3.2%. Eight patients had a total of nine type IA endoleaks detected through 5 years, of which three resolved spontaneously by the next follow-up visit. There were two patients with renal complications who did not undergo reintervention and there were no device migrations reported through 5 years. After 5 years, 68.2% of patients (15/22) had sac regression, 13.6% (3/22) had stable sacs, and 18.2% (4/22) had increased sac diameter as compared with their 1-month measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

After ESAR treatment using Heli-FX EndoAnchors with Endurant, the 5-year outcomes of the short neck cohort from the ANCHOR registry had encouraging results with regards to proximal neck-related complications, secondary procedures, and sac regression. This review of ESAR in patients with short proximal necks showed positive outcomes through 5 years although follow-up of a larger cohort is necessary.

Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Mainland China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, applicability, and outcomes of the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) technique for patients in mainland China with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by performing a systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search using the PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical databases to identify Chinese studies on the management of AAAs using the EVAR technique published in English between January 2000 and December 2020. Two independent observers selected studies for inclusion in the study, assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The included studies investigated the clinical outcomes and postprocedural complications of using EVAR techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies reported a total of 3,024 AAA patients. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 133 months. The mean follow-up time was 38.5 months, the mean age was 69.2 years, and the mean aneurysm diameter was 56.1 mm. The pooled technical success rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92-96%). The endoleak rate was 7% (95% CI: 6-8%). The rate of endoleak requiring reintervention was 3% (95% CI: 3-4%). The 30-day morbidity rate was 9% (95% CI: 6-14%). The 30-day mortality rate was 2% (95% CI: 1-3%). The follow-up mortality was 5% (95% CI: 3-8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study showed that using the EVAR technique for treating patients in mainland China with AAAs produced encouraging mid-term outcomes. Long-term outcomes should be examined in future research.

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

Long-term outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic repair in younger patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term results in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery by either open (OAR) or endovascular (EVAR) repair in patients under 70 years of age.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with age under 70 years old undergoing elective infrarenal AAA surgery between 2010 and 2018 was performed. The study population was divided into two groups: OAR and EVAR. The primary end-points were overall survival and aneurysm-related death, while secondary outcomes were need for reintervention and development of minor and major complications.

RESULTS

191 patients younger than 70 years old treated for elective AAA surgery were enrolled: 157 OAR (98% males, mean age 65 ± 4 years) and 34 EVAR (94% males, mean age 66 ± 4 years). Hospital stay, 30-day mortality and need for reintervention were similar; OAR population presented higher incidence of postoperative major complications (18% vs 2.9%; p .01) while minor complications were 32% in OAR vs 21% in EVAR group (p .08). Median follow-up was 69 months for OAR (IQR 53 months) vs. 79 months (IQR 51 months) for EVAR (p .9): long-term AAA-related reinterventions were more frequent after EVAR (1.9% OAR vs. 17% EVAR; p .01) while AAA-related long-term mortality was similar in both sugroups (1.3% OAR and 3% EVAR; p .8). At univariate analysis a higher risk of reintervention was reported for conical necks in EVAR group (p .03) and for the concomitant presence of iliac aneurysms in both groups (p .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, the presence of a conical neck is an independent predictor of EVAR failure and late reintervention, while it does not play a significant role in OAR group. For this reason, in such cases, open surgery must be considered as the first option in younger patients with a long-life expectancy.

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

BACKGROUND

Unlike periprocedural Type 1A endoleaks, late appearing proximal endoleaks have been poorly described.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

Comparison of treatment options for aortic necks outside standard endovascular aneurysm repair instructions for use

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with worse outcomes in patients whose anatomy does not meet the device instructions for use (IFU). However, whether open surgical repair (OSR) and commercially available fenestrated EVAR (Zenith Fenestrated [ZFEN]) represent better options for these patients is unknown.

METHODS

We identified all patients without prior aortic surgery undergoing elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≥4 mm at a single institution with EVAR, OSR, and ZFEN. We applied device-specific aneurysm neck-related IFU to EVAR patients, and a generic EVAR IFU to ZFEN and OSR patients. Long-term outcomes were studied using propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR by adherence to IFU and outcomes by repair types in the subset of patients not meeting IFU.

RESULTS

Of 652 patients (474 EVAR, 34 ZFEN, 143 OSR), 211 had measurements outside of standard EVAR IFU (109 EVAR [23%], 27 ZFEN [80%], and 74 OSR [52%]). Perioperative mortality was 0.5% overall. For EVAR, treatment outside the IFU was associated with significantly higher adjusted rates of long-term type IA endoleak (22% at 5 years compared to 2% within IFU, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8 [3.1-10.9], P < .001), and lower survival (5- and 10-year survival: 56% and 34% vs 81% and 53%, HR: 2.3 [1.2-4.3], P = .01). There was no difference in reinterventions or open conversion. In patients not meeting IFU, ZFEN was associated with higher adjusted rates of reinterventions (EVAR as referent: HR: 2.6 [1.5-4.4, P < .001), whereas OSR and EVAR patients experienced similar reintervention rates (HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.1], P = .13). Patients outside the IFU experienced lower mortality with OSR compared with either EVAR (HR: 0.4 [0.2-0.9], P = .005) or ZFEN (HR: 0.3 [0.1-0.7], P = .002). When restricted to patients outside the IFU deemed fit for open repair, OSR patients remained associated with lower adjusted mortality compared with ZFEN (HR: 0.2 [0.1-0.5], P < .001), but statistical significance was lost in the comparison to EVAR (HR: 0.6 [0.3-1.1], P = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment outside device-specific IFU is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Open surgical repair is associated with higher long-term survival in patients who fall outside of the EVAR IFU and should be favored over EVAR or ZFEN in suitable patients. A three-vessel-based fenestrated strategy may not be a durable solution for difficult aortic necks, but more data are needed to evaluate the performance of newer, four-vessel devices.

Long-term failure after endovascular aneurysm sealing in a real-life, single-center experience with the Nellix endograft

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). EVAS relies on sac anchoring without proximal fixation to achieve sealing and should have allowed for the treatment of a broader range of anatomic features compared with standard EVAR. Despite the encouraging early reports, the mid- and long-term follow-up data have shown increased rates of failure. To address the issue, the manufacturer introduced revised instructions for use (IFU) in 2016. The present study reports the outcomes of this system after a median follow-up of 45 months.

METHODS

Data for all patients electively treated with EVAS at our institution were retrospectively collected. The patients were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2016 revised IFU of the device. All patients in the present series had undergone EVAS for the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The primary end point was therapeutic failure: graft migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, type IA endoleak (Is2 and Is3 using the Van den Ham classification), type Ib endoleak, and secondary rupture. The overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients had undergone elective treatment by EVAS from 2013 to 2018 for infrarenal AAAs. The median follow-up was 3.75 years. Therapeutic failure was observed in 31 of the 101 patients (30.7%), with no significant difference between the in-IFU and off-IFU 2016 subgroups. Failure occurred at a median interval of 34 months from the index procedure. Of the 101 patients, 6.9% had presented with secondary rupture. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 96.9% at 1 and 2 years and 89.9% at 5 years. Freedom from reintervention decreased over time: 94.7% at 1 year, 77% at 4 years, and 52.1% at 6 years. Of the 101 patients, 14 (13.9%) had undergone emergent or elective graft explantation.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAS performed worse than conventional endografts for several critical end points, regardless of any preoperative anatomic parameters. The incidence of therapeutic failures tended to increase over time, especially 4 years after the index procedure.

Partial Renal Coverage after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Suprarenal Fixation Seems Not to be Associated with Early Renal Impairment

BACKGROUND

Efforts to achieve optimal seal during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) may produce partial coverage of the lowest renal artery and in some cases even occlusion. This coverage might alter the renal ostial flow, which could finally affect renal function. We sought to evaluate the incidence of renal ostium coverage and its possible effects on renal function.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective EVAR with suprarenal fixation devices between January 2014, and December 2017, at our institution were identified. Patients with preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA), as well as the preoperative, postoperative, and one year postintervention creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were included in the present study. Patients in hemodialysis, with a preoperative eGFR <30 mL/min, urgent EVAR, neck adjunctive procedures, excessive aortic thrombus, or procedure-related reintervention were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients received EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysmatic pathologies between January 2014, and December 2017. Forty-three of them met the inclusion criteria having a median follow-up of 18.8 months (range; 12.0-53.9). Twenty-six (60.5%) patients presented at least one criterion of hostile neck condition and 23 (53.5%) had a preoperative eGFR <60 mL/min. The average distance from the proximal endograft fabric to the lower renal artery was 1.5 mm (range, 0.0-6.0) while a total of 15 renal ostia (34.9%) suffered unintended partial coverage (range, 20 to 75% of the renal ostium) in the postoperative CTA. Nine of these patients (60%) had a hostile neck condition. Eight patients (18.6%) suffered significant deterioration (>20% of the eGFR), 27 patients (62.8%) maintained their renal function and 8 (18.6%) presented an improvement of the eGFR in the latest available blood sample. Renal function impairment showed no significant association with renal ostium coverage (P = 0.561), hostile neck condition (P = 0.973), or the diameter of the renal artery (P = 0.835). In the subgroup analysis, patients with the eGFR <60 mL/min did not show significantly greater renal function deterioration (P = 0.568).

CONCLUSIONS

Partial renal coverage is not an uncommon phenomenon occurring in one-third of the treated patients. However, it was not associated with renal function impairment in the early term. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our results in the long haul.