Cannulation of visceral vessels using a steerable sheathin fenestrated and branched aortic endografts

Custom-Made Device (CMD) for the Repair of Thoraco-Abdominal Aneurysm (TAA): Mid-Long Term Outcomes from a Single Southeast Asian Centre Experience in Singapore

Introduction: Given the high risk of peri-operative morbidity and mortality associated with open repair, endovascular repair for thoraco-abdominal aneurysms is increasingly performed. This study aims to describe mid to long-term results for patients who were treated with COOK Custom-Made Endograft Device at a single Southeast Asian tertiary centre. Methods: Mid to long-term results of patients treated from 2012 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for treatment were aortic diameter > 5.5 cm, enlargement > 5 mm in 6 months or high-risk morphology. Clinical, operative, early to late complications and reintervention details were captured. The endpoints were technical success, primary patency and primary assisted patency. Results: Electronic medical records of 29 consecutive patients (64.4 ± 1.6 years old; 26/29 males 89.6%) were reviewed. 24/29 (83%) were hypertensive, and 20/29 (69%) were smokers. The mean diameter was 5.5 cm, and the majority were treated for Crawford type IV (19/29, 65.5%). Endograft deployment was 100%. Catheterisation of fenestration was successful in 109/116 (94%). 30-day mortality and morbidity were observed in 12/29 (41%), for which access site complications were most common. No significant haemorrhage or graft explant was recorded. The mean follow-up period was 32.4 months (range 1-108 months). Primary patency was 92.9% (95% CI: 83.8-100.0) at 6 months and decreased to 77.7% (95% CI: 63.4-95.2) at 24 months. Sac shrinkage or stability was noted in 17/29 (58.6%). Re-intervention was performed in 9/29 (31%) for limb occlusion (2/9, 22.2%), renal artery stent occlusion (1/9, 11.1%) and endoleaks (6/9, 66.6%). Assisted patency was maintained at 100% for 12 months before decreasing to 66.7% (95% CI: 37.9-100.0) at 24 months. Conclusions: The study reports the first mid-long-term result in this region, though limited by the sample size. Re-intervention at 30% suggests that disease and procedures remain challenging, emphasising the need to assimilate lessons and experience at high-volume centres.

Technical Aspects and Outcome of Multi-Staged and Single-Staged Thoracoabdominal Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

In some cases of endovascular thoracoabdominal or juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair, a thoracic endograft in combination with a fenestrated renovisceral device may be needed in order to create a sufficient proximal landing zone. This study aimed to evaluate the technical aspects and postoperative morbidity of a single- or 2-stage approach.

METHODS

Eighty-seven consecutive patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in combination with elective fenestrated repair (fenestrated endovascular aortic repair [FEVAR]; fenestrated Anaconda device) from 2015 to 2022 were included in this retrospective bicentric study. Underlying pathologies, aortic morphology, technical details, and postoperative morbidity were recorded.

RESULTS

Single-staged ("1S," n=61) and 2-staged ("2S," n=26) interventions were compared. Indications were thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) (Crawford I-IV) (n=56, 64%) and juxtarenal aneurysms (n=31, 36%). In 2S, the proportion of TAAA was higher than in 1S (2S: 77%, 1S: 59%; p=0.001). In 2S, the covered length of the descending aorta was longer (1S: 128±60 mm, 2S: 202±64 mm; p=0.003). Temporary aneurysm sack perfusion (TASP) was established in 11 (18%) of 1S and 1 (4%) of 2S patients (p=0.079), as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage catheter in 48 (79%) of 1S and 19 (73%) of 2S. The rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) and the severity of SCI were not different in both groups, with a total of 3 cases of persisting paraplegia. The rate of access complications was higher in 2S (n=6, 23%) than in 1S (n=4, 7%; p=0.027). Postoperative 30 day morbidity did not significantly differ in both groups and neither did 30 day mortality (4.6% in 1S vs 3.8% in 2S; p=0.083).

CONCLUSION

The combination of TEVAR and FEVAR using a fenestrated endograft is feasible and safe. Aortic morphology does not change significantly after endovascular repair. A single-staged strategy is feasible with excellent results, especially in Crawford IV, Crawford V, or juxtarenal aneurysms. Two-staged repair is recommended in cases with long aortic coverage and a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Follow-up data are needed to evaluate the long-term stability of the TEVAR/FEVAR interconnection.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Our study has revealed the safety and efficacy of the combination of TEVAR and FEVAR in the treatment of TAAAs and juxtarenal aneurysms with compromised supravisceral landing zones. A single-staged concept is not necessary in all cases. Staged procedures may reduce postoperative morbidity in cases with long aortic coverage and higher ASA class.

Comparison of bridging stent grafts in branched endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms has become common, with satisfactory results. Nevertheless, long-term durability remains an issue mainly because of target visceral vessel (TVV) instability. Currently, no covered stent has been approved as a bridging stent graft (BSG), demanding continuous research on this topic.

METHODS

This was a multicenter observational retrospective cohort study comparing the midterm results of the Bard Covera Plus and Gore VBX as BSGs during branched endovascular aneurysm repair. The primary outcome was the comparison of the target vessel instability between the two groups. Primary patency, freedom from branch-related type I and III endoleaks and reintervention, and technical and clinical success were considered secondary outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between selected baseline factors and TVV instability. TVV instability during follow-up was then evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier cumulative function.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-five TVVs in 106 patients were considered suitable for the analysis. Two hundred twenty vessels were stented with the Covera stent graft (64%) and 125 with VBX (36%). Two hundred ninety-nine TVVs received a single BSG, 45 two BSGs, and only 1 three BSGs. Bare metal stent relining was required in 36% of TVVs, mostly in the Covera group (89 [41%] vs 36 [29%]) (P = .030). The primary technical success rate was 96% (331/345), and the assisted primary technical success rate was 99% (342/345). The TVV instability rate within 30 days was 2% (one Covera and five VBX; P = .015). Three BSG occlusions (one Covera and two VBX) and three type Ic endoleaks (three VBX) were detected. The median follow-up was 13.9 months (range, 5.8-25.5 months). Sixteen TVV instabilities were detected during the follow-up. Twelve BSG occlusions (six Covera and six VBX), three type Ic endoleaks (one Covera and two VBX), and one type IIIc endoleak (VBX). The overall target vessel instability rate was 5% (16/342). TVV instability was associated with the use of Gore VBX in the univariable logistic regression (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.0; P = .027). Aneurysm rupture and aneurysm diameter were also associated with TVV instability in the univariable analysis (P = .002 and P = .008, respectively). The only factor predisposing to TVV instability in the multivariable logistic regression analysis was the use of Gore VBX as a BSG (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-8.0; P = .043). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly higher risk of TVV instability in the VBX group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall midterm outcomes in this cohort were satisfactory. Patency rates were similar between the two stents. Nevertheless, VBX seems to be associated with worse TVV instability. These results may be correlated with a higher incidence of type Ic endoleaks, which require an extensive learning curve for correct stent selection and deployment.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Access to the First Versus Third Segment of Axillary Artery During Aortic Procedures

PURPOSE

This article aims at investigating the outcomes of percutaneous access via the first versus third axillary artery (AXA) segments with closure devices during aortic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients receiving percutaneous AXA access closed with Perclose ProGlide device (Abbott, Santa Clara, California) from 2008 to 2021 were included in a retrospective multicenter registry (NCT: 04589962). Efficacy endpoint was the technically successful percutaneous procedure (no open conversion). Safety endpoints were stroke and access complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 reporting standards. The first (AXA1) or third (AXA3) axillary puncture sites were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 412 percutaneous AXA accesses were included: 172 (42%) in AXA1 and 240 (58%) in AXA3. Left AXA was catheterized in 363 cases (76% of AXA1 vs 97% of AXA3, p<0.001) and 91% of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair (F/BEVAR) procedures were conducted from the left. A ≥12F internal diameter (ID) sheath was used in 49% of procedures. Open conversion rate was 1%, no major vascular complications occurred, and only one major non-vascular complication was recorded. Primary closure failure occurred in 18 AXA1 (11%) and 32 AXA3 accesses (13%), treated by covered (8.3%) or bare-metal (2.7%) stenting. Bailout stent patency was 100% at median follow-up of 12 months, with 6 of 6 stents still patent after >36 months of follow-up. Stroke rate was 4.4%. An introducer sheath >12F was independently associated with both access complications (p<0.001) and stroke (p=0.005), while a right-side access was associated with stroke only (p=0.034). Even after adjustment for covariates, AXA1 versus AXA3 showed an equal success rate (odds ratio [OR]=0.537, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.011-1.22 for AXA3, p=0.104). The combination of AXA3 and a >10F introducer sheath provided worse outcomes compared with >10F sheaths through AXA1 (OR for success=0.367, 95% CI=0.176-0.767, p=0.008). This was not confirmed for >12F sheaths, associated with similar outcomes (p=0.31 AXA 1 vs AXA 3).

CONCLUSION

Major local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach and ≤12F sheaths are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. Stroke risk remains an issue. First and third AXA segments are both amenable for access with good results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in AXA1.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Percutaneous access with vascular closure devices at the first or third axillary artery (AXA) segments during aortic procedures is burdened by a negligible risk of open conversion. Local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. First and third AXA segments are both amenable to access with excellent results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in the wider first AXA segment. In this setting, bailout stenting does not appear to be associated with mid-term stent occlusion.

Intraoperative complications during standard and complex endovascular aortic repair

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques.

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices.

METHODS

A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 - 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 - 12.1; p = .026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 9.6; p = .019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 - 20.7; p = .001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 - 9.0; p = .013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 - 13.8; p = .037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 - 31.1; p = .007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure.