Editor's Choice - Comparison of Open, Standard, and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair Treatments for Juxtarenal/Short Neck Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Early and Late Aortic-Related Mortality and Rupture After Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has been used as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgical repair to treat patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The aim of this study was to evaluate aortic-related mortality (ARM) and aortic aneurysm rupture after FB-EVAR of TAAAs.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in 8 prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 who underwent elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs were analyzed. Primary end points were ARM, defined as any early mortality (30 days or in hospital) or late mortality from aortic rupture, dissection, organ or limb malperfusion attributable to aortic disease, complications of reinterventions, or aortic rupture. Secondary end points were early major adverse events, TAAA life-altering events (defined as death, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, or stroke), all-cause mortality, and secondary interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 1109 patients were analyzed; 589 (53.1%) had extent I-III and 520 (46.9%) had extent IV TAAAs. Median age was 73.4 years (interquartile range, 68.1-78.3 years); 368 (33.2%) were women. Early mortality was 2.7% (n=30); congestive heart failure was associated with early mortality (odds ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.22-8.02]; P=0.01). Incidence of early aortic rupture was 0.4% (n=4). Incidence of early major adverse events and TAAA life-altering events was 20.4% (n=226) and 7.7% (n=85), respectively. There were 30 late ARMs; 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.6%-5.4%); older age and extent I-III TAAAs were independently associated with late ARM (each P<0.05). Fourteen late aortic ruptures occurred; 5-year cumulative incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.3%); extent I-III TAAAs were associated with late aortic rupture (hazard ratio, 5.85 [95% CI, 1.31-26.2]; P=0.02). Five-year all-cause mortality was 45.7% (95% CI, 41.7%-49.4%). Five-year cumulative incidence of secondary intervention was 40.3% (95% CI, 35.8%-44.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARM and aortic rupture are uncommon after elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs. Half of the ARMs occurred early, and most of the late deaths were not aortic related. Late all-cause mortality rate and the need for secondary interventions were 46% and 40%, respectively, 5 years after FB-EVAR.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02089607, NCT02050113, NCT02266719, NCT02323581, NCT00583817, NCT01654133, NCT00483249, NCT02043691, and NCT01874197.

Multicenter Study on Physician-Modified Endografts for Thoracoabdominal and Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68-79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6-50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Role of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Managed for Complex Aortic Aneurysms using Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Repair

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing number of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) procedures, evidence on post-operative antiplatelet therapy is very limited. This study aimed to investigate the role of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) vs. double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after F/B-EVAR in 30 day and follow up outcomes.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective analysis was conducted, including F/B-EVAR patients managed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022. Comparative outcomes were assessed according to post-operative antiplatelet therapy. The cohort was divided into the SAPT group (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] or clopidogrel) and DAPT group (ASA and clopidogrel). The duration of SAPT or DAPT was one to six months. Primary outcomes were 30 day death, and cardiovascular ischaemic and major haemorrhagic events. Secondary outcomes were survival and target vessel (TV) patency during follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 1 430 patients were included: 955 under SAPT and 475 under DAPT. The 30 day mortality rate was similar (SAPT 2.1% vs. DAPT 1.5%; p = .42). Cardiovascular ischaemic events were lower in the DAPT group (SAPT 11.9% vs. DAPT 8.2%; p = .040), with DAPT being an independent protector for acute mesenteric (p = .009) and lower limb ischaemia (p = .020). No difference was found in 30 day major haemorrhagic events (SAPT 7.5% vs. DAPT 6.3%; p = .40). The mean follow up was 21.8 ± 2.9 months. Cox regression showed no survival confounders, with similar rates between groups (log rank p = .71). DAPT patients enjoyed higher TV patency (SAPT 93.4%, standard error [SE] 0.7% vs. DAPT 97.0%, SE 0.6%; log rank p = .007) at thirty six months. Cox regression revealed B-EVAR as a predictor of worse TV patency (hazard ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.36 - 3.03; p < .001). DAPT was related to higher patency within B-EVAR patients (SAPT 87.2%, SE 2.1% vs. DAPT 94.9%, SE 1.9%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

DAPT after F/B-EVAR was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular ischaemic events and higher TV patency, especially in B-EVAR cases. No difference in major haemorrhagic events was observed at 30 days.

Endosutured Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Short Necks Achieves Acceptable Midterm Outcomes-Results from the Peru Registry

BACKGROUND

The study aims to describe midterm outcomes following treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short necks by endosutured aneurysm repair using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor system.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 9 vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019, including treated AAAs with neck lengths ≤10 mm. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. There were 2 Groups further assessed according to neck length, A (≥4 and <7 mm) and B (≥7 and ≤10 mm). The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (TIaELs), sac size increase, all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included in the study, 17 fell into Group A and 59 into Group B. Median follow-up for the cohort was 40.5 (interquartile range 12-61) months. A median of 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed in each subject. Technical success was 86.8% for the total group, 82.4% and 88.1% (P = 0.534) for Groups A and B respectively. Six out of 10 (60%) of TIaELs at the completion angiographies showed spontaneous resolution. Cumulative freedom from TIaEL at 3 and 5 years for the total group was 89% and 84% respectively; this was 93% and 74% for Group A and 88% at both intervals in Group B (P = 0.545). In total, there were 7 (9.2%) patients presenting with TIaELs over the entire study period. Two (11.8%) in Group A and 5 (8.5%) in Group B (P = 0.679). There were more patients with sac regression in Group B (Group A = 6-35.3% vs. Group B = 34-57.6%, P = 0.230) with no statistical significance. All-cause mortality was 19 (25%) patients, with no difference (4-23.5% vs. 15-25.4%, P = 0.874) between groups; whereas aneurysm-related mortality occurred in 1 patient from Group A and 3 from Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates reasonable outcomes for patients with short-necked AAAs treated by endosutured aneurysm repair in terms of TIaELs up to 5-year follow-up. EndoAnchor use should be judiciously evaluated in short necks and may be a reasonable option when anatomical constraints are encountered, mainly for those with 7-10 mm neck lengths. Shorter neck length aspects, as indicated by the results from Group A, may be an alternative when no other options are available or feasible.

Lowest reported dose area product of 2.4 Gy∗cm2 for ultra-low-dose endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of a standard infrarenal aortic aneurysm

This is a report of successful treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm via standard endovascular aortic repair with an ultra-low dose (ULD) of 2.4 Gy∗cm2 using the latest imaging software in a hybrid operating room. To the best of our knowledge, no case has yet been reported achieving a successful outcome with such ULD values to date. The key factors to achieving an ULD regarding the dose area product comprise the right technology, procedural standardization, and team education and training. This case highlights the potential for reducing the radiation dose routinely for patients and staff alike, especially for operating room staff with daily radiation exposure.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Open Surgery and Endovascular Techniques for Juxtarenal and Complex Neck Aortic Aneurysms: The UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) - Peri-operative and Midterm Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of juxtarenal and complex neck abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is now commonly by endovascular rather than open surgical repair (OSR). Published comparisons show poor validity and scientific precision. UK-COMPASS is a comparative cohort study of endovascular treatments vs. OSR for patients with an AAA unsuitable for standard on label endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

All procedures for AAA in England (November 2017 to October 2019) were identified, AAA anatomy assessed in a Corelab, peri-operative risk scores determined, and propensity scoring used to identify patients suitable for either endovascular treatment or OSR. Patients were stratified by aneurysm neck length (0 - 4 mm, 5 - 9 mm, or ≥ 10 mm) and operative risk; the highest quartile was considered high risk and the remainder standard risk. Death was the primary outcome measure. Endovascular treatments included fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and off label standard EVAR (± adjuncts).

RESULTS

Among 8 994 patients, 2 757 had AAAs that were juxtarenal, short neck, or complex neck in morphology. Propensity score stratification and adjustment method comparisons included 1 916 patients. Widespread off label use of standard EVAR devices was noted (35.6% of patients). The adjusted peri-operative mortality rate was 2.9%, lower for EVAR (1.2%; p = .001) and FEVAR (2.2%; p = .001) than OSR (4.5%). In standard risk patients with a 0 - 4 mm neck, the mortality rate was 7.4% following OSR and 2.3% following FEVAR. Differences were smaller for patients with a neck length ≥ 5 mm: 2.1% OSR vs. 1.0% FEVAR. At 3.5 years of follow up, the overall mortality rate was 20.7% in the whole study population, higher following FEVAR (27.6%) and EVAR (25.2%) than after OSR (14.2%). However, in the 0 - 4 mm neck subgroup, overall survival remained equivalent. The aneurysm related mortality rate was equivalent between treatments, but re-intervention was more common after EVAR and FEVAR than OSR.

CONCLUSION

FEVAR proves notably safer than OSR in the peri-operative period for juxtarenal aneurysms (0 - 4 mm neck length), with comparable midterm survival. For patients with short neck (5 - 9 mm) and complex neck (≥ 10 mm) AAAs, overall survival was worse in endovascularly treated patients compared with OSR despite relative peri-operative safety. This warrants further research and a re-appraisal of the current clinical application of endovascular strategies, particularly in patients with poor general survival outlook owing to comorbidity and age.

Ultrasound Coded-Excitation Imaging for Endoleak Detection After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVES

Several imaging modalities have been suggested for surveillance after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in general and endoleak detection in specific. In the present project a coded excitation-based ultrasound (B-Flow) was investigated for endoleak detection after complex endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Patients post complex endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR or T/FEVAR) undergoing follow-up appointments including ultrasonography of the aorta at a vascular and endovascular surgery outpatient center were included in the study. B-Flow was compared with computed tomography angiography (CTA), Duplex ultrasound (DUS), and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) regarding agreement and reliability for endoleak detection and characterization.

RESULTS

In total, 47 follow-ups were included. They accumulated in a total of 149 imaging investigations. Endoleaks were discovered in 44.7% of B-Flow studies and a majority of these endoleaks were classified as type II. Agreement between B-Flow and other imaging modalities was good (>80.0%) in general. However, with B-Flow 6 and 2 endoleaks would have been missed compared with CEUS and CTA, respectively. Regarding endoleak classification, B-Flow had a strong agreement (94.5%) with CEUS in detected cases. Furthermore, in a limited subset analysis, imaging findings were externally validated using findings from angiography.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasonography allows for endoleak detection and characterization without an invasive procedure or the use of potentially nephrotoxic contrast medium and can reduce radiation exposure. While CEUS mitigates issues of radiation and nephrotoxicity it still requires the intravenous application of contrast enhancers. Ultrasound coded-excitation imaging such as B-Flow could therefore further simplify endoleak surveillance after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Fenestrated and Chimney/Snorkel Techniques for Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs) remains unclear. Our objective was to identify and analyze the current body of evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques for JAA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, for randomized and non-randomized studies assessing outcomes of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of evidence were performed in duplicate. Data were pooled statistically where possible.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of FEVAR and ChEVAR for juxtarenal aneurysm were included for meta-analysis. The FEVAR and ChEVAR arms of the meta-analysis consisted of 726 participants and 518 participants, respectively. There were 598 (86.8%) and 332 (81.6%) men in each arm. The mean diameter was larger in the ChEVAR arm (59 mm vs 52.5 mm). Both techniques had similar rates of postoperative 30-day mortality, 3.38% (8/237) versus 3.52% (8/227), acute kidney injury, 16.76% (31/185) versus 17.31% (18/104), and major adverse cardiac events, 7.30% (46/630) versus 6.60% (22/333). The meta-analysis supported the use of FEVAR for most outcomes, with significant advantage for technical success (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-8.42) and avoidance of type 1 endoleak (OR: 5.76, 95% CI: 1.94-17.08), but a disadvantage for spinal cord ischemia (OR: 10.21, 95% CI: 1.21-86.11), which had a very low number of events. The quality of evidence was "moderate" for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both endovascular techniques had good safety profiles. The evidence does not support superiority of either FEVAR or ChEVAR for JAA.

CLINICAL IMPACT

While lack of equipoise has hampered the design of randomised trials of open versus endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, concern about the durability of endovascular repair highlights the need for stronger evidence of the comparative efficacy of endovascular techniques. This review performed meta-analysis and evidence appraisal of recent data from large observational studies comparing fenestrated and chimney techniques, using a comprehensive outcome set. Superiority of either intervention could not be established due to differences in participants' baseline risk in each study arm. However, data suggests that both techniques are safe and suitable for use when indicated.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms: a review of radiological and clinical assessment, endovascular interventions, and current evidence of management outcomes

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an established approach to treating abdominal aortic aneurysms, however, challenges arise when the aneurysm involves visceral branches with insufficient normal segment of the aorta to provide aneurysm seal without excluding those vessels. To overcome this, a range of technological developments and solutions have been proposed including fenestrated, branched, physician-modified stents, and chimney techniques. Understanding the currently available evidence for each option is essential to select the most suitable procedure for each patient. Overall, the evidence for fenestrated endovascular repair is the most comprehensive of these techniques and shows an early post-operative advantage over open surgical repair (OSR) but with a catch-up mortality in the mid-term period. In this review, we will describe these endovascular options, pre- and post-procedure radiological assessment and current evidence of outcomes.

Perspectives of Patients and Professionals on Patient Education in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Misinterpretation of patient preferences in perioperative education can lead to an undesired treatment decision. This explorative interview study presents differences in perspectives of patients and professionals on patient education in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm management.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, a cross-sectional interview study was performed among patients who were in various stages of the decision-making process for complex endovascular aortic repair. Five physicians were interviewed, representing the main providers of clinical information. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (mean age 76.6 [standard deviation: 6.4], 83% male) were interviewed. Ten (83%) felt like they had no other realistic option besides undergoing surgery, whereas all professionals (5/5) stressed the importance of delicate patient selection. Five patients out of 10 (50%) who commented on their preferred decisional role considered the professional's advice as decisive. All but 1 patient (11/12) reported that the information was easy to understand, whereas 4 out of 5 professionals (80%) doubted whether patients could fully comprehend everything. Patients experienced a lack of information on the recovery process, although professionals stated that this was addressed during consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Several differences were found in the perspectives of patients and professionals on education in complex aortic aneurysm management. In order to optimize patient involvement in decision-making, professionals should be aware of these possible discrepancies and address them during consultation. Future research could focus on these differences in more detail by including more patients depending on their treatment and decision stages.

Brazilian Society for Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, through the Guidelines Project, presents new Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines, on the subject of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Its development prioritized descriptive guidelines, using the EMBASE, LILACS, and PubMed databases. References include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated by a pair of coordinators, aided by the RoB 2 Cochrane tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale forms. The subjects include juxtarenal aneurysms, infected aneurysms, and new therapeutic techniques, especially endovascular procedures. The current version of the guidelines include important recommendations for the primary topics involving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients, providing an objective guide for medical practice, based on scientific evidence and widely available throughout Brazil.

Anatomical Feasibility of an Off-the-shelf Single-Renal Scalloped Stent-Graft for Hostile Neck Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Preclinical Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of a standardized single-renal scallop stent-graft.

DESIGN

Preclinical, single-center, real-world, all-comers, retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

A total of 1347 abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs (endovascular and open) performed between 2010 and 2020 were screened for elective treatment and retrievable preoperative high-quality computed tomography angiography (CTA) performed <6 months of the surgical procedure. Six hundred of the included CTAs involved prespecified measurements and a morphological assessment protocol (NCT05150873). The proximal sealing zones suitable for standard stent-graft implantations were further analyzed (N=547). The primary outcome assessed the feasibility of 2 single-renal scallop designs (10×10 mm and 15×10 mm, height × width). The feasibility was the inter-renal length ≥10 mm and ≥15 mm for prototypes #10 and #15, respectively. The secondary outcome quantified hypothetical length and surface improvements comparing those suitable for investigational devices implantation (study group) versus those not (control group).

RESULTS

Of the total, 24.7% (n=135) was feasible with prototype #10. The study versus control group sealing zones were shorter (p=0.008), with a smaller surface (p=0.009) and a higher alpha angle (p=0.039). The length and surface area increased by about 25% and 23%, respectively, (both p<0.001) within the study group and became significantly better versus the control group (standard stent-graft; both p<0.001). Of the total, 7.1% (n=39) was suitable for prototype #15. The study versus control group sealing zones were shorter (p=0.148), with a smaller surface (p=0.077) and a higher alpha angle (p=0.027). The length and surface area increased by about 34% and 31%, respectively, (both p<0.001) within the study group and became significantly higher versus the control group (standard stent-graft; both p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of single-renal scalloped stent-graft might be feasible in a considerable number of AAA patients. The breakthrough stands in treating hostile AAAs presenting in mismatched renal arteries, keeping the complexity of the repair as similar as possible to standard endovascular repair with a remarkable improvement in sealing.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The anatomic feasibility of a single renal stent graft for the treatment of "hostile" abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with mismatched renal arteries was evaluated. The experimental device could be feasible in a considerable number of patients with AAA, approaching 25%, and demonstrate significant improvements in sealing. As far as we know, this is the first paper to report the prevalence of mismatched renal arteries in a large cohort of AAA patients in the real world, while proposing a dedicated device. The breakthrough is to keep the complexity of the repair as close as possible to standard endovascular repair.

Long-Term Survival and Quality of Life After Fenestrated Endovascular Repair for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR) has become a widely used treatment option for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) but long-term survival and quality of life (QoL) outcomes are scarce. This single center cohort study aims to evaluate both long-term survival and QoL after FEVAR.

METHODS

All juxtarenal and suprarenal AAA patients treated with FEVAR in a single-center between 2002 and 2016 were included. QoL scores, measured by the RAND 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), were compared with baseline data of the SF-36 provided by RAND.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included at a median follow-up of 5.9 years (IQR 3.0-8.8). Follow-up at 5 and 10 years post-FEVAR yielded survival rates of 59.9% and 18%, respectively. Younger patient age at surgery had a positive influence on 10-year survival and most patients died due to cardiovascular pathology. Emotional well-being was better in the research group as compared to baseline RAND SF-36 1.0 data (79.2 ± 12.4 vs 70.4 ± 22.0; P < 0.001). Physical functioning (50 (IQR 30-85) vs 70.6 ± 27.4; P = 0.007) and health change (51.6 ± 17.0 vs 59.1 ± 23.1; P = 0.020) were worse in the research group as compared to reference values.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival was 60% at 5-years follow-up, which is lower than reported in recent literature. An adjusted positive influence of younger age at surgery was found on long-term survival. This could have consequences for future treatment indication in complex AAA surgery but further large-scale validation is necessary.

Chimney vs. Fenestrated Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Medium-Term Results

Introduction: This systematic review with network meta-analysis aimed at comparing the medium-term results of open surgery (OS), fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), and chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR) in patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAAs/PAAAs). Materials and methods: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception date to 1st July 2022. Any studies comparing the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on medium-term outcomes in patients with JAAAs/PAAAs were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aortic-related reintervention, and aortic-related mortality, while secondary outcomes were visceral stent/bypass occlusion/occlusion, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), new onset renal replacement therapy (RRT), total endoleaks, and type I/III endoleak. Results: FEVAR (OR = 1.53, 95%CrI 1.03-2.11) was associated with higher medium-term all-cause mortality than OS. Sensitivity analysis including only studies that analysed JAAA showed that FEVAR (OR = 1.65, 95%CrI 1.08-2.33) persisted to be associated with higher medium-term mortality than OS. Both FEVAR (OR = 8.32, 95%CrI 3.80-27.16) and ChEVAR (OR = 5.95, 95%CrI 2.23-20.18) were associated with a higher aortic-related reintervention rate than OS. No difference between different treatment options was found in terms of aortic-related mortality. FEVAR (OR = 13.13, 95%CrI 2.70-105.2) and ChEVAR (OR = 16.82, 95%CrI 2.79-176.7) were associated with a higher rate of medium-term visceral branch occlusion/stenosis compared to OS; however, there was no difference found between FEVAR and ChEVAR. Conclusions: An advantage of OS compared to FEVAR and ChEVAR after mid-term follow-up aortic-related intervention and vessel branch/bypass stenosis/occlusion was found. This suggests that younger, low-surgical-risk patients might benefit from open surgery of JAAA/PAAA as a first approach.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Overview of Current Guidance, Strategies, and New Technologies, Perspectives from the United Kingdom

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair has changed the management of patients affected by this condition, offering a minimally invasive solution with satisfactory outcomes. Constant evolution of this technology has expanded the use of endovascular devices to more complex cases. The purpose of this review article is to describe the current strategies, guidance, and technologies in this field, with a particular focus on practices in the United Kingdom.

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.