Finnish Multicenter Study on the Midterm Results of Use of the Zenith Stent-Graft in the Treatment of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Three-Year Results of the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study

BACKGROUND

Long-term data following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) exist but are limited to endografts that are no longer in use. The aim of the ENGAGE Post Approval Study is to describe the long-term safety and effectiveness data following EVAR using the Endurant stent graft system.

METHODS

From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled and treated with the Endurant stent graft system. Clinical and radiologic data were prospectively collected and analyzed. The primary end point was abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related mortality, and secondary end points were overall mortality, endoleak, secondary interventions, and device-related complications. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for late outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients underwent EVAR with the Endurant stent graft across 24 centers (82% men; median age 71, interquartile range [IQR] 66-79). Median aortic diameter was 55 mm (IQR 51-58 mm). There was a 98.9% technical success rate. Three-year clinical and radiographic follow-up data were available for 87% and 74% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 37 months (IQR 30-38 months). Three-year aneurysm-related mortality rate was 1.1%, with 2 deceased patients in the perioperative period. All-cause mortality rate at 3 years was 13%. No patients suffered from aneurysm rupture or underwent conversion to open repair through 3 years of follow-up. Only 11 patients (6.2%) had undergone reintervention at 3 years. Younger age was associated with reintervention (HR 3.3 per younger decade, 95% confidence interval 1.3-7.6, P < 0.01), but neck diameter, length, and angulation were not significantly associated with reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The Endurant stent graft system provides a safe, durable approach to treating infrarenal AAA. No patients experienced late rupture or aneurysm-related mortality, and only 1 in 16 patients underwent reintervention by 3 years. The rate of reintervention with the Endurant graft appears to be lower than other contemporary grafts, despite more liberal "Instructions For Use" parameters, but further research including direct graft comparisons will be necessary to guide appropriate graft selection.

Type III Endoleak of a Disconnected Stent-graft Limb

A 70-year-old man, who had undergone the placement of an endovascular aneurysm repair graft for an abdominal aortic aneurysm 7 years previously, presented to our facility with the separation of a left iliac stent-graft limb from the main-body stent-graft, resulting in a type III endoleak. An attempt was made to repair the disconnected stent-graft limb with endovascular intervention. An extension stent-graft was successfully deployed using a pulled-through technique to connect the main-body stent-graft with the disconnected stent-graft limb. Endovascular intervention may be an acceptable treatment for type III endoleaks.

Extended use of endovascular aneurysm sealing for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is now an established treatment modality for suitable patients presenting with aneurysm rupture. EVAR for ruptured aneurysms reduces transfusion, mechanical ventilation, intensive care. and hospital stay when compared with open surgery. In the emergency setting, however, EVAR is limited by low applicability due to adverse clinical or anatomical characteristics and increased need for reintervention. In addition, ongoing bleeding from aortic side branches post-EVAR can cause hemodynamic instability, larger hematomas, and abdominal compartment syndrome. Endovascular aneurysm sealing, based on polymer filling of the aneurysm, has the potential to overcome some of the limitations of EVAR for ruptured aneurysms and to improve outcomes. Recent literature suggests that endovascular aneurysm sealing can be performed with early mortality similar to that of EVAR for ruptured aortic aneurysms, but experience is limited to a few centers and a small number of patients. The addition of chimney grafts can increase the applicability of endovascular aneurysm sealing in order to treat short-neck and juxtarenal aneurysms as an alternative to fenestrated endografts. Further evaluation of the technique, with larger longitudinal studies, is necessary before advocating wider implementation of endovascular aneurysm sealing in the emergency setting.

Elective endovascular aortic repair conversion for type Ia endoleak is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with primary juxtarenal aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type Ia endoleak after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) can be a challenging complication to manage, and due to concerns regarding morbidity and mortality of open surgical conversion (OSC), reports of complex endoluminal salvage techniques are increasing. Despite development of these endovascular remedial strategies, many patients ultimately require OSC. The purpose of this analysis was to outcomes of elective OSC for type Ia endoleak and compare them with elective primary open juxtarenal aneurysm repair (OJAR) to determine if these concerns are warranted.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2012, 54 patients underwent EVAR OSC at median time of 27 months (interquartile range, 9-55 months). Indications included endograft thrombosis in 2 (4%), intraoperative EVAR failure in 3 (6%), rupture in 5 (9%), graft infection in 6 (11%), and type Ia endoleak in 25 (all: 38 [70%]). Because many OSCs are performed for emergency indications without endovascular options, we chose elective type Ia endoleak patients as our study group. These 25 patients were compared with an elective OJAR cohort matched by anatomy and comorbidities. Primary end points were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included early complications, cross-clamp time, procedure time, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Demographic and comorbidity data in the OSC and OJAR groups did not differ, with the exception that OJAR patients presented with smaller aneurysm diameter and a higher rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .03). OSC patients more frequently underwent a nontube graft repair (OSC, n = 20 [80%] vs OJAR, n = 6 [24%]; P = .0002), required longer procedure times (P = .03), and received more plasma transfusions (P = .03). The 30-day mortality was 4% in both groups (observed difference in rates, 0%; 95% confidence interval for difference in mortality rates, -14.0% to 14.0%; P = 1). A similar rate of major complications occurred (OSC, n = 9 [36%] vs OJAR, n = 8 [32%]; P = 1). One-year survival was 83% in OSC and 91% in OJAR (observed difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, -15% to 29%; P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite many advances in EVAR technology, the need for OSC persists and will likely become more common as older-generation devices fail or providers attempt EVAR in more anatomically complex patients. Elective OSC for type Ia endoleak can be technically challenging but is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with OJAR in appropriately selected patients. These results should be considered before pursuing complex endovascular remediation of EVAR failures.

Type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: effectiveness of embolization

The purpose of this study was to report our experience in treating type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Two hundred eighteen patients underwent EVAR with a Zenith stent-graft from January 2000 to December 2005. During a follow-up period of 4.5 + or - 2.3 years, solely type II endoleak was detected in 47 patients (22%), and 14 of them underwent secondary interventions to correct this condition. Ten patients had transarterial embolization, and four patients had translumbar/transabdominal embolization. The embolization materials used were coils, thrombin, gelatin, Onyx (ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer), and glue. Disappearance of the endoleak without enlargement of the aneurysm sac after the first secondary intervention was achieved in only five of these patients (5/13). One patient without surveillance imaging was excluded from analyses of clinical success. After additional interventions in four patients and the spontaneous disappearance of type II endoleak in two patients, overall clinical success was achieved in eight patients (8/12). One patient did not have surveillance imaging after the second secondary intervention. Clinical success after the first secondary intervention was achieved in two patients (2/9) in the transarterial embolization group and three patients (3/4) in the translumbar embolization group. The results of secondary interventions for type II endoleak are unsatisfactory. Although the small number of patients included in this study prevents reliable comparisons between groups, the results seem to favor direct translumbar embolization in comparison to transarterial embolization.