Impact of Polar Renal Artery Coverage on Early Renal Function after Chimney Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Clinical effect of accessory renal artery coverage after endovascular repair of aneurysms in abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta

BACKGROUND

The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of accessory renal artery (ARA) coverage on renal function in terms of acute kidney injury (AKI), renal infarction, chronic renal failure (CRF), and mortality in patients undergoing standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms.

METHODS

An electronic search of the English language medical literature from 2000 to September 2020 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) method for studies reporting on ARA management in patients undergoing endovascular repair of aneurysms in the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients with ARA coverage; and group 2, patients without an ARA or without coverage of the ARA. Each group included two arms, one of patients who had undergone standard EVAR and one of patients who had undergone endovascular treatment of a complex aortic aneurysm. The GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summary of the findings. The primary outcomes included the incidence of AKI, renal infarction, CRF, and mortality.

RESULTS

Ten retrospective, nonrandomized, control studies were included in the systematic review reporting on 1014 patients (302 with a covered ARA vs 712 without an ARA or without ARA coverage). In six studies, the mean diameter of the covered ARA was <4 mm (range, 2.7-3.4 mm). The mean follow-up was 22.74 months (range, 1-42 months). In the standard EVAR subgroup, the risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-2.51; I² = 0%] in the early period, and CRF (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 0.46-42.61; I² = 87%) and death (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36-2.31; I² = 0%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater in group 1 than in group 2 (OR, 93.3; 95% CI, 1.48-5869; I² = 92%). In the complex aneurysm repair subgroup, the risk of AKI (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.61-5.64; I² = 42%) in early period and CRF (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.88-3.07; I² = not applicable) and death (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 0.14-96.29; I² = 56%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater for group 1 compared with group 2 (OR, 8.58; 95% CI, 4.59-16.04; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARA (<4 mm) coverage in patients undergoing standard EVAR or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of renal infarction. However, we found no clinical effects of ARA coverage on renal function or mortality in early postoperative and follow-up period. Preservation of an ARA >4 mm should be considered.

Endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm associated with crossed fused renal ectopia

Chimney/snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair (Ch-EVAR) enables the minimally invasive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in anatomically challenging and high-risk surgical cases. Here, we present the case of a 77-year-old man with an abdominal aortic aneurysm associated with crossed fused renal ectopia and an ectopic renal artery arising directly from the aneurysm sac. After successful implementation of Ch-EVAR, computed tomography angiography at 18 months revealed no endoleaks, patency of the parallel graft, and normal renal vascularization and function. This report underscores the feasibility of Ch-EVAR in a case with high anatomic complexity.

The role of fEVAR, chEVAR and open repair in treatment of juxtarenal aneurysms: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Open repair (OR), fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) and endovascular exclusion using parallel graft (chEVAR) are complementary procedures used for treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (jrAAA). The aim of our study was to assess available literature and analyze dispersion of OR, fEVAR and chEVAR procedures among reported papers related to treatment of jrAAA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed database was systematically searched using predefined strategy and key words related to treatment of jrAAA on September 28th, 2019. Studies were assessed for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria with at least five patients treated with at least one of the procedures while systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reviews, comments, editorials and letters were excluded as well as studies without clear classification of the location of the aneurysm, studies not specifying the number of patients treated with each of the techniques or not discriminated between aortic pathologies (juxtarenal, paravisceral and thoracoabdominal), hybrid procedures, endoanchors or with branched stent-graft.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 1533 papers were identified while papers that met inclusion criteria were either representing experience of single institution (87 papers) or from multicenter studies (6 papers), national or international registries (18 papers). In the period between January 1977 and December 2017, treatment of 5664 patients with jrAAA was reported in 87 papers as a single institution report. Out of them 2531 (45%) were treated with OR, 2592 (46%) with fEVAR and 541 (9%) with chEVAR. Out of 29 institutions reporting OR, there were 11 (37.9%) with more than 100 treated patients while 21 (41.1%) out of 51 institutions that reported more than 50 jrAAA treated with fEVAR. Only four institutions reported results of all three treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results reported in the literature, regardless of its complexity and costs, fEVAR for jrAAA has been accepted in substantial number of hospitals worldwide, while number of reported procedures is reaching OR.