Comparative study of clinical outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysms repair in large diameter aortic necks (>31 mm) versus smaller necks

Machine Learning Based Prediction of Post-operative Infrarenal Endograft Apposition for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Challenging infrarenal aortic neck characteristics have been associated with an increased risk of type Ia endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Short apposition (< 10 mm circumferential shortest apposition length [SAL]) on the first post-operative computed tomography angiography (CTA) has been associated with type Ia endoleak. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a model to predict post-operative SAL in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm based on the pre-operative shape.

METHODS

A statistical shape model was developed to obtain principal component scores. The dataset comprised patients treated by standard EVAR without complications (n = 93) enriched with patients with a late type Ia endoleak (n = 54). The infrarenal SAL was obtained from the first post-operative CTA and subsequently binarised (< 10 mm and ≥ 10 mm). The principal component scores that were statistically different between the SAL groups were used as input for five classification models, and evaluated by means of leave one out cross validation. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined for each classification model.

RESULTS

Of the 147 patients, 24 patients had an infrarenal SAL < 10 mm and 123 patients had a SAL ≥ 10 mm. The gradient boosting model resulted in the highest AUC of 0.77. Using this model, 114 patients (77.6%) were correctly classified; sensitivity (< 10 mm apposition was correctly predicted) and specificity (≥ 10 mm apposition was correctly predicted) were 0.70 and 0.79 based on a threshold of 0.21, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A model was developed to predict which patients undergoing EVAR will achieve sufficient graft apposition (≥ 10 mm) in the infrarenal aortic neck based on a statistical shape model of pre-operative CTA data. This model can help vascular specialists during the planning phase to accurately identify patients who are unlikely to achieve sufficient apposition after standard EVAR.

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND

The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE).

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available.

Large-Diameter Fenestrated Endograft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Is Not Associated With Medium-Term Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Recent data suggests that infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair (EVAR) with large diameter grafts (LGs) may have a higher risk of endoleak and reintervention. However, this has not been studied extensively for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR). We, therefore, sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing fEVAR with large-diameter endografts.

METHODS

Patients from the national Vascular Quality Initiative registry who underwent fEVAR for intact juxtarenal AAA were identified. Patients with genetic causes for aneurysms, those with prior aortic surgery, and those undergoing repair for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Rates of endoleaks and reintervention at periprocedural and long-term follow-up timepoints (9-22 mo) were analyzed in grafts 32 mm or larger (LG) and were compared to those smaller than 32 mm (small diameter graft).

RESULTS

A total of 693 patients (22.8% LG) were identified. Overall, demographic variables were comparable except LG exhibited a more frequent history of coronary artery disease (32.9% versus 25.4%, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences in the rates of endoleak at procedural completion. Overall survival at 5 y was no different. The rate of reintervention at 1 y was also no different (log-rank P = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

While graft size appears to have an association with outcomes in infrarenal aneurysm repair, the same does not appear to be true for fEVAR. Further studies should evaluate the long-term outcomes associated with LG which could alter the approach to repair of AAA with large neck diameters traditionally treated with standard infrarenal EVAR.

The Challenge of Treating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Hostile Neck Anatomy: An Overview

Hostile aortic neck anatomy challenges the outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Besides reverting to open surgical repair (OSR), thoughtful endograft selection and a number of advanced endovascular techniques have been suggested as potential solutions for preventing proximal seal zone complications, improving EVAR durability, and preventing aneurysm-related death. Each technique is associated with advantages and limitations and there has not been a credible direct comparison amongst them in the form of a well-designed prospective trial. The not infrequent presence of multiple hostile anatomic characteristics further complicates decision making and challenges the surgeon's skills. This paper serves as an overview of hostile neck anatomy and its implications on EVAR. We provide a concise literature review with the purpose of outlining the treatment modalities and outcomes in this patient population.

The Ratio Between the Infrarenal and Suprarenal Aortic Diameter Is a Predictor of Durable Proximal Seal After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the suprarenal aortic diameter is a predictor for a durable proximal seal after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A total of 439 patients who underwent elective EVAR between 2004 and 2018 in a single vascular referral center met our inclusion criteria. Ratios were calculated by dividing the mean infrarenal neck diameter by 4 different suprarenal aortic diameters. Patients who developed a late type 1A endoleak (n=20) or proximal neck dilatation mandating revision (n=8) were compared with the 411 patients without long-term proximal seal complications.

RESULTS

Patients who developed a late type 1A endoleak had more frequently hypertension, a shorter infrarenal neck length, and a larger mean infrarenal neck diameter. The ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to all 4 suprarenal aortic diameters was higher in the late type 1A endoleak group compared with the group without a late type 1A endoleak. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression identified a combination of 6 variables as the best combination to predict a late type 1A endoleak: presence of hypertension, increased mean infrarenal neck diameter, decreased aneurysm neck length, larger ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), larger ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the upper renal artery, and increased β-angle. Of these, based on both the univariate area under the curve (AUC) and optimal LASSO model restricted to a single predictor, the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA (AUC, 0.770; cutoff value, 0.997) was considered the best prognostic variable.

CONCLUSION

The ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA is a good predictor for a late type 1A endoleak. Patients with mean infrarenal neck diameter larger than the diameter proximal to the SMA (ratio >1) are at risk for a late type 1A endoleak.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we found that the ratio of the mean infrarenal neck diameter to the aortic diameter proximal to the SMA is a good predictor for a late type 1A endoleak. We conclude that the suprarenal diameter must be taken into account before assessing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair eligibility. Patients with a ratio >1 may not be the best candidates for a durable result after EVAR and may be better off with fenestrated EVAR or open repair.

Identifying Patients at High Risk for Post-EVAR Aneurysm Sac Growth

PURPOSE

Post-EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) aneurysm sac growth can be seen as therapy failure as it is a risk factor for post-EVAR aneurysm rupture. This study sought to identify preoperative patient predictors for developing post-EVAR aneurysm sac growth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to select potential predictive preoperative factors for post-EVAR sac growth (including a total of 34.886 patients), which were evaluated by a retrospective single-center analysis of patients undergoing EVAR between 2009 and 2019 (N=247) with pre-EVAR computed tomography scans and at least 1 year follow-up. The primary study outcome was post-EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac enlargement (≥5 mm diameter increase). Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed.

RESULTS

Potential correlative factors for post-EVAR sac growth included in the cohort analysis were age, sex, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, renal insufficiency, anemia, low thrombocyte count, pulmonary comorbidities, aneurysm diameter, neck diameter, neck angle, neck length, configuration of intraluminal thrombus, common iliac artery diameter, the number of patent lumbar arteries, and a patent inferior mesenteric artery. Multivariate analysis showed that infrarenal neck angulation (hazard ratio, 1.014; confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.026; p=0.034) and the number of patent lumbar arteries (hazard ratio, 1.340; CI, 1.131-1.588; p<0.001) were associated with post-EVAR growth. Difference in estimated freedom from post-EVAR sac growth for patients with ≥4 patent lumbar arteries versus <4 patent lumbar arteries became clear after 2 years: 88.5% versus 100%, respectively (p<0.001). Of note, 31% of the patients (n=51) with ≥4 patent lumbar arteries (n=167) developed post-EVAR sac growth. In our cohort, the median maximum AAA diameter was 57 mm (interquartile range [IQR] = 54-62) and the median postoperative follow-up time was 54 months (IQR = 34-79). In all, 23% (n=57) of the patients suffered from post-EVAR growth. The median time for post-EVAR growth was 37 months (IQR = 24-63). In 46 of the 57 post-EVAR growth cases (81%), an endoleak was observed; 2.4% (n=6) of the patients suffered from post-EVAR rupture. The total mortality in the cohort was 24% (n=60); 4% (n=10) was AAA related.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that having 4 or more patent lumbar arteries is an important predictive factor for postoperative sac growth in patients undergoing EVAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study strongly suggests that having 4 or more patent lumbar arteries should be included in preoperative counseling for EVAR, in conjunction to the instructions for use (IFU).

A Statistical Shape Model of Infrarenal Aortic Necks in Patients With and Without Late Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

Hostile aortic neck characteristics, including short length, severe suprarenal and infrarenal angulation, conicity, and large diameter, have been associated with increased risk for type Ia endoleak (T1aEL) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study investigates the mid-term discriminative ability of a statistical shape model (SSM) of the infrarenal aortic neck morphology compared with or in combination with conventional measurements in patients who developed T1aEL post-EVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dataset composed of EVAR patients who developed a T1aEL during follow-up and a control group without T1aEL. Principal component (PC) analysis was performed using a parametrization to create an SSM. Three logistic regression models were created. To discriminate between patients with and without T1aEL, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients (84% male) were included. Median follow-up time in T1aEl group and control group was 52 (31, 78.5) and 51 (40, 62.5) months, respectively. Median follow-up time was not statistically different between the groups (p=0.72). A statistically significant difference between the median PC scores of the T1aEL and control groups was found for the first, eighth, and ninth PC. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values for the SSM-based versus the conventional measurements-based logistic regression models were 79%, 70%, and 0.82 versus 74%, 73%, and 0.85, respectively. The model of the SSM and conventional measurements combined resulted in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 81%, 81%, and 0.92.

CONCLUSION

An SSM of the infrarenal aortic neck determines its 3-dimensional geometry. The SSM is a potential valuable tool for risk stratification and T1aEL prediction in EVAR. The SSM complements the conventional measurements of the individual preoperative infrarenal aortic neck geometry by increasing the predictive value for late type Ia endoleak after standard EVAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

A statistical shape model (SSM) determines the 3-dimensional geometry of the infrarenal aortic neck. The SSM complements the conventional measurements of the individual pre-operative infrarenal aortic neck geometry by increasing the predictive value for late type Ia endoleaks post-EVAR. The SSM is a potential valuable tool for risk stratification and late T1aEL prediction in EVAR and it is a first step toward implementation of a treatment planning support tool in daily clinical practice.

Risk factors and adverse events related to supra- and infra-renal aortic dilation at twelve months after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Aortic remodeling and its effect on adverse events after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain under investigation. This study aimed to assess aortic diameter alterations after EVAR, related risk factors and consequences to proximal sealing at 12 months.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive EVAR patients was undertaken. All patients underwent computed tomography angiography, preoperatively, at 1^st and 12^th month. The infrarenal diameter was measured just below the inferior renal artery, at 7 mm and 15 mm while the suprarenal, just above the superior renal artery (SRA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and just below the celiac trunk. Neck-related adverse events included migration and endoleak Ia.

RESULTS

A hundred fifty patients were included. At 1^st month, no significant diameter alteration was recorded at any level. At 12^th month, all infra-renal diameters increased (P<0.001) and diameters at SRA and SMA also augmented (P=0.024 and P=0.007, respectively). Neck diameter >29 mm, supra-renal fixation and oversizing >20% were associated to dilation at 12^th month. Neck adverse events were related to diameter alterations below the inferior renal artery (P=0.017), SRA (P=0.007) and SMA (P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

During the 12-month follow-up, aortic dilation may be detected from the supra-renal aorta to the total neck length. Neck dilation may be attributed to large neck diameter, supra-renal fixation, and aggressive oversizing. Neck-related adverse events are more common in patients with aortic dilation at 12 months.

Pre-operative Aortic Neck Characteristics and Post-operative Sealing Zone as Predictors of Type 1a Endoleak and Migration After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Establishing the predictive value of neck characteristics and real achieved sealing zone is essential to foster risk stratified procedure selection and imaging surveillance. This systematic review provides an overview of pre-operative aortic neck characteristics and post-operative real achieved sealing zone and their respective risk of type 1a endoleak and migration after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In agreement with PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Data on neck characteristics, sealing zone, and EVAR outcome were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate the effect of neck diameter, angulation, and shape on type 1a endoleak (total, early ≤ 90 days, and late > 90 days) and migration in patients who underwent EVAR. A qualitative summary was also provided.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. Patients with a larger neck diameter had an increased risk of total type 1a endoleak (nine studies: OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.38 - 4.63), early type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.27 - 5.48), late type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.12 - 5.03), and migration (seven studies: OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.32 - 6.26). An angulated neck increased the risk of total type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.55 - 11.78) and late type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.19 - 14.13). Neck shape was not associated with type 1a endoleak. Neck length and real achieved sealing zone on post-EVAR computed tomography were identified as risk factors for type 1a endoleak and migration through qualitative summary.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be some consistent evidence that aortic neck diameter, angulation, and length are associated with the development of type 1a endoleak or migration. Real achieved sealing zone might be an important addition during follow up. However, a small number of studies, with serious limitations, could be included, and there was considerable variability in reporting patients and outcomes. A proposal for standardisation of aortic and EVAR data in future studies is provided.

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.

"Large Diameter" Aortic Endografts Are Associated With Aneurysm Sac Expansion

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between aortic endograft diameter and long-term outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed in accordance with manufacturer instructions for use (IFU).

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing on-IFU EVAR (2000-2018) was performed to facilitate a comparative analysis of long-term patient outcomes based on device diameter. "Large diameter" devices were defined as >34mm. The primary outcome of interest was freedom from sac expansion throughout long-term follow-up. Analyses included standard bivariate analyses, Kaplan Meier with log-rank comparison, and Cox proportional hazards multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1099 underwent on-IFU EVAR from 2000-2018. Follow-up data were available for 980 patients. Of these, 75 patients (7.6%) were treated with >34 mm devices. There were no significant differences in demographics or co-morbidities between the 2 groups, although pre-operative AAA size was greater in patients undergoing implantation of >34mm devices (58 ± 8.5 mm vs. 56 ± 17.4 mm; P=0.05). Median follow-up was 10.3 years. Patients with grafts >34 mm had reduced freedom from sac expansion throughout follow-up (P=0.038). There were no significant differences in reintervention rates, open conversion, or rupture when stratified by graft diameter. Multivariate Cox Regression identified patient age, pre-operative AAA size, need for reintervention, and use of >34 mm endografts as independent factors associated with expansion.

CONCLUSION

The use of large diameter aortic endografts is associated with higher rates of sac expansion during long-term follow-up. While there is undoubtedly a role for large diameter graft use in selected patients, it is important to recognize that these devices were typically approved post-hoc without the same regulatory scrutiny of smaller endografts. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing surveillance for patients treated with >34 mm grafts, irrespective of compliance with manufacturer IFU.

Fenestrated endovascular repair with large device diameters (34- to 36-mm) is associated with type 1 and 3 endoleak and reintervention

OBJECTIVES

 Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing EVAR with larger device diameters (34- to 36-mm) have worse outcomes due to proximal fixation failure and need for reintervention. We examine outcomes relating to standard fenestrated repair (FEVAR) with larger device diameters, and investigate whether a similar relationship exists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained, single institution database of patients treated with the Cook ZFEN device between 2012-2017. Outcomes were stratified by device diameter into normal-diameter (ND,≤ 32 mm) and large-diameter (LD,34-36 mm). Primary endpoints were need for reintervention and composite type I/III endoleak.

RESULTS

 100 consecutive patients treated were identified for inclusion. Overall mean age was 73.6 years and mean aortic diameter was 59.1 mm. Mean follow-up was 22 months. A total of 26 (26%) patients were treated with LD devices. Number of target vessels per patient was 2.8 in both groups. Infrarenal neck length and diameter were significantly different in the LD and ND patients, respectively (2.6 mm vs 4.7 mm (P<.01) and 30.1 mm vs 23.4 mm (P<.01)). Percent graft oversizing was lower in the LD cohort (19% vs 24%; P=.006). No difference was seen in overall mortality at 30-days (0% vs 2%; P=.4) or at latest follow up (6% vs 14%; P=.6). Reinterventions were not significantly different at 30 days, but were significantly higher over the follow-up period in the LD cohort (46.2 vs. 17.6%; P=.002). LD diameter was associated with reintervention on univariate (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.37), but not multivariate analysis. The composite endpoint of type I/III endoleak was higher in the LD cohort (15.4% vs. 2.7%; P=.004).

CONCLUSION

 FEVAR requiring 34- or 36-mm device diameters is associated with an increased risk of composite type I/III endoleak and reintervention. Patients undergoing fenestrated repair requiring LD devices should be closely monitored, with consideration for proximal or open repair.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular abdominal aortic repair in large diameter infrarenal necks

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of relevant published literature to investigate the impact of wide proximal aortic neck diameter on outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to examine the rate of clinical safety and effectiveness end points associated with wide proximal aortic neck diameter after EVAR for the treatment of AAA. A literature search was performed on August 9, 2019, using PubMed as the primary database and Cochrane as the secondary database. In all, there were 11 full articles included in the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

RESULTS

There was a total of 7448 patients who were treated for AAA with EVAR. Of these, 26.9% of patients were defined as having wide necks by the individual publications. The definition of wide neck varied in the literature and ranged from 25 mm or greater to 30 mm or greater. The percentage of male patients was 89.1% in the included articles. The mean or median age range was 72.7 to 76.5 years, which was similar for the wide and normal neck groups. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 5 years. Type I and Ia endoleaks occurred at a higher rate in the wide neck group compared with the normal neck group (11.3% vs 3.1%; P < .001). There was no difference in the rate of type Ib endoleaks between the wide and normal neck groups. The weighted averages of composite major adverse events and aneurysm-related mortality were all greater in the wide neck group (33.5% and 15.3%, respectively) compared with the normal neck group (21.2% and 3.9%, respectively) (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of type Ia endoleaks, reinterventions, and migrations were all significantly higher in the wide neck patient group compared with patients with normal aortic neck size through follow-up. The results of this literature review showed that, although EVAR for the treatment of AAA in patients with a wide aortic neck is feasible, there is a higher risk for complications, interventions, and mortality. In particular, type Ia endoleak is a risk, which could be mitigated by using proximal seal strategies.

Prognostic significance of large diameter proximal aortic neck in endovascular aneurysm repair

Background: Adverse morphological features of the proximal aortic neck have been identified as culprits for late failure after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our objective was to investigate the prognostic role of wide proximal aortic neck in EVAR. Methods: We conducted a review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients with large versus small proximal aortic neck. A meta-analysis of time-to-event data was performed with the inverse-variance method and the results were reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95 % CI. We applied random-effects models of meta-analysis. Results: We identified 9 observational studies reporting on a total of 7,682 patients (1,961 with large diameter and 5,721 with small diameter neck). The hazard of death (HR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.23-2.01; P = 0.0003), aneurysm-related reintervention (HR 2.06, 95 % CI 1.23-3.45; P = 0.006), type Ia endoleak (HR 6.69, 95 % CI 4.39-10.20; P < 0.001), sac expansion (HR 10.07, 95 % CI 1.80-56.53; P = 0.009), aneurysm rupture (HR 2.96, 95 % CI 2.00-4.38; P < 0.0001), and neck-related adverse events (HR 10.33, 95 % CI 4.95-21.56; P < 0.0001) was higher in patients with large diameter proximal aortic neck than in those with small neck. Conclusions: Patients with a large proximal aortic neck were found to have poorer outcomes than those with small neck. This finding has implications in decision making when selecting methods for aneurysm treatment and in EVAR surveillance for aneurysm-related complications in this cohort of patients.

Endovascular Neck Stabilization Before EVAR for Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm in Chronic Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with proximal chronic aortic dissection is challenging as a false and true lumen at the level of the infra-renal neck does not allow a sufficient landing zone. We describe staged endovascular neck stabilization prior to standard endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for AAA with chronic aortic dissection.

TECHNIQUE

To create a stable proximal neck (PN) by closing entry tears, thereby resulting in total false lumen thrombosis (FLT) prior to standard EVAR. Case 1 false lumen fenestrations were present at the descending aorta, the right renal artery orifice and PN. After closing the entry tear by thoracic EVAR, an aortic cuff was placed in the true lumen of the PN and renal stenting for the right renal artery was performed. After 2 months, total FLT was achieved, and EVAR was performed. Case 2 false lumen fenestrations were present at the descending, super celiac aorta and PN. After closing the entry by TEVAR, aortic cuffs were placed at infrarenal aorta to close residual entries. After 1 month of achieving total FLT, EVAR was performed. Both cases had no type 1 endoleak during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The endovascular neck stabilization is a useful treatment option that facilitates standard EVAR for AAA in chronic aortic dissection.

Large Diameter (≥29 mm) Proximal Aortic Necks Are Associated with Increased Complication Rates after Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of proximal aortic diameter on outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

This is a case-control (1:1) retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 732 AAA patients treated with EVAR in 2 university centers. Patients with an infrarenal neck diameter of 29-32 mm (wide neck, WN group) were compared with patients with a neck diameter of 26-28.9 mm (control group) matched for age, gender, and maximum aneurysmal sac diameter. Any patients treated outside the instructions for use of each endograft or with no adequate follow-up were excluded. The primary end point was any neck-related adverse event (a composite of type Ia endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, and endograft migration) during follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients with a proximal neck diameter of 29-32 mm (WN group) were compared with a matched control group of 64 patients with a neck diameter of 26-28.9 mm (control group). Oversizing was significantly higher in the study group (17.9% vs. 15.5%, P = 0.001). Overall median available follow-up was 24 months (range 12-84) (WN group 24 months vs. control group 18.5 months, P = 0.943). Primary end point was recorded in 8 patients (12.5%) of the WN group and in 1 patient (1.6%) of the control group. Freedom from the primary end point at 36 months (standard error <10%) was 87.3% for the study versus 98.4% for the control group (log rank = 4.66, P = 0.03). On multiple regression analysis, the presence of a proximal aortic neck >29 mm was the only independent risk factor for neck-related adverse events (odds ratio 7.4, 95% confidence interval 1.2-47.1).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR in the presence of a wide proximal aortic neck is likely to be associated with higher adverse neck-related event rates and thus, in such cases closer follow-up may be required.

Endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with a wide proximal aortic neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to investigate the impact of wide proximal aortic diameter on outcome after standard endovascular repair (sEVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using the PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for articles comparing outcome after sEVAR in patients with large versus small diameter aortic neck. The prognostic factor of interest was large diameter proximal aortic neck and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A time-to-event data meta-analysis for late outcomes was performed using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 6 observational studies reporting on a total of 6602 patients (1616 with large and 4986 with small diameter neck). Patients with large proximal aortic neck were older (MD 0.87, 95% CI: 0.35-1.39; P=0.001). The prevalence of male gender (OR=1.63, 95% CI: 1.34-1.98; P<0.001), coronary artery disease (OR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.06-1.36; P=0.004), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36; P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.23-1.66; P<0.001) was higher in the wide neck group. Patients with large diameter proximal neck had shorter proximal neck (MD=-1.91, 95% CI: -2.04 to -1.77; P<0.001) and a larger aneurysm diameter compared to those with small diameter neck (MD=3.40, 95% CI: 2.71-4.10; P<0.001). Patients with small diameter proximal neck had significantly higher freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention (HR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.23-3.45; P=0.006), freedom from type Ia endoleak (HR=6.69, 95% CI: 4.39-10.20; P<0.001), freedom from sac expansion (HR=10.07, 95% CI: 1.80-56.53; P=0.009), freedom from aneurysm rupture (HR 5.10, 95% CI: 1.40-18.58; P=0.01), and survival (HR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.08-2.24; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a wide proximal aortic neck undergoing standard EVAR were found to have worse outcome, as indicated by a lower freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention, type Ia endoleak, sac expansion and aneurysm rupture, and a higher overall survival. This anatomic characteristic should be considered in decision making. In such patients, closer imaging surveillance after EVAR in the long term may be required to identify early and treat timely the complications.