Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices

The Effect of EndoAnchors on Aneurysm Sac Regression for Patients Treated With Infrarenal Endovascular Repair With Hostile Neck Anatomies: A Propensity Scored Analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze sac evolution patterns in matched patients with hostile neck anatomy (HNA) treated with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (sEVAR) and endosutured aneurysm repair (ESAR).

METHODS

Observational retrospective study using prospectively collected data between June 2010 and December 2019. ESAR group data were extracted from the primary arm of the PERU registry with an assigned identifier (NCT04100499) at 8 centers and those from the sEVAR came from 4 centers. Suitability for inclusion required: no proximal endograft adjuncts (besides EndoAnchor use), ≤15 mm neck length and minimum of 12-months follow-up imaging. Bubble-shaped neck (noncylindrical short neck with discontinuous seal) aspect was analyzed. Both groups were analyzed using propensity score matching (PSM) for aortic neck length, width, angulation, and device fixation type. Main outcome assessed was sac evolution patterns (sac expansion and regression were defined as >5mm increase or decrease, of the maximum sac diameter respectively; all AAAs within this ±5 mm range in diameter change were considered stable) and secondary outcomes were type-Ia endoleaks; other endoleaks and mortality. A power analysis calculation >80% was confirmed for sac regression evaluation.

RESULTS

After exclusions, PSM resulted in 96 ESAR and 96 sEVAR patients. Mean imaging follow-up (months) was 44.4±21.3 versus 43.0±19.6 (p=0.643), respectively. The overall number of patients achieving sac regression was higher in the ESAR group (n=57, 59.4% vs n=31, 32.3%; p<0.001) and the cumulative sac regression achieved at 5 years was 65% versus 38% (p=0.003) in favor of the ESAR group. There were no statistically significant differences in type-Ia endoleak and/or other endoleaks. Univariate analysis for sac regression patients in the sEVAR and ESAR group individually showed the bubble-shape neck as a predictor of sac regression failure. There were no statistical differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality.

CONCLUSION

Endosutured aneurysm repair provided improved rates of sac regression for patients with AAA and HNA when compared with sEVAR at midterm and up to 5 years, despite similar rates of type-Ia endoleaks, and the need to consider some important limitations. The presence of bubble-shaped neck was a predictor of sac regression failure for both groups equally.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The use of EndoAnchors aids and improves EVAR treatment in hostile neck anatomies by an increased rate of sac regression when compared to EVAR treatment alone in up to 5 year analysis. Moreover, a trend to reduced number of type Ia endoleaks is also achieved, although not significant in the present study. This data, adds to current and growing evidence on the usefulness of EndoAnchors for AAA endovascular treatment.

Serious Failure Modes After EVAR Are Device Specific

OBJECTIVES

Type I and III endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can lead to catastrophic events that require major re-interventions. We reviewed our experience with aortic endograft re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks and other serious failures among different devices.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with a prior EVAR who underwent open conversion (OC) or major endovascular intervention (MEI) (re-lining, cuff/limb extension, parallel graft) for type I/III endoleaks at our institution from 2002 to 2019. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, re-interventions, and outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients (194 men) underwent re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks after EVAR (90 OC, 139 MEI) for devices implanted between 1997 and 2019. Average age at re-intervention was 78±8.5 years. A total of 135 (59%) were implanted at our institution, whereas 93 (41%) were referred. Median time to re-intervention was 4 years with 25% to 75% interquartile range (IQR) of 2.2-6.6 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics or type of re-interventions (OC/MEI) between device types. 42/229 (18%) presented with ruptured aneurysms, 20/229 (9%) were symptomatic, whereas the rest presented with asymptomatic radiographic findings. Type 1A endoleak was present in 146/229 (63.8%-72 with proximal migration), type IB in 46/229 (20.1%), type IIIA in 37/229 (16.6%), type IIIB in 15/229 (6.5%), and persistent aneurysm sac growth with no radiographic evidence of an endoleak in 6/229 (2.6%). Devices included most commercial products: AFX, Excluder, AneuRx, Ancure, Endurant, and Zenith. A smaller number of investigational devices accounted for the rest. Type 1A endoleak was the most common indication for re-intervention among all devices except for AFX and ancure devices, proximal migration was a frequent presentation with AneuRx. AFX devices more frequently presented with a type III and ancure devices more frequently presented with a type IB endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious failure modes after EVAR differ between endografts and occur throughout the follow-up period. This is important to guide targeted interrogation of surveillance studies and follow-up schedules, even for discontinued devices, as well as comparisons between various series and estimation of EVAR failure rates.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Surveillance after EVAR is critical for long term success of the repair, understanding of the differential modes of failure of every graft available is important in the longitudinal evaluation of these endografts. Equally important is the understanding of the modes of failure of legacy endografts that are no longer on the market but still being followed, in order to be able to tailor a surveillance regiemn and the evntual repair if needed.

A Greek Multicentre Study Assessing the Outcome of Late Rupture After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Late rupture after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an increasing complication associated with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to analyse the causes and outcomes in patients with AAA rupture after EVAR.

METHODS

A multi-institutional Greek study of late ruptures after EVAR between 2008 - 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes were intra-operative and in hospital death.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients presented with late rupture after EVAR (proportion of ruptured EVARs among all EVARs, 0.6%; 69 males; mean age 77.2 ± 6.7 years). The mean time interval between EVAR and late rupture was 72.3 months (range 6 - 180 months). In all cases the cause of rupture was the presence of an endoleak (type I, 73%) with sac enlargement. Moreover, 34% of subjects with rupture after EVAR had been lost to follow up and 32% underwent a secondary intervention. Additionally, 57 patients (81%) were treated by conversion to open surgical repair (COSR) and the remainder by endovascular correction of endoleak (ECE). Eleven intra-operative deaths (16%) were recorded. The overall in hospital mortality rate was 41% (23% ECE vs. 46% COSR; p = .21). Of the patients who presented as initially haemodynamically stable, 23% died during hospitalisation, while the respective mortality rate for patients who presented as unstable was 78% (odds ratio [OR] 11.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6 - 39.1; p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that severity of haemodynamic shock was the most significant risk factor for intra-operative (OR 7.15, 95% CI 1.58 - 32.40; p = .010) and in hospital death (OR 9.53, 95% CI 2.79 - 32.58; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

These data underline the devastating prognosis of late rupture after EVAR. Haemodynamic status at presentation was an important predictive factor for death both in the ECE and COSR groups. Rigorous follow up and prompt evaluation of an unstable patient in case of rupture after EVAR is recommended.

Mid-term results of "off-label" use of the Endurant stentgraft in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

EVAR is the preferred treatment modality for patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with suitable anatomy. Each manufacturer of aortic stentgrafts has specific anatomic requirements. In some patients, it is not possible to adhere to the instructions for use, but alternative treatment is also not possible. In these patients, EVAR can be performed outside instructions for use.

METHODS

In this study, all consecutive patients in whom an Endurant II or IIS stentgraft was used between 1 January and 31 December were reviewed. We compared the two patient groups in whom this stentgrafts was used outside and inside instructions for use. Patients with planned adjuvant therapy, for example, chimney procedure or iliac side branches, were excluded.

RESULTS

In 74 of 178 (41.6%) patients, the instructions for use were not adhered. The main reason was pathology of the aortic neck. There were more patients with type IA endoleak, this difference was borderline significant (p = .06). There were more patients with limb occlusion in the early postoperative period, but at the end of the follow-up period, the incidence was comparable. Aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, real-life experience with the Endurant II and IIS stentgraft is described. Non-adherence with instructions for use was associated with a higher risk of endoleak type IA (p = .06). In the early postoperative period, there were more patients with limb occlusion; this finding was not observed anymore at the end of the follow-up period.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR.

METHODS

The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion.

RESULTS

The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045-2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418-3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343-5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055-3.388).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

Selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with hostile neck anatomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a hostile neck anatomy (HNA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 2020 and June 2022, patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and HNA who underwent EVAR with a low-profile stent graft and a selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization technique were analysed. An HNA was defined by the presence of any of the following parameters: infrarenal neck angulation > 60°; neck length < 15 mm; conical neck; circumferential calcification ≥ 50%; or thrombus ≥ 50%. Before occluding the entire aneurysm during the procedure, a buddy wire was loaded prophylactically into the sac through the contralateral limb side. If a type Ia endoleak (ELIa) occurred and persisted despite adjunctive treatment such as balloon moulding or cuff extension, this preloaded wire could be utilized to enable a catheter to reach the space between the stent graft and sac neck to perform coil embolization. In the absence of ELIa, the wire was simply retracted. The primary outcome of this study was freedom from sac expansion and endoleak-related reintervention during the follow-up period; secondary outcomes included technical success and intraoperative and in-hospital postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Among the 28 patients with a hostile neck morphology, 11 (39.5%) who presented with ELIa underwent intraprocedural treatment involving sac neck-targeted detachable coil embolization. Seventeen individuals (60.7%) of the total patient population did not undergo coiling. All patients in the coiling group underwent balloon moulding, and 2 patients additionally underwent cuff extension. In the noncoiling group, 14 individuals underwent balloon moulding as a treatment for ELIa, while 3 patients did not exhibit ELIa during the procedure. The coiling group showed longer operating durations (81.27 ± 11.61 vs. 70.71 ± 7.17 min, P < 0.01) and greater contrast utilization than the noncoiling group (177.45 ± 52.41 vs. 108.24 ± 17.49 ml, P < 0.01). In the entire cohort, the technical success rate was 100%, and there were no procedure-related complications. At a mean follow-up of 18.6 ± 5.2 months (range 12-31), there were no cases of sac expansion (19 cases of sac regression, 67.86%; 9 cases of stability, 32.14%) or endoleak-related reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization for the treatment of ELIa in AAA patients with an HNA undergoing EVAR is safe and may prevent type Ia endoleak and related sac expansion after EVAR.

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.

Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Late Open Conversion in Patients With Adherence and Nonadherence to Instructions for Use Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as preferred treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has enlarged the number of patients needing open surgical conversion (OSC). The relationship between adherence to Instructions For Use (IFU) and EVAR long-term outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare preoperative differences and postoperative outcomes between EVAR patients not adjusted to IFU and adjusted to IFU who underwent OSC.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study reviewed 33 explanted EVARs between January 2003 and December 2019 at 14 Vascular Units. Patients were included if OSC occurred >30 days after implantation and excluded if explantation was performed to treat an endograft infection, aortic dissection, or traumatic transections. Variables analyzed included baseline characteristics, adherence to IFU, implant and explant procedural details, secondary reinterventions, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen explanted patients (15/33, 45.5%) were identified not accomplished to IFU (out-IFU) at initial EVAR vs 18 explanted patients adjusted (in-IFU). During follow-up, a mean of 1.73±1.2 secondary reinterventions were performed, with more type I endoleaks treated in the subgroup out-IFU: 16.7% vs 6.3% in-IFU patients and more type III endoleaks (8.3% vs 0%). Patients out-IFU had shorter mean interval from implant to explant: 47.60±28.8 months vs 71.17±48. Type II endoleak was the most frequent indication for explantation. Low-flow endoleaks (types II, IV, V) account for 44% of indications for OSC in subgroup of patients in-IFU, compared with 13.3% in patients out-IFU and high-flow endoleaks (types I and III) were the main indication for patients out-IFU (33.3% vs 16.7% in-IFU). Total endograft explantation was performed in 57.5% of cases (19/33) and more suprarenal clamping was required in the subgroup out-IFU. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 12.1% (4/33): 20% for patients out-IFU and 5.6% in-IFU.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, type II endoleak is the most common indication for conversion and differences have been found between patients treated outside IFU with explantation taking place earlier during follow-up, mainly due to high-flow endoleaks and with higher mortality in comparison with patients adjusted to IFU. Ongoing research is required to delve into these differences.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Possible implications of device-specific variability in post-endovascular aneurysm repair sac regression and endoleaks for surveillance categorization

OBJECTIVE

Significant sac regression during early surveillance has been shown to best predict reintervention-free long-term surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Furthermore, a persistent endoleak has been related to a worse outcome. Individualized surveillance algorithms based on these findings have been suggested. There are no studies comparing the performance of different stent grafts regarding sac regression, the presence of type II endoleaks, and their possible implications for individualized surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate device-specific differences and how these may affect patient categorization for surveillance.

METHODS

Patients were treated electively with standard EVAR between 2005 and 2015 using three different devices (Zenith by Cook, Excluder by Gore, and Endurant by Medtronic). The data were reviewed retrospectively until 2020. Patients' computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) at 30 days and at 2 years were analyzed for freedom from endoleaks and for sac regression of ≥5 mm. Reinterventions during long-term surveillance were counted. Patients were categorized according to the presence of any endoleak and sac regression at 30 days and 2 years, and the probability of reintervention-free long-term surveillance was evaluated based on these findings.

RESULTS

A total of 435 patients were treated for an abdominal aortic aneurysm with EVAR during the study period. At 30 days, 80.0% (n = 339) of the patients were free from endoleaks, and at 2 years, 78.9% (n = 273) were free from endoleaks. There was a significant difference in endoleak rate at 30 days and 2 years between the devices (P < .001 and P = .001). There was no significant difference in sac regression between the devices at 2 years (P = .096). The categorization at 30 days based on endoleak status had a sensitivity of 44.9%, specificity of 87.4%, and negative predictive value of 84.1% for finding a reintervention-requiring complication during long-term follow-up. The corresponding figures at 2 years were 63.3%, 91.4%, and 89.4%, respectively. The combination of freedom from endoleaks and sac regression of ≥5 mm in the 2-year CTA best predicted an uneventful long-term surveillance. Patients who met this criterion had a 95.6% probability (negative predictive value) of having a reintervention-free long-term surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in the prevalence of endoleaks between devices at 30 days and 2 years, but there is no difference in sac regression. Patients with sac regression of ≥5 mm and no endoleaks in the 2-year CTA can be safely categorized for infrequent surveillance regardless of the stent graft model that has initially been used.

Editor's Choice - The VASCUNExplanT Project: An International Study Assessing Open Surgical Conversion of Failed Non-Infected Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The need for open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) persists, despite expanding endovascular options for secondary intervention. The VASCUNExplanT project collected international data to identify risk factors for failed EVAR, as well as OSC outcomes. This retrospective cross sectional study analysed data after OSC for failed EVAR from the VASCUNET international collaboration.

METHODS

VASCUNET queried registries from its 28 member countries, and 17 collaborated with data from patients who underwent OSC (2005 - 2020). Any OSC for infection was excluded. Data included demographics, EVAR, and OSC procedural details, as well as post-operative mortality and complication rates.

RESULTS

There were 348 OSC patients from 17 centres, of whom 33 (9.4%) were women. There were 130 (37.4%) devices originally deployed outside of instructions for use. The most common indication for OSC was endoleak (n = 143, 41.1%); ruptures accounted for 17.2% of cases. The median time from EVAR to OSC was 48.6 months [IQR 29.7, 71.6]; median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter at OSC was 70.5 mm [IQR 61, 82]. A total of 160 (45.6%) patients underwent one or more re-interventions prior to OSC, while 63 patients (18.1%) underwent more than one re-intervention (range 1 - 5). Overall, the 30 day mortality rate post-OSC was 11.8% (n = 41), 11.1% for men and 18.2% for women (p = .23). The 30 day mortality rate was 6.1% for elective cases, and 28.3% for ruptures (p < .0001). The predicted 90 day survival for the entire cohort was 88.3% (95% CI 84.3 - 91.3). Multivariable analysis revealed rupture (OR 4.23; 95% CI 2.05 - 8.75; p < .0001) and total graft explantation (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.02 - 4.34; p = .04) as the only statistically significant predictive factors for 30 day death.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis of patients who underwent OSC shows that, despite varying case mix and operative techniques, OSC is feasible but associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates, particularly when performed for rupture.

Early outcomes of the Conformable endograft in severe neck angulation from the Triveneto Conformable Registry

OBJECTIVE

The study reports retrospective evaluation of early outcomes from a multicentric experience with the Excluder conformable endograft with active control system (CEXC Device) in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Its design allows more flexibility, given by proximal unconnected stent rows and a bending wire within the delivery catheter enables control of proximal angulation. This study specifically focuses on the severe neck angulation (SNA) subgroup (≥60°).

METHODS

All patients treated with CEXC Device in nine vascular surgery centers of Triveneto area (Northeast Italy) between January 2019 and July 2022 were enrolled prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Demographic and aortic anatomical characteristics were evaluated. Endovascular aneurysm repair in SNA were selected for analysis. Major investigated outcomes were technical success, endoleaks, morbidity, mortality, and reinterventions at 30 days and during follow-up. Endograft migration and postoperative aortic neck angulation changes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were enrolled. An infrarenal angle of ≥60° was observed in 56 patients (43%) (SNA group) and their data analyzed. The mean patient age was 78.9 ± 5.9 years and median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter 59 mm (range, 45-94 mm). Median aortic infrarenal neck length, angulation and diameter were 22 mm (range, 13-58 mm), 77° (range, 60°-150°), and 22.0 ± 3.5 mm respectively. Analysis revealed a technical success rate of 100% and perioperative major complication rate of 1.7%. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were 3.5% (one buttock claudication and one inguinal surgical cutdown) and 0%, respectively. No perioperative type I endoleaks were observed. The median follow-up was 13 months (range, 1-40 months). Five patients died during follow-up from aneurysm-unrelated causes. Two reinterventions occurred (3.5%): one conversion for a type IA endoleak and one sac embolization for a type II endoleak. Aneurysm sac shrinkage was observed in 15 patients (26%) and aneurysm stability in 35 patients (62%), respectively. Estimated freedom from reinterventions at 24 months was 92%. Aortic neck median postoperative angulation was 75° (range, 45°-139°).

CONCLUSIONS

The Triveneto Conformable Registry shows good early results of the CEXC device in severely angulated aortic infrarenal necks. These data need confirmation on longer follow-up and a wider cohort of patients to further increase endovascular aneurysm repair eligibility in SNA.

Proximal Instructions for Use Violations in Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative: Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often attempted in patients with marginal anatomy. These patients' midterm outcomes are available in the Vascular Quality Initiative for analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in the Vascular Quality Initiative from patients who underwent elective infrarenal EVAR between 2011 and 2018. Each EVAR was identified as either on- or off-instructions for use (IFU) based on aortic neck criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak with IFU status. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event models estimated reintervention, aneurysm sac enlargement, and overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 5,488 patients with at least 1 follow-up recorded. Those treated off-IFU included 1,236 patients ([23%] mean follow-up 401 days) compared with 4,252 (77%) treated on-IFU (mean follow-up 406 days). There was no evidence of significant differences in crude 30-day survival (96% vs 97%; p = 0.28) or estimated 2-year survival (97% vs 97%; log-rank p = 0.28). Crude type Ia endoleak frequency was greater in patients treated off IFU (2% vs 1%; p = 0.03). Off-IFU EVAR was associated with type Ia endoleak on multivariable regression model (odds ratio 1.84 [95% CI 1.23 to 2.76]; p = 0.003). Patients treated off IFU vs on IFU experienced had increased risk of reintervention within 2 years (7% vs 5%; log-rank p = 0.02), a finding consistent with results from the Cox modeling (hazard ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.81]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated off IFU were at greater risk for type Ia endoleak and reintervention, although they had similar 2-year survival compared with those treated on IFU. Patients with anatomy outside IFU should be considered for open surgery or complex endovascular repair to reduce the probability for revision.

Conical Aortic Neck as a Predictor of Outcome after Endovascular Aneurysm Exclusion: Midterm Results

BACKGROUND

Conical neck may affect endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes. The aim of this study was to present EVAR neck adverse events [endoleak type Ia (ET Ia) and graft migration], in patients with conical neck morphology compared to patients with non-conical necks. An additional analysis of the factors that may affect neck adverse events in patients with conical necks, during the first postoperative year, was executed.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospective data was conducted, including patients that underwent elective EVAR, between 2017 and 2019. All patients completed the clinical and imaging follow-up of the initial 12 months. Regarding imaging, all cases underwent computed tomography angiography (CTA), preoperatively, at the 1st and 12th month of follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative aneurysm anatomic characteristics (supra-renal and infra-renal aortic diameters, aneurysm diameter, neck angle, thrombus, and calcification) were recorded. Proximal neck was defined as the infrarenal aortic segment, with a diameter less than 30 mm. Conical neck was any neck with a diameter increase ≥2 mm per cm of length (from outer-to-outer aortic wall). The proximal 15 mm of the neck length were considered the zone of endograft sealing. Migration was any ≥10 mm caudal movement of the endograft, relative to its position detected at the CTA of the first month. Neck adverse events were defined as the composite event of ET Ia and migration.

RESULTS

The cohort included 150 patients; 66 (44%) presented conical neck morphology. No significant difference was detected regarding the preoperative anatomic characteristics between the conical and non-conical groups. Only distal (15 mm) neck diameter was wider in the conical group (P < 0.001). Supra-renal active fixation was used in 63.3% of the total cohort; 59.5% in patients with non-conical necks and 68.2% in patients with conical morphology (P = 0.275). Graft oversizing was 18.2% and 18.7% in the non-conical and conical group, respectively (P = 0.248). Oversizing >20% was equal between groups [37.8% vs. 33.3%% (P = 0.608) while oversizing ≥30% was more common among patients with conical necks (3.5% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.001, 3.2 odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 12.91). Regarding ET Ia and migration, no difference was recorded between the groups. In a subanalysis among patients with conical necks, a lower graft migration rate was detected among patients with higher oversizing rate (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR may offer similarly good midterm outcomes in patients with conical and non-conical neck anatomy. An oversizing to the higher suggested rate may be preventive of graft migration during the first postoperative year in necks with conical morphology. Aggressive oversizing (>20%) do not offer any benefit regarding the prevention of adverse events among patients with conical necks.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms is a Valid Alternative to Open Repair also in Patients Treated Outside of Instructions for Use Criteria

Purpose

It remains unclear whether endovascular aneurysm repair, in the long term, is less effective than open surgery due to need for reinterventions and close monitoring. We aimed to evaluate this matter in a real-life cohort.

Methods

We collected consecutive patients treated with EVAR or OSR between January 2005 and December 2013. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 90-day and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day reintervention rate and reintervention-free survival. We evaluated also a subpopulation who did not adhere to IFU.

Results

The inclusion criteria were met by 416 patients. 258 (62%) received EVAR, while 158 (38%) underwent OSR. The 30- or 90-day mortality was similar between groups (p = 0.272 and p = 0.346), as ARM (p = 0.652). The 30-day reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p < 0.001), but during follow-up, it was significantly higher in the EVAR group (log-rank: 0.026).

There were 114 (44.2%) non-IFU patients in the EVAR group, and we compared them with OSR group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 or 90 days, nor in the long term (p = 1; p = 1 and p = 0.062). ARM was not affected by the procedure technique (p = 0.136). The short-term reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p = 0.003), while in the long-term EVAR, patients experienced more reinterventions (log-rank = 0.0.43).

Conclusion

No significant difference in survival was found between EVAR and OSR, independent of adherence to IFU. EVAR may be considered for surgical candidates.

Risk factors, risk stratification and risk-specific surveillance strategies after endovascular aneurysm repair: study protocol for a Delphi study by the International RIsk Stratification in EVAR (IRIS-EVAR) working group

INTRODUCTION

Several risk factors for adverse events after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have been described, but there is no consensus on their comparative prognostic significance, use in risk stratification and application in determining postoperative surveillance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse events after EVAR. Main adverse events were considered post-EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture and reintervention. Risk factors were grouped into four domains: (1) preoperative anatomy, (2) aortic device, (3) procedure performance and (4) postoperative surveillance. The Delphi methodology will be used to steer a group of experts in the field towards consensus organised into three tiers. In tier 1, participants will be asked to independently rate risk factors for adverse events after EVAR. In tier 2, the panel will be asked to independently rate a range of combinations of risk factors across the four domains derived from tier 1. A risk-stratification tool will then be built, which will include algorithms that map responses to signalling questions onto a proposed risk judgement for each domain. Domain-level judgements will in turn provide the basis for an overall risk judgement for the individual patient. In tier 3, risk factor-informed surveillance strategies will be developed. Each tier will typically include three rounds and rating will be conducted using a 4-point Likert scale, with an option for free-text responses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority approval has been waived, since this is a professional staff study and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. The results will be presented at regional, national and international meetings and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The risk stratification tool and surveillance algorithms will be made publicly available for clinical use and validation.

Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm With Severe Angulation of Infrarenal Aortic Neck by Gore Conformable Endograft

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study is to report a single-center experience with the Gore Excluder conformable endograft with active control system (CEXC Device, W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with severe infrarenal neck angulation.

METHODS

All patients underwent EVAR with CEXC Device between September 2018 and 2020, were prospectively enrolled, and retrospectively analyzed. Anatomical details of the proximal aortic neck were evaluated. Early endpoints were the use of repositionability and angulation system, intraoperative unplanned cuff, technical success (TS), 30-day morbidity/mortality, and reintervention. Follow-up endpoints were type-I endoleaks, endograft migration, aortic neck dilatation, aneurismal sac shrinkage, survival (S), and freedom from reintervention (FFR).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled (median age: 80 [range = 60-90] years, median AAA diameter: 60 [range = 52-90] mm). All patients had severe infrarenal neck angulation (beta angle ≧ 60°), and 11 (44%) of those had neck beta angle ≧ 90°. Median infrarenal neck angle, length, and diameter were 70° (range = 60°-90°), 22 (range = 13-42) mm and 22 (range = 18-31) mm, respectively. Endograft repositioning system was employed in 15 (60%) cases and the median number of repositioning maneuvers was 1 (range:0-4). Active angulation system was used in 17 (68%) patients. The median proximal diameter of the main-body and oversize were 28 (range = 23-36) mm and 28% (range = 21%-38%), respectively. Proximal cuff was positioned in 1 (4%) patient. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity and mortality were 12% and 0%, respectively. Perioperative type-I/III and II endoleaks were observed in 0 and 4 (16%) patients, respectively. The median follow-up was 12 months (range: 3-30). One patient died at 12-month for AAA-unrelated causes. Abdominal aortic aneurysm-sac shrinkage and stability were observed in 9 (36%) and 15 (60%) cases, respectively. No type-I/III endoleak and reintervention occurred during the follow-up. One persistent type-II endoleak was observed. Estimated survival at 24 months was 92%.

CONCLUSION

According to the present data, the CEXC Device allows an excellent rate of TS in severe angulated aortic neck. This preliminary data, could increase the rate of patients eligible for EVAR.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become a standard treatment method for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Endovascular device manufacturers have defined specific anatomic criteria for aneurysm characteristics to be observed as instructions for use (IFU) with specific grafts. In clinical practice, the prevalence of performing EVAR outside the IFU is high. This study aims to determine the impact of IFU criteria non-adherence on outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing EVAR for an infrarenal AAA between 2005 and 2013 were included. IFU non-adherence was defined as any violation of device-specific IFU criteria and was compared to IFU adherence. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA ruptures, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including limb-related adverse events, and type Ia endoleaks. Secondarily, the aim was to study whether the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients were included, 144 (55.8%) of whom were treated according to the IFU criteria and 114 (44.2%) outside the criteria. In the IFU non-adherence group, all-cause mortality (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02-1.89, p = .037) and aneurysm-related mortality (HR 5.1, 95% CI 1.4-18.6, p = .015) were higher, as were the incidences of AAA ruptures (HR 5.4, 95 % CI 1.1-26.6, p = .036) and GRAEs (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.8, p = .025). No significant association was found between type Ia endoleak and neck-related IFU or limb-related adverse events and iliac-related IFU. However, neck length was a risk factor for a type Ia endoleak (HR 18.2, 95% CI 6.3-52.2, p < .001), aneurysm-related mortality (HR=8.7, 95% CI 1.8-41.6, p = .007), rupture (HR= 21.7, 95% CI 2.8-166, p = .003), and GRAEs (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.0-9.7, p < .001). An IFU violation regarding the neck angulation was also a risk factor for all-cause mortality (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.7, p = .032), aneurysm-related mortality (HR 7.6, 95% CI 1.4-42.8, p = .021), AAA rupture (HR 79.4, 95% CI 6.3-999, p = .001), and GRAEs (HR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9-9.5, p < .001). The prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU did not increase over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing EVAR outside the IFU has a negative effect on outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, ruptures, and graft-related adverse events. Neck angulation and neck length seem to be the most crucial aneurysm characteristics.

Meta-Analysis of the Crossed Versus Standard Limb Configuration in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the crossed-limb technique confers better or worse clinical outcomes compared to the standard straight limb configuration in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR with the crossed versus standard limb configuration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched in March 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Summary estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. Random-effects models were employed.

RESULTS

Four observational studies qualified for inclusion, reporting a total of 1132 patients. All presented contemporary experiences. Baseline clinical characteristics were largely similar between patients with and without the crossed-limb configuration, but the anatomy tended to be less favourable in patients treated with the crossed-limb technique. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcomes: limb occlusion (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 - 3.19), type Ib endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.04), type III endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 - 0.03); or secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.03), type Ia endoleak (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.02), type II endoleak (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 - 3.74), procedure duration (MD 18.07 min, 95% CI -1.14-37.29). Inconsistency across studies was low for all outcomes. The studies were judged to be of high quality on the NOS. The main bias identified using the ROBINS-I tool was due to confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

The crossed-limb technique was not found to confer inferior clinical outcomes in the medium term compared to the standard limb configuration in patients who undergo standard EVAR.

Use of the AFX Stent Graft in Patients with Extremely Narrow Aortic Bifurcation: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Introduction

This study analyzed the patient outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic pathologies with very narrow aortic bifurcations using the AFX stent graft.

Methods

The data was retrieved from the archived medical records of 35 patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (48.6%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) (51.4%) with very narrow aortic bifurcation between January 2013 and May 2020. Patient survival, freedom from endoleak (EL), and limb occlusion were estimated applying the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 20.4 ± 22.8 months. The mean aortic bifurcation diameter was 15.8 ± 2.2 mm. Technical success was 100%, and no procedure-related deaths occurred. Two type II ELs occurred within 30-day follow-up. We observed one common iliac artery stenosis at four months and one type III EL at 54 months in the same patient, both of which required re-intervention. Overall patient survival was 95 ± 5% (AAA: 100%; PAU: 89 ± 10%), freedom from limb occlusion was 94 ± 5% (AAA: 91 ± 9%; PAU: 100%), freedom from type II EL was 94 ± 4% (AAA: 88 ± 8%; PAU: 100%), and freedom from EL type III was 83 ± 15% (AAA: 80 ± 18%; PAU: 100%) at the end of the follow-up period.

Conclusions

Very narrow aortic bifurcations may predispose patients to procedure-related complications following EVAR. Our results suggest a safe use of the AFX stent graft in such scenarios. The overall short- and long-term procedure-related patient outcomes are satisfying albeit they may seem superior for PAU when compared to AAA.

Use of Chimney Technique Does Not Improve the Outcome of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With a Hyperangulated and Short Proximal Aortic Neck

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that extending the proximal landing zone with the chimney technique could be beneficial in patients with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck, defined as more > 60 degrees.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of prospectively collected data of patients treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic aneurysm with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck. In all, 104 out of 130 patients were treated without (Group A) and 24 with the chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR, Group B). Primary outcome was technical and clinical success according to the reporting standards of the Society of Vascular Surgery.

RESULTS

The use of the chimney technique was associated with a significantly longer operation duration (167 vs. 93 min, p < .001), longer fluoroscopy time (44 vs.30 min, p = < .001), and larger amount of contrast medium used (149 vs. 127 ml, p = .03) but did not significantly improve technical (79.2% vs. 87.7%) and clinical success (54.2% vs. 68.9%). Aneurysm-related mortality was higher in group B (8.3% vs. = 0%, p < .001). Type IA endoleak was high in both groups at completion angiography (11.3% in Group A vs. 12.5% in Group B) and at follow-up (10.4% in Group A vs. 4.5% in Group B) without significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data did not show a benefit of the primary use of the chimney technique in patients with a hyperangulated and short neck, although more studies are required to support this conclusion. Other strategies or new technologies are required for improving EVAR results in aneurysm patients with severe angulated proximal and short neck.

Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Young and Low Surgical Risk Patients in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

PURPOSE

To investigate early- and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in young and low surgical risk patients.

METHODS

The global registry for endovascular aortic treatment (GREAT) was queried for all patients with AAA undergoing standard EVAR; patients were excluded if had previous AAA repair or underwent concomitant procedures. Young patients were defined if age <60; surgical risk was assessed through the validated Medicare perioperative risk score (MPRS) based on age, sex, renal function, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Patients were classified as low (MPRS<3), average (MPRS 3-11), or high (MPRS>11) risk. Young versus older patients and low-risk versus average/high-risk patients were compared. The primary endpoints were early (30 days) major adverse events (MAEs), 5-year freedom from overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and freedom from device-related reinterventions. Time-to-event endpoints were calculated by Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of 3217 included patients, 182 (6%) were <60 years old, 956 (30%) had a low surgical risk, 1561 (49%) an average risk, 700 (22%) a high risk. Young patients had a less angulated proximal neck (27.2±18.4° vs 30.9±21.5°; p=0.05); in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients, a longer neck length (3±1.8 vs 2.8±1.4 cm; p=0.01) and lower neck angulation (29.7±21.8° vs 33.2±22.2°; p=0.01) were present. Young age alone had no significant impact on early mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p=0.62.) and MAEs (3.9% vs 6.1%; p=0.20), while these were significantly lower in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients (early mortality: 0.1% vs 0.7%, p=0.04; MAEs: 4.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.005). At 5 years, overall survival was significantly higher in young (88% vs 76%; p<0.001) and lower-risk (77% vs 54%; p<0.001) patients; low-risk patients also had significantly decreased aortic-related mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.04) and reintervention rates (6% vs 11%; p=0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.42) and reintervention rate (10% vs 10%; p=1.00) between young and older patients.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world registry, EVAR was more often offered in cases with suitable anatomy in young and low-risk patients. Low operative risk, rather than young age alone, predicted excellent early outcomes and low 5-year mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.

Prognostic Role of Severe Infrarenal Aortic Neck Angulation in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether patients with severe infrarenal aortic neck angulation have worse outcomes than those without severe angulation after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

DATA SOURCES

The HDAS (Healthcare Database Advanced Search) interface developed by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) was used to search electronic bibliographic databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies comparing outcomes of standard EVAR in patients with and without severe neck angulation were considered. Pooled outcome estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method, as appropriate. Random effects models of meta-analysis were applied. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies reporting a total of 7 371 patients (1 576 with severe neck angulation and 5 795 without) were included. The studies reported medium term follow up. No statistically significant difference was found for the primary outcomes (overall mortality: HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.88 - 1.85, low certainty; aneurysm related mortality: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 - 1.44, moderate certainty; aneurysm rupture: HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.66 - 2.99, low certainty). The hazard of type Ia endoleak (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32 - 2.61) and re-intervention was higher in patient with severe angulation (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.54), but there was no significant difference in the odds of adjunctive procedures (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.48 - 3.11), or the hazard of sac expansion (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 - 1.55) or stent migration (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.78 - 1.92). Meta-analysis of studies that conducted multiple Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference for any of the primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Severe neck angulation may not be a poor prognostic indicator for overall/aneurysm related mortality and rupture in the medium term after EVAR but may increase the risk of late type 1 endoleaks and re-intervention; therefore, patients require close surveillance.

Aortic endograft sizing and endoleak, reintervention, and mortality following endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endograft sizing for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is not consistent despite published instructions for use (IFU). We sought to identify factors associated with over/undersizing, determine sex influence on sizing, and examine sizing effects on endoleak, reintervention, and mortality by analyzing data obtained from the W.L. Gore & Associates Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT).

METHODS

All patients enrolled in GREAT undergoing EVAR were included for analysis. Proximal/distal aortic landing zones were compared with device implanted to assess sizing as related to IFU. χ²/Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate associations between IFU sizing and demographics. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify predictors of outside IFU sizing. Cox proportional hazards regression analyzed the relationship between sizing and endoleak, device-related reinterventions, and all-cause/aortic mortality.

RESULTS

There were 3607 EVAR subjects enrolled in GREAT as of March 2020. Of them, 1896 (53%) were within IFU for sizing, 791 (22%) were oversized, 540 (15%) were undersized, and 380 (10%) had both over- and undersized components. Factors predictive of use outside of IFU included female sex (P = .001), non-white race (P = .0003), decreased proximal neck length (P < .061), or larger iliac diameters (P < .0001). Women were more likely than men to have proximal neck undersizing and iliac limb oversizing, and men were more likely to have iliac limb undersizing. On multivariate analysis, undersizing of the proximal graft was associated with endoleak (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8) and aortic (HR, 60.5) and all-cause (HR, 18.0) mortality. Undersizing of iliac limbs was associated with endoleak (HR, 1.5) and device-related reintervention (HR, 1.4). Iliac limb outside IFU sizing was associated with aortic (HR, 2.6) and all-cause (HR, 1.3) mortality. Proximal and distal oversizing was not associated with adverse outcomes. Female sex was associated with mortality on univariate but not multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing EVAR with GORE EXCLUDER abdominal aortic aneurysm Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz) are more likely to have proximal stent-graft undersizing and iliac limb oversizing, whereas men are more likely to have undersized iliac limbs. Proximal aortic graft undersizing is associated with endoleak and all-cause/aortic mortality, whereas undersizing of iliac limbs is associated with endoleak and device-related reintervention. Oversizing was not associated with adverse outcomes.

Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the well-documented perioperative survival advantage of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair would be sustained during follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review conforming to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement standards was conducted to identify studies that had reported the follow-up outcomes of endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE [medical literature analysis and retrieval system online], Embase [Excerpta Medica database], CINAHL [cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature], and CENTRAL [Cochrane central register of controlled trials]) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom). A time-to-event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method, and the results were reported as summary hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mixed effects regression was applied to investigate the outcome changes over time. The quality of the body of evidence was appraised using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) system.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies reporting a total of 31,383 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean follow-up duration across the studies ranged from 232 days to 4.9 years. The overall all-cause mortality was significantly lower after EVAR than after open repair (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). However, the postdischarge all-cause mortality was not significantly different (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43). The aneurysm-related mortality, which was reported by one randomized controlled trial, was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). Meta-regression showed the mortality difference in favor of EVAR was more pronounced in more recent studies (P = .069) and recently treated patients (P = .062). The certainty for the body of evidence for overall and postdischarge all-cause mortality was judged to be low and that for aneurysm-related mortality to be high.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR showed a sustained mortality benefit during follow-up compared with open repair. A wider adoption of an endovascular-first strategy is justified.

An update on the improvement of patient eligibility with the use of new generation endografts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms

PURPOSE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), performed within device instructions for use (IFU), offers improved outcomes. New endograft designs attempt to increase eligibility rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients treated within device IFU. We aim to examine the anatomic suitability of the Ovation endograft in our AAA patients and compare it with the other contemporary devices.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Three-hundred and seven consecutive elective AAA patients treated during a 5-year period were included. Patient-specific anatomic characteristics were based on endograft IFUs to determine eligibility rates of each system.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-twenty-five patients underwent EVAR and 82 open surgery. Ineligibility for device implantation was significantly lower for the Ovation iX system (32%) compared to other devices (AFX-2:49%, Altura:49%, Anaconda:54%, Endurant II:46%, Excluder:52%, Excluder Conformable:39%, Incraft:43%, E-Tegra:52%, Zenith-Alpha:52%; P-Value<0.001). The Alto system (next-generation Ovation) achieved an even lower ineligibility rate of 30% (P = 0.008). Short proximal aortic neck length followed by access vessel inadequacy were the primary reasons for ineligibility.

CONCLUSION

The Ovation-iX included more patients with anatomic characteristics within device IFUs resulting in improved eligibility rates compared with the rest of contemporary devices. Its evolution, the Alto system, further improves patient eligibility due to the inclusion of shorter aortic necks.

EXPERT OPINION

The Ovation iX system presented a significantly better performance and was eligible for use in a greater number of patients in our series of elective AAA repairs, accommodating patient-specific aortic anatomies. Of course, performing EVAR within the endograft's IFU is important to achieve optimal and durable outcomes. The proximal neck length followed by the size of the access vessels are the two more common factors resulting in loss of eligibility. Except for overall eligibility rates, a case by case decision must be made on which is the most suitable device for each patient, based on the specific characteristics of its unique anatomy.