1
|
Lopez-Espada C, Linares-Palomino J, Guerra Requena M, Serrano Hernando FJ, Iborra Ortega E, Fernández-Samos R, Zanabili Al-Sibbai A, González Cañas E, Rodriguez Sánchez JM, Zaragozá García JM, García León A, Manzano Grossi S, de Benito L, Gil Sala D, Revuelta Mariño L. Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Late Open Conversion in Patients With Adherence and Nonadherence to Instructions for Use Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. J Endovasc Ther 2023; 30:867-876. [PMID: 35735201 DOI: 10.1177/15266028221102658] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jose Linares-Palomino
- Vascular Surgery Unit, University Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
- Department of Surgery, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Elena González Cañas
- Vascular Surgery Unit, Corporació Sanitaria Parc Tauli de Sabadell, Sabadell, Spain
| | | | | | - Andrés García León
- Vascular Surgery Unit, University Hospital Virgen de Valme, Sevilla, Spain
| | | | - Luis de Benito
- Vascular Surgery Unit, University Hospital Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniel Gil Sala
- Vascular Surgery Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|