A stable aneurysm sac after endovascular aneurysm repair as a predictor for mortality, an in-depth analysis

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysms offers mid-term survival advantage

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of 1-year changes in aneurysm sac diameter on patient survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of patients enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study investigating FB-EVAR (2013-2022). Patients with sequential follow up computed tomography scans at baseline and 6 to 18 months after FB-EVAR were included in the analysis. Aneurysm sac diameter change was defined as the difference in maximum aortic diameter from baseline measurements obtained in centerline of flow. Patients were classified as those with sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) or failure to regress (<5 mm or expansion) according to sac diameter change. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were aortic-related mortality (ARM), aortic aneurysm rupture (AAR), and aorta-related secondary intervention.

RESULTS

There were 549 patients treated by FB-EVAR. Of these, 463 patients (71% male, mean age, 74 ± 8 years) with sequential computed tomography imaging were investigated. Aneurysm extent was thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in 328 patients (71%) and abdominal aortic aneurysms in 135 (29%). Sac shrinkage occurred in 270 patients (58%) and failure to regress in 193 patients (42%), including 19 patients (4%) with sac expansion at 1 year. Patients from both groups had similar cardiovascular risk factors, except for younger age among patients with sac shrinkage (73 ± 8 years vs 75 ± 8 years; P < .001). The median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range, 18-51 months). The 5-year survival estimate was 69% ± 4.1% for the sac shrinkage group and 46% ± 6.2% for the failure to regress group. Survival estimates adjusted for confounders (age, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and aneurysm extent) revealed a higher hazard of late mortality in patients with failure to regress (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.52; P = .005). The 5-year cumulative incidences of ARM (1.1% vs 3.1%; P = .30), AAR (0.6% vs 2.6%; P = .20), and aorta-related secondary intervention (17.0% ± 2.8% vs 19.0% ± 3.8%) were both comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year is common after FB-EVAR and is associated with improved patient survival, whereas sac enlargement affects only a minority of patients. The low incidences of ARM and AAR indicate that failure to regress may serve as a surrogate marker for nonaortic-related death.

One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sacs with polyurethane shape memory polymer (SMP) devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), using a technique to fully treat the target lumen after endograft placement (aortic flow volume minus the endograft volume). SMP devices self-expand in the sac to form a porous scaffold that supports thrombosis throughout its structure.

METHODS

Two identical prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies were conducted in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The study population was adult candidates for elective EVAR of an infrarenal AAA (diameter of ≥55 mm in men and ≥50 mm in women). Key exclusion criteria were an inability to adequately seal a common iliac artery aneurysm, patent sac feeding vessels of >4 mm, and a target lumen volume of <20 mL or >135 mL. Target lumen volumes were estimated by subtracting endograft volumes from preprocedural imaging-based flow lumen volumes. SMP devices were delivered immediately after endograft deployment via a 6F sheath jailed in a bowed position in the sac. The primary efficacy end point was technical success, defined as filling the actual target lumen volume with fully expanded SMP at the completion of the procedure. Secondary efficacy outcome measures during follow-up were the change in sac volume and diameter, rate of type II endoleak and type I or III endoleaks, and the rate of open repair and related reinterventions, with data collection at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year (to date). Baseline sac volumes and diameters for change in sac size analyses were determined from 30-day imaging studies. Baseline and follow-up volumes were normalized by subtraction of the endograft volume.

RESULTS

Of 34 patients treated with SMP devices and followed per protocol, 33 patients were evaluable at 1 year. Preprocedural aneurysm volume was 181.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 150.7-212.1 mL) and preprocedural aneurysm diameter was 60.8 mm (95% CI, 57.8-63.9 mm). The target lumen volume was 56.3 mL (95% CI, 46.9-65.8 mL). Technical success was 100% and the ratio of SMP fully expanded volume to estimated target lumen volume was 1.4 ± 0.3. Baseline normalized sac volume and diameter were 140.7 mL (95% CI, 126.6-154.9 mL) and 61.0 mm (95% CI, 59.7-62.3 mm). The adjusted mean percentage change in normalized volume at 1 year was -28.8% (95% CI, -35.3 to -22.3%; P < .001). The adjusted mean change in sac diameter at 1 year was -5.9 mm (95% CI, -7.5 to -4.4 mm; P < .001). At 1 year, 81.8% of patients (95% CI, 64.5%-93.0%) achieved a ≥10% decrease in normalized volume and 57.6% of patients (95% CI, 39.2%-74.5%) achieved a ≥5 mm decrease in diameter. No device- or study procedure-related major adverse events occurred through 1 year after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of AAA sacs with SMP devices during EVAR resulted in significant sac volume and diameter regression at 1 year with an acceptable safety profile in this prospective study.

Aneurysm Sac Dynamics and its Prognostic Significance Following Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess aneurysm sac dynamics and its prognostic significance following fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing F/BEVAR for degenerative complex aortic aneurysm from 2008 to 2020 at two large vascular centres with two imaging examinations (30 day and one year) were included. Patients were categorised as regression and non-regression, determined by the proportional volume change (> 5%) at one year compared with 30 days. All cause mortality and freedom from graft related events were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Factors associated with non-regression at one year and aneurysm sac volume over time were examined for FEVAR and BEVAR independently using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed effects modelling.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five patients were included: 122 FEVAR, of whom 34% did not regress at one year imaging (20% stable, 14% expansion); and 43 BEVAR, of whom 53% failed to regress (26% stable, 28% expansion). Following F/BEVAR, after risk adjusted analysis, non-regression was associated with higher risk of all cause mortality within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 - 5.37; p = .032) and higher risk of graft related events within five years (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10 - 5.26; p = .029). Following multivariable logistic regression, previous aortic repair (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% CI 1.11 - 5.96; p = .029) and larger baseline aneurysm diameter (OR/mm 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.09; p = .037) were associated with non-regression at one year, whereas smoking history was inversely associated with non-regression (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.96; p = .045). Overall following FEVAR, aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly up to two years (baseline vs. two year, 267 [95% CI 250 - 285] cm3vs. 223 [95% CI 197 - 248] cm3), remaining unchanged thereafter. Overall following BEVAR, aneurysm sac volume remained stable over time.

CONCLUSION

Like infrarenal EVAR, non-regression at one year imaging is associated with higher five year all cause mortality and graft related events risks after F/BEVAR. Following FEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs generally displayed regression (66% at one year), whereas after BEVAR for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs displayed a concerning proportion of growth at one year (28%), potentially suggesting a persistent risk of rupture and consequently requiring intensified surveillance following BEVAR. Future studies will have to elucidate how to improve sac regression following complex EVAR, and whether the high expansion risk after BEVAR is due to advanced disease extent.

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.

Factors associated with all-cause mortality following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background: Knowledge of factors that influence all-cause mortality after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) could improve therapeutic strategies post-EVAR and thus patient prognosis. Our study aimed to evaluate the association between sociodemographic information, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, treatment, selected anatomical and genetic factors and all-cause mortality post-EVAR. Patients and methods: We reviewed all patients who had undergone elective EVAR for non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) between January 2010 and December 2019. AAA size (maximum diameter and volume) was measured using CT-angiography. Sac expansion was defined as at least 5 mm increase, sac regression as at least 5 mm decrease in the sac diameter determined at 36±3 months post-EVAR in relation to pre-EVAR AAA diameter. Adjustments were performed for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, sex, smoking, number of lumbar arteries, patency of inferior mesenteric artery and number of reinterventions post-EVAR. Results: One hundred and sixty-two patients (150 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 72.6±7.3 years were included in the analysis. Pre-EVAR AAA diameter (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.12; p=0.001), pre-EVAR AAA volume (HR 1.01; 95% CI 1.002 - 1.011; p=0.008), post-EVAR sac diameter (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.10; p=0.000), post-EVAR sac volume (HR 1.01; 95% CI 1.002 - 1.011; p=0.006) and anticoagulation therapy (HR 2.46; 95% CI 1.18 - 5.14; p=0.019) were associated with higher mortality in multivariate analysis. Sac regression (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22 - 0.82; p=0.011), and treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36 - 0.97; p=0.047) were associated with lower mortality. Conclusions: Greater pre- and post-EVAR diameter and volume, failure of sac regression and anticoagulation were associated with higher mortality post-EVAR. Reduced mortality was observed in patients treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and in patients with AAA sac regression.

Impact of patient demographics and intraoperative characteristics on abdominal aortic aneurysm sac following endovascular repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Its main aim is to seal the perfusion of the aneurysmal sac and, thus, induce sac regression and subsequent aortic remodelling. Aneurysmal sac regression has been linked to the short- and long-term clinical outcomes post-EVAR. It has also been shown to be influenced by endograft device choice, with several of these available commercially. This review summarises and discusses current evidence on the influence of pre- and intraoperative factors on sac regression. Additionally, this review aims to highlight the device-specific variations in sac regression to provide an overall holistic approach to treating AAAs with EVAR.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases to identify and extract relevant data.

RESULTS

Female sex, >70 mm original sac diameters, higher pre-procedural fibrinogen levels, smoking and low intra-aneurysmal pressure were found to positively impact sac regression. Whereas renal impairment, ischemic heart disease, high intra-aneurysmal pressure and aneurysm neck thrombus negatively influenced sac regression. Patent lumbar arteries, age, statins and hypercholesterolaemia displayed conflicting evidence regarding sac regression. Regarding the EVAR endografts compared, newer generation devices such as the Anaconda mainly showed the most optimal results.

CONCLUSION

Sac regression following EVAR in AAA is an important prognostic factor for morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, several pre- and intraoperative factors can have an influence on sac regression. Therefore, it is necessary to take them into account when assessing AAA patients for EVAR to optimise outcomes. The choice of EVAR stent-graft can also affect sac regression, with evidence suggesting that the Fenestrated Anaconda is associated with the most favourable results.

Characterization and management of type II and complex endoleaks after fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Endoleaks are more common after fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) than infrarenal EVAR secondary to the length of aortic coverage and number of component junctions. Although reports have focused on type I and III endoleaks, less is known regarding type II endoleaks after F/B-EVAR. We hypothesized that type II endoleaks would be common and often complex (associated with additional endoleak types), given the potential for multiple inflow and outflow sources. We sought to describe the incidence and complexity of type II endoleaks after F/B-EVAR.

METHODS

F/B-EVAR data prospectively collected at a single institution in an investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210) were retrospectively analyzed (2014-2021). Endoleaks were characterized by type, time to detection, and management. Primary endoleaks were defined as those present on completion imaging or at first postoperative imaging, and secondary were those on subsequent imaging. Recurrent endoleaks were those that developed after a successfully resolved endoleak. Reinterventions were considered for type I or III endoleaks or any endoleak associated with sac growth >5 mm. Technical success defined as the absence of flow in the aneurysm sac at procedure conclusion and methods of intervention were captured.

RESULTS

Among 335 consecutive F/B-EVARs (mean ± standard deviation follow-up: 2.5 ± 1.5 years), 125 patients (37%) experienced 166 endoleaks (81 primary, 72 secondary, and 13 recurrent). Of these 125 patients, 50 (40% of patients) underwent 71 interventions for 60 endoleaks. Type II endoleaks were the most frequent (n = 100, 60%), with 20 identified during the index procedure, 12 (60%) of which resolved before 30-day follow-up. Of the 100 type II endoleaks, 20 (20%; 12 primary, 5 secondary, and 3 recurrent) were associated with sac growth; 15 (75%) of those with associated sac growth underwent intervention. At intervention, 6 (40%) were reclassified as complex, with a concomitant type I or type III endoleak. Initial technical success for endoleak treatment was 96% (68 of 71). There were 13 recurrences, all of which were associated with complex endoleaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of the patients who underwent F/B-EVAR experienced an endoleak. The majority were classified as type II, with nearly a fifth associated with sac expansion. Interventions for a type II endoleak frequently led to reclassification as complex, with a concomitant type I or III endoleak not appreciated on computed tomography angiography and/or duplex. Further study is needed to determine if the primary treatment goal for complex aneurysm repair is sac stability or sac regression, as this would inform both the importance of properly classifying endoleaks noninvasively and the intervention threshold for managing type II endoleaks.

Biomechanics and Early Sac Regression after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background

Sac regression after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is regarded as a marker of successful response to treatment. Several factors influence sac behavior after EVAR, yet little is known about the value of preoperative biomechanics. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in aortic biomechanics between patients with and without sac regression.

Methods

Patients treated with standard EVAR for infrarenal AAA at the Karolinska University Hospital between 2009 and 2012 with one preoperative and a minimum of two postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans were considered for inclusion in this single-center retrospective cohort study. Biomechanical indices such as AAA wall stress and wall stress-strength ratio as well as intraluminal thrombus (ILT) thickness and stress were measured preoperatively in A4ClinicRE (VASCOPS GmbH). AAA diameter and volume were analyzed on preoperative, 30-day, and 1-year CTAs. Patients were dichotomized based on sac regression, defined as a ≥ 5 mm decrease in maximal AAA diameter between the first two postoperative CTA scans. Multivariable logistic regression was used for analysis of factors associated with early sac regression.

Results

Of the 101 patients treated during the inclusion period, 64 were included. Thirty-nine (61%) demonstrated sac regression and 25 (39%) had a stable sac or sac increase. The mean patients age (73 years vs 76 years), male sex (85% vs 96%), and median AAA diameter (58 mm vs 58.5 mm) did not differ between patients with and without sac regression. Although no difference in preoperative biomechanics was seen between the groups, multivariable logistic regression revealed that a larger AAA diameter (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.51; P = .009) and smoking (OR, 22.1; 95% CI, 2.78-174; P = .003) were positively associated with sac regression. In contrast, the lumen diameter (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .023), ILT thickness (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .013), aspirin or direct-acting oral anticoagulant use (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.61; P = .012), and mean ILT stress (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.87; P = .024) showed a negative association. Patients with sac regression had fewer reinterventions (log-rank P = .010) and lower mortality (log-rank P = .012) at the 5-year follow-up.

Conclusions

This study, characterizing preoperative biomechanics in patients with and without sac regression, demonstrated a negative association between mean ILT stress and ILT thickness with a change in sac diameter after EVAR. Given that the ILT is a highly dynamic entity, further studies focusing on the role of the thrombus are needed. Furthermore, patients presenting with early sac regression had improved outcomes after EVAR.