Do current results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair justify more widespread use?

Femorofemoral Crossover Bypass Graft Has Excellent Patency When Performed with EVAR for AAA with UIOD

OBJECTIVES

To compare the durability of the crossover femorofemoral bypass graft (CFFBG) in combination with aorto-uni-iliac stent graft (AUIS) for abdominal aortic aneurysm with the durability of CFFBG used in the treatment of unilateral iliac occlusive disease (UIOD).

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical records of 69 patients who underwent CFFBG from 1992 until 2010. Group I consisted of 34 patients who received CFFBGs in combination with AUIS. Group II consisted of 35 patients treated with CFFBG for UIOD. The mean period of follow up was 2.7 years. Outcomes analyzed included primary graft patency, secondary graft patency, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

There was one death in each group. Wound infection complicated 11.4% of CFFBGs performed as a sole procedure for UIOD and 5.8% of cases in combination with AUIS (P = 0.673). Primary graft patency was 96.5% and 96.5% at 2 and 5 years in group I, compared with 76.6% and 53.7% in group II (P = 0.046, 0.009). Secondary graft patency at 5 years was 100% and 92.9% for groups I and II, respectively. No variables independently influenced primary graft patency. Patients in group I experienced complications that could be linked to the bypass graft in 20.5% of cases, after long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The CFFBG possesses superior long-term durability and patency when implemented in combination with aorto-uni-iliac stent grafts and does not seem to compromise the endpoint success of endovascular treatment.

Long-term outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the first decade

OBJECTIVE

The proper role of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains controversial, largely due to uncertain late results. We reviewed a 12-year experience with EVAR to document late outcomes.

METHODS

During the interval January 7, 1994 through December 31, 2005, 873 patients underwent EVAR utilizing 10 different stent graft devices. Primary outcomes examined included operative mortality, aneurysm rupture, aneurysm-related mortality, open surgical conversion, and late survival rates. The incidence of endoleak, migration, aneurysm enlargement, and graft patency was also determined. Finally, the need for reintervention and success of such secondary procedures were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate methodology were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 75.7 years (range, 49-99 years); 81.4% were male. Mean follow-up was 27 months; 39.3% of patients had 2 or more major comorbidities, and 19.5% would be categorized as unfit for open repair. On an intent-to-treat basis, device deployment was successful in 99.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8%. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, freedom from AAA rupture was 97.6% at 5 years and 94% at 9 years. Significant risk factors for late AAA rupture included female gender (odds ratio OR, 6.9; P = 0.004) and device-related endoleak (OR, 16.06; P = 0.009). Aneurysm-related death was avoided in 96.1% of patients, with the need for any reintervention (OR, 5.7 P = 0.006), family history of aneurysmal disease (OR, 9.5; P = 0.075), and renal insufficiency (OR, 7.1; P = 0.003) among its most important predictors. 87 (10%) patients required reintervention, with 92% of such procedures being catheter-based and a success rate of 84%. Significant predictors of reintervention included use of first-generation devices (OR, 1.2; P < 0.01) and late onset endoleak (OR, 64; P < 0.001). Current generation stent grafts correlated with significantly improved outcomes. Cumulative freedom from conversion to open repair was 93.3% at 5 through 9 years, with the need for prior reintervention (OR, 16.7; P = 0.001) its most important predictor. Cumulative survival was 52% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR using contemporary devices is a safe, effective, and durable method to prevent AAA rupture and aneurysm-related death. Assuming suitable AAA anatomy, these data justify a broad application of EVAR across a wide spectrum of patients.

Laparoscopy-assisted abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Early and middle-term results of a consecutive series of 122 cases

BACKGROUND

Endoaneurysmorrhaphy with intraluminal graft placement, described by Creech, is the gold standard for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Endovascular aneurysm repair has gained popularity for its minimal invasiveness and satisfying short-term results, but there are still many concerns about the long-term success of the procedure. Since 1998, laparoscopic surgery has been proposed for AAA treatment. The potential benefits of a minimally invasive procedure reproducing the endoaneurysmorrhaphy results over time have been advocated. In our experience, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) has been routinely used for the open-surgery transperitoneal/retroperitoneal approach and for endovascular aneurysm repair. After 4 years, we are able to define the early and middle-term results of such laparoscopic-assisted treatment.

METHODS

From October 2000 to March 2004, 604 consecutive nonurgent AAAs were treated at our institution. Of these, 122 (20.2%) were treated by HALS. Exclusion criteria for HALS were hostile abdomen (previous major abdominal or aortic surgery), bilateral diffuse common iliac and/or hypogastric aneurysms, massive aortoiliac calcifications, and severe cardiac (ejection fraction <35%) and respiratory (P(O2) <60 mm Hg or carbon dioxide >50 mm Hg) insufficiency. Juxtarenal and proximal iliac aneurysms were not a contraindication, nor was obesity. In all patients, we performed a minilaparotomy (7-8 cm) both for laparoscopic hand-assisted dissection and for endoaneurysmorrhaphy. All perioperative data were prospectively recorded. Follow-up consisted of ultrasonography and clinical evaluation after 6 and 12 months and then every year after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean laparoscopic and total operative times were respectively 64 +/- 32 minutes and 257 +/- 70 minutes, the mean aortic cross-clamping time was 76 +/- 26 minutes, and the mean autotransfused blood volume was 1136 +/- 711 mL. The overall mortality and morbidity were respectively 0% and 12.2%. Morbidity was surgery related in only two cases (bleeding from an ipogastric artery lesion and a leg graft thrombosis). The mean intensive care unit stay was 14.3 +/- 13 hours. Oral food intake was resumed after 27.4 +/- 15 hours, and patients were discharged after a mean of 4.4 +/- 1.7 days. Operative times were not affected by obesity, suprarenal aortic cross-clamping, or aneurysm size. Both concomitant iliac aneurysms and bifurcated graft implantation (related to longer vascular reconstruction) involved significantly longer operative times. The learning curve of the procedure (comparing the first 30 patients with the last 92 patients) led to significantly shorter endoscopic, cross-clamping, and total operative times (P = .000). The mean follow-up was 28.6 +/- 16 months. Three incisional hernias and one case of bowel occlusion were detected. All these cases (3.4%) required laparoscopic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The HALS technique is a safe and minimally invasive treatment for AAA; it is useful for limiting the need for conventional open surgery and reducing the length of hospital stay. Despite the lack of randomized studies, HALS seems to be associated with a better postoperative course than standard open surgery. HALS can also be considered as an equivalent of a well-established procedure and as a bridge between open and total laparoscopic surgery.

Quality of Life after Endovascular and Open AAA Repair. Results of a Randomised Triala

AIM

To compare the quality of life (QoL) in the first postoperative year after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) in a randomised study.

METHODS

In the Dutch Randomised Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, patients are randomly allocated to EVAR or OR. QoL questionnaires (SF-36 and EuroQoL-5D) were sent to all patients preoperatively (PREOP) and at five time points in the first postoperative year (3W, 6W, 3M, 6M and 12M). Between November 1999 and August 2002, 153 patients (141 male; 12 female) were randomised (78 EVAR and 75 OR; one crossover from OR to EVAR). The EuroQoL-5D scores and the eight domains of the SF-36 for the two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Changes over time were analysed using the Wilcoxon sign test.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (age, gender and SVS risk factors). The preoperative QoL scores of the study group were similar to the QoL scores of the general population of the same age. After 3W the OR group showed a significant decrease on the EuroQol-5D (p=0.022) and in six of the eight SF-36 domains. The EVAR group also showed a significant decrease on the EuroQol-5D (p=0.004) and in 5 of the 8 domains of the SF-36. At 6W the EuroQol-5D had recovered to baseline in the OR group and the decreased domains of the SF-36 had partially recovered. In the EVAR group the EuroQol-5D and three of the five decreased SF-36 domains, had returned to baseline. From 6M on, the OR group reported a significantly higher score on the EuroQoL-5D than the EVAR group (p=0.045 (6M) and p=0.001 (12M)).

CONCLUSION

In the early postoperative period there is a small, yet significant QoL advantage for EVAR compared to OR. At 6 months and beyond, patients reported better QoL after OR than after EVAR.

Durability of aortouniiliac endografting with femorofemoral crossover: 4-year experience in the Evt/Guidant trials

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated mid-term results of the multicenter EVT/Guidant aortouniiliac endograft (AI) trial and ascertained the durability of this endovascular technique in patients unable to undergo standard bifurcated endografting.

METHODS

From November 1996 to December 1998, 121 patients were enrolled to receive the AI device on the basis of complex iliac artery anatomy contraindicating bifurcated endografting. Clinical data were centrally collected, and radiographic data were evaluated by core facility.

RESULTS

AI placement was technically successful in 113 of 121 patients. At operation, patients who underwent AI had significantly more arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, and peripheral occlusive disease (P <.05) compared with patients who underwent open aneurysmorrhaphy in the EVT/Guidant trials, indicating comorbid features in this anatomic cohort. Distal AI attachment was performed to the external iliac artery in 40 (36%) patients. Median follow-up was 38 months. In the AI group, overall aneurysm diameter decreased over the duration of study from 54.4 +/- 9.6 mm to 44.4 +/- 16.4 mm (P =.004). At 24 and 36 months after repair, reduction in aneurysm size was associated with absence of endoleak (P =.003 and P =.008, respectively). Aneurysms shrunk or remained stable in 109 (96.5%) patients. Endoleak was identified in 52.3% of patients at discharge, and at follow-up in 30.9% at 1 year, 34.8% at 2 years, 28.6% at 3 years, and 30.4% at 4 years. Type II endoleak predominated. Leak from failure to completely occlude contralateral iliac flow accounted for 8 of 58 endoleaks (13.8%) at discharge. Sixteen patients (14.2%) underwent postoperative endoleak treatment; in one of these patients open conversion was necessary at 20 months. Post-procedure thigh or buttock claudication developed in 16 patients (14.2%). Thirteen patients (81.3%) had either distal attachment in the external iliac artery or contralateral type IIA occlusion. Fifteen patients (13.3%) required intervention because of reduced limb flow; one of these patients underwent open conversion at 27 months, and another underwent axillofemoral grafting at 28 months. Device migration was confirmed in 2 (1.8%) patients, without current clinical sequelae. Whereas no femorofemoral graft thromboses occurred, graft infection developed in 3 patients (2.6%). During follow-up, aneurysm in 2 patients ruptured. Late death occurred in 41 patients (36.3%). Twenty-four patients (58.5%) died of cardiopulmonary disease; one death was endograft-related after aneurysm rupture; and one death was related to femorofemoral bypass infection. Actuarial survival was 78.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-86%) at 2 years and 63.4% (95% CI, 54%-73%) at 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with significant comorbid conditions and complex iliac anatomy unfavorable for bifurcated endografting, AI with femorofemoral bypass grafting is safe and effective. In most patients this endovascular option provides satisfactory mid-term results.

Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery

Decision-making in regard to elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) requires careful assessment of factors that influence rupture risk, operative mortality, and life expectancy. Individualized consideration of these factors in each patient is essential, and the role of patient preference is of increasing importance. It is not possible or appropriate to recommend a single threshold diameter for intervention which can be generalized to all patients. Based upon the best available current evidence, 5.5 cm is the best threshold for repair in an "average" patient. However, subsets of younger, good-risk patients or aneurysms at higher rupture risk may be identified in whom repair at smaller sizes is justified. Conversely, delay in repair until larger diameter may be best for older, higher-risk patients, especially if endovascular repair is not possible. Intervention at diameter <5.5 cm appears indicated in women with AAA. If a patient has suitable anatomy, endovascular repair may be considered, and it is most advantageous for older, higher-risk patients or patients with a hostile abdomen or other technical factors that may complicate standard open repair. With endovascular repair, perioperative morbidity and recovery time are clearly reduced; however, there is a higher reintervention rate, increased surveillance burden, and a small but ongoing risk of AAA rupture. There is no justification at present for different indications for endovascular repair, such as earlier treatment of smaller AAA. Until long-term outcome of endoluminal repair is better defined and results of randomized trials available, the choice between endovascular and open repair will continue to rely heavily on patient preference.