Open Conversion with Explantation of Stent Grafts After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is widely used worldwide, the fact that it is associated with increased rates of reintervention has been considered a problem. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of primary open AAA repair and open conversion with explantation of stent grafts after EVAR.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we enrolled 1,120 patients (open repair, n = 664; EVAR, n = 456) who underwent AAA repair at Kobe University from 1999 to 2019. Of the 664 patients who underwent open repair, 121 (patients who underwent primary open repair (POR) as a concomitant procedure and patients with ruptured AAA) were excluded from the study. The outcomes of POR were compared with those of open conversion with explantation of stent grafts.

RESULTS

Of the 543 patients who underwent open repair, 513 underwent POR and 30 underwent open conversion with explantation of stent grafts. The operation time for POR was significantly less than that for open conversion with explantation. During surgery, patients who underwent open conversion with explantation required significantly more transfusions of red cell concentrate, fresh frozen plasma, and platelet concentrate than those who underwent POR. Overall, 30 patients who underwent open conversion with explantation required a total of 48 reinterventions before surgery. Hospital mortality rates were 0.7% and 0% in the POR and open conversion with explantation groups, respectively (P = 0.62). Although overall survival at 5 years in the POR group was significantly better than that in the open conversion with explantation group (89.3 ± 1.7% vs. 79.5 ± 9.6%; P = 0.01), there were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the freedom from aortic event (hospital death, reintervention, and aortic death). According to the multivariate analysis, open conversion with explantation was not an independent risk factor for late death. There were 20 patients who were hesitant to undergo OCE, although we recommended OCE. In a subgroup analysis, the overall mean cost borne by patients who underwent EVAR was approximately 2.3 times higher compared with that borne by patients who underwent POR.

CONCLUSIONS

Although demanding, both early and long-term outcomes of OCE have been favorable in our present study. OCE is highly recommended in patients with persistent sac enlargement after EVAR.

Clinical presentation, operative management, and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II).

RESULTS

Of 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

LAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.

Two decades of experience in explantation and graft preserving strategies following primary endovascular aneurysm repair and lessons learned

Objectives

We aim to scrutinize our evolving re-intervention strategies following primary endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) - EVAR GORE SalvAge Fabric Technique (ARAFAT), aortic sac double breasting with endograft preservation, and stent-graft explantation.

Methods

We performed 1,555 aortic interventions over the study period, including 910 EVARs. Factors associated with the need for reintervention and the likelihood of chronic fabric fatigue failure (CFFF) were investigated. Using conventional and innovative diagnostic modalities with Prone contrASt enHanced computed tomography Angiography (PASHA), 136 endoleaks (ELs) were identified (15 type I, 98 type II; 18 type III; 5 type IV).

Results

Forty-four (4.84%) patients underwent re-intervention post-primary EVAR; 18 ARAFATs, 12 double breastings, and 14 explantations. Choice of re-intervention was based on patient fitness and mode of failure. Mean EL detection duration following primary EVAR was 53.3 ± 6.82 months, while mean time to re-intervention was 70.20 ± 6.98 months. The mean sac size before the primary EVAR and re-intervention was 6.00 ± 1.75 cm and 7.51 ± 1.94 cm, respectively. Polyester (61.40%) was the most commonly employed stent-graft material. Use of more than three modular stent-graft components (3.42 ± 1.31, p = 0.846); with the proximal stent-graft diameter of 31.6 ± 3.80 cm (p = 0.651) and the use of iliac limbs more than 17 mm (p = 0.364), all added together are contributing factors. We had one peri-operative mortality following explantation due to sepsis-induced multiorgan failure.

Conclusions

Our re-intervention strategies matured from stent graft explantation to graft preservation with endovascular relining of the stent-graft. Graft preservation with aortic sacotomy and double breasting were used to manage concealed ELs due to aortic hygroma.

Aortic intramural hematoma and classic aortic dissection: two sides of the same coin within the acute aortic syndrome for an interventional radiologist

Management of acute type B aortic intramural haematoma (AIH) still represents a challenging issue. Although most resolve spontaneously or with conservative therapy, several cases of AIH may complicate into classic aortic dissection with subsequent risk of aortic rupture and visceral malperfusion, thus needing urgent or preemptive thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). Despite the long-term aorta-related survival, TEVAR might lead to graft obstruction, migration, infection, stroke/paraplegia, visceral ischemia, endoleak and, last but not least, retrograde aortic dissection (AD), frequent in the acute phase and associated with a high mortality risk. In order to highlight such a close relationship between AIH and AD and the possibility to perform endovascular treatment, we report the experience of an adult female patient with an aortic intramural haematoma evolving into a classic aortic dissection. Despite successful thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR), our patient developed an aortic dissection type A at one month with subsequent indication for cardiac surgery still representing the elective approach in case of pathologies including the ascending aorta. Thus, the aim of our discussion is to create a debate on the most appropriate management for the treatment of descending AIH.

Longer follow-up intervals following EVAR are safe and appropriate after marked aneurysm sac regression

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) shrinkage after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a surrogate marker for successful exclusion. Our study characterized aneurysm sac remodeling after EVAR to identify a pattern that may be associated with benign AAA behavior and would safely allow a less rigorous follow-up regimen after EVAR.

METHODS

Elective infrarenal EVARs performed between 2008 and 2011 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. AAA sac diameters using the minor axis measurement from ultrasound imaging or computer tomography angiogram imaging were compared with the baseline diameter from the 1-month postoperative computer tomography angiogram. The primary outcome was a composite of freedom from postoperative reintervention or rupture. We compared those with AAA sacs who regressed to predefined minimum diameter thresholds with those who did not. Outcomes were plotted with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank testing and Fine-Gray regression using death as a competing risk, clustered on graft type. For patients whose AAA reached the minimum sac diameter, landmark analysis evaluated ongoing size changes including further regression and sac re-expansion.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients (aged 75.1 ± 8.2 years; 82.0% male) underwent EVAR with an average preoperative AAA size of 55.2 ± 11.5 mm. The median postoperative follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range, 1.4-8.7 years) during which 64 patients underwent reintervention and 4 ruptured. AAA sac regression to ≤40 mm in diameter was associated with improved freedom from reintervention or rupture overall (log-rank, P < .01), which was maintained after controlling for the competing risk of death (P < .01). In 376 patients (70%) whose aneurysm sac remained >40 mm, 99 reinterventions were performed on 63 patients. Of 166 (31%) patients whose sac regressed to ≤40 mm, only 1 patient required a reintervention, and no one ruptured. The mean time to a diameter of ≤40 mm was 2.3 ± 1.9 years. Only eight patients (5%) developed sac re-expansion to >45 mm; all but two occurred at least 3 years after initially regressing to ≤40 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-term follow-up, patients whose minimum AAA sac diameter regressed ≤40 mm after EVAR experienced a very low rate of reintervention, rupture, or sac re-expansion. Most sac re-expansion occurred at least 3 years after reaching this threshold and did not result in clinical events. Increasing follow-up frequency up to 3-year intervals once the AAA sac regresses to 40 mm would carry minimal risk of aneurysm-related morbidity.

Comparison of Early and Mid-Term Outcomes After Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With or Without Prior Infrarenal Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (F-BEVAR) of pararenal (PRAA)/thoracoabdominal (TAAA) aortic aneurysms in patients with or without prior endovascular/open (EVAR/OAR) infrarenal aortic repair.

METHODS

Data from consecutive F-BEVAR (2010-2019) at two high-volume aortic centers were retrospectively reviewed. Primary endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, and overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 30-day major adverse events (MAE), freedom from type I/III endoleaks, reinterventions, sac expansion, and target vessel (TV) primary patency.

RESULTS

A total of 222 consecutive patients were included for analysis; of these 58 (26.1%) had prior infrarenal repair (EVAR=33, OAR=25) and 164 (73.9%) had native PRAA/TAAA. At baseline, patients with prior infrarenal repair were older (mean age=75.1 vs 71.6 years, p=.005) and the proportion of females was lower (8.6% vs 29.3%, p=.002). Technical success was 97.8% (n=217) in the entire cohort, without any significant differences between study groups (94.8% vs 98.8%, p=.08). At 30 days, there were no significant differences between patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those without in rate of MAE (44.8% vs 54.9%, p=.59). The 5-year estimate of survival for those who underwent native aortic repair was 61.6%, versus 61.3% for those who had a previous repair (p=.67). The 5-year freedom from endoleaks I/III estimates were significantly lower in patients who had prior infrarenal repair as compared with patients undergoing treatment of native aneurysms (57.1% vs 66.1%, p=.03), mainly owing to TV-related endoleaks (ie, type IC and/or IIIC endoleaks). No significant differences were found between study groups in rates of reinterventions and TV primary patency. Five-year estimates of freedom from sac increase >5mm were significantly lower in patients who received F-BEVAR after previous infrarenal repair as compared with those who underwent treatment of native aneurysms (48.6% vs 77.5%, p=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR is equally safe and feasible for treatment of patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those undergoing treatment for native aneurysms. Increased rates of TV-related endoleaks were observed which could lead to lower freedom from aneurysm sac shrinkage during follow-up. Nevertheless, the 5-year rates of reinterventions and TV patency were similar, thereby indicating that overall effectiveness of treatment remained satisfactory at mid-term.

Early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair from the "Italian North-easT RegIstry of surgical Conversion AfTer Evar" (INTRICATE)

OBJECTIVE

To report the early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using data from a multicentric registry.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on consecutive patients undergoing OSC after failed EVAR at eight tertiary vascular units from the same geographic area in the North-East of Italy, from April 2005 to November 2019. Study endpoints included early and follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

144 consecutive patients were included in the study. Endoleaks were the most common indication for OSC (50.7%), with endograft infection (24.6%) and occlusion (21.9%) being the second most prevalent causes. The overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.9% (n=20); 32 patients (22.2%) experienced at least one major complication. Mean length of stay (LoS) was 13 ± 12.7 days. On multivariate logistic regression, age (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1-19, p= .02), renal clamping time (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p= .01), and suprarenal/celiac clamping (OR 6.66, 95% CI 1.81-27.1, p= .005) were identified as independent predictors of peri-operative major complications. Age was the only factor associated with peri-operative mortality at 30 days. Renal clamping time > 25 minutes had sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 70% in predicting the occurring of major adverse events (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.82). At 5 years, estimated survival was significantly lower for patients treated due to aortic rupture/dissection (28%, 95% CI 13-61), compared to patients in whom the indication for treatment was endoleak (54%, 95% CI 40-73), infection (53%, 95% CI 30-94), or thrombosis (82%, 95% CI 62-100; p= .0019). 5-year survival rates were significantly lower in patients who received emergent treatment (28%, 95% CI 14-55) as compared with those who were treated in urgent (67%, 95% CI 48-93) or elective setting (57%, 95% CI 43-76; p= .00026). Subjects who received suprarenal/celiac (54%, 95% CI 36-82) or suprarenal (46%, 95% CI 34-62) aortic cross-clamping had lower survival rates at 5 years than those whose aortic-cross clamp site was infrarenal (76%, 95% CI 59-97; p= .041). Using multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard, older age and emergency setting were independently associate with higher risk for overall 5 years mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

OSC after failed EVAR was associated with relatively high rates of early morbidity and mortality, particularly for emergency setting surgery. Endoleaks with secondary sac expansion were the main indication for OSC and suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was frequently required. Endograft infection and emergent treatment remained associated with poorer short-term and long-term survival.

Lessons Learned from Open Surgical Conversion after Failed Previous EVAR

BACKGROUND

Delayed open conversion (OpC) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming increasingly common worldwide. We reviewed our experience to characterize the perioperative spectrum of OpC repairs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional database to identify patients who underwent late OpC after failed EVAR was performed. Patient and aneurysm baseline characteristics, mechanism of failure, perioperative details, including type of repair/complications/survival, and late outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to January 2020, 38 male patients (mean age, 75 ± 7 years; range, 60-90) required late OpC. Interval time from initial EVAR to OpC was 63.6 ± 33.8 months (range, 17-120). Mean diameter of the aneurysms was 82.2 ± 22.1 mm before OpC compared with 62.9 ± 13 mm before endograft implantation. Mechanisms of failure were type Ia, Ib, II, and III endoleaks in 14 (36.8%), 9 (23.7%), 4 (10.5%), and 1 (2.6%) patient(s), respectively; infection in 3 (7.9%), leg ischemia in 2 (5.3%), and multiple causes in 5 (13.2%) patients. We observed 4 (10.5%) asymptomatic, 16 (42.1%) symptomatic, and 18 (47.3%) ruptured aneurysms. Four patients (10.5%) had stable contained ruptures, whereas the remaining 13 (34.2%) and 1 additional patient (2.6%) with aortoenteric fistula presented with hemorrhagic shock (class ≥II). Total endograft explantation, endograft preservation, or proximal/distal partial graft removal was performed in 16 (42.1%), 10 (26.3%), and 2 (5.2%)/9 (23.7%) of patients, respectively. Technical success was 100%, excluding an early postaortic clamping death. Overall, 30-day mortality was 21.1% (8 of 38) and significantly higher in patients with hemorrhagic shock or hemodynamic instability at presentation (P = 0.04 and P = 0.009, respectively) and in patients who had endografts with hooks/barbs or experiencing higher postoperative complication rate (P = 0.02 and P = 0.006, respectively). By definition, procedure success was 81.1%. Mean follow-up was 37.6 ± 39.8 months. By the end of the study, we recorded 11 deaths (2 were aneurysm related).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high technical success, OpC has a significant mortality in patients presenting with hemorrhagic shock and had active fixation endografts or experiencing high complication rate. Many other confounding factors may play a role.