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.

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.

Targeted proteomics and metabolomics for biomarker discovery in abdominal aortic aneurysm and post-EVAR sac volume

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients undergo uniform surveillance programs both leading up to, and following surgery. Circulating biomarkers could play a pivotal role in individualizing surveillance. We applied a multi-omics approach to identify relevant biomarkers and gain pathophysiological insights.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 108 AAA patients and 200 post-endovascular aneurysm repair (post-EVAR) patients were separately investigated. We performed partial least squares regression and ingenuity pathway analysis on circulating concentrations of 96 proteins (92 Olink Cardiovascular-III panel, 4 ELISA-assays) and 199 metabolites (measured by LC-TQMS), and their associations with CT-based AAA/sac volume.

RESULTS

The median (25th-75th percentile) maximal diameter was 50.0 mm (46.0, 53.0) in the AAA group, and 55.4 mm (45.0, 64.2) in the post-EVAR group. Correcting for clinical characteristics in AAA patients, the aneurysm volume Z-score differed 0.068 (95 %CI: (0.042, 0.093)), 0.066 (0.047, 0.085) and -0.051 (-0.064, -0.038) per Z-score valine, leucine and uPA, respectively. After correcting for clinical characteristics and orthogonalization in the post-EVAR group, the sac volume Z-score differed 0.049 (0.034, 0.063) per Z-score TIMP-4, -0.050 (-0.064, -0.037) per Z-score LDL-receptor, -0.051 (-0.062, -0.040) per Z-score 1-OG/2-OG and -0.056 (-0.066, -0.045) per Z-score 1-LG/2-LG.

CONCLUSIONS

The branched-chain amino acids and uPA were related to AAA volume. For post-EVAR patients, LDL-receptor, monoacylglycerols and TIMP-4 are potential biomarkers for sac volume. Additionally, distinct markers for sac change were identified.

Circulating biomarkers of cardiovascular disease are related to aneurysm volume in abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Surveillance programs in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are mainly based on imaging and leave room for improvement to timely identify patients at risk for AAA growth. Many biomarkers are dysregulated in patients with AAA, which fuels interest in biomarkers as indicators of disease progression. We examined associations of 92 cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related circulating biomarkers with AAA and sac volume.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional analysis, we separately investigated (1) 110 watchful waiting (WW) patients (undergoing periodic surveillance imaging without planned intervention) and (2) 203 patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The Cardiovascular Panel III (Olink Proteomics AB, Sweden) was used to measure 92 CVD-related circulating biomarkers. We used cluster analyses to investigate protein-based subphenotypes, and linear regression to examine associations of biomarkers with AAA and sac volume on CT scans.

RESULTS

Cluster analyses revealed two biomarker-based subgroups in both WW and EVAR patients, with higher levels of 76 and 74 proteins, respectively, in one subgroup versus the other. In WW patients, uPA showed a borderline significant association with AAA volume. Adjusting for clinical characteristics, there was a difference of -0.092 (-0.148, -0.036) loge mL in AAA volume per SD uPA. In EVAR patients, after multivariable adjustment, four biomarkers remained significantly associated with sac volume. The mean effects on sac volume per SD difference were: LDLR: -0.128 (-0.212, -0.044), TFPI: 0.139 (0.049, 0.229), TIMP4: 0.110 (0.023, 0.197), IGFBP-2: 0.103 (0.012, 0.194).

CONCLUSION

LDLR, TFPI, TIMP4, and IGFBP-2 were independently associated with sac volume after EVAR. Subgroups of patients with high levels of the majority of CVD-related biomarkers emphasize the intertwined relationship between AAA and CVD.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03703947.

Outcomes of Endurant II Stent Graft According to Anatomic Severity Grade Score

OBJECTIVES

This study's objective was to evaluate Endurant II (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) stent graft's early and midterm outcomes and compare the results according to the anatomic severity grade (ASG) scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients treated with the Endurant II stent graft between January 2013 and May 2021. The patients were divided into 2 independent groups, including those with a low ASG score (score <14) and a high ASG score (score >14).

RESULTS

A total of 165 consecutive patients (89% males, age 74±8 years) were included. There were 110 (67%) patients in the low-score group and 55 (33%) patients in the high-score group. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Primary clinical success at 30 days was 100% and at 1 year was 96%. Median operative time was longer in the high-score group with no statistical significance (133 vs 120 minutes, p=0.116). The median dose area product of low-score patients (50.9 Gy·cm2; IQR 22.4-75.5 Gy·cm2) was significantly lower than high-score patients (85.0 Gy·cm2; IQR 46.5-127.9 Gy·cm2) with p=0.025. Median fluoroscopic time was lower in low-score patients (17 minutes; IQR 13-24 minutes) compared with high-score patients (19 minutes; IQR 16-23 minutes) without a significant difference at p=0.148. At a midterm follow-up of 32 months (range 2-63 months), combined complications (29% vs 8%, p<0.001) and implant-related complications (13% vs 4%, p=0.043) were higher in the high-score group. Systemic complications at 30 days were higher in the high-score group without a statistically significant difference (15% vs 11%, p=0.500). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in the low-risk group at 1 (97% vs 90%), 2 (96% vs 88%), and 3 years (96% vs 85%) with (p=0.035). The cumulative survival rate was significantly higher in the low-score group than high-score group (p=0.001) at 1 (99% vs 87%), 2 (98% vs 85%), and 3 years (96% vs 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endurant II endovascular aneurysm repair seems to be safe in both low-score and high-score patients. However, patients in the high-score group showed more implant-related complications and midterm mortalities than those in the low-score group.

Outcomes of low- and standard-profile fenestrated and branched stent grafts for treatment of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcomes of fenestrated-branched (FB) endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using low-profile (LP) and standard-profile (SP) stent grafts for the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients (70% male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for the treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs (2013-2021). The endpoints compared between the patients treated with LP (18F-20F) and SP (20F-22F) devices included procedural metrics, access-related complications, major adverse events (MAE), patient survival, freedom from secondary intervention, thromboembolic events, stent graft integrity issues, aneurysm sac enlargement, and the rate of sac shrinkage.

RESULTS

Of the 466 aneurysms treated by FB-EVAR, 138 were CAAAs and 141 were extent IV and 187 extent I to III TAAAs, with a mean number of 3.9 ± 0.5 vessels stented per patient. LP devices had been used in 239 patients (51%) and SP devices in 227 patients (49%). LP devices had been used more frequently for chronic dissections (12% vs 7%; P = .041) and with preloaded systems (77% vs 65%; P = .005) and bilateral percutaneous femoral access (83% vs 74%; P = .020) and less frequently with upper extremity access (67% vs 88%; P < .001) and iliac conduits (2% vs 6%; P = .020). The patients treated using LP devices had experienced similar technical success (96% vs 97%; P = .527), with a shorter total operating time (225 ± 81 minutes vs 243 ± 78 minutes; P = .018), lower radiation exposure (median, 0.93 Gy; interquartile range [IQR], 0.94; vs median, 1.01 Gy; IQR, 0.91 Gy; P < .001), and less use of contrast (median, 135 mL; IQR, 68 mL; vs median, 144 mL; IQR, 80 mL; P = .008). No differences were found in the rates of iliofemoral access complications between the LP and SP device groups (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .107). At 30 days, 5 patients had died (1%) and MAEs had occurred in 89 patients (19%), with no differences between the two groups. The mean follow-up was 28 months (95% confidence interval, 25-30 months). At 4 years, the patients treated with LP devices had had similar freedom from all-cause mortality (69% ± 6% vs 68% ± 4%; P = .199), freedom from aortic-related mortality (97% ± 1% vs 98% ± 1%; P = .488), freedom from any secondary intervention (65% ± 6% vs 70% ± 4%; P = .433), freedom from thromboembolic events (98% ± 1% vs 99% ± 1%; P = .364) and aneurysm sac enlargement (93% ± 3% vs 91% ± 3%; P = .293). However, the LP group had had less freedom from any integrity-related issues (92% ± 5% vs 100%; P < .001). The cumulative risk of sac shrinkage was greater for patients treated with LP devices (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.040; 95% confidence interval, 1.516-2.744; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with low rates of mortality and MAEs, irrespective of the device profile. However, the procedures performed with LP devices had had less need for iliac conduits and had had better procedural metrics. The use of LP devices resulted in higher rates of sac shrinkage. However, the results on stent graft integrity require future investigation.

Pre-operative Aortic Neck Characteristics and Post-operative Sealing Zone as Predictors of Type 1a Endoleak and Migration After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Establishing the predictive value of neck characteristics and real achieved sealing zone is essential to foster risk stratified procedure selection and imaging surveillance. This systematic review provides an overview of pre-operative aortic neck characteristics and post-operative real achieved sealing zone and their respective risk of type 1a endoleak and migration after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In agreement with PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Data on neck characteristics, sealing zone, and EVAR outcome were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate the effect of neck diameter, angulation, and shape on type 1a endoleak (total, early ≤ 90 days, and late > 90 days) and migration in patients who underwent EVAR. A qualitative summary was also provided.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. Patients with a larger neck diameter had an increased risk of total type 1a endoleak (nine studies: OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.38 - 4.63), early type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.27 - 5.48), late type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.12 - 5.03), and migration (seven studies: OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.32 - 6.26). An angulated neck increased the risk of total type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.55 - 11.78) and late type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.19 - 14.13). Neck shape was not associated with type 1a endoleak. Neck length and real achieved sealing zone on post-EVAR computed tomography were identified as risk factors for type 1a endoleak and migration through qualitative summary.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be some consistent evidence that aortic neck diameter, angulation, and length are associated with the development of type 1a endoleak or migration. Real achieved sealing zone might be an important addition during follow up. However, a small number of studies, with serious limitations, could be included, and there was considerable variability in reporting patients and outcomes. A proposal for standardisation of aortic and EVAR data in future studies is provided.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Sac Expansion after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the sac changes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

Materials and We examined the aneurysm sac size initially and regularly after surgery in 157 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR in 2009-2019. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans were used as well as ultrasound images with non-enhanced CT scans in the patients with renal insufficiency. Sac expansion (SE) at 3 years was divided into two categories: progressive SE (PSE) defined as continuous sac enlargement of ≥5 mm on serial follow-up images at 1 and 3 years compared with the initial sac and delayed SE (DSE) defined as re-expansion of ≥5 mm compared with the regressed or stable sac at 1 year. The SE rate at 1 and 3 years and the risk factors for SE at 3 years were analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

During a median follow-up of 32.5 months, nine reinterventions in six patients were performed with open conversion (n=5) and endovascular repair (n=4). At 1 year, 112 patients underwent follow-up imaging. SE and sac regression were noted in 4 (3.6%) and 57 (50.9%) patients, respectively. Of the 64 patients with 3-year follow-up images, 16 (25%) exhibited SE (PSE [n=6] and DSE [n=10]). In the multivariable analysis, the risk factors for overall SE at 3 years were endoleaks at 1 year (P=0.006) and renal insufficiency (P=0.003).

Conclusion

During post-EVAR follow-up, patients with any endoleak at 1 year or renal insufficiency must be strictly monitored for SE development.