Analysis of Outcomes After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With Abnormal Findings on the First Postoperative Computed Tomography Angiography

Friendly Neck Anatomy Does Not Prevent Neck-Related Adverse Events After EVAR

BACKGROUND

Life-long follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is costly and burdensome to the patient. Follow-up should be stratified based on the risk of EVAR failure. Aneurysm neck is thought to be the single most important risk factor. This study investigated neck anatomy as a predictor of neck-related adverse events after EVAR.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms between 2011 and 2016 (n = 222) who were followed with yearly imaging until December 2020. Hostile neck was defined as neck length ≤15 mm, width ≥28 mm, angulation ≥60°, calcification, or thrombus ≥50% of circumference or conical neck based on preoperative computed tomography angiography. Neck-related adverse event was defined as aneurysm rupture, any neck-related reintervention or type 1a endoleak during follow-up.

RESULTS

Ninety (41%) patients had hostile neck and 132 (59%) had friendly neck. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (1% vs. 1%, P = 0.78), major adverse events (20% vs. 16%, P = 0.43) or reinterventions during the hospital stay (8% vs. 4%, P = 0.20) between patients with hostile and friendly neck. Estimated survival at 1 year was 89 ± 3% for hostile neck and 95 ± 2% for friendly neck patients (P < 0.01). Five-year survival estimates were 51 ± 6% and 66 ± 4%, respectively. Aneurysm-related mortality was higher after 6 years in patients with hostile neck (P < 0.01). Twenty-four patients (11%) suffered neck-related adverse events with mean time-to-event of 3.3 ± 2.8 years; there were no differences between the groups stratified by neck anatomy. Incidentally, preoperative aneurysm diameter was found to be an independent risk factor for neck-related adverse events and aneurysm-related mortality; 53 patients (24%) had aneurysm diameter ≥70 mm, which was associated with nearly 4-fold risk of neck-related complications during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Friendly neck anatomy may not protect from neck-related adverse events after EVAR in the long-term. Especially patients with large aneurysms should be followed closely.

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.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.