Improving Patient Compliance With Post-EVAR Surveillance May Prevent Late Rupture

Systematic review of reintervention with fenestrated or branched devices after failed previous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

A proximal seal extension, after previously failed standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been described using various endovascular techniques. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up for patients managed with endovascular methods after failed endovascular repair.

METHODS

The present systematic review followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement and was preregistered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42022350436). A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until June 15, 2022, was performed. Observational studies (2000-2022) and case series with at least five patients who had undergone fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) after failed EVAR were considered eligible. Technical success and mortality at 30 days and the mortality and reintervention rates during available follow-up had to have been reported. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was technical success and mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 2558 reports. Ten studies were considered eligible, two of which were prospective. A total of 423 patients had undergone F/BEVAR after failed EVAR. The indication for reintervention was the presence of a type Ia endoleak in 44.9%. Technical success was reported in seven studies, and 319 of 336 interventions were considered successful (94.9%), according to each study's criteria. Of the 423 patients, 10 had died within 30 days (2.4%). Seven patients had presented with spinal cord ischemia (2.4%). Twenty-three acute kidney injury events were reported (6.8%). The mean follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-77 months). During follow-up, 47 deaths were reported (14.8%). Finally, 50 reinterventions of 303 procedures (16.5%) had been performed.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after failed EVAR can be performed with high technical success and low mortality during the perioperative period. The midterm mortality and reintervention rates were acceptable. However, further data are needed to provide firm conclusions regarding the safety and durability of F/BEVAR after failed 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.

Survival, reintervention and surveillance reports: long-term, centre-level evaluation and feedback of vascular interventions

The combination of registry and administrative claims data have facilitated research and quality improvement efforts. Using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry data and Medicare claims we have generated centre-specific survival, reintervention and surveillance reports which benchmark participating centres' performance to the VQI as a whole and to published guidelines. In 2021, we distributed these reports to 303 participating centres. These reports offer an opportunity for centres to evaluate their performance and identify focus areas for quality improvement work.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus endovascular repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment

OBJECTIVE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population.

METHODS

We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques.