National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Standard Descending Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Optimisation Strategies

OBJECTIVE

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has highlighted the large number of medical specialties that use fluoroscopy outside diagnostic imaging departments without radiation protection programmes for patients and staff. Vascular surgery is one of these specialties. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a complicated procedure requiring radiation protection guidance and optimisation. The recent EU Basic Safety Standards Directive requires the use and periodic updating of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional procedures. The aim of this study was to determine doses for patients undergoing TEVAR with mobile Xray systems and hybrid rooms (fixed Xray systems) to obtain national DRLs and to suggest optimisation actions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross sectional study. The Spanish Chapter of Endovascular Surgery conducted a national survey in 11 autonomous communities representing around 77.6% of the Spanish population (47.33 million inhabitants). A total of 266 TEVAR procedures from 17 Spanish centres were analysed, of which 53.0% were performed in hybrid operating rooms. National DRLs were obtained and defined as the third quartile of the median values from the different participating centres.

RESULTS

The proposed national DRLs are: for kerma area product (KAP), 113.81 Gy·cm2 for mobile Xray systems and 282.59 Gy·cm2 for hybrid rooms; and for cumulative air kerma (CAK) at the patient entry reference point, 228.38 mGy for mobile systems and 910.64 mGy for hybrid rooms.

CONCLUSION

Based on the requirement to know radiation doses for standard endovascular procedures, this study of TEVARs demonstrated that there is an increased factor of 2.48 in DRLs for KAP when the procedure is performed in a hybrid room compared with mobile C-arm systems, and an increased factor of 3.98 in DRLs for CAK when the procedure is performed with hybrid equipment. These results will help to optimise strategies to reduce radiation doses during TEVAR procedures.

The effect of Fiber Optic RealShape technology on the reduction of radiation during complex endovascular surgery

OBJECTIVE

Despite the advantages that fenestrated endovascular aortic repair has over open repair, it is accompanied by the consequence of radiation exposure, which can result in long-term complications for both the patient and surgical staff. Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology is a novel advancement that uses emitted light from a fiber optic wire and enables the surgeon to cannulate vessels in real time without live fluoroscopy. This technology has been implemented at select centers to study its effectiveness for cannulation of target vessels and its impact on procedural radiation.

METHODS

We collected prospective data on physician-modified endograft (PMEG) cases before and after the introduction of FORS technology. FORS PMEGs were matched with up to three conventional fluoroscopy cases by number of target vessels, inclusion of a bifurcated device below, aneurysm extent, and patient body mass index. The procedural radiation parameters were compared between these cohorts. Within the FORS cohort, we analyzed the rate of successful target vessel cannulation for all cases done with this technology (including cases other than PMEGs), and we compared the radiation between the cannulations using only FORS with those that abandoned FORS for conventional fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

Nineteen FORS PMEGs were able to be matched to 45 conventional fluoroscopy cases. Procedures that used FORS technology had significantly reduced total air kerma (527 mGy vs 964 mGy), dose area product (121 Gy∗cm2 vs 186 Gy∗cm2), fluoroscopy dose (72.1 Gy∗cm2 vs 132.5 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (45 minutes vs 72 minutes). There was no difference in procedure length, total contrast, or digital subtraction angiography. Within FORS cases, 66% of cannulations were completed using only FORS. Cannulations using only FORS had significant reduction of navigation air kerma (5.0 mGy vs 26.5 mGy), dose area product (1.2 Gy∗cm2 vs 5.1 Gy∗cm2), and fluoroscopy time (0.6 minutes vs 2.3 minutes) compared with cannulations abandoning FORS for conventional fluoroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the advantages of FORS for total procedural radiation as well as during individual cannulation tasks. The implementation of FORS for target vessel catheterization has the potential to decrease the total degree of radiation exposure for the patient and surgical staff during complex endovascular aortic surgeries.

3D Visualisation of Navigation Catheters for Endovascular Procedures Using a 3D Hub and Fiber Optic RealShape Technology: Phantom Study Results

Objective

Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) is a new technology that visualises the full three dimensional (3D) shape of guidewires using an optical fibre embedded in the device. Co-registering FORS guidewires with anatomical images, such as a digital subtraction angiography (DSA), provides anatomical context for navigating these devices during endovascular procedures. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and usability of visualising compatible conventional navigation catheters, together with the FORS guidewire, in phantom with a new 3D Hub technology and to understand potential clinical benefits.

Methods

The accuracy of localising the 3D Hub and catheter in relation to the FORS guidewire, was evaluated using a translation stage test setup and a retrospective analysis of prior clinical data. Catheter visualisation accuracy and navigation success was assessed in a phantom study where 15 interventionists navigated devices to three pre-defined targets in an abdominal aortic phantom using an Xray or computed tomography angiography (CTA) roadmap. Additionally, the interventionists were surveyed about the usability and potential benefits of the 3D Hub.

Results

The location of the 3D Hub and catheter along the FORS guidewire was detected correctly 96.59% of the time. During the phantom study, all 15 interventionists successfully reached the target locations 100% of the time and the error in catheter visualisation was 0.69 mm. The interventionists agreed or strongly agreed that the 3D Hub was easy to use and the greatest potential clinical benefit over FORS is in offering interventionists choice over which catheter they used.

Conclusion

This set of studies has shown that FORS guided catheter visualisation, enabled by a 3D Hub, is accurate and easy to use in a phantom setting. Further evaluation is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of the 3D Hub technology during endovascular procedures.

Single-Center Experience with the Femoral-to-Brachial Preloaded Delivery System for Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To assess technical aspects and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) using a femoral-to-brachial (FTB) preloaded delivery system (PDS) with two separate configurations.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective study to evaluate FB-EVAR for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs & TAAA) between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients treated with FTB-PDS were included. The two configurations included 4 trans-brachial preloaded wires (4BR) or 2 trans-brachial and 2 transfemoral preloaded wires (2BR-2FE). Outcome measures included technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day or in-hospital mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and target-vessel outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 115 patients with a mean age of 73.8 ± 8 years, treated with FTB-PDS. Of these, 62 patients (54%) had 4BR and 53 patients (46%) had 2BR-2FE FTB-PDS. There were 106 TAAA (92%) and 9 CAAAs (8%). Technical success, defined as successful implantation of the stent-graft and all intended target-vessel stents without type I or III endoleak, was 97%, with no differences in total operating time, endovascular time, and radiation dose between groups. There were 3 deaths (3%) at 30 days. MAEs were noticed in 21 patients (18%) with no difference between groups, including new-onset dialysis (2% vs. 4%, P = 0.59), and paraplegia (7% vs. 11%, P = 0.51), for 4BR and 2BR-2FE, respectively. Patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality at 2-years were 79 ± 5% and 97 ± 1.7%, respectively, with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of FTB-PDS for FB-EVAR is safe with high technical success and a reasonable rate of MAEs. Each configuration provides specific benefits based on patient anatomy, while having similar procedural metrics and clinical outcomes.

Evolution of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair complexity and outcomes at an organized center for the treatment of complex aortic disease

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) volume has increased rapidly, with favorable outcomes at centers of excellence. We evaluated changes over time in F/BEVAR complexity and associated outcomes at a single-center complex aortic disease program.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of all F/BEVAR (definition: requiring ≥1 fenestration/branch), procedures performed in an institutional review board-approved registry and/or physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (IDE# G130210), were reviewed (11/2010-2/2019). Patients were stratified by surgery date into thirds: early experience, mid experience, and recent experience. Patient and operative characteristics, aneurysm morphology, device types, perioperative and midterm outcomes (survival, freedom from type I or III endoleak, target artery patency, freedom from reintervention), were compared across groups.

RESULTS

For 252 consecutive F/BEVARs (early experience, n = 84, mid experience, n = 84, recent experience, n = 84), 194 (77%) company-manufactured custom-made devices, 11 (4.4%) company-manufactured off-the-shelf devices, and 47 (19%) physician-modified devices, were used to treat 5 (2.0%) common iliac, 97 (39%) juxtarenal, 31 (12%) pararenal, 116 (46%) thoracoabdominal, and 2 (0.8%) arch aneurysms. All patients had follow-up for 30-day events. The mean follow-up time for the entire cohort was 589 days (interquartile range, 149-813 days). On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 88%, freedom from type I or III endoleak was 91%, and target vessel patency was 92%. When stratified by time period, significant differences included aneurysm extent (thoracoabdominal, 33% early experience, 40% mid experience, and 64% recent experience; P < .001) and target vessels per case (four-vessel case, 31% early experience, 39% mid experience, and 67% recent experience; P < .0001). There was no difference, but a trend toward improvement, in composite 30-day events (early experience, 39%; mid experience, 23%; recent experience, 27%; P = .05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no difference in survival (P = .19) or target artery patency (P = .6). There were differences in freedom from reintervention (P < .01) and from type I or III endoleak (P = .02), with more reinterventions in the early experience, and more endoleaks in the recent period.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing repair complexity, there has been no significant change in perioperative complications, overall survival, or target artery patency, with favorable outcomes overall. Type I or III endoleaks remain a significant limitation, with increased incidence as the number of branch arteries incorporated into the repairs has increased.

National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Optimisation Strategies

OBJECTIVE

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has highlighted the large number of medical specialties using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments without programmes of radiation protection (RP) for patients and staff. Vascular surgery is one of these specialties and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is one of the most challenging procedures requiring RP guidance and optimisation actions. The recent European Directive on Basic Safety Standards requires the use and regular update of diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for interventional procedures. The objective of the study was to know the doses of patients undergoing EVAR with mobile Xray systems and with hybrid rooms (fixed Xray systems), to obtain national DRLs and suggest optimisation actions.

METHODS

The Spanish Chapter of Endovascular Surgery launched a national survey that involved hospitals for 10 autonomous communities representing the 77% of the Spanish population (46.7 million inhabitants). Patient dose values from mobile Xray systems were available from nine hospitals (sample of 165 EVAR procedures) and data from hybrid rooms, from seven hospitals, with dosimetric data from 123 procedures. The initial national DRLs have been obtained, as the third quartile of the median values from the different centres involved in the survey.

RESULTS

The proposed national DRLs are 278 Gy cm² for hybrid rooms and 87 Gy cm² for mobile Xray systems, and for cumulative air kerma (cumulative AK) at the patient entrance reference point, 1403 mGy for hybrid rooms, and 292 mGy for mobile systems.

CONCLUSION

An audit of patient doses for EVAR procedures to identify optimised imaging protocol strategies is needed. It is also appropriate to evaluate the diagnostic information required for EVAR procedures. The increase by a factor of 3.2 (for kerma area product) and 4.8 (for cumulative AK) in the DRLs needs to be justified when the procedures are performed in the hybrid rooms rather than with mobile Xray systems.

Effect of obesity on radiation exposure, quality of life scores, and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of obesity on procedural metrics, radiation exposure, quality of life (QOL), and clinical outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from 334 patients (236 men; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2019. The patients were classified using the body mass index (BMI) as obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) or nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m²). QOL questionnaires (short-form 36-item questionnaire) and imaging studies were obtained preoperatively and at 2 months and 6 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. The procedures were performed using two different fixed imaging systems. The end points included procedural metrics (ie, total operative time, fluoroscopic time, contrast volume), radiation exposure, technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events, QOL changes, freedom from target vessel instability, freedom from reintervention, and patient survival.

RESULTS

The aneurysm extent was a pararenal aortic aneurysm in 117 patients (35%) and a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in 217 patients (65%). Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia and diabetes among the obese patients (P < .05). No significant differences were found in the procedural metrics or intraprocedural complications between the groups, except that the obese patients had greater radiation exposure than the nonobese patients (mean, 2.5 vs 1.6 Gy; P < .001), with the highest radiation exposure in those obese patients who had undergone the procedure using system 1 (fusion alone) instead of system 2 (fusion and digital zoom; mean, 4.1 vs 1.5 Gy; P < .001). Three patients had died within 30 days (0.8%), with no difference in mortality or major adverse events between the groups. The mental QOL scores had improved in the obese group at 2 and 12 months compared with the nonobese patients, with persistently higher scores up to 3 years. At 3 years, the obese and nonobese patients had a similar incidence of freedom from target vessel instability (74% ± 6% vs 80% ± 3%; P = .99, log-rank test), freedom from reintervention (66% ± 6% vs 73% ± 4%; P = .77, log-rank test), and patient survival (83% ± 5% vs 75% ± 4%; P = .16, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity, with no significant differences between the obese and nonobese patients. The procedural metrics and outcomes were similar, with the exception of greater radiation exposure among obese patients, especially for the procedures performed using system 1 with fusion alone compared with system 2 (fusion and digital zoom). Obese patients had higher QOL mental scores at 2 and 12 months, with a similar reintervention rate, target vessel outcomes, and survival compared with nonobese patients.