Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elective Open Conversion versus Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair for Previous Non-Infected Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of patients electively undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) or open conversion for failed previous non-infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHOD

The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023404091). The review followed the PRISMA guidelines; certainty was assessed through the GRADE and quality through MINORS tools. Outcomes data were pooled separately for F/B-EVAR and open conversion. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted; heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Thirty eight studies were included, for a total of 1 645 patients of whom 1 001 (60.9%) underwent an open conversion and 644 (39.1%) a F/B-EVAR. The quality of evidence was generally limited. GRADE certainty was judged low for 30 day death (in both groups) and F/B-EVAR technical success, and very low for the other outcomes. Pooled 30 day death was 2.3% (I2 33%) in the open conversion group and 2.4% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR conversion group (p = .36). Technical success for F/B-EVAR was 94.1% (I2 23%). The pooled 30 day major systemic complications rate was higher in the open conversion (21.3%; I2 74%) than in the F/B-EVAR (15.7%; I2 78%) group (p = .52). At 18 months follow up, the pooled re-intervention rate was 4.5% (I2 58%) in the open conversion and 26% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR group (p < .001), and overall survival was 92.5% (I2 59%) and 81.6% (I2 68%), respectively (p = .005).

CONCLUSION

In the elective setting, and excluding infections, the early results of both open conversion and F/B-EVAR after failed EVAR appear satisfactory. Although open conversion presented with higher complication rates in the first 30 days after surgery, at follow up it seemed to be associated with fewer re-interventions and better survival compared with F/B-EVAR.

Clinical outcomes of in situ graft reconstruction in treating infected abdominal aortic stent grafts following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a single-center experience

Purpose

This study aimed to review our experience with the explantation of infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) grafts.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed the data of 12 consecutive patients who underwent infected aortic stent graft explantation following EVAR between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019, of which 11 underwent in situ graft reconstruction following graft removal. The presentation symptoms, infection route, original pathology of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), graft materials, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Six patients underwent total explantation, whereas 5 underwent removal of only the fabric portions. For in situ reconstructions, prosthetic grafts and banked allografts were used in 8 and 3 patients, respectively. Four mechanisms of graft infection were noted in 11 patients: 4 had bacteremia from systemic infections, 3 had persistent infections following EVAR of primary infected AAA, 3 had ascending infections from adjacent abscesses, and 1 had an aneurysm sac erosion resulting in an aortoenteric fistula. No infection-related postoperative complications or reinfections occurred during the mean 65.27-month (standard deviation, ±52.51) follow-up period. One patient died postoperatively because of the rupture of the proximal aortic wall pseudoaneurysm that had occurred during forceful bare stent removal.

Conclusion

Regardless of graft material, in situ graft reconstruction is safe for interposition in treating an infected aortic stent graft following EVAR. In our experience, the residual bare stent is no longer a risk factor for reinfection. Therefore, it is important not to injure the proximal aortic wall when removing the bare stent by force.

The failing endograft-A systematic review of aortic graft explants and associated outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The prominent use of endovascular stent grafts in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with increased descriptions of late complications such as graft infection and endoleaks, which can confer significant morbidity and mortality. Failed endovascular management of late complications often requires open conversion and graft explantation. This systematic review sought to highlight the peri- and post-operative course of patients undergoing aortic graft explants to inform readers of the associated morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing this procedure.

METHODS

The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search of the PubMed, Google Scholar and Ovid MEDLINE databases from January 1995 to April 2021 was performed with a combination of MeSH terms pertaining to endovascular aneurysm repair and open conversion. Articles were screened and included based on pre-determined selection criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 818 studies were identified, with 41 meeting inclusion criteria. These studies examined a total of 1324 patients, 84.3% of whom were male with a mean age of 74 years at explantation. Mean time to graft explantation was 36 months, with a mean aneurysm size of 66 mm. The majority of aortic explants were performed for persistent endoleaks (68%), and 10% for infection. There was high morbidity with the procedure, with high rates of post-operative complications (mean, 37%) and 30-day mortality (11%). The most common complications included renal (15%), respiratory (12%) and cardiac (9%). Most explanted grafts were first-generation endografts. Morbidity and mortality rates were reduced in patients undergoing elective explants compared to emergent procedures (3.3% compared to 43.4%).

CONCLUSION

Aortic graft explant remains a highly co-morbid procedure, with high rates of peri- and post-operative complications and mortality. The number of explant procedures reported over the past 25 years has increased, reflecting the prominent use of EVAR in the management of AAAs. Whilst remaining a highly co-morbid procedure, patients undergoing elective explants had markedly reduced rates of mortality and morbidity compared to emergent explants. Thus, clinical focus should be on identifying patients who require graft explantation early to perform these procedures in an elective setting.

Hybrid Approach with Angiography and Limited Open Exposure to Treat Type Ia Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Type Ia endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) almost always mandate secondary percutaneous reinterventions. Several patients, however, will require conversion to open surgical repair with complete graft explant, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We herein present 3 cases of hybrid surgical repair for type Ia endoleaks, using a limited open exposure for proximal stent graft edge revision to achieve graft preservation and effective aneurysm sac exclusion.

METHODS

Angiography was used to confirm type Ia endoleak in 3 patients (2 males) who had previous EVAR between October 2017 and October 2019. Time to the endoleak after the index EVAR was immediate in 1 patient during repair of a ruptured aneurysm, 2 months in 1 patient and 2 years in 1 patient. The aorta was exposed through a limited transabdominal (n = 1) or retroperitoneal (n = 2) approach and circumferential aortic control was achieved below the renal arteries. A row of interrupted horizontal mattress sutures of 3-0 polypropylene reinforced with Teflon pledgets was placed along the aortic neck circumference. Multi-planar angiography was then repeated to verify the absence of sac filling and successful type Ia endoleak exclusion. Follow-up abdominal duplex was obtained for all 3 patients after discharge to monitor the stent graft and confirm endoleak resolution. Furthermore, there were no instances of acute renal failure.

RESULTS

In the period of review, 77 patients underwent EVAR. In the 3 patients described, we were able to achieve complete aneurysm sac exclusion and stent graft preservation in all cases. Follow-up imaging was available on 2 patients at 4-6 weeks after surgery demonstrating sustained exclusion of the endoleak. Two patients died during follow-up: one from a myocardial infarction 7 weeks after surgery and one from metastatic lung cancer at 8 months after surgery. Follow up duplex imaging at one year on the single survivor demonstrated sac shrinkage and absence of endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Type Ia endoleaks represent a significant source of morbidity and mortality after EVAR and typically require repair to avoid aneurysm rupture. Our use of limited proximal revision without explant provides an alternative approach to resolve the endoleaks while reducing the magnitude of physiological stress when compared to an open explant. It represents a feasible option for high-risk patients.