Treatment of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms With Oversized (36-mm) Zenith Endografts

Endovascular Graft Suprarenal Bare Metal Stent Separation After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Case Reports and Literature Review

Objective

Suprarenal bare metal stent separation is a rare complication after endovascular aneurysm repair. In this report, two new cases of this type of device failure are presented and the literature is reviewed to identify similar cases and evaluate associated clinical characteristics.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in March 2022 using PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library, with MeSH terms including aortic aneurysm, stents, and device failure. Two authors independently selected studies eligible for inclusion.

Results

Twelve patients with endovascular graft suprarenal bare metal stent separation were identified. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices were implanted between May 1996 and November 2017. Suprarenal bare metal stent separation was detected after a median duration of five years post-operatively.

Conclusion

Endovascular graft suprarenal bare metal stent separation demands a high level of awareness. A better understanding of the involved failure mechanisms and associated risk factors is required to further optimise EVAR follow up protocols.

Endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with a wide proximal aortic neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to investigate the impact of wide proximal aortic diameter on outcome after standard endovascular repair (sEVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using the PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for articles comparing outcome after sEVAR in patients with large versus small diameter aortic neck. The prognostic factor of interest was large diameter proximal aortic neck and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A time-to-event data meta-analysis for late outcomes was performed using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 6 observational studies reporting on a total of 6602 patients (1616 with large and 4986 with small diameter neck). Patients with large proximal aortic neck were older (MD 0.87, 95% CI: 0.35-1.39; P=0.001). The prevalence of male gender (OR=1.63, 95% CI: 1.34-1.98; P<0.001), coronary artery disease (OR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.06-1.36; P=0.004), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36; P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.23-1.66; P<0.001) was higher in the wide neck group. Patients with large diameter proximal neck had shorter proximal neck (MD=-1.91, 95% CI: -2.04 to -1.77; P<0.001) and a larger aneurysm diameter compared to those with small diameter neck (MD=3.40, 95% CI: 2.71-4.10; P<0.001). Patients with small diameter proximal neck had significantly higher freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention (HR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.23-3.45; P=0.006), freedom from type Ia endoleak (HR=6.69, 95% CI: 4.39-10.20; P<0.001), freedom from sac expansion (HR=10.07, 95% CI: 1.80-56.53; P=0.009), freedom from aneurysm rupture (HR 5.10, 95% CI: 1.40-18.58; P=0.01), and survival (HR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.08-2.24; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a wide proximal aortic neck undergoing standard EVAR were found to have worse outcome, as indicated by a lower freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention, type Ia endoleak, sac expansion and aneurysm rupture, and a higher overall survival. This anatomic characteristic should be considered in decision making. In such patients, closer imaging surveillance after EVAR in the long term may be required to identify early and treat timely the complications.

Comparative study of clinical outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysms repair in large diameter aortic necks (>31 mm) versus smaller necks

BACKGROUND

This study compares short-term (30 days) and intermediate term (3 years) clinical outcomes in patients with large (≥31 mm) versus small aortic neck diameters (≤28 and ≤31 mm).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 741 patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair were analyzed. Some surgeons have reported the threshold for a large aortic neck for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair to be 28 mm, whereas for others it is 31 mm. Therefore, we classified aortic neck diameter into less than or equal to 28 versus greater than 28 mm; and less than or equal to 31 versus greater than 31 mm. Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 688 patients who had a defined aortic neck diameter: 592 with less than or equal to 28 mm, 96 with greater than 28 mm, 655 with less than or equal to 31 mm, and 33 with greater than 31 mm. The mean follow-up was 25.2 months for less than or equal to 31 mm versus 31.8 months for greater than 31 mm. Clinical characteristics were similar in all groups, except that there were more patients outside the instructions for use in the greater than 31 mm versus less than or equal to 31 mm group (94% vs 44%; P < .0001). There was a significant increase in early type I endoleak for patients with an aortic neck diameter of greater than 31 versus less than or equal to 31 mm (9 [27%] vs 74 [11%]; P = .01); late type I endoleaks (4 [14%] vs 18 [3%]; P = .01); sac expansion (5 [17%] vs 28 [5%]; P = .01); late intervention (5 [17%] vs 23 [4%]; P = .01); and death (9 [31%] vs 48 [8%]; P < .0001). There were no differences in outcomes between the patients with greater than 28 mm aortic neck diameters and the less than or equal to 28 mm diameters. Freedom from late type I endoleak at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96%, 88%, and 88% for patients with a neck diameter of greater than 31 mm versus 97%, 97%, and 97% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P = .19). The rate of freedom from sac expansion for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm was 88%, 81%, and 81% at 1, 2, and 3 years versus 99%, 97%, and 92% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P = .02). Freedom from late intervention for 1, 2, and 3 years for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm were 91%, 91%, and 91% versus 99%, 97%, and 96% for those with a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for a diameter greater than 31 mm were 83%, 74%, and 68% versus 96%, 92%, and 90% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm had an odds ratio of 6.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-16.8) for mortality, 4.7 (95% CI, 1.4-15.5) for sac expansion, and 4.9 (95% CI, 1.4-17.4) for late type I endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with large aortic neck diameters (>31 mm) had higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, sac expansion, late intervention, and mortality.