Risk factors for elective and urgent open conversion after EVAR-a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard procedure for treating infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Various associated complications can lead to open conversion (OC). Thorough follow-up after the procedure is mandatory for the early detection of complications. Persisting perfusion of the aneurysm, a so-called endoleak (EL), paired with structural instability because of aortic wall atrophy and impaired cell functionality induced by EVAR, results in a high risk for aortic rupture.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to detect the risk factors for elective and urgent OC as a result of EVAR-induced pathophysiological changes inside the aortic wall.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis was performed on all open aortic repairs from January 2016 to December 2020.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fifty patients were identified as treated by OC for failure of an infrarenal EVAR. The patients were divided into two subgroups, here depending on the urgency of surgery. Statistical analysis of patient characteristics and outcomes was performed.

RESULTS

The most common indications for OC were various types of EL (74%), resulting in an aortic rupture in 15 patients. Patients with insufficient or absent follow-up were treated more frequently in an emergency setting (16% vs. 63%). The mortality rate was higher in cases of emergency OC (3% vs. 26%).

CONCLUSIONS

Particularly in cases of insufficient or absent follow-up, complications such as EL pose an enormous risk for fatal aortic rupture.

Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Late Open Conversion in Patients With Adherence and Nonadherence to Instructions for Use Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as preferred treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has enlarged the number of patients needing open surgical conversion (OSC). The relationship between adherence to Instructions For Use (IFU) and EVAR long-term outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare preoperative differences and postoperative outcomes between EVAR patients not adjusted to IFU and adjusted to IFU who underwent OSC.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study reviewed 33 explanted EVARs between January 2003 and December 2019 at 14 Vascular Units. Patients were included if OSC occurred >30 days after implantation and excluded if explantation was performed to treat an endograft infection, aortic dissection, or traumatic transections. Variables analyzed included baseline characteristics, adherence to IFU, implant and explant procedural details, secondary reinterventions, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen explanted patients (15/33, 45.5%) were identified not accomplished to IFU (out-IFU) at initial EVAR vs 18 explanted patients adjusted (in-IFU). During follow-up, a mean of 1.73±1.2 secondary reinterventions were performed, with more type I endoleaks treated in the subgroup out-IFU: 16.7% vs 6.3% in-IFU patients and more type III endoleaks (8.3% vs 0%). Patients out-IFU had shorter mean interval from implant to explant: 47.60±28.8 months vs 71.17±48. Type II endoleak was the most frequent indication for explantation. Low-flow endoleaks (types II, IV, V) account for 44% of indications for OSC in subgroup of patients in-IFU, compared with 13.3% in patients out-IFU and high-flow endoleaks (types I and III) were the main indication for patients out-IFU (33.3% vs 16.7% in-IFU). Total endograft explantation was performed in 57.5% of cases (19/33) and more suprarenal clamping was required in the subgroup out-IFU. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 12.1% (4/33): 20% for patients out-IFU and 5.6% in-IFU.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, type II endoleak is the most common indication for conversion and differences have been found between patients treated outside IFU with explantation taking place earlier during follow-up, mainly due to high-flow endoleaks and with higher mortality in comparison with patients adjusted to IFU. Ongoing research is required to delve into these differences.

Open surgical conversion and management of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after previous endovascular aneurysm repair

Introduction/Objective. The objective was to present the results and technical considerations from high-volume center when performing late open surgical conversion (LOSC) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) patients. Methods. This was a single center retrospective study. LOSC was performed whenever eventual endovascular reintervention failed, was not feasible due to hostile anatomy and unavailability of specific endograft materials, or when patient was hemodynamically unstable necessitating emergent surgery. Results. All previously implanted EVARs had bimodular configuration with suprarenal fixation. Total endograft explantation was performed in 40% of patients. Hospital mortality was 20%. Both patients who died had total endograft explantation with supraceliac clamp lasting more than 30 minutes. 30-day mortality was 30%, with one more patient who died from pulmonary embolism after hospital discharge and two hospital deaths were due to myocardial infarction. Conclusion. LOSC due to RAAA after previous EVAR carries greater mortality for the patient, suggesting multifactorial impacts on the outcome. The appropriate choice of surgical method and technical success are of ultimate importance, with total graft explantation having negative impact on patient?s survival.

Recent Update of Endovascular Type 2 Endoleak Management

EVAR has been used clinically for almost three decades, and it has been widely applied in clinical practice and has been applied to difficult cases as devices and techniques have evolved. Although the major advantage of EVAR is its lower perioperative mortality, compared with open surgery, late-onset complications such as endoleaks have become major issues, requiring lifelong follow-up after EVAR. The clinical guidelines have been updated, and many systematic reviews/meta-analyses and multi-center registries have been published; surgeons must keep up-to-date regarding these changes. In this review, the author reviews evidence on the recent update of the type 2 endoleak management.