Preoperative Neck Angulation is Associated with Aneurysm Sac Growth Due to Persistent Type Ia Endoleak after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

A computational study of artery curvature and endograft oversize influence on seal zone behavior in endovascular aortic repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a minimally invasive procedure involving the placement of an endograft inside the dissection or an aneurysm to direct blood flow and prevent rupture. A significant challenge in endovascular surgery is the geometrical mismatch between the endograft and the artery, which can lead to endoleak formation, a condition where blood leaks between the endograft and the vessel wall. This study uses computational modeling to investigate the effects of artery curvature and endograft oversizing, the selection of an endograft with a larger diameter than the artery, on endoleak creation. Finite element analysis is employed to simulate the deployment of endografts in arteries with varying curvature and diameter. Numerical simulations are conducted to assess the seal zone and to quantify the potential endoleak volume as a function of curvature and oversizing. A theoretical framework is developed to explain the mechanisms of endoleak formation along with proof-of-concept experiments. Two main mechanisms of endoleak creation are identified: local buckling due to diameter mismatch and global buckling due to centerline curvature mismatch. Local buckling, characterized by excess graft material buckling and wrinkle formation, increases with higher levels of oversizing, leading to a larger potential endoleak volume. Global buckling, where the endograft bends or deforms to conform to the centerline curvature of the artery, is observed to require a certain degree of oversizing to bridge the curvature mismatch. This study highlights the importance of considering both curvature and diameter mismatch in the design and clinical use of endografts. Understanding the mechanisms of endoleak formation can provide valuable insights for optimizing endograft design and surgical planning, leading to improved clinical outcomes in endovascular aortic procedures.

Identifying Patients at High Risk for Post-EVAR Aneurysm Sac Growth

PURPOSE

Post-EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) aneurysm sac growth can be seen as therapy failure as it is a risk factor for post-EVAR aneurysm rupture. This study sought to identify preoperative patient predictors for developing post-EVAR aneurysm sac growth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to select potential predictive preoperative factors for post-EVAR sac growth (including a total of 34.886 patients), which were evaluated by a retrospective single-center analysis of patients undergoing EVAR between 2009 and 2019 (N=247) with pre-EVAR computed tomography scans and at least 1 year follow-up. The primary study outcome was post-EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac enlargement (≥5 mm diameter increase). Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed.

RESULTS

Potential correlative factors for post-EVAR sac growth included in the cohort analysis were age, sex, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, renal insufficiency, anemia, low thrombocyte count, pulmonary comorbidities, aneurysm diameter, neck diameter, neck angle, neck length, configuration of intraluminal thrombus, common iliac artery diameter, the number of patent lumbar arteries, and a patent inferior mesenteric artery. Multivariate analysis showed that infrarenal neck angulation (hazard ratio, 1.014; confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.026; p=0.034) and the number of patent lumbar arteries (hazard ratio, 1.340; CI, 1.131-1.588; p<0.001) were associated with post-EVAR growth. Difference in estimated freedom from post-EVAR sac growth for patients with ≥4 patent lumbar arteries versus <4 patent lumbar arteries became clear after 2 years: 88.5% versus 100%, respectively (p<0.001). Of note, 31% of the patients (n=51) with ≥4 patent lumbar arteries (n=167) developed post-EVAR sac growth. In our cohort, the median maximum AAA diameter was 57 mm (interquartile range [IQR] = 54-62) and the median postoperative follow-up time was 54 months (IQR = 34-79). In all, 23% (n=57) of the patients suffered from post-EVAR growth. The median time for post-EVAR growth was 37 months (IQR = 24-63). In 46 of the 57 post-EVAR growth cases (81%), an endoleak was observed; 2.4% (n=6) of the patients suffered from post-EVAR rupture. The total mortality in the cohort was 24% (n=60); 4% (n=10) was AAA related.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that having 4 or more patent lumbar arteries is an important predictive factor for postoperative sac growth in patients undergoing EVAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study strongly suggests that having 4 or more patent lumbar arteries should be included in preoperative counseling for EVAR, in conjunction to the instructions for use (IFU).

Pre-operative Aortic Neck Characteristics and Post-operative Sealing Zone as Predictors of Type 1a Endoleak and Migration After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Establishing the predictive value of neck characteristics and real achieved sealing zone is essential to foster risk stratified procedure selection and imaging surveillance. This systematic review provides an overview of pre-operative aortic neck characteristics and post-operative real achieved sealing zone and their respective risk of type 1a endoleak and migration after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In agreement with PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Data on neck characteristics, sealing zone, and EVAR outcome were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate the effect of neck diameter, angulation, and shape on type 1a endoleak (total, early ≤ 90 days, and late > 90 days) and migration in patients who underwent EVAR. A qualitative summary was also provided.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. Patients with a larger neck diameter had an increased risk of total type 1a endoleak (nine studies: OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.38 - 4.63), early type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.27 - 5.48), late type 1a endoleak (six studies: OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.12 - 5.03), and migration (seven studies: OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.32 - 6.26). An angulated neck increased the risk of total type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 4.27, 95% CI 1.55 - 11.78) and late type 1a endoleak (seven studies: OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.19 - 14.13). Neck shape was not associated with type 1a endoleak. Neck length and real achieved sealing zone on post-EVAR computed tomography were identified as risk factors for type 1a endoleak and migration through qualitative summary.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be some consistent evidence that aortic neck diameter, angulation, and length are associated with the development of type 1a endoleak or migration. Real achieved sealing zone might be an important addition during follow up. However, a small number of studies, with serious limitations, could be included, and there was considerable variability in reporting patients and outcomes. A proposal for standardisation of aortic and EVAR data in future studies is provided.

[Endovascular aortic repair: the hostile aneurysm neck : Morphologic definition, impact on long-term outcome, and treatment options]

DEFINITION

A hostile neck is defined by various anatomical conditions that describe a morphology of the proximal aneurysmal neck of infrarenal aortic aneurysms that is unfavorable for endovascular treatment (endovascular aortic repair, EVAR): proximal landing zone length ≤ 15 mm, angulation of the aortic neck > 60°, conical aortic neck, diameter of the aortic neck > 32 mm, and circumferential calcification/thrombus.

EFFECTS ON OUTCOME

These morphological parameters are not only associated with a higher perioperative technical failure rate (primary type 1 endoleak) but also with poorer long-term results (secondary type 1 endoleak) and thus a higher reintervention rate in standard EVAR, so that standard EVAR should be reserved for a few exceptions in these cases.

TREATMENT OPTIONS

Due to the rapid development of endovascular techniques in the last decade, we now have a variety of endovascular options for aneurysms with hostile necks, for both elective treatment and emergency care, in addition to conventional open surgery, which is still the standard method in many cases and is currently undergoing a renaissance: fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) as the method of first choice in the elective setting, EVAR with chimneys (ChEVAR), endosuture aneurysm repair (ESAR). An important option is the conservative approach, which can be a reasonable choice if the patient's preference is taken into account and a careful risk-benefit assessment is performed.

Use of Chimney Technique Does Not Improve the Outcome of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With a Hyperangulated and Short Proximal Aortic Neck

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that extending the proximal landing zone with the chimney technique could be beneficial in patients with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck, defined as more > 60 degrees.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of prospectively collected data of patients treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic aneurysm with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck. In all, 104 out of 130 patients were treated without (Group A) and 24 with the chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR, Group B). Primary outcome was technical and clinical success according to the reporting standards of the Society of Vascular Surgery.

RESULTS

The use of the chimney technique was associated with a significantly longer operation duration (167 vs. 93 min, p < .001), longer fluoroscopy time (44 vs.30 min, p = < .001), and larger amount of contrast medium used (149 vs. 127 ml, p = .03) but did not significantly improve technical (79.2% vs. 87.7%) and clinical success (54.2% vs. 68.9%). Aneurysm-related mortality was higher in group B (8.3% vs. = 0%, p < .001). Type IA endoleak was high in both groups at completion angiography (11.3% in Group A vs. 12.5% in Group B) and at follow-up (10.4% in Group A vs. 4.5% in Group B) without significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data did not show a benefit of the primary use of the chimney technique in patients with a hyperangulated and short neck, although more studies are required to support this conclusion. Other strategies or new technologies are required for improving EVAR results in aneurysm patients with severe angulated proximal and short neck.