Outcomes Following Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Both Within and Outside of the Instructions for Use

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND

The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE).

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available.

Selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with hostile neck anatomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with a hostile neck anatomy (HNA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 2020 and June 2022, patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and HNA who underwent EVAR with a low-profile stent graft and a selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization technique were analysed. An HNA was defined by the presence of any of the following parameters: infrarenal neck angulation > 60°; neck length < 15 mm; conical neck; circumferential calcification ≥ 50%; or thrombus ≥ 50%. Before occluding the entire aneurysm during the procedure, a buddy wire was loaded prophylactically into the sac through the contralateral limb side. If a type Ia endoleak (ELIa) occurred and persisted despite adjunctive treatment such as balloon moulding or cuff extension, this preloaded wire could be utilized to enable a catheter to reach the space between the stent graft and sac neck to perform coil embolization. In the absence of ELIa, the wire was simply retracted. The primary outcome of this study was freedom from sac expansion and endoleak-related reintervention during the follow-up period; secondary outcomes included technical success and intraoperative and in-hospital postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Among the 28 patients with a hostile neck morphology, 11 (39.5%) who presented with ELIa underwent intraprocedural treatment involving sac neck-targeted detachable coil embolization. Seventeen individuals (60.7%) of the total patient population did not undergo coiling. All patients in the coiling group underwent balloon moulding, and 2 patients additionally underwent cuff extension. In the noncoiling group, 14 individuals underwent balloon moulding as a treatment for ELIa, while 3 patients did not exhibit ELIa during the procedure. The coiling group showed longer operating durations (81.27 ± 11.61 vs. 70.71 ± 7.17 min, P < 0.01) and greater contrast utilization than the noncoiling group (177.45 ± 52.41 vs. 108.24 ± 17.49 ml, P < 0.01). In the entire cohort, the technical success rate was 100%, and there were no procedure-related complications. At a mean follow-up of 18.6 ± 5.2 months (range 12-31), there were no cases of sac expansion (19 cases of sac regression, 67.86%; 9 cases of stability, 32.14%) or endoleak-related reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective aneurysmal sac neck-targeted embolization for the treatment of ELIa in AAA patients with an HNA undergoing EVAR is safe and may prevent type Ia endoleak and related sac expansion after EVAR.

The effect of stent graft curvature on the hemodynamic displacement force after abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is a minimally invasive procedure with low mortality and morbidity. Clinical studies have revealed that a displacement force (DF) can cause stent graft (SG) migration in some circumstances requiring repeated intervention. This study aims to determine the relationship between the SG curvature and the calculated DF from four patient-specific computational fluid dynamics models. The SG's curvature was defined according to the centrelines of the implanted SG's branches. The centrelines were defined as either intersecting or separated lines. The centreline curvature (CLC) metrics were calculated based on the local curvature radii and the distances from the centrelines of idealized straight branches. The average CLC value and average variation were calculated to represent the entire graft's curvature. These CLC calculations were compared, and the method that gave the best correlation to the calculated DF was found. The optimal correlation is obtained from calculating the CLC average variation using separated centrelines and distance from straight lines, with an R2 = 0.89. Understanding the relationship between vascular morphology and DF can help identify at-risk patients before the procedure. In these cases, we can provide appropriate treatment and follow up with the patient to prevent future failure.

Influence of severe neck angulation on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair: a hemodynamic analysis and a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

For patients with severe neck angulation (SNA), hemodynamic and clinical outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are still unclear. This study aimed to explore the influence of SNA on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes following EVAR.

METHODS

This study included a hemodynamic analysis and a retrospective cohort study from West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2011 and December 2020. The Cox regression model, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were applied. Primary outcome was type IA endoleak (T1AEL).

RESULTS

In this hemodynamic analysis, nine non-severe neck angulation (nSNA) and 16 SNA idealized models were constructed. We found a significant difference in drag force between SNA and nSNA models (7.016 ± 2.579 N vs. 4.283 ± 1.460 N, P = 0.008), and proximal neck angles were significantly associated with the magnitude of drag force (F = 0.082 × α-0.006 × β + 2.818, α: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.070-0.094; P = 0.001; β: 95% CI -0.019 to 0.007; P = 0.319). In our cohort study, 514 nSNA patients (71.5 ± 8.5 years; 459 males) and 208 SNA patients (72.5 ± 7.8 years; 135 males) were included, with a median follow-up duration of 34 months (16-63 months). All baseline characteristics were well balanced after IPTW matching. We found that SNA was associated with a significant risk of adverse limb event (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18, 95% CI 1.09-3.12), yet was not associated with T1AEL, overall survival, or reintervention. In patients without proximal or distal additional procedures (DAP), subgroup analyses suggested a significant risk of T1AEL (Proximal: HR 5.25, 95% CI 1.51-18.23; Distal: HR 5.07, 95% CI 1.60-16.07) and adverse limb event (Proximal: HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.01-5.07; Distal: HR 2.91, 95% CI 1.30-6.54) in SNA patients. However, no noticeable difference was observed in patients with proximal or DAP.

CONCLUSIONS

SNA has a critical influence on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes following EVAR. Appropriate additional procedures may be of great benefit to SNA patients.

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become a standard treatment method for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Endovascular device manufacturers have defined specific anatomic criteria for aneurysm characteristics to be observed as instructions for use (IFU) with specific grafts. In clinical practice, the prevalence of performing EVAR outside the IFU is high. This study aims to determine the impact of IFU criteria non-adherence on outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing EVAR for an infrarenal AAA between 2005 and 2013 were included. IFU non-adherence was defined as any violation of device-specific IFU criteria and was compared to IFU adherence. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA ruptures, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including limb-related adverse events, and type Ia endoleaks. Secondarily, the aim was to study whether the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients were included, 144 (55.8%) of whom were treated according to the IFU criteria and 114 (44.2%) outside the criteria. In the IFU non-adherence group, all-cause mortality (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02-1.89, p = .037) and aneurysm-related mortality (HR 5.1, 95% CI 1.4-18.6, p = .015) were higher, as were the incidences of AAA ruptures (HR 5.4, 95 % CI 1.1-26.6, p = .036) and GRAEs (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.8, p = .025). No significant association was found between type Ia endoleak and neck-related IFU or limb-related adverse events and iliac-related IFU. However, neck length was a risk factor for a type Ia endoleak (HR 18.2, 95% CI 6.3-52.2, p < .001), aneurysm-related mortality (HR=8.7, 95% CI 1.8-41.6, p = .007), rupture (HR= 21.7, 95% CI 2.8-166, p = .003), and GRAEs (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.0-9.7, p < .001). An IFU violation regarding the neck angulation was also a risk factor for all-cause mortality (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.7, p = .032), aneurysm-related mortality (HR 7.6, 95% CI 1.4-42.8, p = .021), AAA rupture (HR 79.4, 95% CI 6.3-999, p = .001), and GRAEs (HR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9-9.5, p < .001). The prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU did not increase over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing EVAR outside the IFU has a negative effect on outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, ruptures, and graft-related adverse events. Neck angulation and neck length seem to be the most crucial aneurysm characteristics.

Fenestrated Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients Treated Inside Versus Outside of Instructions for Use

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of patients treated with the Cook Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) device for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms inside versus outside the IFU.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our institutional ZFEN database for cases performed between 2012 and 2018, with analysis performed in 2020 in order to report midterm outcomes. The cohort was stratified based on treatment inside (IFU group) and outside (non-IFU group) the IFU for criteria involving the proximal neck: neck length 4 to 14 mm, neck diameter 19 to 31 mm, and neck angulation ≤45°. Patients with thoracoabdominal aneurysms or concurrent chimney grafting were excluded. The primary outcomes in question were mortality, type 1a endoleak, and reintervention. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine associations between adherence to IFU criteria and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 100 consecutive patients (19% female, mean age 73.6 years) for inclusion in this analysis. Mean follow-up was 21.6 months. Fifty-four patients (54%) were treated outside the IFU because of inadequate neck length (n=48), enlarged neck diameter (n=10), and/or excessive angulation (n=16). Eighteen patients were outside IFU for two criteria, and one patient was outside IFU for all three. Non-IFU patients were exposed to higher radiation doses (3652 vs 5445 mGy, p=0.008) and contrast volume (76 vs 95 mL, p=0.004). No difference was noted between IFU and non-IFU groups for 30-day mortality (0% vs 3.7%, p=0.18), or type 1a endoleak (0% vs 1.9%, p=0.41). Reintervention was also similar between cohorts (13% vs 27.8%, p=0.13). Being outside IFU for neck diameter or length was each borderline significant for higher reintervention on univariate analysis (p=0.05), but this was not significant on multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling (HR 1.82 [0.53-6.25]; 2.03 [0.68-7.89]), respectively. No individual IFU deviations were associated with the primary outcomes on multivariate analysis, nor being outside IFU for multiple criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with juxtarenal aortic aneurysms may be treated with the ZFEN device with moderate deviations from the IFU. While no differences were seen in mortality or proximal endoleak, larger studies are needed to examine the potential association between IFU nonadherence and reinterventions and close follow-up is warranted for all patients undergoing such repair.

Comparison of treatment options for aortic necks outside standard endovascular aneurysm repair instructions for use

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with worse outcomes in patients whose anatomy does not meet the device instructions for use (IFU). However, whether open surgical repair (OSR) and commercially available fenestrated EVAR (Zenith Fenestrated [ZFEN]) represent better options for these patients is unknown.

METHODS

We identified all patients without prior aortic surgery undergoing elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≥4 mm at a single institution with EVAR, OSR, and ZFEN. We applied device-specific aneurysm neck-related IFU to EVAR patients, and a generic EVAR IFU to ZFEN and OSR patients. Long-term outcomes were studied using propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR by adherence to IFU and outcomes by repair types in the subset of patients not meeting IFU.

RESULTS

Of 652 patients (474 EVAR, 34 ZFEN, 143 OSR), 211 had measurements outside of standard EVAR IFU (109 EVAR [23%], 27 ZFEN [80%], and 74 OSR [52%]). Perioperative mortality was 0.5% overall. For EVAR, treatment outside the IFU was associated with significantly higher adjusted rates of long-term type IA endoleak (22% at 5 years compared to 2% within IFU, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8 [3.1-10.9], P < .001), and lower survival (5- and 10-year survival: 56% and 34% vs 81% and 53%, HR: 2.3 [1.2-4.3], P = .01). There was no difference in reinterventions or open conversion. In patients not meeting IFU, ZFEN was associated with higher adjusted rates of reinterventions (EVAR as referent: HR: 2.6 [1.5-4.4, P < .001), whereas OSR and EVAR patients experienced similar reintervention rates (HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.1], P = .13). Patients outside the IFU experienced lower mortality with OSR compared with either EVAR (HR: 0.4 [0.2-0.9], P = .005) or ZFEN (HR: 0.3 [0.1-0.7], P = .002). When restricted to patients outside the IFU deemed fit for open repair, OSR patients remained associated with lower adjusted mortality compared with ZFEN (HR: 0.2 [0.1-0.5], P < .001), but statistical significance was lost in the comparison to EVAR (HR: 0.6 [0.3-1.1], P = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment outside device-specific IFU is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Open surgical repair is associated with higher long-term survival in patients who fall outside of the EVAR IFU and should be favored over EVAR or ZFEN in suitable patients. A three-vessel-based fenestrated strategy may not be a durable solution for difficult aortic necks, but more data are needed to evaluate the performance of newer, four-vessel devices.

National Numbers of Secondary Aortic Reinterventions after Primary Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery from the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

BACKGROUND

Long-term secondary aortic reinterventions (SARs) can be a sign of (lack of) effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. This study provides insight into the national number of SARs after primary AAA repair by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or by open surgical repair in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Observational study included all patients undergoing SAR between 2016 and 2017, registered in the compulsory Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). The DSAA started in 2013, SARs are registered from 2016. Characteristics of SAR and postoperative outcomes (mortality/complications) were analyzed, stratified by urgency of SAR. Data of SARs were merged with data of their preceded primary AAA repair, registered in the DSAA after January 2013. In these patients undergoing SAR, treatment characteristics of the preceded primary AAA repair were additionally described, with focus on differences between stent grafts.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2017, 691 patients underwent SAR, this concerned 9.3% of all AAA procedures (infrarenal/juxtarenal/suprarenal) in the Netherlands (77% elective/11% acute symptomatic/12% ruptured). Endoleak (60%) was the most frequent indication for SAR. SARs were performed with EVAR in 66%. Postoperative mortalities after SAR were 3.4%, 11%, and 29% in elective, acute symptomatic, and ruptured patients, respectively. In 26% (n = 181) of the patients undergoing SAR their primary AAA repair was performed after January 2013 and data of primary and SAR procedures could be merged. In 93% (n = 136), primary AAA repair was EVAR. Endografts primarily used were nitinol/polyester (62%), nitinol/polytetrafluoroethylene (8%), endovascular sealing (21%), and others (9%), compared with their national market share of 76% (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.71), 15% (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.89), 4.9% (OR, 5.04; CI, 3.44-7.38), and 4.1% (OR, 2.81; CI, 1.66-4.74), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Netherlands, about one-tenth of the annual AAA procedures concerns an SAR. A quarter of this cohort had an SAR within 1-5 years after their primary AAA repair. Most SARs followed after primary EVAR procedures, in which an overrepresentation of endovascular sealing grafts was seen. Postoperative mortality after SAR is comparable with primary AAA repair.

The impact of randomized trial results on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair rates from 2003 to 2016: A population-based time-series analysis

Objectives

The uptake of endovascular aortic repair for elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is not well studied. We aimed to examine the trends in open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair of eAAA and rAAA and to examine the effects of randomized trial publications on elective open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair rates.

Methods

We conducted a population-based time-series analysis of eAAA and rAAA repairs in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2016. We examined changes in overall and approach-specific rates of eAAA and rAAA repair using exponential smoothing models. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models were fit to the eAAA rates to examine the impact of randomized trial results on these rates.

Results

We identified 19,489 eAAA (12,232 open (63%) and 7257 endovascular (37%)) and 2732 rAAA (2466 open (90%) and 266 endovascular (10%)) repairs from 2003 to 2016. The rate of eAAA repair declined from 6.39/100,000 in 2003 to 5.59/100,000 in 2016 (13% decrease, p = 0.17). The rate of elective open surgical repair decreased nearly three-fold from 6.07/100,000 to 2.12/100,000 ( p < 0.0001), while elective endovascular aortic repair increased approximately 10-fold (0.32/100,000 to 3.47/100,000, p < 0.0001). The rate of ruptured open surgical repair decreased from 1.62/100,000 to 0.37/100,000 ( p < 0.44), while ruptured endovascular aortic repair uptake increased (0.00/100,000 to 0.12/100,000, p < 0.25). The mid-term results of the DREAM and EVAR-1 trials were associated with a decrease in the rate of elective open surgical repair decline after 2010 ( p = 0.01).

Conclusions

While elective open surgical repair use has significantly decreased from 2003 to 2016, elective endovascular aortic repair use has significantly increased. The DREAM and EVAR-1 results significantly impacted the observed rates of elective open surgical repair only. The reasons for these trends require further characterization.

Abdominal aorta aneurysm with hostile neck: Early outcomes in outside instruction for use in patients using the treovance® stent graft

Purpose:

The efficacy and safety of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), in patients outside instruction for use (IFU), is very challenging and widely debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the placement of the Treovance^® abdominal aorta stent-graft in patients with hostile proximal necks considered outside IFU.

Materials and Methods:

Between May 2013 and August 2014, 5 patients with outside IFU underwent EVAR with the Treovance^® stent-graft. Technical and clinical successes were evaluated. All 5 patients underwent clinical and imaging follow-up.

Results:

Technical and clinical successes were achieved in all 5 patients without adjunctive endovascular procedures or surgical conversion. During the mean follow-up of 21 months, no type I/III endoleaks, stent-graft migration nor kinking/occlusion were observed. In all 5 patients, a reduction of the proximal neck angle was observed.

Conclusion:

In our small series of selected outside IFU patients, EVAR with the Treovance^® stent-graft was technically feasible and safe, with satisfactory short-term follow-up results, when performed by experienced operators. Long-term follow-up will be necessary to confirm the durability of our preliminary promising results.

A Case of Successful Coil Embolization for a Late-Onset Type Ia Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with the Chimney Technique

Juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JRAAs) are challenging to treat by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures. The chimney technique with EVAR (Ch-EVAR) is one of the feasible and less invasive treatments for JRAAs. However, the main concern of Ch-EVAR is the potential risk of “gutters,” which can lead to type Ia endoleak (EL). Most type Ia ELs after Ch-EVAR procedures occurred intraoperatively, and these ELs could be treated using an endovascular technique. However, late-onset type Ia ELs could be extremely rare, which might have a fear of conservative treatment. Type Ia ELs are associated with an increased risk of aneurysm rupture; therefore reintervention is recommended as soon as possible, and we should be aware of the occurrence of type Ia ELs after the Ch-EVAR procedure.

The Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with the Chimney Technique for Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

We collected our experience in the use of chimney technique with endovascular aneurysm repair (Ch-EVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs), and reviewed the outcomes.

METHODS

The patients who were treated with Ch-EVAR between January 2012 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. All of the patients underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) under general anesthesia. Femoral arterial access was obtained to place the main body of the endograft; brachial or axillary access was obtained to perform the placement of the chimney stent.

RESULTS

We treated 12 patients with 15 renal arteries using the Ch-EVAR procedure. Technical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 (91.6%) cases. Within the first 30 days of postoperative period, the target vessel patency rate was 93.3% (14 of 15 renal arteries). After a median follow-up period of 28 months, one patient required Ch-EVAR-related re-intervention due to a type Ia endoleak, and 13 of the 15 renal arteries were patent at the end of the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that Ch-EVAR can be completed with a high rate of success. Although early target vessel occlusion or early postoperative mortality might occur, Ch-EVAR could be an alternative treatment for JAA, especially in high risk patients.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with severely angulated neck and tortuous artery access: case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair has revolutionized the therapeutic strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, hostile proximal aneurysmal neck and tortuosity of access vessels remain challenges in selecting optimal stent-grafts in abdominal aortic aneurysms with difficult anatomy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 65-year-old woman complained of intermittent abdominal pain for one week. Computed tomography angiogram demonstrated a tortuous infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with a tapered neck and a 136° of infrarenal angulation. Aneurysmal dilatation and severe calcification of bilateral iliac arteries and tortuous aortoiliac access were also showed. Endovascular approach using Endurant stent-graft was attempted at an outside hospital, but failed because of the significant tortuosity of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries. Since the patient refused to have open aneurysm repair, he was transferred to our hospital for further evaluation and possible EVAR with a different approach. EVAR was performed successfully using Gore Excluder stent-grafts (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA). During the procedure, cannulation of the contralateral limb was unable to be achieved because of the tortuous aortoiliac course. Therefore, a snare was inserted from right radial artery, through the contralateral gate, to grasp the wire from left femoral artery. Two iliac stent-grafts were sequentially deployed with the lower end distal to the opening of the left internal iliac artery. Angiography confirmed complete sealing of the aneurysm with patency of bilateral renal arteries and external iliac arteries. The postoperative courses were uneventful and follow-up computed tomography angiogram at 6 months demonstrated patent bilateral femoral and renal arteries without endoleaks or stent migration.

CONCLUSION

Although endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm with hostile neck and tortuous access is rather challenging, choosing flexible stent-grafts and suitable techniques is able to achieve an encouraging outcome.