Follow-Up of Fascial Suture After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with Duplex Ultrasound

Objective The bell-bottom technique is a widely used technique to treat aortoiliac aneurysms with preservation of the hypogastric arteries. The published data are scarce with conflicting results regarding the evolution. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients submitted to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with standard technique (S-EVAR) versus bell-bottom technique. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared the outcomes of standard endovascular aneurysm repair (<16 mm iliac limbs) and bell-bottom technique (≥16 mm iliac limbs) in a tertiary vascular center between 2010 and 2015. The end points of this study were type IB endoleak, reintervention and 30-day mortality. The follow-up protocol included CT scans within 30 days of implantation and 12 months. Duplex ultrasound was performed yearly thereafter. Results Two hundred and three patients were treated with bell-bottom technique ( n = 84, mean age 72.2 ± 8.9) and S-EVAR ( n = 119, mean age 72.7 ± 8.4). The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%, with no significant difference between groups. There was higher prevalence of coronary heart disease in the bell-bottom technique group compared to the S-EVAR group (41.6% vs. 18.4%, p < 0.01). One patient in the S-EVAR group (0.85%) and four patients in the bell-bottom technique (4.6%) developed type IB endoleak. The mean follow-up period was 35.2 ± 30.4 months. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, freedom from type IB endoleak in 80 months was 85.2% in the bell-bottom technique group and 98.7% in the S-EVAR group ( p = 0.05). The freedom from reintervention in 80 months was 74.0% in the bell-bottom technique group and 94.1% in the S-EVAR group ( p = 0.6). Conclusions This study shows lower freedom from type IB endoleak in the bell-bottom group compared to the standard repair group. There is no significant difference in reoperation rate and 30-day mortality.

Download Full-text

Image-guided translumbar type II endoleak repair: A novel approach

American Journal of Interventional Radiology ◽

10.25259/ajir_6_2019 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 9

Author(s):

Salman Mirza ◽

Shahnawaz Ansari

Keyword(s):

Mesenteric Artery ◽

Inferior Mesenteric Artery ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Type Ii ◽

Type Ii Endoleak ◽

Image Guided ◽

Novel Approach ◽

Abdominal Aortic ◽

Aneurysm Repair

We present a case of a 72-year-old male with an abdominal aortic aneurysm status post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Follow-up imaging demonstrated an enlarging type II endoleak and attempts at transarterial coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery were unsuccessful. The patient underwent image-guided percutaneous translumbar type II endoleak repair using XperGuide (Philips, Andover, MA USA).

Download Full-text

Endovascular aortic repair with EndoAnchors demonstrate good mid-term outcomes in physician-initiated multicenter analysis—The PERU registry

Vascular ◽

10.1177/1708538121992596 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 170853812199259

Author(s):

Andrés Reyes Valdivia ◽

Arindam Chaudhuri ◽

Ross Milner ◽

Giovanni Pratesi ◽

Michel MPJ Reijnen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Abdominal Ultrasound ◽

Interquartile Range ◽

Technical Success ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Hostile Neck ◽

Aneurysm Repair ◽

Related Mortality

Objectives We aim to describe real-world outcomes from multicenter data about the efficacy of adjunct Heli-FX EndoAnchor usage in preventing or repairing failures during infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), so-called EndoSutured-aneurysm-repair (ESAR). Methods The current study has been assigned an identifier (NCT04100499) at the US National Library of Medicine ( https://ClinicalTrials.gov ). It is an observational retrospective study of prospectively collected data from seven vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019. Patients included in the ANCHOR registry were excluded from this analysis. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center’s practice. Follow-up imaging was scheduled according to each center’s protocol, which necessarily included either abdominal ultrasound or radiography or computed tomographic scan imaging. The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (IaEL), all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, and sac variation and trends evaluated for those with at least six months imaging follow-up. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent ESAR in participating centers during the study period. After exclusions, 221 patients (184 males, 37 females, mean age 75 ± 8.3 years) were finally included for analysis. Median follow-up for the cohort was 27 (interquartile range 12–48) months. A median 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed at ESAR, 175 (79%) procedures were primary and 46 (21%) revision cases, 40 associated with type IaEL. Technical success at operation (initial), 30-day, and overall success were 89, 95.5, and 96.8%, respectively; the 30-day success was higher due to those with subsequent spontaneous proximal endoleak seal. At two years, freedom from type IaEL was 94% for the whole series; 96% and 86% for the primary and revision groups, respectively; whereas freedom from all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and reintervention was 89%, 98%, and 87%, respectively. Sac evolution pre-ESAR was 66 ± 15.1 vs. post ESAR 61 ± 17.5 (p < 0.001) and for 180 patients with at least six-month follow-up, 92.2% of them being in a stable (51%) or regression (41%) situation. Conclusions This real-world registry demonstrates that adjunct EndoAnchor usage at EVAR achieves high rates of freedom from type IaEL at mid-term including in a high number of patients with hostile neck anatomy, with positive trends in sac-size evolution. Further data with longer follow-up may help to establish EndoAnchor usage as a routine adjunct to EVAR, especially in hostile necks.

Download Full-text

Experience With Unfavorable Iliac Access When Performing Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Journal of Endovascular Therapy ◽

10.1177/1526602821991125 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 152660282199112

Author(s):

Adrien Hertault ◽

Aurélia Bianchini ◽

Guillaume Daniel ◽

Teresa Martin-Gonzalez ◽

Birgit Sweet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Iliac Artery ◽

Endovascular Repair ◽

Clinical Success ◽

Multiorgan Failure ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Small Diameter ◽

Early Postoperative Period ◽

Single Center Experience ◽

Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To review a single-center experience with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (f/bEVAR) in patients with challenging iliac anatomies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of the department’s database identified 398 consecutive patients who underwent complex endovascular repair f/bEVAR between January 2010 and June 2018; of these, 67 had challenging accesses. The strategies implemented to overcome access issues were reviewed, using a dedicated scoring system to evaluate the access (integrating diameter, tortuosity, calcification, and previous open or endovascular repair). Results: In this subgroup of patients, the most common graft design was a 4-vessel fenestrated endograft (27, 40.3%). Hostile access was due to small diameter (<7 mm) in 25 patients (37.3%) and/or concentric calcifications in 19 patients (26.9%). Mean iliac diameter was 5.5±2.6 mm on the right side and 6.0±2.5 mm on the left side. Previous open or endovascular aortoiliac repair had been performed in 15 patients (22.4%), and 20 patients (29.9%) had a stent previously implanted in at least 1 iliac artery, resulting in the inability to perform standard fenestrated repair with access from both sides. Five patients (7.5%) had a single patent iliac access. Eight distinctive strategies were identified to overcome these access issues, including the use of preloaded renal catheters in the endograft delivery system, angioplasty, graft modification (branches instead of fenestrations or 4 preloaded fenestrations), a conduit via a retroperitoneal approach, iliac artery recanalization, and/or the multiple puncture technique. Technical success was achieved in 62 cases (92.5%). Four patients had access complications and 1 died in the early postoperative period of multiorgan failure. Median follow-up was 24.6 months (IQR 7.2, 41.3). Clinical success at the end of follow-up was achieved in 57 patients (85.1%). During follow-up, 14 patients died, including 4 from an aorta-related cause. Conclusion: Dedicated strategies can be implemented to overcome hostile iliac access in patients with complex aneurysms when f/bEVAR is required. Typically, these maneuvers are associated with favorable outcomes.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Advanta V12 Covered Stents After Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Journal of Endovascular Therapy ◽

10.1177/15266028211016423 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 152660282110164

Author(s):

Claire van der Riet ◽

Richte C. L. Schuurmann ◽

Eric L. G. Verhoeven ◽

Clark J. Zeebregts ◽

Ignace F. J. Tielliu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Stent Fracture ◽

Covered Stents ◽

Significant Stenosis ◽

Primary Endpoints ◽

Visceral Arteries ◽

Aneurysm Repair ◽

Type 3

Purpose: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a well-established endovascular treatment option for pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms in which balloon-expandable covered stents (BECS) are used to bridge the fenestration to the target vessels. This study presents midterm clinical outcomes and patency rates of the Advanta V12 BECS used as a bridging stent. Methods: All patients treated with FEVAR with at least 1 Advanta V12 BECS were included from 2 large-volume vascular centers between January 2012 and December 2015. Primary endpoints were freedom from all-cause reintervention, and freedom from BECS-associated complications and reintervention. BECS-associated complications included significant stenosis, occlusion, type 3 endoleak, or stent fracture. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality in-hospital and during follow-up. Results: This retrospective study included 194 FEVAR patients with a mean age of 72.2±8.0 years. A total of 457 visceral arteries were stented with an Advanta V12 BECS. Median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 24.6 (1.6, 49.9) months. The FEVAR procedure was technically successful in 93% of the patients. Five patients (3%) died in-hospital. Patient survival was 77% (95% CI 69% to 84%) at 3 years. Freedom from all-cause reintervention was 70% (95% CI 61% to 78%) at 3 years, and 33% of all-cause reinterventions were BECS associated. Complications were seen in 24 of 457 Advanta V12 BECSs: type 3 endoleak in 8 BECSs, significant stenosis in 4 BECSs, occlusion in 6 BECSs, and stent fractures in 3 BECSs. A combination of complications occurred in 3 BECSs: type 3 endoleak and stenosis, stent fracture and stenosis, and stent fracture and occlusion. The freedom from BECS-associated complications for Advanta V12 BECSs was 98% (95% CI 96% to 99%) at 1 year and 92% (95% CI 88% to 95%) at 3 years. The freedom from BECS-associated reinterventions was 98% (95% CI 95% to 100%) at 1 year and 94% (95% CI 91% to 97%) at 3 years. Conclusion: The Advanta V12 BECS used as bridging stent in FEVAR showed low complication and reintervention rates at 3 years. A substantial number of FEVAR patients required a reintervention, but most were not BECS related.

Download Full-text

What is the clinical utility of a 6-month computed tomography in the follow-up of endovascular aneurysm repair patients?

Yearbook of Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1016/s0749-4041(08)79038-9 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 2009 ◽

pp. 123-124

Author(s):

G.L. Moneta

Keyword(s):

Computed Tomography ◽

Clinical Utility ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Aneurysm Repair

Download Full-text

Comparing polymer-filled versus self-expanding endografts in Chinese patients

Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals ◽

10.1177/0218492318810108 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (9) ◽

pp. 667-676

Author(s):

Yuk Law ◽

Yiu Che Chan ◽

Stephen Wing-Keung Cheng

Keyword(s):

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Aortic Aneurysms ◽

The Self ◽

Chinese Patients ◽

Type Ii ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Type Ia ◽

One Year ◽

Aneurysm Repair

Introduction We performed a single-center nonrandomized study on patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair using polymer-filled or other self-expanding endografts. Methods Consecutive patients with asymptomatic infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms who underwent endovascular repair were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into a polymer-filled ( n = 20) or self-expanding group ( n = 42). Baseline characteristics, operative mortality and morbidity, and follow-up data were compared. Results Aneurysm diameter, neck and iliac morphologies did not differ between the two groups. Technical success was 100%. The 30-day mortality was 0% and 2.4% in the polymer-filled and self-expanding group, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 17 months, the changes in sac size were −2.1 mm and −5.1 mm ( p = 0.144) at one year, and −3.5 mm and −7.7 mm ( p = 0.287) at 2 years in the polymer-filled and self-expanding group, respectively. The polymer-filled group had 7 (35%) type II endoleaks, and the self-expanding group had 1 (2.4%) type Ia and 13 (31%) type II endoleaks. Neck diameter remained stable in the polymer-filled stent-grafts whereas there was progressive neck degeneration in the self-expanding group. The rates of reintervention and overall survival were similar in both groups. The presence of an endoleak was the only predictor of non-regression of the aneurysm (odds ratio = 17.00, 95% confidence interval: 4.46–64.88, p < 0.001). Conclusion Polymer-filled endografts had similar safety, effectiveness, and durability to other self-expanding endografts. The major advantage is the small iliofemoral access. They also have the potential long-term benefit of a more stable neck.

Download Full-text