Open versus endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: What have we learned after more than 2 decades of ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair?

Abstract OBJECTIVES Our objective was to report the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) with endografts. METHODS Between January 2010 and April 2018, patients with TAAAs, considered at high surgical risk for open surgery and treated by Cook-Zenith fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair, were prospectively enrolled and retrospectively analysed. The early end points were 30-day/hospital mortality rate, spinal cord ischaemia and 30-day cardiopulmonary and nephrological morbidity. Follow-up end points were survival, patency of target visceral vessels and freedom from reinterventions. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients (male: 77%; mean age: 73 ± 7 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists 3/4: 58/42%) were enrolled. Using Crawford’s classification, 43 (49%) were types I–III and 45 (51%) were type IV TAAAs. The mean aneurysm diameter was 65 ± 15 mm. Custom-made and off-the-shelf endografts were used in 60 (68%) and 28 (32%) cases, respectively. Five (6%) patients had a contained ruptured TAAA. The procedure was performed in multiple steps in 42 (48%) cases. There was 1 (1%) intraoperative death. Five (6%) patients suffered spinal cord ischaemia with permanent paraplegia in 3 (3%) cases. Postoperative cardiac and pulmonary complications occurred in 7 (8%) and 12 (14%) patients, respectively. Worsening of renal function (≥30% of baseline level) was detected in 11 (13%) cases, and 2 (2%) patients required haemodialysis. The 30-day and hospital mortality rates were 5% and 8%, respectively. The mean follow-up was 36 ± 22 months. Survival at 12, 24 and 36 months was 89%, 75% and 70%, respectively. The patency of target visceral vessels at 12, 24 and 36 months was 92%, 92% and 92%, respectively. Freedom from reinterventions at 12, 24 and 36 months was 85%, 85% and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The endovascular repair of TAAAs with fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair is feasible and effective with acceptable technical/clinical outcomes at early/midterm follow-up.

Download Full-text

Anatomical Suitability of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms for Endovascular Repair

Journal of Endovascular Therapy ◽

10.1177/152660280301000309 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 453-457 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Daniel F.G. Rose ◽

Ian R. Davidson ◽

Robert J. Hinchliffe ◽

Simon C. Whitaker ◽

Roger H. Gregson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endovascular Repair ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Computed Tomographic Angiography ◽

Aortic Aneurysms ◽

University Hospital ◽

Aneurysm Neck ◽

Computed Tomographic ◽

Abdominal Aortic ◽

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose: To assess the anatomical suitability of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) for emergency endovascular repair. Methods: All cases (46 patients [35 men; mean age 74 years, range 54–85]) in which computed tomographic angiography (CTA) confirmed AAA rupture over a 5-year period at our university hospital were reviewed for anatomical suitability for endovascular repair. Measurements were made by a radiologist experienced in anatomical assessment of CT criteria for elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Results: The mean aneurysm neck length was 18 mm (range 0–59); 17 were conical, 13 straight, 4 barrel, and 6 reverse conical. Six cases had no proximal neck. Overall, 37 (80%) patients were unsuitable for EVAR according to our criteria. Nearly half the patients (22, 48%) had ≥2 adverse features. Unsuitable neck morphology (35, 76%) was the primary reason for exclusion, but CIA aneurysm (10, 22%) and EIA tortuosity (7, 15%) were secondary adverse features. Conclusions: With current stent-graft design, the majority of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are anatomically unsuitable for endovascular repair.

Download Full-text

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.03.007 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 47 (6) ◽

pp. 603 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

J.S. Lindholt ◽

J. Laustsen

Keyword(s):

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Abdominal Aortic ◽

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Aneurysm Repair

Download Full-text

The effect of endograft device on patient outcomes in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Vascular ◽

10.1177/1708538117711348 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 (6) ◽

pp. 657-665 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Vinay Kansal ◽

Sudhir Nagpal ◽

Prasad Jetty

Keyword(s):

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽

Aortic Aneurysm ◽

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽

Abdominal Aortic ◽

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽

Instructions For Use ◽

Aneurysm Repair

Objective Endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is being increasingly applied as the intervention of choice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether survival and reintervention rates after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm vary between endograft devices. Methods This cohort study identified all ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms performed at The Ottawa Hospital from January 1999 to May 2015. Data collected included patient demographics, stability index at presentation, adherence to device instructions for use, endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality. Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare outcomes between groups. Mortality outcomes were assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and multivariate Cox regression modeling. Results One thousand sixty endovascular aneurysm repairs were performed using nine unique devices. Ninety-six ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms were performed using three devices: Cook Zenith ( n = 46), Medtronic Endurant ( n = 33), and Medtronic Talent ( n = 17). The percent of patients presented in unstable or extremis condition was 30.2, which did not differ between devices. Overall 30-day mortality was 18.8%, and was not statistically different between devices ( p = 0.16), although Medtronic Talent had markedly higher mortality (35.3%) than Cook Zenith (15.2%) and Medtronic Endurant (15.2%). AUI configuration was associated with increased 30-day mortality (33.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.02). Long-term mortality and graft-related reintervention rates at 30 days and 5 years were similar between devices. Instructions for use adherence was similar across devices, but differed between the ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and elective endovascular aneurysm repair cohorts (47.7% vs. 79.0%, p < 0.01). Notably, two patients who received Medtronic Talent grafts underwent open conversion >30 days post-endovascular aneurysm repair ( p = 0.01). Type 1 endoleak rates differed significantly across devices (Cook Zenith 0.0%, Medtronic Endurant 18.2%, Medtronic Talent 17.6%, p = 0.01). Conclusion Although we identified device-related differences in endoleak rates, there were no significant differences in reintervention rates or mortality outcomes. Favorable outcomes of Cook Zenith and Medtronic Endurant over Medtronic Talent reflect advances in endograft technology and improvements in operator experience over time. Results support selection of endograft by operator preference for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Download Full-text