scholarly journals Exclusion of complex aortic aneurysm with chimney endovascular aortic repair is applicable in a minority of patients treated with fenestrated endografts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Kliewer ◽  
Elisabeth Pelanek-Völk ◽  
Markus Plimon ◽  
Fadi Taher ◽  
Afshin Assadian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Neck ◽  
Computed Tomography Scans ◽  
Elective Setting ◽  
Sealing Zone ◽  
Instructions For Use ◽  
Neck Diameter

Abstract OBJECTIVES The Medtronic Endurant II stent graft has recently received Conformité Européenne (CE) approval for the use in chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR) for the treatment for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to assess the percentage of patients treated by fenestrated endovascular repair who would have been alternatively suitable for the treatment by the CE approved Medtronic ChEVAR. METHODS Preoperative computed tomography scans of 100 patients who underwent fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) between April 2013 and February 2017 were retrospectively assessed for the applicability of the ChEVAR technique according to the Medtronic instructions for use. Eligibility criteria included an aortic neck diameter of 19–30 mm, a minimum infrarenal neck length of 2 mm, a total proximal sealing zone of at least 15 mm, thrombus in the aortic neck in ˂25% of the circumference, and maximum aortic angulations of 60° in the infrarenal, 45° in the suprarenal segment and ˂45° above the superior mesenteric artery. RESULTS According to CE-approved inclusion criteria, 19 individuals (19%) would have been eligible for ChEVAR. In 81 patients, at least 1 measure was found outside instructions for use: (i) excluding factor was detected in 26 patients, (ii) incongruous measures in 28 patients and in 27 patients, 3–5 measures were outside the instructions for use. The most frequently identified excluding factor was an insufficient infrarenal neck at ˂2 mm length (n = 63; 63%). CONCLUSIONS Patients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysm treated by FEVAR are in 19% of the cases alternatively suitable for the treatment by ChEVAR within CE-approved instructions for use. While ChEVAR is suitable in many emergency cases, FEVAR offers a broader applicability in an elective setting.

Endovascular treatment of proximal para-anastomotic aneurysms after previous surgical repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms by the chimney technique

Vascular ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Georgios I Karaolanis ◽  
Marco Damiano Pipitone ◽  
Giovanni Torsello ◽  
Martin Austermann ◽  
Konstantinos P Donas
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Short Neck ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Neck ◽  
Abdominal Aortic

Objectives To evaluate the use of chimney grafts in the treatment of para-anastomotic aneurysms after previous abdominal aortic aneurysms open repair with short neck. Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular repair for proximal aortic para-anastomotic aneurysms following previous open repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms was performed. All included patients had a short infrarenal aortic neck (<10 mm) excluding standard endovascular aortic repair. Five patients were symptomatic at the admission needed urgent treatment. Results Twelve patients with para-anastomotic aneurysms underwent placement of chimney grafts. The median time between the original operations to redo endovascular procedure was 11 years (interquartile range, 9.5 years). The mean infrarenal length was 4.3 mm (1–9 mm). A total of 28 chimneys grafts were deployed for the 12 patients. The technical success rate was 91.7%. At a median radiologic follow-up of 16 months (2.0–29.4, 95% confidence interval), one patient died, while two late endoleaks and two reinterventions at one and three years for type Ia endoleak were performed by proximal extension and triple chimney graft placement. Conclusion The results of the present study show that ch-endovascular aortic repair is a safe technique for patients who suffered from proximal para-anastomotic aneurysms and having short neck unsuitable for standard endovascular repair. Longer follow up warranted to evaluate the durability of ch-endovascular aortic repair for this specific indication.

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

2022 ◽  
pp. 152660282110687
Author(s):  
Jordan R. Stern ◽  
Céline Deslarzes-Dubuis ◽  
Kenneth Tran ◽  
Jason T. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Neck Length ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard ◽  
Potential Association ◽  
Contrast Volume ◽  
Instructions For Use ◽  
Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Neck Diameter

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.

Anatomical Predictors of Endoleaks or Migration After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim van Noort ◽  
Johannes T. Boersen ◽  
Aleksandra C. Zoethout ◽  
Richte C. L. Schuurmann ◽  
Jan M. M. Heyligers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Neck Length ◽  
Aortic Neck ◽  
Distal Migration ◽  
Aneurysm Growth ◽  
Instructions For Use ◽  
Neck Diameter

Purpose: To identify preoperative anatomical aortic characteristics that predict seal failures after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) and compare the incidence of events experienced by patients treated within vs outside the instructions for use (IFU). Methods: Of 355 patients treated with the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System (generation 3SQ+) at 3 high-volume centers from March 2013 to December 2015, 94 patients were excluded, leaving 261 patients (mean age 76±8 years; 229 men) for regression analysis. Of these, 83 (31.8%) suffered one or more of the following events: distal migration ⩾5 mm of one or both stent frames, any endoleak, and/or aneurysm growth >5 mm. Anatomical characteristics were determined on preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Patients were divided into 3 groups: treated within the original IFU (n=166), outside the original IFU (n=95), and within the 2016 revised IFU (n=46). Categorical data are presented as the median (interquartile range Q1, Q3). Results: Neck diameter was significantly larger in the any-event cohort vs the control cohort [23.7 mm (21.7, 26.3) vs 23.0 mm (20.9, 25.2) mm, p=0.022]. Neck length was significantly shorter in the any-event cohort [15.0 mm (10.0, 22.5) vs 19.0 mm (10.0, 21.8), p=0.006]. Maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter and the ratio between the maximum AAA diameter and lumen diameter in the any-event group were significantly larger than the control group (p=0.041 and p=0.002, respectively). Regression analysis showed aortic neck diameter (p=0.006), neck length (p=0.001), and the diameter ratio (p=0.011) as significant predictors of any event. In the comparison of events to IFU status, 52 (31.3%) of 166 patients in the inside the original IFU group suffered an event compared to 13 (28.3%) of 46 patients inside the 2016 IFU group (p=0.690). Conclusion: Large neck diameter, short aortic neck length, and the ratio between the maximum AAA and lumen diameters are preoperative anatomical predictors of the occurrence of migration (⩾5 mm), any endoleak, and/or aneurysm growth (>5 mm) after EVAS. Even under the refined 2016 IFU, more than a quarter of patients suffered from an event. Improvements in the device seem to be necessary before this technique can be implemented on a large scale in endovascular AAA repair.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in endovascular versus open repair for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms: A propensity-matched analysis

Vascular ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan T Orr ◽  
Daniel L Davenport ◽  
David J Minion ◽  
Eleftherios S Xenos
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Propensity Scoring ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Open Aortic Repair ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective Endoluminal aortic aneurysm repair is suitable within certain anatomic specifications. This study aims to compare 30-day outcomes of endovascular versus open repairs for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms (JAA/PAAs). Methods The ACS-NSQIP database was queried from 2012 to 2015 for JAA/PAA repairs. Procedures characterized as emergent were included in the study; however, failed prior repairs and ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The preoperative and perioperative patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcome variables were compared between the open aortic repair and the endovascular aortic repair groups. Propensity scoring was performed to clinically match open aortic repair and endovascular aortic repair groups on preoperative risk and select perioperative factors that differed significantly in the unmatched groups. Outcome comparisons were then performed between matched groups. Results A total of 1005 (789 JAAs and 216 PAAs) aneurysm repairs were included in the study. Of these, there were 395 endovascular aortic repairs and 610 open aortic repairs. Propensity scoring created a matched group of 263 endovascular aortic repair and 263 open aortic repair patients. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality rates between matched endovascular aortic repair and open aortic repair patients (2.7% vs. 5.7%). The endovascular aortic repair group had a shorter ICU length of stay and overall hospital stay. The 30-day morbidity significantly favored endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair (16% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). The main drivers of morbidity for endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair included return to the OR (6.8% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), rate of cardiac or respiratory failure (7.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), rate of renal insufficiency or failure (3.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.009), and rate of pneumonia (1.5% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.004). Conclusions There is no difference in mortality rates between endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair when repairing JAAs/PAAs. There is a significant difference in overall morbidity, and ICU and hospital length of stay favoring endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair. This supports the expanded applicability and efficacy of endovascular repair for complex aneurysms.

Outcomes of open and endovascular repair of inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms

Vascular ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
África Duque Santos ◽  
Andrés Reyes Valdivia ◽  
María Asunción Romero Lozano ◽  
Enrique Aracil Sanus ◽  
Julia Ocaña Guaita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Surgery ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Abdominal Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Repair Group

Objective Reports on inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm treatment are scarce. Traditionally, open surgery has been validated as the gold standard of treatment; however, high technical skills are required. Endovascular aortic repair has been suggested as a less invasive treatment by some authors offering good results. The purpose of our study was to report our experience and outcomes in the treatment of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm using both approaches. Material and methods A retrospective review and data collection of all patients treated for inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm between 2000 and 2015 was done in one academic center. Diagnosis of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm was based on preoperative CT-scan imaging. Type of treatment, postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality are described. Abdominal compressive symptoms (hydronephrosis) severity and relief after treatment are described. Results Thirty-four patients with intact inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm were included. Twenty-nine (85.3%) patients were treated by open means and the remaining five (14.7%) with endovascular aortic repair. Nearly 90% were considered high-risk patients. Median follow-up was 46 months (range 24–112). The two groups were comparable, except for the age and preoperative hydronephrosis. There was no statistical significance in blood transfusion requirements, intensive care hospitalization, 30-day and long-term mortality between the two groups. Preoperative hydronephrosis was diagnosed in four (13.8%) patients in the open surgery group and three (60%) patients in the endovascular aortic repair group. Improvement of hydronephrosis was recognized in three out of the four patients in the open repair group and two out of the three in the endovascular aortic repair group. Renal function remained stable in both groups during follow-up. Conclusions Open surgery remains a safe and valid option for the treatment of inflammatory aortic abdominal aneurysm. Although our study included a small number of patients with endovascular aortic repair treatment, results are promising. Further randomized controlled studies may be necessary to assess long-term effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair treatment in this disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document