Acute Kidney Injury after Complex Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (44) ◽  
pp. 4686-4694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan L. Liang ◽  
Abhisekh Mohapatra ◽  
Efthymios D. Avgerinos ◽  
Athanasios Katsargyris
Keyword(s):  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Associated Factors ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

Background: Complex endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm carries higher perioperative morbidity than standard infrarenal endovascular repair. Objective: This study reviews the incidence and associated factors of acute kidney injury in complex aortic endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods: A literature review was performed for all studies on the endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms that evaluated rates of acute kidney injury as an outcome. Outcomes were further analyzed by the level of anatomic complexity and method of repair. Results: 52 studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 5454 individuals undergoing repair from 2004 to 2017. The overall rate of acute kidney injury ranged widely from 0 to 41%, with a rate of hemodialysis from 0 to 19% (temporary) and 0 to 14% (permanent). Increasing anatomic complexity was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury. Mode of endovascular repair, learning curve effect, and preoperative chronic renal insufficiency did not demonstrate any associations with the outcome. Conclusion: Published rates of acute kidney injury in complex aortic aneurysm repair vary widely with few definitively associated factors other than increasing anatomic complexity and operative time. Further study is needed for the identification of predictors related to postoperative acute kidney injury.

The Clinical Utility and Assessment of Renal Biomarkers in Acute Kidney Injury After Abdominal Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (44) ◽  
pp. 4695-4701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Karaolanis ◽  
Zachary F. Williams ◽  
Chris Bakoyiannis ◽  
Dimitrios Hadjis ◽  
Mitchell W. Cox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Binding Protein ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Renal Biomarkers ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

: The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is due to the obvious advantages of the procedure compared to the traditional open repair. However, these advantages have to be weighed against the increased risk of renal dysfunction with EVAR. The evaluation of the perioperative renal function after EVAR has been hampered by the lack of sensitive and specific biochemical markers of acute kidney injury (AKI). The purpose of this study was to summarize all novel renal biomarkers and to evaluate their clinical utility for the assessment of the kidney function after EVAR. A systematic review of the current literature, as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, was performed to identify relevant studies with novel renal biomarkers and EVAR. Pubmed and Scopus databases were systemically searched. Studies reporting on thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), case reports, case series, letters to the editor, and systematic reviews were excluded. Neutrophil-Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Cystatin C, Liver-type fatty-acid-binding protein were the most common among the eligible studies while Interleukin-18, Retinol binding protein, N-acetyle-b-D-glucosaminidase and microalbumin have a sparse appearance in the literature. These biomarkers have been assessed in plasma as well as urine samples with each sample material having its own advantages and drawbacks. Which of these biomarkers has the most potential for assessing postoperative renal failure after EVAR, remains to be proved. The few studies presented in the literature show the potential clinical utility of these biomarkers, but larger studies with longer follow-up are required to determine the precise relationship between these biomarkers and postoperative acute kidney injury.

scholarly journals Endovascular repair of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms by fenestrated and branched endografts†

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 993-1000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Gallitto ◽  
Gianluca Faggioli ◽  
Rodolfo Pini ◽  
Chiara Mascoli ◽  
Stefano Ancetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
The Mean ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Staged Hybrid Endovascular Repair of a Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Aortocaval Fistula

Aorta ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
pp. 25-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Chung ◽  
Chris Reid ◽  
Dennis Bandyk ◽  
Andrew Barleben ◽  
John Lane
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Hybrid Approach ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Short Review ◽  
Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Aortocaval Fistula ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

AbstractThere is a growing body of literature expanding the indication of endovascular aneurysm repair, from prophylactic treatment of aneurysms to other indications such as ruptured and complicated ruptured abdominal aneurysms. Concomitant aortocaval fistula is rare, and reports of open and endovascular repair exist. We report a unique hybrid approach to a case of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with aortocaval fistula, repaired primarily via endovascular approach in a hybrid, two-staged fashion. Representative images are presented in addition to a short review of this pathology.

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

Vascular ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-665 ◽  
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.

Elective endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in octogenarians

Vascular ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Morisaki ◽  
Takuya Matsumoto ◽  
Yutaka Matsubara ◽  
Kentaro Inoue ◽  
Yukihiko Aoyagi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Operative Mortality ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Elective Repair ◽  
Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Repair Group

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the operative mortality and short-term and midterm outcomes of treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in Japanese patients over 80 years of age. Methods Between January 2007 and December 2011, 207 patients underwent elective repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comorbidities, operative morbidity and mortality, midterm outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Results The average age (endovascular aneurysm repair, 84.4 ± 0.3; open, 82.8 ± 0.3, P < 0.01) and the percentage of hostile abdomen (endovascular aneurysm repair, 22.2%; open repair, 11.1%, P < 0.05) were higher in the endovascular aneurysm repair group. Percentage of outside IFU was higher in open repair (endovascular aneurysm repair, 38.5%; open repair, 63.3%, P < 0.01). The cardiac complication (endovascular aneurysm repair, 0%; open repair, 5.6%, P < 0.01) and length of postoperative hospital stay (endovascular aneurysm repair, 10.3 ± 0.8 days; open, 18.6 ± 1.6 days, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the endovascular aneurysm repair group. There were no differences in operative mortality (endovascular aneurysm repair, 0%; open, 1.1%, P = 0.43) and the aneurysm-related death was not observed. The rate of secondary interventions (EVAR, 5.1%; open repair, 0%, P < 0.01) and midterm mortality rate were much higher in the endovascular aneurysm repair group. Conclusions Endovascular aneurysm repair is less invasive than open repair and useful for treating abdominal aortic aneurysm in octogenarians; however, open repair can be acceptable treatment in the inappropriate case treated by endovascular aneurysm repair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document