Adjunctive Procedures for Challenging Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair: When Needed and How Effective?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ahn S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7119153 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adjunctive Procedures for Challenging Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair: When Needed and How Effective?
Vascular specialist international 20200301 1
Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is now considered the first choice treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment. Advocates for endovascular strategies will try to treat all AAA by EVAR, regardless if the anatomy is conducive for treatment or not. However, the long-term outcomes of EVAR outside the instructions for use (IFU) due to a hostile aneurysmal neck or iliac artery anatomy are known to be poor. The EVAR procedures can be classified according to the technical diffic ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundConcomitant procedures during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm are performed to facilitate endograft delivery, to simultaneously treat unrelated conditions, or to resolve intraoperative pitfalls. The frequency and perioperative impact of these procedures are not well described. This study aimed to assess the frequency and perioperative impact of various concomitant procedures performed at the time of EVAR.MethodsWe included all elective EVARs in the Vascular Study Group of New England between January 2003 and November 2014 and identified those with and those without concomitant procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to establish the independent association between concomitant procedures and perioperative outcomes.ResultsThe study included 4033 patients, with 1168 (29.0%) patients undergoing one or more additional procedures. Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality were concomitant femoral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-11.2) and renal angioplasty or stenting (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.3). Postoperative bowel ischemia was associated with hypogastric embolization (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.4) and iliac angioplasty or stenting (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.3-9.6). Leg ischemia was associated with unplanned graft extension (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02-5.0), other artery reconstruction (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.1), thromboembolectomy (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.8), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.2-18.3). Risk factors for deterioration of renal function were iliofemoral bypass (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-12.2), other artery reconstruction (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.8), renal angioplasty or stenting (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.6), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.2). Myocardial infarction was associated with femorofemoral bypass (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), other artery reconstruction (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.2), and repair of arterial injury (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-21.0). Wound complications were predicted by femorofemoral bypass (OR, 13.4; 95% CI, 5.8-31.1).ConclusionsConcomitant procedures during EVAR are associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. The need for performing concomitant procedures should be carefully considered. The morbidity associated with intraoperative complications highlights the importance of avoidance of arterial injury and thromboembolic events where possible.
| S-EPMC4884140 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10749584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.
| S-EPMC9634472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies demonstrate that patients with a shrinking abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), one-year after endovascular repair (EVAR), have better long-term outcomes than patients with a stable AAA. It is not known what factors determine whether an AAA will shrink or not. In this study, a range of parameters was investigated to identify their use in differentiating patients that will develop a shrinking AAA from those with a stable AAA one-year after EVAR. Hundred-seventy-four patients (67 shrinking AAA, 107 stable AAA) who underwent elective, infrarenal EVAR were enrolled between 2011-2018. Long-term survival was significantly better in patients with a shrinking AAA, compared to those with a stable AAA (p = 0.038). Larger preoperative maximum AAA diameter was associated with an increased likelihood of developing AAA shrinkage one-year after EVAR-whereas older age and larger preoperative infrarenal β angle were associated with a reduced likelihood of AAA shrinkage. However, this multivariate logistic regression model was only able to correctly identify 66.7% of patients with AAA shrinkage from the total cohort. This is not sufficient for implementation in clinical care, and therefore future research is recommended to dive deeper into AAA anatomy, and explore potential predictors using artificial intelligence and radiomics.
| S-EPMC8910935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the long-term reintervention rate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR), and identify factors predicting reintervention.Summary of background dataEVR is the most common method of aneurysm repair in America, and reintervention after EVR is common. Clinical factors predicting reintervention have not been described in large datasets with long-term follow-up.MethodsWe studied patients who underwent EVR using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry linked to Medicare claims. Our primary outcome was reintervention, defined as any procedure related to the EVR after discharge from the index hospitalization. We used classification and regression tree modeling to inform a multivariable Cox-regression model predicting reintervention after EVR.ResultsWe studied 12,911 patients treated from 2003 to 2015. Mean age was 75.5 ± 7.3 years, 79.9% were male, and 89.1% of operations were elective. The 3-year reintervention rate was 15%, and the 10-year rate was 33%. Five factors predicted reintervention: operative time ≥3.0 hours, aneurysm diameter ≥6.0 cm, an iliac artery aneurysm ≥2.0 cm, emergency surgery, and a history of prior aortic surgery. Patients with no risk factors had a 3-year reintervention rate of 12%, and 10-year rate of 26% (n = 7310). Patients with multiple risk factors, such as prior aortic surgery and emergent surgery, had a 3-year reintervention rate 72%, (n = 32). Modifiable factors including EVR graft manufacturer or supra-renal fixation were not associated with reintervention (P = 0.76 and 0.79 respectively).ConclusionsAll patients retain a high likelihood of reintervention after EVR, but clinical factors at the time of repair can predict those at highest risk.
| S-EPMC10683776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to report the 30-day technical and clinical success with endovascular repair using the ultra-low-profile Ovation stent graft in patients judged to be outside the instructions for use (IFU) for conventional endografts, while amenable to treatment within the IFU for Ovation.Methods and resultsOne hundred and twenty-two patients (78.65±7.67 years; 111 male) were enrolled. Patients were evaluated as being outside the IFU for standard endografts because of the absence of a suitable proximal aortic neck in 109 cases (89.3%), of inadequate access vessels in 13 (10.7%), or both in 111 (90.9%). Mean aneurysm (abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA]) diameter was 52.96±10.1 mm; mean aortic neck length was 7.75±6.05 mm. Technical success (98.4%) was achieved in all but two patients due to a type Ia endoleak. At completion angiography, 15 (12.3%) patients presented a type II endoleak. All patients underwent 30-day follow-up. Primary clinical success at one month was 96.8%, assisted clinical success 98.4%. There were no type I endoleaks, while 12 (9.8%) type II endoleaks were still evident, in the absence of sac expansions. Two patients (1.6%) presented an asymptomatic limb occlusion.ConclusionsOur experience suggests that, in a selected population of patients with challenging anatomy outside the IFU for conventional endografts, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Ovation stent graft can be performed safely with satisfactory immediate outcomes.
| S-EPMC9725024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been performed by various surgical specialties for many years. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may be a disruptive technology, having an impact on which specialties care for patients with AAA. Therefore, we examined the proportion of AAA repairs performed by various specialties over time in the United States and evaluated the impact of the introduction of EVAR.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2001-2009) was queried for intact and ruptured AAA and for open repair and EVAR. Specific procedures were used to identify vascular surgeons (VSs), cardiac surgeons (CSs), and general surgeons (GSs) as well as interventional cardiologists and interventional radiologists for states that reported unique treating physician identifiers. Annual procedure volumes were subsequently calculated for each specialty.ResultsWe identified 108,587 EVARs and 85,080 open AAA repairs (3011 EVARs and 12,811 open repairs for ruptured AAA). VSs performed an increasing proportion of AAA repairs during the study period (52% in 2001 to 66% in 2009; P < .001). GSs and CSs performed fewer repairs during the same period (25% to 17% [P < .001] and 19% to 13% [P < .001], respectively). EVAR was increasingly used for intact (33% to 78% of annual cases; P < .001) as well as ruptured AAA repair (5% to 28%; P < .001). The proportion of intact open repairs performed by VSs increased from 52% to 65% (P < .001), whereas for EVAR, the proportion went from 60% to 67% (P < .001). The proportion performed by VSs increased for ruptured open repairs from 37% to 53% (P < .001) and for ruptured EVARs from 28% to 73% (P < .001). Compared with treatment by VSs, treatment by a CS (0.55 [0.53-0.56]) and GS (0.66 [0.64-0.68]) was associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing endovascular rather than open AAA repair.ConclusionsVSs are performing an increasing majority of AAA repairs, in large part driven by the increased utilization of EVAR for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. However, GSs and CSs still perform AAA repair. Further studies should examine the implications of these national trends on the outcome of AAA repair.
| S-EPMC4550486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration.Methods and resultsWe linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]).ConclusionsWe observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.
| S-EPMC8842568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCase series and a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large randomized trial have suggested a potential benefit in treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) using endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with local anaesthesia (LA) rather than general anaesthesia (GA). The uptake and outcomes of LA in clinical practice remain unknown.MethodsThe UK National Vascular Registry was interrogated for patients presenting with rAAA managed with EVAR under different modes of anaesthesia between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: the number of centres performing EVAR under LA; the proportion of patients receiving this technique; duration of hospital stay; and postoperative complications.ResultsSome 3101 patients with rAAA were treated in 72 hospitals during the study: 2306 underwent on open procedure and 795 had EVAR (LA, 319; GA, 435; regional anaesthesia, 41). Overall, 56 of 72 hospitals (78 per cent) offered LA for EVAR of rAAA. Baseline characteristics and morphology were similar across the three EVAR subgroups. Patients who had surgery under LA had a lower in-hospital mortality rate than patients who received GA (59 of 319 (18·5 per cent) versus 122 of 435 (28·0 per cent)), and this was unchanged after adjustment for factors known to influence survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·85; P = 0·003). Median hospital stay and postoperative morbidity from other complications were similar.ConclusionThe use of LA for EVAR of rAAA has been adopted widely in the UK. Mortality rates appear lower than in patients undergoing EVAR with GA.
| S-EPMC6519219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceKnowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies.ObjectiveTo determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019.ExposuresElective EVAR or OSR for AAA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture.ResultsAmong 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years.Conclusions and relevanceEndovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.
| S-EPMC6624804 | biostudies-literature