Dataset Information

The effect of supraceliac versus infraceliac landing zone on outcomes following fenestrated endovascular repair of juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

With increasing experience in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) over time, devices designed to treat juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms have evolved in complexity to extend to more proximal landing zones and incorporate more target vessels. We assessed perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent juxta-/pararenal FEVAR with supraceliac vs infraceliac sealing in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Methods

We identified all patients who underwent elective FEVAR (commercially available FEVAR and physician-modified endografts) for juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021. Supraceliac sealing was defined as proximal sealing in aortic zone 5, or zone 6 with a celiac scallop/fenestration/branch or celiac occlusion. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 3-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included completion endoleaks, in-hospital complications, and factors associated with 3-year mortality. We calculated propensity scores and used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression and logistic regression modeling to assess outcomes.

Results

Among 1486 patients identified, 1246 patients (84%) underwent infraceliac sealing, and 240 patients (16%) underwent supraceliac sealing. Of the supraceliac patients, 74 (31%) had a celiac scallop, 144 (60%) had a celiac fenestration/branch, and 22 (9.2%) had a celiac occlusion (intentional or unintentional). After risk-adjusted analyses, there were no differences in perioperative mortality following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (2.3% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.8; P = .42), or 3-year mortality (12% vs 15%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53-1.5; P = .67). Compared with infraceliac sealing, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower odds of type-IA completion endoleaks (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67), but higher odds of any complication (12% vs 6.9%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.01-2.5) including cardiac complications (5.5% vs 1.9%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1), lower extremity ischemia (3.0% vs 0.9%; OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-9.5), and acute kidney injury (16% vs 11%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3). Though non-significant, there was a trend towards higher risk of spinal cord ischemia following supraceliac sealing compared with infraceliac sealing (1.7% vs 0.8%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.70-6.4). There were no differences in bowel ischemia between groups (1.7% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.24-1.23). A more proximal aneurysm disease extent was associated with higher 3-year mortality (HR zone 8 vs 9, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), whereas procedural characteristics had no influence.

Conclusions

Compared with sealing at an infraceliac level, supraceliac sealing was associated with lower risk of type IA endoleaks and similar mortality. However, clinicians should be aware that supraceliac sealing was associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to adequately assess durability differences to comprehensively weigh the risks and benefits of utilizing a higher sealing zone within the visceral aorta for juxta-/pararenal FEVAR.

SUBMITTER: Rastogi V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9789162 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of supraceliac versus infraceliac landing zone on outcomes following fenestrated endovascular repair of juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms.

Rastogi Vinamr V Marcaccio Christina L CL Kim Nicole H NH Patel Priya B PB Anjorin Aderike C AC Zettervall Sara L SL Patel Virendra I VI de Bruin Jorg L JL Verhagen Hence J M HJM Schermerhorn Marc L ML

Journal of vascular surgery 20220815 1

<h4>Objective</h4>With increasing experience in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) over time, devices designed to treat juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms have evolved in complexity to extend to more proximal landing zones and incorporate more target vessels. We assessed perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent juxta-/pararenal FEVAR with supraceliac vs infraceliac sealing in the Vascular Quality Initiative.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified all patients who underwent elective FE ...[more]

PMID: 35981657

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundJuxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.MethodsA literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms 'juxta/para/suprarenal' were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case-control study and a single prospective non-randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively.ConclusionNo significant difference was noted in 30-day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long-term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR.

Project description:BackgroundFenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) is a new approach for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, limited to a few specialist centers, with limited evidence base. We developed a cost-effectiveness decision model of fEVAR compared to open surgical repair (OSR) to investigate the likely direction of costs and benefits and inform further research projects on this technology.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analysis and a four-state Markov model were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fEVAR versus OSR. We used a recent coverage with evidence development framework to characterize the main sources of uncertainty and inform decisions about the type of further research that would be most worthwhile and feasible.ResultsSeven observational comparative studies were identified, of which four presented odds ratios adjusted for confounders. The odds ratios for operative mortality varied widely between studies. Assuming a central estimate of the odds ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.05-6.24), the decision model estimated that the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was £74,580/QALY with a probability of 9 and 16% of being cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, respectively. The Expected Value of Perfect Information over 10 years at a threshold of £20,000/QALY was £11.2 million. Operative mortality contributed to most of the uncertainty in the decision model.ConclusionsIn the case of "maturing technologies", decision modelling indicates the likely direction of costs and benefits and guides the development of further research projects. In our analysis of fEVAR versus OSR, decision uncertainty, particularly around operative mortality, might be effectively resolved by a short-term RCT, or possibly a well-conducted comparative observational study. Decision makers may consider that a conditional coverage decision is warranted with assessments required to make this type of recommendation depending on local priorities and circumstances.

Project description:ObjectiveFor descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), it is generally considered that thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) reduce operative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair. However, long-term differences in survival of patients have not been demonstrated, and an increased need for aortic reintervention has been observed. Many assume that TEVAR becomes less cost-effective through time because of higher rates of reintervention and surveillance imaging. This study investigated midterm outcomes and hospital costs of TEVAR compared with open TAA repair.MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-institution review of elective TAA repairs between 2005 and 2012. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, reintervention rates, and hospital costs were assessed. The literature was also reviewed to determine commonly observed complication and reintervention rates for TEVAR and open repair. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model and to forecast hospital costs for TEVAR and open TAA repair up to 3 years after intervention.ResultsOur cohort consisted of 131 TEVARs and 27 open repairs. TEVAR patients were significantly older (67.2 vs 58.7 years old; P = .02) and trended toward a more severe comorbidity profile. Operative mortality for TEVAR and open repair was 5.3% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 1.0). There was a trend toward more complications in the TEVAR group, although not statistically significant (all P > .05). In-hospital costs were significantly greater in the TEVAR group ($52,008 vs $37,172; P = .001). However, cost modeling by use of reported complication and reintervention rates from the literature overlaid with our cost data produced a higher cost for the open group in-hospital ($55,109 vs $48,006) and at 3 years ($58,426 vs $52,825). Interestingly, TEVAR hospital costs, not reintervention rates, were the most significant driver of cost in the TEVAR group.ConclusionsOur institutional data showed a trend toward lower mortality and complication rates with open TAA repair, with significantly lower costs within this cohort compared with TEVAR. These findings were likely, at least in part, to be due to the milder comorbidity profile of these patients. In contrast, cost modeling by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated lower costs with TEVAR compared with open repair at all time points up to 3 years after intervention. Our institutional data show that with appropriate selection of patients, open repair can be performed safely with low complication rates comparable to those of TEVAR. The cost model argues that despite the costs associated with more frequent surveillance imaging and reinterventions, TEVAR remains the more cost-effective option even years after TAA repair.

Dataset Information

The effect of supraceliac versus infraceliac landing zone on outcomes following fenestrated endovascular repair of juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effect of supraceliac versus infraceliac landing zone on outcomes following fenestrated endovascular repair of juxta-/pararenal aortic aneurysms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets