Influencing factors of sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair

The Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes for Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair

Introduction: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Treatment options include open and endovascular AAA repair. We explored the utilization patterns and outcomes of open and endovascular AAA repair among hospitalized patients in the US. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the utilization patterns of open and endovascular AAA repair by race and gender. Methods: Using the ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes, we queried the National Inpatient Sample 2016 to 2019 for hospitalizations among patients ≥18 years old who had an open or endovascular AAA repair. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of death and discharge dispositions comparing open to endovascular AAA repair. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, median income zip, history of aneurysm of carotid, iliac, and lower extremity artery, co-morbidities including diabetes, hypertension, smoking, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, COPD, and atherosclerosis. Results: Our study included 132,775 and 36,010 weighted hospitalizations for endovascular and open AAA repair, respectively. The open AAA repair cohort were younger compared to those of endovascular AAA repair (mean age ± S.D: 65.0 ± 10.4 Vs.73.3 ± 9.0). A higher proportion of female underwent open AAA repair than endovascular AAA repair (33.5% vs. 20.9%). Across all racial/ethnic groups, endovascular repair for AAA was more common than open AAA repair among males, except for black males. A higher proportion of black males underwent open AAA repair than endovascular repair (5.7% vs. 3.9%). Patients who had open AAA repair had higher odds of death compared to those who had endovascular repair (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.99 [95% CI, 5.22-6.87]; p<.0001 ). Conversely, a higher odd of discharge to home/short term facility was noted among patients who had endovascular compared to open AAA repair (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 5.38 - 6.32]; p<.0001) . Conclusions: Disparities exist in the utilization of open versus endovascular AAA repair among hospitalized patients. Results could be used to support future research to examine factors driving these disparities.

Effects of Ischemic Preconditioning on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The association between the occlusion rate of the side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac and aneurysm sac shrinkage is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac in early aneurysm sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair. Patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, with or without preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, including the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries, between January 2016 and August 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. Preemptive embolization was introduced at our institution in January 2018 and has been performed in all patients who undergo endovascular aneurysm repair since then. We compared occlusion rates of the side branch arteries, frequency of type 2 endoleaks, changes in aneurysm sac size, percentage of aneurysm sac size decrease, and frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by>5mm. The study included 43 patients in the embolization group and 20 in the nonembolization group. Preemptive embolization was successfully performed without any ischemic complications. The total occlusion rate of side branch arteries was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (70.2% vs. 29.3%, P<0.05). At 24months of follow-up, the type 2 endoleak frequency was significantly lower in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (6.9% vs. 31.6%, P<0.05). The frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by>5mm was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group at 24months (62.1% vs. 31.6% P<0.05). The optimal cutoff value for the total occlusion rate of the side branch arteries to achieve reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by>5mm at 24months, after endovascular aneurysm repair, was 66.7% in all patients (area under the curve=0.634; sensitivity=62.5%; specificity=70.8%). These findings suggest that occluding 66.7% or more of the side branch arteries may result in early aneurysmal shrinkage. Preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac, may contribute to early aneurysm sac shrinkage; this may serve as a marker for fewer late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair.

BackgroundThoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are associated with significant comorbidities. The aim of our study is to compare the outcomes of open repair versus endovascular repair of TAAAs. MethodsA thorough literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The analysis included observational studies comparing the outcomes of surgical vs endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of TAAA. Mortality, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal failure, stroke, paraplegia, and respiratory and cardiac problems were all included in the studies. The results were provided as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). These were then aggregated using an inverse variance weighted random-effects model, and the pooled analysis was displayed using forest plots. ResultsThis meta-analysis compromising of twelve studies revealed significant results, favoring endovascular repair versus open surgery for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68–2.18; P < 0.00001), SCI (HR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.18–2.21; P = 0.003), respiratory complications (HR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.78–2.77; P < 0.00001), and cardiac complications (HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.38–2.00; P < 0.00001). Upon subgroup analysis based on propensity matched, results were consistent and significant for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac complications, and respiratory complications. For the propensity unmatched subgroup, the incidence of all-cause mortality, SCI, respiratory complications, and cardiac complications were lower among endovascular repair cohort. ConclusionCurrent evidence supports the use of endovascular repair over open surgery. However, there is a need to conduct dedicated randomized controlled trials to effectively compare and determine the benefits and risk of both strategies.

Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair compared with open surgical repair in high-risk patients: Results from the Swedish Vascular Registry

Sex-based disparities in acute outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Preservation of pelvic perfusion with iliac branch devices does not decrease ischemic colitis compared with hypogastric embolization in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveFor thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the arch, branched and fenestrated endografts are available with different limitations regarding anatomy and extent of the pathology. Comparisons are lacking in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 currently commercially available devices for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair. MethodsIn a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, a consecutive patient series treated with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair or fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies was assessed. Baseline characteristics, procedural fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and outcome were analyzed. Furthermore, the potential anatomic feasibility of the respective alternate device was assessed on the preoperative computed tomography scans. ResultsThe branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohorts consisted of 20 and 34 patients, respectively, with similar comorbidities; indication was aneurysm in 65% and 79%, penetrating aortic ulcer in 20% and 9%, and dissection in the remaining procedures, respectively. Technical success was achieved in all but 1 patient. Perioperative mortality and major stroke rate were both 10% in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 0% and 3% in fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, respectively. During follow-up of 31 and 40 months, 1 branch occlusion occurred in the branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohort, and 2 late endoleaks occurred in the fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair group. One aortic death occurred. Although 35% of patients undergoing branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair were anatomically suitable for fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 91% of those undergoing fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair were suitable for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair. ConclusionsBoth branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair show excellent technical success and acceptable complication rates, whereas branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair tends toward higher morbidity, especially stroke rates. By offering fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair along with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair, aortic centers could potentially lower complication rates and simultaneously still treat a wide range of anatomies.

Implications of preoperative arterial stiffness for patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Ten Years of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Population-Based Evaluation of Postoperative Imaging and Mortality

Recommendations on the Use of Open Surgical and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for the Management of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm from the Guideline Development Committee Appointed by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Purpose: Our objective was to investigate whether patients who receive anticoagulation therapy have different outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) from those who do not. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared outcomes of EVAR in patients who were on therapeutic anticoagulation vs those who were not. We developed and reported the review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines with a registered protocol (CRD42022375894). The Ovid interface was used to search Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to November 2022. The quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (maximum score=9), and the evidence was appraised with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was the effect estimate in time-to-event meta-analyses, calculated using the inverse-variance statistical method and random-effects models. Results: Sixteen studies qualified for inclusion reporting a total of 35 739 individuals. Anticoagulated patients had a statistically significantly higher hazard of death (HR=1.93, 95% CI=1.03-3.63), endoleak (HR=2.13, 95% CI=1.55-2.93), reintervention (HR=1.79, 95% CI=1.27-2.52), and aneurysm sac expansion (HR=2.72, 95% CI=1.57-4.72) than patients not receiving anticoagulation therapy. The median score on the NOS was 7 (range=4-9). The certainty of evidence was very low for mortality and reintervention and low for endoleak and sac expansion. Conclusions: Anticoagulation is a poor prognostic factor after standard EVAR and should be considered in decision-making, consent processes, and surveillance strategies. Clinical Impact The number of individuals who take anticoagulation treatment has been rapidly increasing over the recent years. We aimed to investigate the effect of such treatment on outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Anticoagulated patients were found to have increased mortality, endoleak, and reintervention rates after EVAR compared to their non-anticoagulated counterparts. Anticoagulation therapy has a prognostic role in EVAR and should be considered in decision making and EVAR surveillance. Anticoagulated patients need to be informed of the higher failure rates of EVAR, and intensified surveillance strategies may need to be implemented in this patient cohort.

Sac behavior after aneurysm treatment with the Gore Excluder low-permeability aortic endoprosthesis: 12-month comparison to the original Excluder device

No reliable comparative data exist between open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysms (MAAAs). This nationwide study assessed outcomes after OR and EVAR for MAAA in a population-based cohort. All patients treated for MAAAs in Sweden between 1994 and 2014 were identified in the Swedish vascular registry. The primary aim was to assess survival after MAAA with OR and EVAR. Secondary aims were analyses of the rate of recurrent infections and reoperations, and time trends in surgical treatment. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. A propensity score-weighted correction for risk factor differences in the 2 groups was performed, including the operation year to account for differences in treatment and outcomes over time. We identified 132 patients (0.6% of all operated abdominal aortic aneurysms in Sweden). Mean age was 70 years (standard deviation, 9.2), and 50 presented with rupture. Survival at 3 months was 86% (95% confidence interval, 80%-92%), at 1 year 79% (72%-86%), and at 5 years 59% (50%-68%). The preferred operative technique shifted from OR to EVAR after 2001 (proportion EVAR 1994-2000 0%, 2001-2007 58%, 2008-2014 60%). Open repair was performed in 62 patients (47%): aortic resection and extra-anatomic bypass (n=7), in situ reconstruction (n=50), and patch plasty (n=3); 2 patients died intraoperatively. EVAR was performed in 70 patients (53%): standard EVAR (n=55), fenestrated/branched EVAR (n=8), and visceral deviation with stent grafting (n=7); no deaths occurred intraoperatively. Survival at 3 months was lower for OR than for EVAR (74% versus 96%, P<0.001), with a similar trend present at 1 year (73% versus 84%, P=0.054). A propensity score-weighted risk-adjusted analysis confirmed the early better survival associated with EVAR. During median follow-up of 36 and 41 months for OR and EVAR, respectively, there was no difference in long-term survival (5 years 60% versus 58%, P=0.771), infection-related complications (18% versus 24%, P=0.439), or reoperation (21% versus 24%, P=0.650). This study demonstrates a paradigm shift in treatment of MAAA in Sweden, with EVAR being the preferred treatment modality. EVAR was associated with improved short-term survival in comparison with OR, without higher associated incidence of serious infection-related complications or reoperations.