A systematic review summarizing local vascular characteristics of aneurysm wall to predict for progression and rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: At present, the rupture risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and, hence, the clinical decision making regarding the need for surgery, is determined by the AAA diameter and growth rate. However, these measures provide limited predictive information. In the present study, we have summarized the measures of local vascular characteristics of the aneurysm wall that, independently of AAA size, could predict for AAA progression and rupture. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science up to September 13, 2021 to identify relevant studies investigating the relationship between local vascular characteristics of the aneurysm wall and AAA growth or rupture in humans. A quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) tool. All included studies were divided by four types of measures of arterial wall characteristics: metabolism, calcification, intraluminal thrombus, and compliance. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. Metabolism of the aneurysm wall, especially when measured by ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxide uptake, and calcification were significantly related to AAA growth. A higher intraluminal thrombus volume and thickness had correlated positively with the AAA growth in one study but in another study had correlated negatively. AAA compliance demonstrated no correlation with AAA growth and rupture. The aneurysmal wall characteristics showed no association with AAA rupture. However, the metabolism, measured via ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxide uptake, but none of the other measures, showed a trend toward a relationship with AAA rupture, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The current measures of aortic wall characteristics have the potential to predict for AAA growth, especially the measures of metabolism and calcification. Evidence regarding AAA rupture is scarce, and, although more work is needed, aortic wall metabolism could potentially be related to AAA rupture. This highlights the role of aortic wall characteristics in the progression of AAA but also has the potential to improve the prediction of AAA growth and rupture.

Carotid artery vasoreactivity correlates with abdominal aortic vasoreactivity in young healthy individuals but not in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Background: Sympathetic stimulation of central arteries, such as coronary and carotid arteries, cause vasodilation in healthy subjects, but vasoconstriction in those with increased cardiovascular risk. This study compared vasoreactivity to sympathetic stimulation between abdominal aorta and carotid artery in healthy young individuals (young group, n = 20), in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA group, n = 20) and in a healthy older group, age- and gender matched with AAA group (matched group, n = 18). Method: All subjects underwent cold pressor test, while performing concomitantly duplex ultrasound of abdominal aorta and carotid artery vasoreactivity. Observer-independent software was used to analyze and calculate magnitude and timing of maximum vasodilation or vasoconstriction. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate vasoreactivity between arteries. Results: Carotid artery reactivity [Interquartile range 25%, Interquartile range 75%] did not significantly differ between the young, matched and AAA group (3.5% [1.4, 4.7], 2.6% [2.0, 4.1] and 2.2% [-1.9, 3.7], respectively, p = 0.301). Abdominal aortic responsiveness demonstrated larger differences between young (4.9% [-0.2, 8.4]), matched (3.3% [-2.5, 4.4]) and individuals with AAA (0.5% [-3.9, 4.1], p = 0.059). Pooled analysis showed a significant correlation between carotid and abdominal aortic vasoreactivity (r = 0.444, p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significant correlation between both arteries in young (r = 0.636, p = 0.003), but not matched (r = -0.040, p = 0.866) or AAA group (r = 0.410, p = 0.129). Conclusions: Sympathetic stimulation induces powerful vasodilation of the carotid artery and abdominal aorta, which is significantly correlated in healthy individuals. No such correlation is present in abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. This suggests the aneurysm alters local abdominal aorta vasoreactivity, but not the carotid artery.

Major adverse cardiac events after elective infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: There is a significant cardiac morbidity and mortality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, information about long-term risk of cardiac events after EVAR and potential predictors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine incidence and predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 and 5 years after elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Baseline, perioperative, and postoperative information of 320 patients was evaluated. The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE after EVAR, which was defined as acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina pectoris, de novo atrial fibrillation, hospitalization for heart failure, mitral valve insufficiency, revascularization (including percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting), as well as cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to determine incidences of MACE, MACE excluding noncardiovascular death and cardiac events by excluding noncardiovascular and vascular death from MACE. Predictors of MACE were identified using univariate and multivariate binary regression analysis. RESULTS: Through 1 and 5 years of follow-up after EVAR, freedom from MACE was 89.4% (standard error [SE], 0.018) and 59.8% (SE, 0.033), freedom from MACE excluding noncardiovascular death was 94.7% (SE, 0.013) and 77.5% (SE, 0.030) and freedom from cardiac events was 96.0% (SE, 0.011) and 79.1% (SE, 0.030), respectively. Predictors for MACE within 1 year were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (odds ratio [OR], 3.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-6.59) and larger abdominal aortic diameter (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). A history of atrial fibrillation (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.60) was a negative predictor factor. Predictors for MACE through 5 years were a history of heart failure (OR, 4.10; 95% CI 1.36-12.32) and valvular heart disease (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.97-5.51), American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or 4 (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.96-2.88), and older age (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: MACE is a common complication during the first 5 years after elective EVAR. Cardiac diseases at baseline are strong predictors for long-term MACE and potentially helpful in optimizing future postoperative long-term follow-up.

Changes in Noninvasive Arterial Stiffness and Central Blood Pressure After Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and central pressure waveform, through 1-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tonometric device was used to measure cfPWV and estimate the central pressure waveform in 20 patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm scheduled for elective EVAR. The evaluated central hemodynamic parameters included the central pressures, the augmentation index (AIx), and the subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR). AIx quantifies the contribution of reflected wave to the central systolic pressure, whereas SEVR describes the myocardial perfusion relative to the cardiac workload. Measurements were performed before EVAR, at discharge, and 6 weeks and 1 year after EVAR. RESULTS: CfPWV was increased at discharge (12.4±0.4 vs 11.3±0.5 m/s at baseline; p=0.005) and remained elevated over the course of 1-year follow-up (6 weeks: cfPWV = 12.2±0.5 m/s; 1 year: cfPWV = 12.2±0.7 m/s, p<0.05). After an initial drop in systolic central pressure at discharge, all the central pressures increased thereafter up to 1 year, without significant differences compared with baseline. The same was observed for the AIx and SEVR. CONCLUSION: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair caused an increase in pulse wave velocity compared with baseline, which remained elevated through 1 year follow-up, which may be related to an increased cardiovascular risk. However, no differences in central pressure, augmentation index, and subendocardial viability ration were observed during follow-up.

Effect of Different EndoAnchor Configurations on Aortic Endograft Displacement Resistance: An Experimental Study.

Purpose: This study investigated the effect of different EndoAnchor configurations on aortic endograft displacement resistance in an in vitro model. Materials and Methods: An in vitro model was developed and validated to perform displacement force measurements on different EndoAnchor configurations within an endograft and silicone tube. Five EndoAnchor configurations were created: (1) 6 circumferentially deployed EndoAnchors, (2) 5 EndoAnchors within 120° of the circumference and 1 additional, contralateral EndoAnchor, (3) 4 circumferentially deployed EndoAnchors, (4) 2 rows of 4 circumferentially deployed EndoAnchors, and (5) a configuration of 2 columns of 3 EndoAnchors. An experienced vascular surgeon deployed EndoAnchors under C-arm guidance at the proximal sealing zone of the endograft. A constant force with increments of 1 newton (N) was applied to the distal end of the endograft. The force necessary to displace a part of the endograft by 3 mm was defined as the endograft displacement force (EDF). Two video cameras recorded the measurements. Videos were examined to determine the exact moment 3-mm migration had occurred at part of the endograft. Five measurements were performed after each deployed EndoAnchor for each configuration. Measurements are given as the median and interquartile range (IQR) Q1, Q3. Results: Baseline displacement force measurement of the endograft without EndoAnchors resulted in a median EDF of 5.1 N (IQR 4.8, 5.2). The circumferential distribution of 6 EndoAnchors resulted in a median EDF of 53.7 N (IQR 49.0, 59.0), whereas configurations 2 through 5 demonstrated substantially lower EDFs of 29.0 N (IQR 28.5, 30.1), 24.6 N (IQR 21.9, 27.2), 36.7 N, and 9.6 N (IQR 9.4, 10.0), respectively. Decreasing the distance between the EndoAnchors over the circumference of the endograft increased the displacement resistance. Conclusion: This in vitro study demonstrates the influence EndoAnchor configurations have on the displacement resistance of an aortic endograft. Parts of the endograft where no EndoAnchor has been deployed remain sensitive to migration. In the current model, the only configuration that rivaled a hand-sewn anastomosis was the one with 6 EndoAnchors. A circumferential distribution of EndoAnchors with small distances between EndoAnchors should be pursued, if possible. This study provides a quantification of different EndoAnchor configurations that clinicians may have to adopt in clinical practice, which can help them make a measured decision on where to deploy EndoAnchors to ensure good endograft fixation.

Sustainability of Individual EndoAnchor Implants in Therapeutic Use to Treat Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in penetration depths and angles of EndoAnchor implants with initially good penetration after therapeutic use in endovascular aneurysm repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were selected from the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534819). Inclusion criteria were (1) EndoAnchor implantation to treat intraoperative or late type Ia endoleak and (2) at least 2 postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans. Exclusion criteria were the use of adjunct procedures. Based on these criteria, 54 patients (44 men) with 360 EndoAnchor implants were eligible for this analysis. Penetration depth of each EndoAnchor implant into the aortic wall was judged as (1) good (≥2-mm penetration), (2) borderline (<2 mm or when there was a gap between the endograft and the aortic wall), or (3) no penetration. The penetration depth and longitudinal angles of EndoAnchors with good penetration were investigated on the last available postprocedure CTA scan. Endoleaks were also analyzed. RESULTS: EndoAnchor penetration on the first postprocedure CTA scan was good in 187 (51.9%), borderline in 69 (19.2%), and missing in 104 (28.9%). On the last CTA scan, 182 (97.4%) of the 187 initially well-positioned EndoAnchors remained good. Five (2.6%) EndoAnchors in 4 patients changed configuration over time (4 became borderline and 1 became nonpenetrating), all without any clinical sequelae. The median orthogonal angles of the EndoAnchor implants with good penetration on the first and last CTA scans were 92° [interquartile range (IQR) 85, 98] and 90° (IQR 84, 97), respectively (p=0.822); for longitudinal angles, medians of 85° (IQR 71, 96) and 84° (IQR 70, 96) were found (p=0.043). Of the 18 (33%) patients who had a type Ia endoleak on the first postprocedure CTA, 6 resolved over time. Median follow-up was 13 months, during which no new type Ia endoleak was found. CONCLUSION: Despite the small number of EndoAnchors analyzed, this study showed that the sustainability of EndoAnchor implants with initially good penetration is satisfactory at 1-year follow-up. The vast majority of EndoAnchor implants with good penetration initially remained in good position; <3% of implants became borderline or nonpenetrating, without any clinical consequence.

Analysis of the position of EndoAnchor implants in therapeutic use during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the penetration depth, angles, distribution, and location of deployment of individual EndoAnchor (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) implants. METHODS: Eighty-six primary and revision arm patients (procedural success, 53; persistent type IA endoleak, 33) treated for type IA endoleaks with a total of 580 EndoAnchor implants from a subset of the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) were included in this study. Procedural success was defined as the absence of a type IA endoleak on the first postprocedural computed tomography scan after the EndoAnchor implantation procedure. Endograft malapposition along the circumference was assessed at the first postoperative computed tomography scans and expressed as clock-face range and width in degrees and normalized such that the center was translated to 0 degrees. The position and penetration of each EndoAnchor implant were measured as the clock-face orientation. EndoAnchor implant penetration into the aortic wall was categorized as follows: good penetration, ≥2 mm; borderline penetration, <2 mm or ≥2-mm gap between the endograft and aortic wall; or no penetration. The orthogonal and longitudinal angles between the EndoAnchor implant and the interface plane of the aortic wall were determined. Location of deployment was investigated for each EndoAnchor implant and classified as maldeployed when it was above the fabric or in a gap >2 mm between the endograft and aortic wall due to >2-mm thrombus or positioning of the EndoAnchor implant below the aortic neck. RESULTS: A total of 170 (29%) EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment and were therefore beyond recommended use and not useful. After EndoAnchor implantation, the procedural success and persistent type IA endoleak groups had 3 (1%) and 4 (2%) EndoAnchor implants positioned above the fabric as well as 60 (18%) and 103 (42%) placed in a gap >2 mm, respectively. The amount of EndoAnchor implants with good, borderline, and no penetration was significantly different between both groups (success vs type IA endoleak) after exclusion of maldeployed EndoAnchor implants (235 [87.4%], 14 [5.2%], and 20 [7.4%] vs 97 [68.8%], 18 [12.8%], and 26 [18.4%], respectively; P < .001). Good penetration EndoAnchor implants were more closely aligned with a 90-degree orthogonal angle than the borderline penetration and nonpenetrating EndoAnchor implants. The longitudinal angle was more distributed, which was observed through all three penetration groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this subcohort of ANCHOR patients, almost 30% of the EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment, which may be prevented by careful preoperative planning and measured intraoperative deployment. If endoleaks are due to >2-mm gaps, EndoAnchor implants alone may not provide the intended sealing, and additional devices should be considered.

Effect of abdominal aortic endoprostheses on arterial pulse wave velocity in an in vitro abdominal aortic flow model.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic pulse-wave-velocity (aPWV) is a measure for arterial stiffness, which is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Recent evidence suggests aPWV increases after endograft-placement for aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different aortic endoprostheses on aPWV and structural stiffness in vitro. APPROACH: Three different abdominal aortic endoprostheses (AFX, Endurant II, and Nellix) were implanted in identical silicone aneurysm models. One model was left untreated, and another model contained an aortic tube graft (Gelweave). The models were placed in an in vitro flow set-up that mimics physiological flow. aPWV was measured as the transit time of the pressure wave over the flow trajectory of the suprarenal to iliac segment. Structural stiffness corrected for lumen diameter was calculated for each model. RESULTS: aPWV was significantly lower for the control compared to the AFX, Endurant, Nellix and tube graft models (13.00 ± 1.20, 13.40 ± 1.17, 18.18 ± 1.20, 16.19 ± 1.25 and 15.41 ± 0.87 m s-1, respectively (P < 0.05)). Structural stiffness of the AFX model was significant lower compared to the control model (4718 N m-1 versus 5115 N m-1 (P < 0.001), respectively), whereas all other models showed higher structural stiffness. SIGNIFICANCE: Endograft placement resulted in a higher aPWV compared to a non-treated aortic flow model. All models showed increased structural stiffness over the flow trajectory compared to the control model, except for the AFX endoprosthesis. Future studies in patients treated with an endograft are needed to evaluate the current results in vivo.