Endovascular aortic repair with EndoAnchors demonstrate good mid-term outcomes in physician-initiated multicenter analysis-The PERU registry.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe real-world outcomes from multicenter data about the efficacy of adjunct Heli-FX EndoAnchor usage in preventing or repairing failures during infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), so-called EndoSutured-aneurysm-repair (ESAR). METHODS: The current study has been assigned an identifier (NCT04100499) at the US National Library of Medicine (https://ClinicalTrials.gov). It is an observational retrospective study of prospectively collected data from seven vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019. Patients included in the ANCHOR registry were excluded from this analysis. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. Follow-up imaging was scheduled according to each center's protocol, which necessarily included either abdominal ultrasound or radiography or computed tomographic scan imaging. The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (IaEL), all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, and sac variation and trends evaluated for those with at least six months imaging follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent ESAR in participating centers during the study period. After exclusions, 221 patients (184 males, 37 females, mean age 75 ± 8.3 years) were finally included for analysis. Median follow-up for the cohort was 27 (interquartile range 12-48) months. A median 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed at ESAR, 175 (79%) procedures were primary and 46 (21%) revision cases, 40 associated with type IaEL. Technical success at operation (initial), 30-day, and overall success were 89, 95.5, and 96.8%, respectively; the 30-day success was higher due to those with subsequent spontaneous proximal endoleak seal. At two years, freedom from type IaEL was 94% for the whole series; 96% and 86% for the primary and revision groups, respectively; whereas freedom from all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and reintervention was 89%, 98%, and 87%, respectively. Sac evolution pre-ESAR was 66 ± 15.1 vs. post ESAR 61 ± 17.5 (p < 0.001) and for 180 patients with at least six-month follow-up, 92.2% of them being in a stable (51%) or regression (41%) situation. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world registry demonstrates that adjunct EndoAnchor usage at EVAR achieves high rates of freedom from type IaEL at mid-term including in a high number of patients with hostile neck anatomy, with positive trends in sac-size evolution. Further data with longer follow-up may help to establish EndoAnchor usage as a routine adjunct to EVAR, especially in hostile necks.

Multicenter Registry about the Use of EndoAnchors in the Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Hostile Neck Showed Successful but Delayed Endograft Sealing within Intraoperative Type Ia Endoleak Cases.

BACKGROUND: The durability of endovascular aortic aneurysms repair (EVAR) is highly related to several anatomical constraints. The term "hostile neck" describes several anatomical features that usually make EVAR treatment technically demanding despite having higher risk of failure. The aim of the study was to describe a multicenter experience with EVAR and an adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in hostile neck anatomies. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 4 academic vascular centers including 46 patients with a hostile neck treated by standard EVAR with the adjunctive use of EndoAnchors. Twenty-two of them (47.8%, group A) had an intraoperative type Ia endoleak, and 24 (52.2%) patients were treated in a preventive manner (group B). Primary endpoints were technical and procedural success. Secondary endpoints were regression of the aneurysm sac, freedom from type Ia endoleak, and reinterventions. RESULTS: Neck length and diameter showed no statistical difference in preoperative measures, 9.1 ± 6.9 mm and 8.6 ± 2.8 mm and 25.4 ± 4.7 mm and 27.3 ± 4.7 mm, in group A and B, respectively. Aneurysm sac diameter decreased from 58.2 ± 8 mm and 57.9 ± 9.8 mm to 55.7 ± 8.5 mm and 53.8 ± 10.4 mm in group A and B; respectively, at the last computed tomography scan. Technical and procedural success was 97.8% and 100%, respectively, for group B. Group A showed persistence of type Ia endoleak at completion angiogram in 9 (40.9%) patients. Five of them showed early spontaneous sealing at the first (30 days) computed tomography angiography (CTA), and in the remaining 4, a delayed spontaneous sealing was diagnosed at 12-month CTA. No neck-related secondary procedures were performed. Overall survival was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that additional use of EndoAnchors can successfully improve the sealing of abdominal endografts in case of intraoperative type Ia endoleaks in hostile neck anatomies, representing a safe and effective endovascular alternative in our armamentarium. However, meticulous radiological follow-up is necessary because complete resolution of all observed intraoperative type Ia endoleaks was not observed until the 12-month CTA follow-up.

Isolated Common Iliac Artery Aneurysms Treated Solely With Iliac Branch Stent-Grafts: Midterm Results of a Multicenter Registry.

PURPOSE: To assess early and midterm outcomes of iliac branch device (IBD) implantation without an aortic stent-graft for the treatment of isolated common iliac artery aneurysm (CIAA). METHODS: From December 2006 to June 2016, 49 isolated CIAAs in 46 patients were treated solely with an IBD at 7 vascular centers. Five patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 41 male patients (mean age 72.5±7.8 years) for analysis. Mean CIAA diameter was 39.1±10.5 mm (range 25-65). Thirty-two patients (2 with bilateral CIAAs) were treated with a Cook Zenith iliac branch device; 9 patients (1 bilateral) received a Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis. Primary endpoints were technical success, survival, aneurysm exclusion, device patency, and freedom from reintervention at 1 and 5 years. Freedom from major adverse events and aneurysm shrinkage at 1 year were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality and the IBD occlusion rate were 2.4% and 2.3%, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 40.2±33.9 months, no patient presented buttock claudication, erectile dysfunction, or bowel or spinal cord ischemia. Three patients died within 6 months after the procedure. Estimates of cumulative survival, device patency, and freedom from reintervention were 90.2%, 95.2%, and 95.7%, respectively, at 1 and 5 years. At 1 year, CIAA shrinkage ≥5 mm was recorded in 21 of 38 survivors. No evidence of endoleak, device migration, or disconnection was found on imaging follow-up. CONCLUSION: The use of IBDs without an aortic stent-graft for isolated CIAAs resulted in excellent patency, with low morbidity and mortality. This, in conjunction with no endoleak or migration and a low reintervention rate, supports the use of isolated IBDs as a stable and durable means of endovascular reconstruction in cases with suitable anatomy. Longer follow-up and a larger cohort are needed to validate these results.

Fenestrated endografting after bare metal dissection stent implantation.

PURPOSE: To present a case that demonstrates the ability to deploy a 4-fenestrated endograft in an aorta previously treated with an endovascular graft and additional distal bare stents for acute type B dissection. CASE REPORT: Five years ago, a 61-year-old man had a Zenith TX2 endovascular graft and 2 distal bare metal stents deployed for acute type B dissection. In follow-up, a distal extension endograft was deployed below the bare stent for false lumen reperfusion and aortic growth. The ascending aorta and the arch were replaced surgically at 3 years, with the distal end of the graft sewn to the existing endograft. At the current admission, a Crawford type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm was found and excluded with a 4-fenestration endograft. Using 3-dimensional fusion imaging, there was no major conflict with the struts of the bare dissection stent during catheterization and bridging stent placement. A distal bifurcated endograft was also implanted. The total procedure time was 240 minutes, the radiation dose was 8066 cGy·cm(2), and the contrast volume was 100 mL. The patient was discharged on the sixth postoperative day and continues to do well at 9 months. CONCLUSION: Prior dissection stent deployment within the thoracoabdominal segment does not preclude further fenestrated endograft placement. Intraoperative fusion imaging can be very helpful to the successful completion of these complex procedures.

Long-term prevention of stroke: a modern comparison of current carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of carotid stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on physician-guided indications. BACKGROUND: The issue regarding long-term outcome of CAS versus CEA in patients with carotid stenosis is clinically relevant but remains unsettled. METHODS: Consecutive patients (71% men, mean age 71.3 years) treated by CEA (n = 1,118) or CAS (n = 1,084) after a training phase were reviewed. Selection of treatment was based on better-suitability characteristics (morphology and clinical). Data were adjusted with propensity score analysis and stratified by symptoms, age, and sex. RESULTS: Thirty-day stroke/death rates were similar: 2.8% in CAS and 2.0% in CEA (p = 0.27). The risk was higher in symptomatic (3.5%) versus asymptomatic (2.0%) patients (p = 0.04) but without significant difference between CAS and CEA groups. Five-year survival rates were 82.0% in CAS and 87.7% in CEA (p = 0.05). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the composite of any periprocedural stroke/death and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years after the procedure were similar in all patients (4.7% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.4) and the subgroups of symptomatic (8.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.7) and asymptomatic (2.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.2) patients in CEA versus CAS, respectively. Cox analysis, adjusted by propensity score, identified statin treatment (p = 0.016) and symptomatic disease (p = 0.003) associated with the composite end point. There were no sex- or age-related significant outcome differences. CONCLUSIONS: When physicians use their clinical judgment to select the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization CAS can offer efficacy and durability comparable to CEA with benefits persisting at 5 years.