Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Hostile Aortic Neck Anatomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the mid-term results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) in patients with favourable aortic neck anatomy (FNA) and hostile aortic neck anatomy (HNA). METHODS: Patients treated for a RAAA in a high volume endovascular centre in the Netherlands between February 2009 and January 2014 were identified retrospectively and divided into two groups based on aortic neck anatomy, FNA and HNA. HNA was defined as RAAA with a proximal neck of <10 mm, or a proximal neck of 10-15 mm with a suprarenal angulation (α) >45° and/or an infrarenal angulation (ß) >60°, or a proximal neck of >15 mm combined with α >60° and/or ß >75°. Patient demographics, procedure details, 30 day and 1 year outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 39 included patients, 17 (44%) had HNA. Technical success was 100% for FNA and 88% for HNA (p = .184). There were no type IA endoleaks on completion angiography in either group; however, more adjunctive procedures were necessary for intra-operative type IA endoleaks in the HNA group (24% vs. 0%, p = .029). Thirty day mortality rates were comparable, FNA 14% vs. HNA 12% (p = 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences at 1 year follow up in type I endoleaks, secondary endovascular procedures, or all cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Emergency EVAR provides excellent results for treatment of RAAA patients with both FNA and HNA. EVAR in RAAAs with HNA is technically feasible and safe in experienced endovascular centres. Article history.

Rationale and design of the EAGLE Registry: EVAR with Endurant® in challenging anatomy.

AIM: The aim of this study was to collect clinical information on the performance of the Endurant® (II) Stent Graft System for endovascular repair in anatomically challenging infrarenal aneurysms, and to critically assess whether the current instructions for anatomic eligibility for endovascular treatment with this system are still applicable. METHODS: Initiated by doctors, EAGLE is a prospective, non-interventional study, aiming to enrol 250 patients in 20 experienced centres across several countries worldwide. EAGLE focuses on patients with challenging angulation or neck length. To minimize the risk of selection bias and enhance data quality, EAGLE eligibility will be determined by an independent core-lab and efforts will be made to secure consecutive enrolment of challenging cases. The EAGLE database is designed to merge with the on-going ENGAGE database, which enables comparative analysis of cases and results. RESULTS: The primary endpoint is treatment success at 30 days, 12 months and yearly up to 5 years postimplant. CONCLUSION: Separate studies on the performance of EVAR in challenging anatomy are necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of the latest generation stent-grafts, which is essential in making a balanced judgment about the optimal management of AAAs.

Influence of gender on EVAR outcomes with new low-profile devices.

Women have not benefitted to the same extent as men of endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR). Besides differences in hormones and the higher rate of undiagnosed cardiovascular disease, there are anatomical differences between men and women influencing the outcome of endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). After the first decade of EVAR procedures, only 28% of women with an elective AAA were treated by EVAR due to their poor anatomical suitability for this technique. The anatomical challenges and their associated poorer outcomes suggest the need for advances in device design to better meet the specific female aneurysm anatomy and physiology. Most of the newer-generation endografts have been associated with lower incidences of graft occlusion compared with first-generation endografts, and might be more suitable for women. It is encouraging that EVAR has decreased long-term mortality in women and that women's survival begins to equal men's after 2 years. However, detailed, adjusted anatomical data from population-based samples are needed for better understanding of the differences in AAA anatomy and EVAR eligibility. This information will contribute to enhance the design, testing and evaluation of future stent grafts, to ensure that women will benefit from EVAR to the same extent as men.

Challenging the evidence for pre-emptive coil embolisation of the internal iliac artery during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively analysed the results of a strategy in which coverage of the internal iliac artery (IIA) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was routinely performed without coil embolisation. METHODS: From January 2010 until May 2012, 32 patients (96.9% men; mean age 73.0 years, range 52-89 years) underwent EVAR with stent grafts extended into the external iliac artery (EIA), all without prior coil embolisation. Aneurysm morphology was determined on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images. During follow-up, patients were interviewed about buttock claudication, and the occurrence of endoleaks and evolution of aneurysm diameter were recorded. RESULTS: At baseline, the mid-common iliac artery (CIA) diameter was 33.5 ± 16.8 mm and seven patients presented with ruptured aneurysms. Mean follow-up was 14.3 ± 7.4 months. There were eight deaths, none related to IIA coverage. Buttock claudication occurred in seven (22.6%) patients, which persisted after 6 months in two cases of bilateral IIA coverage. No Type-I or -II endoleaks occurred related to IIA coverage. Aneurysm growth was not observed. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of aortoiliac and iliac aneurysm without pre-emptive coil embolisation of the IIA appears safe and effective. No IIA-related endoleaks or re-interventions occurred in our series. This approach saves operating time, contrast load and costs and may reduce complications. However, a larger population and longer follow-up is required to confirm our findings.

EVAR reintervention management strategies in contemporary practice.

It is known that following an endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedure, patients may experience endoleaks, device migration, stent fractures, graft deterioration, or aneurysm growth that might require a reintervention. In this review management strategies of reinterventions after EVAR in contemporary practice will be discussed. The current endovascular treatment options of Type I endoleak involve securing of the attachment site with percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty, stent-graft extension, or placement of a stent at the proximal attachment site. Moreover, the use of endostaples to secure the position of the proximal cuff to the primary endograft have been developed. Type II endoleaks can be managed conservatively if the aneurysm is shrinking or remains stable. Otherwise, reinterventions include transarterial embolization, translumbar embolization, transcaval embolization, direct thrombin injection, and endoscopic or open ligation of the lumbar and mesenteric arteries. There is little debate regarding the treatment of type III endoleaks, including deployement of additional stent graft components to bridge the defect. Endovascular treatment of endotension includes endovascular conversion stent or relining of the stent graft. Alternative options are puncture of the aneurysm sac and removal of the aneurysm sac content. In case of migration large balloon-expandable stents can be used to improve the seal between the components, or devices that deploy staples to secure endovascular grafts to the aortic wall to secure endovascular components together. In conclusion, the first treatment options for reinterventions after EVAR are catheter based nowadays.

Reprinted article "Realistic expectations for patients with stent-graft treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Results of a European multicentre registry".

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes for patients after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are determined primarily by the endpoints of death and endoleaks, the latter representing continued risk of rupture. The data of a multicentre registry were analysed with regard to the early outcome of stent-graft procedures for AAA and the complications associated with this treatment. In addition, the results during follow-up were analysed by determining mortality and endoleak development as separate endpoints and as a combined endpoint defined as endoleak-free survival. SETTING: 38 European institutions of Vascular Surgery collaborating in a multicentre registry project. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 899 patients with AAA underwent between May 1994 and March 1998 elective endovascular repair (818 men and 81 women; mean age 69 years). 80 (8.9%) of the patients had medical conditions that excluded them from open repair. 818 (91%) of patients had a bifurcated device, 63 (7%) had a straight tube graft, and only 18 (2%) had an aorto-uni-iliac device. Clinical examination and contrast-enhanced computed tomography was performed at fixed follow-up intervals to assess increase or decrease of the maximum transverse diameter (MTD). Endoleaks observed at follow-up were discriminated into persistent endoleak and temporary endoleak. The latter is defined as single time observed endoleaks or with two or more negative imaging studies between observed endoleaks. Life-table analyses were used to calculate the rates of freedom-from-endoleak (no endoleak at any time), freedom-from-persistent endoleak (no persistent endoleak), patient survival, and persistent-endoleak-free-survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up of this patient series was 6.2 months. The ratio between observed and expected follow-up data was 82% for the overall follow-up period. However, at 18 months of follow-up this rate was only 45%. The number of patients followed during this period was sufficient to allow statistically meaningful assessment. The MTD in patients with temporary endoleaks demonstrated a significant decrease at 6 to 12 months compared to preoperative values (mean 57 and 53 respectively, p = 0.004). In patients with persistent endoleaks there was no change between the preoperative and 6-month MTD (mean 57 and 60 mm respectively). At 6 and 18 months freedom-from-endoleak was 83% and 74% and freedom-from-persistent endoleak was 93% and 90%, respectively. The 18-month cumulative patient survival was 88% and the main outcome measure, the persistent endoleak-free-survival was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD decreases in patients with temporary endoleak, but not in patients with persistent endoleak. Therefore, the use of the rate of freedom-from-persistent endoleak, reflecting absence of persisting endoleaks to estimate the prognosis with regard to the AAA, is justified. Determining persistent endoleak-free survival appears a rational approach to provide a realistic outlook for patients with stent-grafted AAA. The observed 18-month endoleak-free survival reflects a satisfactory mid-term result.

Endovascular repair for aorto-enteric fistula: a bridge too far or a bridge to surgery?

PURPOSE: To review our experience of endovascular treatment of aorto-enteric fistula (AEF). METHODS: Between March 1999 and March 2005, 15 patients in five university and teaching hospitals in Belgium and The Netherlands were treated for AEF by endovascular repair. Twelve (80%) were male. The mean age was 67 years. Thirteen (87%) had had previous aortic or iliac surgery, 1.7-307 months before. All patients showed clinical or biochemical signs of bleeding. Eight (53%) were in shock, five (33%) had systemic signs of infection. Eight (53%) patients were treated in an emergency setting. Ten (67%) were treated with an aortouniiliac device, three (20%) with an aortobiiliac device, one with a tube graft and one with occluders only. All patients received antibiotics postoperatively for a prolonged period of time. RESULTS: All AEF were successfully sealed, the 30-days mortality was nil. Mean hospital stay was 20 (2-81) days. One patient died 2.7 months later of postoperative complications, one died of lung cancer. Until now, there are no signs of reinfection in four (27%) patients (mean follow-up 15.7 (1-44) months). However, reinfection or recurrent AEF occurred in nine (60%) patients after 9.5 (0.61-31) months. Seven patients were reoperated successfully, two patients died after reintervention. CONCLUSION: Endovascular sealing of AEF is a promising technique, which provides time to treat shock, local and systemic infection, and co-morbidity. This creates a better situation to perform open repair in the future with possibly better outcome. Danger of reinfection remains high. Endovascular sealing of AEF should, therefore, be seen as a bridge to open surgery when possible.

Emergency treatment of acute symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Outcome of a prospective intent-to-treat by EVAR protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome of treatment of patients with ruptured or symptomatic non-ruptured aneurysm (rAAA and snrAAA), preferentially treated by emergency endovascular repair was assessed. The outcome was compared with a historical group of patients treated by open repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients presenting with acute symptomatic AAA were compared. Group I (study group) consisted of 40 consecutive prospectively enrolled patients from May 2001 until June 2002, in whom emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (e-EVAR) was the preferential management. Short or wide neck or profound hypovolemic shock were exclusion criteria for e-EVAR. Group II (control group) consisted of 28 patients, retrospectively analysed, all treated by conventional surgical repair between January 1999 and May 2001. In group I, 26 patients had rAAA and in group II 22 patients. The other patients had snrAAA. RESULTS: In group I, 14 patients were treated by open repair. Unsuitable anatomy or profound hypovolemia was the cause of open repair in eight patients, while logistic reasons were the reasons for use of open repair in six patients (off-protocol use of open surgery). Thus, in this prospective series the feasibility of EVAR was 80% (32/40). Patient characteristics, proportion rAAA or hemodynamically unstable patients were comparable in group I and II. Volume of blood loss and need for fluid transfusion were significantly less in group I compared to group II. The perioperative mortality in group I was significantly less than in group II (20% vs. 43%, respectively, p = 0.04). If patients with rAAA were considered the mortality was 31% in group I and 50% in group II, which difference did not reach the level of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: e-EVAR was a feasible treatment in the majority of patients with rAAA and snrAAA. Blood loss and the requirements of fluid transfusion were significantly decreased. Most importantly in this institutional series significantly lower first-month mortality was observed in the group with preferential e-EVAR compared to a control group. A multi-center study assessing the outcome of preferential use of e-EVAR in patients with acute symptomatic AAA is required.