Infrarenal EVAR for Penetrating Aortic Ulcer: A Comparative Study with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Claudio Bianchini Massoni,Stefano Ancetti,Paolo Perini,Paolo Spath,Rita Maria D'Ospina,Enrico Gallitto,Gian Luca Faggioli,Antonio Freyrie,Mauro Gargiulo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2022.06.101
Abstract:Background: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), currently the preferred treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), has been described also for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) of the infrarenal aorta. However, data on its performance in this particular setting are still sparse in the literature. Aim of this study is to compare patient clinical characteristics, aorto-iliac features, and post-operative outcomes between infrarenal PAU and AAA treated by standard EVAR. Methods: In this retrospective observational case-control multicenter study, the patients treated for infrarenal PAU (G1) with EVAR in 2 high-volume European centers from January 2014 to December 2019 were prospectively entered into a dedicated database and retrospectively analyzed. A 4-fold control group (G2) of infrarenal AAA patients, homogeneous for age and gender, was also considered. Preoperative clinical characteristics, aorto-iliac features (rupture, aortic maximum diameter, proximal neck diameter and length, aortic bifurcation diameter, distance between the lowest renal artery and the aortic bifurcation [RA-AoBi], severe aortic calcification), technical success, 30-day (morbidity, reintervention, complications, mortality) and follow-up outcomes (freedom from reintervention [FFR] and survival) were compared in the 2 groups (chi square/Fisher exact test, t-student test, Mann-Whitney test, logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis). Results: Seventy-three patients (age 78 ± 7 years; male 84.9%) were included in G1 and 299 (age 78.4 ± 6.6 years; male 89.3%) in G2. At the time of diagnosis, G1 patients were more often symptomatic compared with G2 (odds ratio OR 10.21, 95% confidence interval CI 4.17-24.99, P < 0.001). At preoperative computed tomography angiography, G1 patients had more ruptures (OR 8.11, 95% CI 3.50-18.78, P < 0.001), smaller maximum diameter (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P < 0.001), longer and narrower proximal neck (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = 0.020 and OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.32-1.64, P < 0.001, respectively) narrower aortic bifurcation (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.24-1.45, P < 0.001), lower RA-AoBi (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12, P < 0.001), and more severe aortic calcification (OR 57, 95% CI 16-198, P = 0.001). Technical success (G1 98.6% vs G2 95.7% P = 0.320), 30-day morbidity (G1 2.7% vs G2 8.7% P = 0.133), reintervention (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.3% P = 0.691), complications (G1 6.8% vs G2 8% P = 0.737) and mortality (G1 1.4% vs 2% P = 0.720) were comparable in the 2 groups. The mean follow-up was 17.7 ± 16.4 months in G1 and 18.8 ± 15.1 in G2 (P = 0.576). Late FFR and survival were comparable in the 2 groups (1-year FFR: G1 94.8% vs G2 97.5%, P = 0.995; 1-year survival: G1 91.7% vs G2 92.3%, P = 0.960). Conclusions: Infrarenal PAU are more often symptomatic with a higher rupture rate compared to infrarenal AAA. Despite some negative anatomical characteristics (narrower aortic bifurcation, lower RA-AoBi, extensive calcification), the results of EVAR are extremely satisfactory in this setting, suggesting that endovascular exclusion could be considered a valid treatment for infrarenal PAU.