Comparison of open and endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

M. Steffen,,Thomas Schmitz-Rixen,D. Böckler,Reinhart T. Grundmann,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01865-4

2020-03-01

Abstract:This study compares the perioperative outcome in elective repair of the juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), depending upon whether patients received an open (OAR) or endovascular procedure (EVAR).

surgery

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair in Treating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

James R Vienneau,Camden I Burns,Anto Boghokian,Varun Soti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.73066

2024-11-05

Cureus

Abstract:Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) denotes an abdominal aorta dilation exceeding 3 cm, typically asymptomatic until rupture, posing severe consequences, including fatality. Therefore, continual screening is imperative, and surgical intervention is recommended upon reaching a diameter of 5.5 cm to prevent rupture. The primary surgical approaches are open surgical repair or open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This review juxtaposes EVAR's short- and long-term effectiveness, safety, and perioperative complications in AAA patients versus OR, elucidating clinical benefits and avenues for further research. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, an extensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. The review specifically focused on clinical studies directly comparing EVAR versus OR. The comprehensive literature review revealed that EVAR confers a survival advantage for up to four years post-procedure. However, the benefit shifts to OR after four to eight years due to aneurysm-related complications, such as ruptures, underscoring the necessity of lifelong post-EVAR monitoring. Following EVAR, AAA patients necessitate significantly more frequent secondary interventions due to graft-related issues, including endoleaks, thereby escalating long-term complexity and care costs. Conversely, following OR, a notably higher proportion of patients require mechanical ventilation and blood transfusions and experience prolonged intensive-care and mid-care unit stays, consequently extending hospitalization. After EVAR, patients recover substantially faster, returning to normal activities sooner. Nonetheless, the long-term quality of life between the two procedures becomes comparable. While EVAR presents itself as a less invasive alternative to OR, especially for high surgical risk patients, the imperative of long-term surveillance and the risk of secondary interventions pose significant challenges. Advancements in EVAR technology and technique are broadening its utility. Yet, continual research is crucial to optimize patient selection, improve long-term outcomes, and ensure that EVAR's benefits outweigh the risks. Therefore, choosing EVAR over OR in treating AAA patients must factor in a patient's overall health, anatomical considerations, and the probability of long-term success.
Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Compared to Open Repair in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis

Amrita M Cherian,Rakshaya Venu,Pavithra Ishita Raja,Sabanantham Saravanan,Usman Khan,Rahul Kantawala,Soubarno Tasnim,Naveen J Bose,Rajanikant Kumar,Ruchira Clementina,Nagma Sabu,Saifullah Syed,Anjani Mahesh Kumar Cherukuri,Aizaz R Chaudhry,Alisha Lakhani,Avinash Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63183

2024-06-26

Cureus

Abstract:This umbrella meta-analysis aims to investigate two surgical treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgery repair (OSR). Our study aims to elucidate the 30-day mortality rate, reintervention rates, and aneurysm-related mortality in EVAR versus OSR for AAA. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of meta-analyses (n = 34 articles) comparing EVAR and OSR for AAA. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and considered statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05. For the 30-day mortality rate, a pooled odds ratio (pOR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.77, P = 0.0001, and I2 = 98%) indicates that EVAR was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to OSR. For reintervention rates, a pOR of 1.33 (95% CI = 0.98-1.82, P = 0.11, and I2 = 90%). In aneurysm-related mortality, a pOR of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.63-0.97, P = 0.03, and I2 = 43%). In postoperative rupture of aneurysm, a pOR of 3.28 (95% CI = 2.16-4.98, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 50%). Furthermore, when analyzing systemic complications, only for visceral ischemia, significant results showed lower odds for EVAR, with a pOR of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.40-0.80, P = 0.001, and I2 = 0%) was found. EVAR is better in terms of short-term mortality rate and aneurysm-related mortality. Furthermore, EVAR is still a safer procedure in elective settings, as the studies we included recruited patients for this setting. However, given the high reintervention rates and recent developments in surgical techniques and materials, more recent data and extensive research are needed.
Comparison of Outcomes in Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Konrad Salata,Mohamad A Hussain,Charles de Mestral,Elisa Greco,Badr A Aljabri,Muhammad Mamdani,Thomas L Forbes,Deepak L Bhatt,Subodh Verma,Mohammed Al-Omran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6578

2019-07-03

Abstract:Importance: Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective: To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures: Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results: Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and relevance: Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.
Comparative study of acute kidney injury in pararenal aortic aneurysm: open surgical versus endovascular repair

Sherif Sultan,Yogesh Acharya,Wael Tawfick,William Wijns,Osama Soliman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1457583

2024-09-10

Abstract:Background: Pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (PR-AAA), constituting around 15%-20% of AAA patients, are defined as having no neck between the aneurysm and the renal arteries. Due to an insufficient sealing zone, open surgical repair (OSR) is the gold standard, while EVAR is reserved for those unfit for surgery. Renal outcomes disturb long-term survival, and they have massive socioeconomic and quality of life implications, especially if patients require dialysis. Methods: This study aims to elucidate any difference between EVAR and OSR of PR-AAA, excluding suprarenal aneurysms, with specific emphasis on renal dysfunction over the short and long term. An existing database of PR-AAA between 2002 and 2023 was used to glean information regarding the therapeutic option used. Renal events were defined by the RIFLE criteria. Out of 1,563 aortic interventions, we identified 179 PR-AAA, of which 99 high-risk patients had an aortic neck of less than 10 mm with complete follow-up. We excluded patients with fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR), branched EVAR (BEVAR), or chimney EVAR (Ch-EVAR) and any patients requiring visceral artery reimplantation. Results: In total, 63 patients underwent EVAR, and 36 required OSR. 17.46% of patients who underwent EVAR experienced acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with 36.11% of the OSR group (P = 0.037). The mean post-op creatinine for OSR was 109.88 µmol/L, and for EVAR was 127.06 µmol/L (P = 0.192). The mean difference between long-term (9-12 years) creatinine values in OSR was 14.29 µmol/L (P = 0.191), and the mean difference for EVAR was 25.05 µmol/L (P = 0.024). Furthermore, 27.8% of OSR patients who underwent Left Renal Vein Division and Ligation (LRVDL) experienced an AKI, while 50% who did not undergo LRVDL experienced an AKI (P = 0.382). Thirty-day morbidity in the EVAR group (20.97%) was significantly lower than in the OSR group (42.62%) (P = 0.022). Moreover, 3.17% in EVAR group and 7.14% in OSR group had aneurysm-related mortality (P = 0.584). Conclusion: The rate of renal events for OSR is higher, while the rate of endovascular renal events was lower. Our study shows that PR-AAA undergoing OSR may benefit from endovascular repair.
Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a Chinese Population.

Baolei Guo,Zhihui Dong,Weiguo Fu,Daqiao Guo,Xin Xu,Bin Chen,Junhao Jiang,Zhenyu Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2016.03.006

IF: 1.5

2016-01-01

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:Background: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and midterm survival rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) in a Chinese population.Methods: A retrospective review was performed of the demographic characteristics and perioperative outcomes from 59 RAAA patients (mean 66.6 +/- 13.3 years of age; 49 men) undergoing OSR or EVAR at our center between January 2003 and November 2014. The perioperative mortality and midterm survival were assessed and compared between the OSR and EVAR groups.Results: Twenty-three patients underwent OSR, and 36 patients underwent EVAR. The overall 30-day mortality was 36.5% (47.8% OSR vs. 27.8% EVAR, P = 0.14). Total surgical time, estimated blood loss, and blood transfusion in the OSR group were significantly greater than those in the EVAR group (P < 0.001). Reintervention within 30 days and during the follow-up was more frequent in the EVAR group (36.1%) than in the OSR group (8.7%, P = 0.026). The mean follow-up was 38.2 +/- 29.3 months (range 6-100). A Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.079). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 52.5% (31/59). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrated that free intraperitoneal rupture (odds ratio [OR] 0.143, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.030-0.694, P = 0.016) and cardiovascular disease (OR 0.072, 95% CI 0.006-0.898, P = 0.041) were independent risk factors for the 30-day mortality. Only intraperitoneal rupture was associated with the higher midterm mortality (OR 4.852, 95% CI 1.046-22.499, P = 0.044).Conclusions: In an experienced vascular center in China, although the 30-day mortality and midterm survival of RAAAs were not significantly different between the EVAR and OSR groups, EVAR has superior perioperative advantages. Consequently, EVAR is recommended as the first-line treatment for anatomically suitable RAAA.
Prospective Clinical Controlled Study on Endovascular Repair Versus Conventional Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

符伟国,黄俊,王玉琦,郭大乔,陈斌,蒋俊豪,杨珏

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-9934.2003.08.003

2003-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the feasibility of endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods Between September 1997 and October 2001, 92 patients; 71 male, mean age (66.7±12.4) years (range 30～89 yrs) with AAA were treated with elective operation. Among them, 31 patients were treated with EVR, 61 with conventional open surgical repair (OSR). Data of the two groups were collected and compared previously with a follow up period ended in December 2001. Results There were 2 deaths with each in EVR group and OSR group during perioperative period. The median blood lost and blood transfusion was 300 ml and 0 ml in EVR group compared with 1 000 ml each in OSR group( P 0.001). The median observation period in ICU and fasting period were 0 h and 24 h in EVR group compared with 69 hr and 96 hr in the matched OSR group( P 0.001). And there was no immediate death in EVR group but 2 deaths in OSR group during follow up [mean (25.4 ±12.7) months, range 3.4～51.8 months]. The accumulative survival rate of EVR group was 93.55% compared to 81.85% of matched OSR group (log rank test, P =0.393). Conclusion EVR is also eligible for Chinese patients, some high risk patients can also tolerate well. EVR has the advantages of mild trauma, less blood loss and quicker recovery after operation.
In-hospital Mortality Risk after Endovascular and Open Aortic Aneurysm Repairs for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Tomás Daviú-Molinari,Justin Chin-Bong Choi,Marie-Claire Roberts,Erfan Faridmoayer,Sherene E. Sharath,Panos Kougias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.07.022

IF: 4.86

2024-07-15

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates for OAR and EVAR improved over time. EVAR persistently provided a substantial survival advantage over OAR in patients with rAAA over the past two decades.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
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.
Opportunity of open surgical repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm

LIANG Wei,ZHANG Ji-wei

2012-01-01

Abstract:It is the core concept to exclude aneurysm and reconstruct the abdominal aorta for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment. The purpose of the treatment is to prevent aneurysm rupture. Evaluation of the risk of AAA rupture and the patients ’ condition are the key for the indication of operation. Open surgical repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are two treatments for AAA. Though the early result of the EVAR is better than that of the OR according to the multi-center clinical studies, the mid-result and long-result are the same between two treatments. For the hostile anatomy, OR is better than EVAR for AAA treatment. The OR still has the applicability for the AAA treatment.
Laparoscopy versus endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review

Bea Duric,Ioannis Hadjihannas,Sveta Sugumaran,Karlo Jagic,Bijendra Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31123

IF: 2.3

2024-06-26

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Minimally invasive surgery is a useful alternative to open repair for patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We aim to compare the clinical outcomes for three different minimally invasive techniques: hand‐assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), total laparoscopic surgery (TLS), and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched between January and March 2023. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two minimally invasive techniques were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were mortality (in‐hospital, 30‐day, or 1‐year) and reintervention rates (30‐day or 1‐year). Length of surgery, blood loss, transfusion volume, conversion to open surgery, major complication rates, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also evaluated. Eight cohort studies and one RCT were included comparing patients undergoing HALS (n = 500), TLS (n = 263), and EVAR (n = 438) for elective AAA repair. The TLS group had the highest rate of 30‐day postoperative reinterventions (p = 0.00056), the longest surgical duration (p = 0.0311), and the highest rate of conversion to open surgery (p

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
The impact of endovascular stents types on perioperative outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a single-center experience

Huibo Ma,Xueyi Wang,Yangshuo Liu,Yongxin Li,Mingjin Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1272389

IF: 3.6

2024-03-13

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Introduction: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents a critically urgent vascular surgical condition, and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a clinically effective treatment option. This study aims to investigate whether the type of intravascular graft used for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms has an impact on perioperative outcomes of EVAR. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent EVAR for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm at a single medical center from 2019 to 2022. Patients who required simultaneous stent implantation in the renal arteries or visceral arteries, as well as those with ruptured aneurysms located in the para-renal, supra-renal, or thoracoabdominal regions, were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, patients who underwent open surgery during the initial procedure or converted to open repair were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality rate. Other study outcomes included perioperative complications, reoperation rates, and length of hospital stay. Characteristics and corresponding outcomes of patients receiving different endovascular stent treatments were compared using SPSS software. Results: A total of 58 patients received treatment with two types of endovascular stents: Gore Excluder ( n = 29) and Microport Hercules ( n = 29). The number of other endografts was too small for statistical analysis. Compared to patients treated with Hercules, those treated with Excluder had a significantly increased likelihood of concomitant coronary atherosclerosis ( P = 0.009) and potentially higher creatinine levels ( P = 0.014). Additionally, Excluder was more commonly used in patients with shorter aneurysm necks ( P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in overall mortality between the two groups (Hercules 27.6%, Excluder 6.9%, P = 0.037). Furthermore, patients who received Excluder treatment had lower mortality rates in subgroups of non-alcohol users ( P = 0.028), non-diabetic patients ( P = 0.027), and patients with dispersed thrombosis at the proximal neck ( P = 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the type of stent used (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00–1.31) and the occurrence of intraoperative complications (OR 20.70, 95% CI 1.14–76.70) in patients with rAAA was identified as an independent risk factor for perioperative mortality. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the management of intraoperative complications may be a modifiable factor that can improve outcomes. Patients receiving Excluder treatment demonstrated better performance in EVAR for single-center rAAA patients compared to other endovascular stents, and this difference warrants further investigation.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Outcomes of standard EVAR for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients unsuitable for fenestrated EVAR and open repair

Mingshan Wang,Zhen Liu,Huoying Cai,Jinsong Wang,Yu Zhou,Zuojun Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241243181

IF: 1.1

2024-04-01

Vascular

Abstract:Vascular, Ahead of Print. ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term outcomes of standard endovascular aneurysm repair (S-EVAR) of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAAs).MethodsData of patients with JAAAs who were unsuitable for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) and open repair (OR) and underwent treatment from January 2015 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography angiography and ultrasonography of the aorta were performed before discharge, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. The main outcome measures were mortality, type Ia endoleaks, and reintervention.ResultsA total of 62 patients (mean age, 72.1 ± 7.3 years) underwent S-EVAR. The mean aneurysm length and diameter and the proximal neck length and diameter were 110.4 ± 30.9 mm, 57.2 ± 15.9 mm, 8.09 ± 0.97 mm, and 26.05 ± 0.49 mm, respectively. The mean suprarenal and infrarenal aortic angles were 162.9 ± 26° and 144.1 ± 31°, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 40.6 ± 23.4 months and the 5-year survival rate was 62.2%. Six (9.8%) patients experienced type Ia endoleaks, of whom three underwent endovascular repair at 12, 18, and 24 months, one underwent conversion to OR for AAA rupture at 7 days and died, two had minor endoleaks and were kept under observation, and one declined reintervention at 36 months. The 5-year freedom from reintervention rate was 84.4%. The aneurysm diameter shrank in 50 cases (81%), remained stable in 5 cases (8%), and increased in 7 cases (11.3%). A suprarenal aortic angle 114°, the use of S-EVAR for JAAAs can be considered safe and effective. In this study, early and long-term postoperative outcomes demonstrated that S-EVAR achieved satisfactory results in the prevention of aneurysm rupture and associated mortality.

peripheral vascular disease
A propensity-matched comparison of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair of pararenal and paravisceral aortic aneurysms

Giovanni Tinelli,Maria Antonietta Crea,Chiara de Waure,Gian Luca Di Tanna,Jean-Pierre Becquemin,Jonathan Sobocinski,Francesco Snider,Stéphan Haulon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2017.12.060

Abstract:Objective: This study investigated the outcomes of a current series of patients treated with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) for pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (pr-AAAs), including juxtarenal, suprarenal, and type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms. This study compares the outcomes of these procedures from two high-volume centers without the bias induced by a learning curve. Methods: All patients with pr-AAAs undergoing repair at two centers between January 2010 and June 2016 were included in a prospective database. Patients undergoing F-BEVAR and OSR were propensity matched for age, sex, anatomic criteria (aortic clamp site), coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, smoking, chronic kidney disease, aneurysm diameter, and previous aortic surgery. The primary end points were mortality and dialysis. Secondary end points included any myocardial ischemia, respiratory and early procedural complications, acute kidney injury (AKI) according to RIFLE criteria (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal failure), spinal cord ischemia, a composite of these complications, and postoperative intensive care unit length of stay. During follow-up, all-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were compared, as was the patency of stented vessels and renal and visceral bypasses. Late renal function deterioration was evaluated. Results: In this period, 157 F-BEVAR patients and 119 OSR patients were operated on. After 1:1 propensity matching, the study cohort consisted of 102 F-BEVARs and 102 OSRs. In the matched population, an average of 2.5 vessels were treated per patient. Univariate analysis demonstrated no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2.9% vs 2.0%; P = .68), dialysis (4.9% vs 3.9%; P = 1), cardiac ischemic complications (3.8% vs 5.9%; P = .52), pulmonary complications (5.9% vs 5.9%; P = 1), or any complications (28.4% vs 30.4%; P = .63) in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively. AKI was significantly lower in the F-BEVAR group than in the OSR group (19.6% vs 52%; P < .001), as was severe AKI (>50% decrease in glomerular filtration rate, 6.9% vs 16.7%; P = .03). There was no spinal cord ischemia. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 1 day in both groups (P = .33). During follow-up, we found occlusions of five stented vessels and three surgical bypasses. Late renal function deterioration was comparable between the two groups. According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, all-cause survival at 24, 48, and 72 months was 85.6%, 66.8%, and 55.8% after F-BEVAR and 90.5%, 82.9%, and 68.5% after OSR (P = .04). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 97.6% vs 97.5% at 24 months, 90.1% vs 93.4% at 48 months, and 63.9% vs 93.4% at 72 months in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups (P = .05), respectively. Thus, both all-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were lower in the F-BEVAR group. Conclusions: This propensity score analysis in patients with pr-AAA undergoing F-BEVAR or OSR suggests no difference in terms of 30-day mortality, dialysis, or organ-specific postoperative complications, with the exception of AKI. Postoperative AKI was significantly higher after OSR, although most patients had recovered before discharge. Our data suggest similar outcomes after F-BEVAR or OSR for pr-AAA.
Complete Replacement of Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Emergent Endovascular Repair: a 7-Year Experience from a Single Centre in Mainland China

Jianing Yue,Bin Chen,Xin Xu,Zhenyu Shi,Zhihui Dong,Junhao Jiang,Jue Yang,Ting Zhu,Daqiao Guo,Yuqi Wang,Weiguo Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-1863.2019.02.011

2019-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) used in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm ( AAA ) , and to discuss the possibility for replacement of the traditional open surgery with EVAR in this disease. Methods Cases of EVAR on noninfected ruptured AAA over recent 7-year period were reviewed, in which the treatment strategies evolved from "EVAR/OPEN"approach (2009.1～2014.3) to "EVAR-PRIMARY" approach (2014.4～2016.7) were compared. Results Over this 7 years, 80 patients with truly-ruptured AAA were admitted in the emergency room of Zhongshan hospital from March 2009 to July 2016, among which 27 (33.8％) died preoperatively. Twenty six cases ( 15 EVARs and 11 OPENs ) were treated during "EVAR/OPEN" period , and thereafter during the "EVAR-PRIMARY" period all the 27 cases were treated by EVAR. The 30-day mortality rate was 26.9％ ( 26 . 7％for EVAR and 27 . 3％ for OPEN ) for the "EVAR/OPEN" period and 25 . 9％ for the "EVAR-PRIMARY" period (P=0.93). For all patients , preoperative hemodynamic stability (OR=0.22,95％CI 0.06～0.85,P=0.03) w as found associated with lower mortality rate. As for EVAR patients, local anesthesia (OR=0.18,95％CI 0.04～0.82,P=0.03) were found associated with lower mortality rate, comparing with general anesthesia. However, any association between hemodynamic status and the prognosis in both procedures were not found. Conclusions The "EVAR-PRIMARY" approach has allowed EVAR to be used in nearly all the ruptured AAA with similar mortality comparing with "EVAR/OPEN"approach.
Early Intervention Effects of Open Repair and Endovascular Aortic Repair on Patients Suffering from 40-54 Mm Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Single Center Experience.

Jian Qiu,Chang Shu,Wenwu Cai,Ming Li,Quanming Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4733.17.07290-x

2017-01-01

Minerva Surgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND: We conducted this study to explore the early intervention effects of open repair (OR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients (maximum diameter 40-54 mm). METHODS : We retrospectively analyzed patients under 65 years old with maximum AAA diameter 40-54 mm in our hospital from January 2010 to January 2016 (among which there are 38 EVAR cases and 18 OR cases) and compared their short mid-term operation effects. RESULTS: The time of the operation, bleeding volume and volume of blood transfusion during operation in the EVAR group are significantly lower than those in the OR group; differences are statistically significant (P<0.05). The operation success of the rats in both groups was 100%; the 30-day death rate was 0% and the recurrence rate was 0%; differences are not statistically significant. The total incidence rate of complications in the OR group was 22.2% while it was 5.3% in the EVAR group; differences are statistically significant (chi(2)=4.114, P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention (regardless of whether open or endovascular repair is used) is a feasible method for young patients with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter.
Endovascular repair for infra-renal aortic aneurysms with supra-renal fixation endoprosthesis: Results and outcomes

Rafael de Athayde Soares,Kaline Amaro,Ana Isabel Nasser,Marcus Vinícius Martins Cury,Edson Takamitsu Nakamura,Keityane de Lima Pedrosa,Roberto Sacilotto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241264381

IF: 1.1

2024-07-20

Vascular

Abstract:Vascular, Ahead of Print. ObjectiveThe main objective of this paper is to evaluate the outcomes regarding endoleaks, reinterventions, and death related to aneurysm complications in patients submitted to endovascular repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA) using Endurant II (Medtronic) and Zenith Flex (Cook) endografts.MethodsThis was a prospective, consecutive cohort study of patients with AAA who underwent EVAR with the use of Endurant II stent graft and Zenith Flex endograft.ResultsA total of 156 patients submitted to EVAR were evaluated. The perioperative mortality was 5.1%, 8 patients. The median clinical follow-up period was 760 ± 80 days. There were 28 patients (17.9%) submitted to urgent repair of the aneurysm (symptomatic expansion or rupture) and 128 patients (82.1%) submitted to elective repair. There were 36 cases (23.1%) of later endoleak and most of them are Type II endoleaks (21 patients, 13.4%). There were 12 cases of Type I endoleak. Moreover, regarding limb graft occlusion (LGO), there were 9 patients (5.8%). The overall survival rate in Kaplan–Meier analysis at 720 days was 84.8% in the total cohort. The freedom from reintervention rate in Kaplan–Meier analysis at 720 days was 92.7% in the total cohort. The linear regression analysis for survival rates showed that chronic kidney disease (p = .03; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.82, CI = 1.07–4.44) was the only factor related to poorer survival rates in both univariate and multivariate analyses. The linear regression analysis showed that the presence of endoleaks (p < .001, HR = 6.69, CI = 2.26–8.48) and limb graft occlusion (p < .001, HR = 8.02, CI = 1.60–9.99) were related to reintervention in both univariate and multivariate analyses.ConclusionIn this present study, supra-renal fixation endograft devices were safe and efficient in treating AAA, with satisfactory results and no renal compromise. The linear regression analysis showed that the presence of endoleaks and limb graft occlusion were related to higher reintervention rates in both univariate and multivariate analyses.

peripheral vascular disease
Elective endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians

David Paolini,Santiago Chahwan,Dennis Wojnarowski,John P Pigott,Frankie LaPorte,Anthony J Comerota

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.12.034

Abstract:Objectives: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an increasingly popular treatment option for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), although open repair is considered the standard by virtue of its durability. Octogenarians, as a subgroup, may stand to benefit the most by EVAR. The purpose of this study is to review operative results and durability of open AAA repair and EVAR in octogenarians. Methods: From May 1996 to August 2006, 150 patients aged >or=80 years underwent elective repair of their infrarenal AAA. Eighty-one underwent EVAR and 69 had open repair. Demographic data, aneurysm specifics, comorbidities, operative morbidity and mortality, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and late outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the EVAR group, 27 of 81 (33%) patients died during a mean follow-up of 25 months. In the open repair group, 34 of 69 (49%) patients died during a mean follow-up of 43 months. The median survival time for EVAR was 350 weeks (range, 145-404 weeks) compared with 317 weeks (range, 233-342 weeks) for the open repair group. A Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis showed no difference in early or long-term survival between EVAR and open repair (P = .13). EVAR was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and a greater number of patients discharged to home. Conclusions: EVAR and open repair are comparable in safety and efficacy in octogenarians. Operative repair outcomes remain acceptable. Mid- and long-term survival are similar, indicating no survival advantage of one procedure compared with the other.
[Investigation of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in High-Risk Patients].

Bao Liu,Chang-wei Liu,Yue-hong Zheng,Yong-Jun Li,Ji-dong Wu,Wei-wei Wu,Wei Ye,Xiao-jun Song,Rong Zeng,Yue-xin Chen,Jiang Shao,Yu Chen,Leng Ni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2011.10.005

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the results of a variety of alternative endovascular techniques applied to patients with complicated abdominal aortic aneurysm complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (cAAA) and unsuitable for open surgery. METHODS From January 2001 to December 2010, charts of all patients having an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were reviewed. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was done in 138 patients, in which 9 patients were defined as cAAA such as juxta-renal AAA, short or angulated AAA neck, AAA with bilateral iliac artery aneurysms. There were 8 male and 1 female patients, aged from 26 to 87 years with a mean of 67 years. All these patients at high risk for open surgery were offered a modified EVAR technique including fenestrated technique, scallop technique, chimney technique, balloon assisted U-turn stenting and reverse-U stent-graft in 2, 5, 1 and 1 patients respectively. RESULTS All techniques were successful and without severe postoperative complications. An intraoperative endoleak was found in 4 patients and was corrected immediately. One patient with type I and III endoleaks underwent dilatation with a compliant balloon. Two patients with type I endoleak underwent coil embolization (1 patient) and bare stent (1 patient). During follow-up, one patient with a type II endoleak who demonstrated no increase in sac diameter during follow-up was observed. Mean follow-up was 25.9 months (ranging from 4 to 79 months). No rupture occurred and 8 aneurysms shrink significantly. In 7 patients, critical vessels (renal and mesenteric arteries) were protected during the initial procedure and remained patent except in one patient who was performed reverse "U" stent graft with thrombosis in hypogastric artery. CONCLUSION High-risk patients with cAAA inappropriate for traditional EVAR can be successfully treated by using simple ancillary endovascular techniques with acceptable short or mid-term results.
Post-operative Complications of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

SHEN Sheng,GUO Da-qiao,FU Wei-guo

2007-01-01

Abstract:Since endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair(EVAR) first reported in 1991, it has been improved a technically feasible procedure. However, EVAR is associated with a significant risk in both postoperative complication morbidity and operative mortality. If EVAR is to replace open aneurysm repair in the future, it must be achieved lower peri-operative mortality and better long-term outcomes. This paper reviews the current published data regarding the nature, incidence and implications of the complications of EVAR.
Outcomes of surgeon-modified fenestrated-branched endograft repair for acute aortic pathology

Salvatore T Scali,Dan Neal,Vida Sollanek,Tomas Martin,Julie Sablik,Thomas S Huber,Adam W Beck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.06.133

Abstract:Objective: Open surgical repair for acute aortic pathologies involving the visceral vessels is associated with morbidity and mortality rates of 40% to 70% and 30% to 60%, respectively. Due to these poor outcomes, the application of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) has been expanded in this setting; however, durability remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to describe outcomes after F/B-EVAR for acute aortic disease. Methods: A single center retrospective review of all F/B-EVARs for acute aortic disease was completed. Primary end points included mortality and reintervention-free survival. Secondary end points were patency and freedom from endoleak, as well as change in aneurysm diameter and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Life-tables were used to estimate end points, while mixed statistical models were used to determine aneurysm diameter change. Results: Thirty-seven patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 67 ± 10 years; 75% male) underwent F/B-EVAR for acute aortic disease, and median follow-up time was 10.3 months (range, 0.5-31.4 months). Indications included thoracoabdominal aneurysm (65%; n = 24), pararenal aneurysm (17%; n = 6), postsurgical anastomotic pseudoaneurysm (8%; n = 3), dissection (5%; n = 2), and penetrating ulcer (5%; n = 2). Mean preoperative aneurysm diameter was 7.3 ± 1.8 cm. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV or IV-E, and 38% (n = 14) had history of aortic repair. There were 105 visceral vessels revascularized (celiac, 26; superior mesenteric artery, 29; renal, 50) and 24 (65%) patients underwent three- or four-vessel repair. Technical success was 92% (n = 34), with no intraoperative deaths and one conversion (3%). Median length of stay was 6 days (range, 2-60 days), and postoperative morbidity was 41% (n = 15; spinal cord ischemia, 14% [8% permanent]; pulmonary, 14%; renal, 14%; extremity ischemia, 8%; stroke, 5%; cardiac, 3%; bleeding, 3%) with 30-day mortality of 19% (n = 7; in-hospital, 8%; n = 3). Endoleak was detected at some point in follow-up in 27% (n = 10), and a majority were type II (n = 7). Six (16%) patients underwent reintervention, and no late conversions occurred. Postoperative imaging was available in 27 (73%), and one celiac fenestration lost patency at 12 months. One-year branch vessel patency and freedom from reintervention was 98% ± 6% and 70% ± 9%, respectively. Estimated 1- and 4-year survival were 70% ± 8% and 67% ± 8%, respectively. During follow-up, aortic diameter decreased 0.5 cm (95% confidence interval, 1.1-0.2; P = .1) while estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased by 2 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Conclusions: F/B-EVAR can be performed to treat a variety of symptomatic and/or ruptured paravisceral aortic pathologies. Perioperative morbidity and mortality can be significant; however, it is less than literature-based outcomes of open repair. Short-term fenestrated/branched graft patency is excellent, but reintervention is frequent, highlighting the need for diligent follow-up. Patients surviving the initial hospitalization for F/B-EVAR of acute aortic disease can anticipate good long-term survival.

Comparison of open and endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair in Treating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Compared to Open Repair in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Outcomes in Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Comparative study of acute kidney injury in pararenal aortic aneurysm: open surgical versus endovascular repair

Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a Chinese Population.

Prospective Clinical Controlled Study on Endovascular Repair Versus Conventional Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

In-hospital Mortality Risk after Endovascular and Open Aortic Aneurysm Repairs for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Infrarenal EVAR for Penetrating Aortic Ulcer: A Comparative Study with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Opportunity of open surgical repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm

Laparoscopy versus endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review

The impact of endovascular stents types on perioperative outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a single-center experience

Outcomes of standard EVAR for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients unsuitable for fenestrated EVAR and open repair

A propensity-matched comparison of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair of pararenal and paravisceral aortic aneurysms

Complete Replacement of Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Emergent Endovascular Repair: a 7-Year Experience from a Single Centre in Mainland China

Early Intervention Effects of Open Repair and Endovascular Aortic Repair on Patients Suffering from 40-54 Mm Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Single Center Experience.

Endovascular repair for infra-renal aortic aneurysms with supra-renal fixation endoprosthesis: Results and outcomes

Elective endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians

[Investigation of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in High-Risk Patients].

Post-operative Complications of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Outcomes of surgeon-modified fenestrated-branched endograft repair for acute aortic pathology