Search

Patients with wide aortic necks undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) have been shown to be at a higher risk for neck-related complications. We aim to examine outcomes of EVAR with an endograft exerting minimal outward pressure (Ovation-Endologix) in patients with a large baseline neck diameter.We performed a retrospective single center study, including consecutive patients undergoing EVAR with the Ovation system from May 2011 to April 2021. Patients were divided in Groups 1 and 2 if the 20, 23, 26, 29 mm or the 34 mm proximal diameter main body was used, respectively. According to the instructions for use of the device, for neck diameters 27-30 mm the 34 mm main body is required. Primary endpoint was rate of neck related complications during follow-up, (type Ia endoleak, migration10 mm and neck-related re-interventions) and rate of aortic neck dilatation (AND). AND was determined based on multiple aortic neck diameters that were recorded and compared between the 1-month computed tomography angiography (CTA) after EVAR and the last available follow-up CTA.Secondary endpoints were peri-procedural and follow-up outcomes such as endoleaks, reinterventions and overall mortality.In total 281 patients were included, 222 in Group 1 and 59 in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 presented significantly shorter neck length, higher neck angulation and more common reversed tapered configuration. Median follow-up was 36 months (Range: 6-106). Early and late type Ia endoleak was observed in 4 and 2 patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.063 and P = 0.195, respectively). Distal migration was observed in 2 patients in Group 2 and AND was recorded in 2 patients in each group (P = 0.195). Freedom from the primary endpoint was estimated at 98%, 94%, 94% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and at 98%, 95%, 86% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.266). Probability of survival was 95%, 86%, 75% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and 83%, 77%, 72% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.226).Multivariate regression analysis identified neither Group 1 versus Group 2 nor absolute value of aortic neck diameter as significant predictors of neck-related adverse events. Neck diameters did not display significant differences over time in any of the levels evaluated.EVAR with the Ovation endograft results in low rates of late neck related complications which is also true for patients with wide baseline aortic necks.

Objective: To investigate whether the crossed-limb technique confers better or worse clinical outcomes compared to the standard straight limb configuration in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR with the crossed versus standard limb configuration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched in March 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Summary estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. Random-effects models were employed. Results: Four observational studies qualified for inclusion, reporting a total of 1132 patients. All presented contemporary experiences. Baseline clinical characteristics were largely similar between patients with and without the crossed-limb configuration, but the anatomy tended to be less favourable in patients treated with the crossed-limb technique. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcomes: limb occlusion (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 – 3.19), type Ib endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 – 0.04), type III endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 – 0.03); or secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 – 0.03), type Ia endoleak (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 – 0.02), type II endoleak (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 – 3.74), procedure duration (MD 18.07 min, 95% CI -1.14–37.29). Inconsistency across studies was low for all outcomes. The studies were judged to be of high quality on the NOS. The main bias identified using the ROBINS-I tool was due to confounding. Conclusion: The crossed-limb technique was not found to confer inferior clinical outcomes in the medium term compared to the standard limb configuration in patients who undergo standard EVAR.

To investigate outcomes of pre-emptive embolization of the aneurysm sac or aortic side branches in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).The review was reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 with a preregistered protocol. Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL) were searched using subject headings and free text terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing EVAR with versus without embolization were included. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel method. Continuous outcomes were summarized using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI applying the inverse variance method. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%.Four randomized controlled trials were included. No significant difference was found in aneurysm-related mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), overall mortality (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.42-8.13), aneurysm rupture (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), type II endoleak-related reintervention (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.06), procedure time (MD 20.12, 95% CI -11.54 to 51.77), or fluoroscopy time (MD 11.17, 95% CI -11.22 to 33.56). Patients with pre-emptive embolization had significantly lower odds of type II endoleak (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78) and sac expansion (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.52). The risk of bias was high for all outcomes. The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes, except for type II endoleak, for which it was low. Trial sequential analysis showed an inconclusive result for overall mortality and type II endoleak-related reintervention but confirmed the advantage of embolization in reducing type II endoleak and sac expansion.Limited, low certainty data suggest pre-emptive embolization confers no clinical benefits in EVAR.

Background Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and peripheral interventions using the Perclose Proglide suture mediated system has not been adequately studied in patients with synthetic grafts at access sites. Methods We report the use of the Perclose Proglide in 10 patients in whom previously inserted synthetic grafts in the groin were punctured for arterial access (5 for peripheral interventions and 5 undergoing EVAR). In patients undergoing peripheral interventions a single device was used, while in patients undergoing EVAR 2 devices were employed per access site. The preclosing technique was used in every case. Results Hemostasis was achieved in all patients. No complications were observed except for a small laceration and a localized hemodynamically nonsignificant stenosis, without any clinical sequel. Conclusions This small case series indicates the feasibility of percutaneous access with the Perclose Proglide system to perform EVAR and peripheral endovascular interventions in the presence of synthetic grafts in the groin, with promising outcomes.

Background Type Ia endoleak may lead to continuous sac pressurization and late rupture after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Nevertheless, there have been scarce reports suggesting that these endoleaks may occasionally present spontaneous sealing. Taking into account the original sealing mechanism of the Ovation endograft that exploits 2 polymer-filled O-rings, we hypothesize that spontaneous type Ia endoleak sealing may sometimes incur following implantation of this device. We aim to report our experience with spontaneous type Ia endoleak sealing in patients treated with the Ovation endograft. Methods This is a retrospective observational study which included all patients undergoing EVAR with the Ovation endograft in a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients with an intraoperative type Ia endoleak were identified. The primary endpoint was rate of spontaneous sealing. Secondary endpoints were migration, sac expansion, need for reinterventions, secondary type Ia endoleaks, and aneurysm-related and overall mortality. Adherence to the instructions for use (IFU) was evaluated to examine relation with occurrence of endoleak and rates of spontaneous sealing. Results Among 147 patients treated, 8 (5%) left the operation theater with a type Ia endoleak. In 6 patients, the endoleak spontaneously resolved during a maximum of 3 months of follow-up. Among those, 5 cases were treated outside the IFU (2 short necks and 3 with severe angulation), while the sixth was a patient treated inside the IFU but was anticoagulated. In 2 patients, the endoleak did not spontaneously resolve. One presented a conical neck of marginal length and the other circumferential calcifications. Type Ia endoleak was significantly more common among patients treated in an off-label fashion. Conclusions Spontaneous sealing of type Ia endoleak is common after EVAR with the Ovation endograft. Nonadherence to the IFU results in more endoleaks, but it does not seem to reduce possibilities for spontaneous sealing.

BACKGROUND Narrow aortic bifurcation (NAB) is considered as a risk factor for endograft limb thrombosis. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of narrow aortic bifurcation on outcomes of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS A systematic review that conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. We searched electronic bibliographic databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify relevant studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients with NAB versus those with regular aortic bifurcation. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) and those of continuous outcomes using mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI). To account for expected heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied for statistical analysis. RESULTS Six observational studies were included, reporting a total of 2,673 patients (412 with NAR and 2,261 with friendly anatomy). Perioperative mortality was similar between the groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.30-4.34, P = 0.85, I2 = 0%). Limb stenosis and kinking requiring additional intraoperative procedures was significantly more common among patients with NAB (OR 3.02, 95% CI 2.16-4.22, P

Background At a time when endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasingly used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), lesions undergoing open surgical repair (OSR) may present significant differences compared with those treated before wide EVAR availability. We aim to record discrepancies in AAAs surgically treated before and after the introduction of EVAR. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of comparative studies. The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were searched up to October 2017. Outcome measures were anatomic complexity, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes. The random-effects model was used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Data are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Five observational studies were included. These involved 1,091 patients treated in the pre-EVAR era and 802 in the post-EVAR era. In general, patients undergoing OSR during the first period presented more comorbidities. Increased anatomic complexity was found among patients in the second group as demonstrated by the increased rate of suprarenal clamping (10.5% vs. 22.3%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24–0.50), left renal vein division (10.3% vs. 18.8%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25–0.88), iliac aneurysm (28.3% vs. 44.9%; OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37–0.64), and iliac occlusive disease (13.1% vs. 20.2%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.88). Intraoperative use of blood products was greater during the latter period, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Procedural duration was slightly increased in the same group. Morbidity and mortality were similar among the groups. Conclusions After the wide availability of endoluminal grafting, more compromised patients tend to be managed with EVAR, leaving a fitter patient population to undergo OSR. At the same time, anatomic complexity of AAAs undergoing open surgery has considerably increased, requiring advanced proximal aortic surgical expertise to deal with these complex aortic pathologies Overall, morbidity and mortality remained unchanged, possibly due to the counterbalancing effects of these factors.