Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present a new technique for fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and to review its preliminary results. The SiMplified bARe-wire Target vessel (SMART) technique for FEVAR aims to simplify the procedure by avoiding guiding sheaths into visceral arteries during the main graft deployment., Materials and Methods: The SMART technique requires a 12 to 16Fr contralateral introducer, depending on number of fenestrations-compared with standard 18 to 22Fr for 3 to 4 FEVAR-to achieve target vessel catheterization and stenting during FEVAR by avoiding the use of parallel 6 to 7Fr guiding sheaths into each visceral vessel. Fenestrations are sequentially catheterized, assisted by a steerable sheath. A Rosen wire is maintained in each fenestration, with a single sheath parked in the final target vessel while releasing the fenestrated graft. Data on patients treated for pararenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with FEVAR, adopting the SMART technique, were retrospectively reviewed. End points were technical success, intraprocedural variables, 90-day mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and target vessel patency., Results: From May 2018 to December 2020, 57 consecutive patients were treated for pararenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Median total procedure time and total fluoroscopy time were 223 (196-271) minutes and 81 (71-94) minutes, respectively. Primary technical success was 96.4% (55/57). No misalignment occurred from graft deployment. The total number of fenestrations was 169, including 54 left and 53 right renal arteries, 43 superior mesenteric arteries and 18 celiac trunks (3.0±0.9 vessels/patient), with target vessel technical success of 98.2%. During the first 90 days, there were no deaths (0%). The MAEs included acute kidney injury (AKI) in 3 patients (5%) with no new dialysis onset, respiratory failure requiring prolonged ventilation in 2 patients (4%), myocardial ischemia in 1 patient (2%), but no lower limb ischemia, stroke, or spinal cord ischemia (SCI) occurred. After a mean follow-up of 14±10 months, there was 1 aortic-related death. Primary and assisted primary target vessel patency was 94.6%±1.8 and 97.0%±1.3% respectively., Conclusions: The SMART technique proved to be a safe alternative to standard FEVARs, with excellent technical result and acceptable target vessel patency at mid-term, while reducing the risk for introducer-induced lower limb ischemia, related complications, and morbidity., Clinical Impact: This study evalautes the outcome of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) procedures at Uppsala university hospital using a simplified bare-wire Target vessel (SMART) technique. The SMART technique requires a smaller contralateral introducer compared to standard 18-22Fr for 3-4 FEVAR to achieve target vessel catetherization and stenting. Fifty-seven consecutive patients were treated for pararenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. The SMART technique proved to be a safe alternative to standard FEVARs with excellent technical result and acceptable target vessel patency at mid-term, while reducing the risk for introducer-induced lower limb ischemia, related complications, and morbidity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms is challenging. Open surgical repair is not a viable option for many patients. The use of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) with chimney grafts (Ch-EVAS) has been proposed as an immediately available, off-the-shelf option for individuals with juxtarenal aneurysms who require urgent treatment or are unsuitable for fenestrated or branched devices. This study reports the outcomes from our first patients to undergo this procedure., Methods: Data were collected prospectively for 62 consecutive patients undergoing Ch-EVAS at our institution. The procedures were undertaken for intact juxtarenal or suprarenal aneurysms in patients who were unfit for open repair or needed urgent treatment or when the aneurysm morphology was unsuitable for treatment with fenestrated or branched endografts., Results: Between July 2013 and June 2016, there were 62 patients who were treated with Ch-EVAS; 77.4% were male, and the mean age was 73.9 years. Median aneurysm diameter was 64.5 mm. Eight suprarenal aneurysms were treated, with three chimney grafts. Of 54 juxtarenal aneurysms treated, 21 cases used two chimney grafts and 33 cases used one chimney graft. Median follow-up was 407 days. Eleven patients underwent reintervention. There were five type IA endoleaks, all successfully treated. One type IB and one type II endoleak occurred, neither requiring treatment. There were four minor strokes. Chimney patency is 97%., Conclusions: These results in a group of high-risk patients suggest that Ch-EVAS is a viable alternative to custom-made devices in patients who are unfit for open surgery. Longer term follow-up and data from the international registry will determine the widespread applicability and durability of this technique., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In situ laser fenestration (ISLF) is a recently introduced technology that offers the potential to perform total endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies in the acute setting. This experiment's aim was to assess ISLF in some currently common aortic endografts and bridging stent-grafts. Materials and Methods: Three different aortic endografts were evaluated: (1) Zenith Alpha, (2) Zenith TX2, and (3) Conformable GORE TAG. Each endograft was submerged in 37°C saline to create fenestrations using the 308 nm CVX-300 Excimer Laser System fitted with a 2.3 mm diameter Turbo-Elite laser atherectomy catheter compatible with a 0.018″ guidewire. Three different 8 mm bridging stent-grafts were evaluated: (1) BeGraft peripheral, (2) BeGraft peripheral plus, and (3) GORE VIABAHN VBX Balloon Expandable. All bridging stent-grafts were deployed and exposed to different balloon sizes and pressures. The ISLFs and bridging stent-grafts were then evaluated for any tears, stenoses, and seal. Results: A laser fenestration was consistently rapidly obtained in the Zenith Alpha and the Zenith TX2 endografts while it proved difficult to achieve a timely fenestration in the C-TAG. No fabric tears were noted in the Zenith Alpha and Zenith TX2 when inflating Armada (Abbott) 8 mm balloon in the fenestrations with pressures up to 15 atmospheres (rated burst pressure) nor when flaring bridging stent-grafts with balloons up to 12 mm in diameter at 10 atmospheres, while major tears were frequently noted in the C-TAG when the Armada 8 mm balloons were inflated. BeGraft Peripheral and BeGraft Peripheral Plus were all firmly attached to the fenestrations showing good seal on manual testing, while every sixth VBX bridging stent-graft displayed poorer attachment to the fenestration before dilatation at high pressure. Commonly, significant stenoses remained in the bridging stent-grafts after dilatation at nominal pressure, which could only be eradicated with high-pressure balloons. Conclusion: In this limited bench-test, Dacron endografts responded well to the ISLF technology. Satisfactory deployment of the bridging stent was noted only after inflation and/or flaring with high-pressure balloons. Further work with different types of commercially-available bridging stent-grafts and endografts to assess the durability of in situ fenestration (ISF) and bridging stents in ISF is recommended. Clinical Impact: This report on experimental in situ laser fenestration provide important insights for clinicians considering using in situ laser fenestration of aortic stentgrafts in vivo. In particular, different laser settings were tested together with a selection of aortic stentgrafts. Also, the target pressure needed in PTA balloons to dilate the fenestrations and any subsequent tears in the fabric were noted. This was followed by deployment of assorted balloon-expandable stentgrafts with estimation of residual stenosis and seal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Surveillance imaging is considered mandatory after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), but many patients are lost to follow up and the impact of this is poorly understood. This study aimed to examine compliance with post-operative surveillance in the UK and the impact of mal-/non-compliance on endograft re-interventions and survival. Methods EVAR-SCREEN centres reported EVAR for intact infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010, with follow up included up to 31 July 2014. Non-compliance was defined by the presence of a single 18 month period in which no surveillance imaging was performed. The outcomes were reported in compliant and non-compliant groups with survival analysis. Results EVAR was performed in 1414 patients in 10 UK centres. At the end of the study period there were 378 patients with five years of follow up available for analysis. Compliance with surveillance was 66% (61–68%). Compliance varied widely, from 9% to 88% between centres. Age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.05; p =.02) and distance from hospital (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01; p <.001) were independent predictors of non-compliance. Non-compliant patients had lower all cause mortality in the first three years after EVAR, whereas compliant patients had lower all cause mortality 4–5 years after EVAR (p <.001). No significant difference in re-intervention rates was found between compliant and non-compliant patients. Conclusion A substantial proportion of patients were non-compliant with surveillance after EVAR in the UK with considerable variation between centres. The survival benefit for EVAR after three years appeared to be related to compliance with surveillance which has implications for the future delivery of EVAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective/background Increasingly, reports show that compliance rates with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance are often suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine the safety implications of non-compliance with surveillance. Methods The study was carried out according to the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was undertaken by two independent authors using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from 1990 to July 2017. Only studies that analysed infrarenal EVAR and had a definition of non-compliance described as weeks or months without imaging surveillance were analysed. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model and restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Results Thirteen articles (40,730 patients) were eligible for systematic review; of these, seven studies (14,311 patients) were appropriate for comparative meta-analyses of mortality rates. Three studies (8316 patients) were eligible for the comparative meta-analyses of re-intervention rates after EVAR and four studies (12,995 patients) eligible for meta-analysis for abdominal aortic aneurysm related mortality (ARM). The estimated average non-compliance rate was 42.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28–56%). Although there is some evidence that non-compliant patients have better survival rates, there was no statistically significant difference in all cause mortality rates (year 1: odds ratio [OR] 5.77, 95% CI 0.74–45.14; year 3: OR 2.28, 95% CI 0.92–5.66; year 5: OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.88–3.74) and ARM (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99–2.19) between compliant and non-compliant patients in the first 5 years after EVAR. The re-intervention rate was statistically significantly higher in compliant patients from 3 to 5 years after EVAR (year 1: OR 6.36, 95% CI 0.23–172.73; year 3: OR 3.94, 85% CI 1.46–10.69; year 5: OR 5.34, 95% CI 1.87–15.29). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that patients compliant with EVAR surveillance programmes may have an increased re-intervention rate but do not appear to have better survival rates than non-compliant patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]