Search

Significant sac regression during early surveillance has been shown to best predict reintervention-free long-term surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Furthermore, a persistent endoleak has been related to a worse outcome. Individualized surveillance algorithms based on these findings have been suggested. There are no studies comparing the performance of different stent grafts regarding sac regression, the presence of type II endoleaks, and their possible implications for individualized surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate device-specific differences and how these may affect patient categorization for surveillance. Patients were treated electively with standard EVAR between 2005 and 2015 using three different devices (Zenith by Cook, Excluder by Gore, and Endurant by Medtronic). The data were reviewed retrospectively until 2020. Patients' computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) at 30 days and at 2 years were analyzed for freedom from endoleaks and for sac regression of ≥5 mm. Reinterventions during long-term surveillance were counted. Patients were categorized according to the presence of any endoleak and sac regression at 30 days and 2 years, and the probability of reintervention-free long-term surveillance was evaluated based on these findings. A total of 435 patients were treated for an abdominal aortic aneurysm with EVAR during the study period. At 30 days, 80.0% (n = 339) of the patients were free from endoleaks, and at 2 years, 78.9% (n = 273) were free from endoleaks. There was a significant difference in endoleak rate at 30 days and 2 years between the devices (P <.001 and P =.001). There was no significant difference in sac regression between the devices at 2 years (P =.096). The categorization at 30 days based on endoleak status had a sensitivity of 44.9%, specificity of 87.4%, and negative predictive value of 84.1% for finding a reintervention-requiring complication during long-term follow-up. The corresponding figures at 2 years were 63.3%, 91.4%, and 89.4%, respectively. The combination of freedom from endoleaks and sac regression of ≥5 mm in the 2-year CTA best predicted an uneventful long-term surveillance. Patients who met this criterion had a 95.6% probability (negative predictive value) of having a reintervention-free long-term surveillance. There are significant differences in the prevalence of endoleaks between devices at 30 days and 2 years, but there is no difference in sac regression. Patients with sac regression of ≥5 mm and no endoleaks in the 2-year CTA can be safely categorized for infrequent surveillance regardless of the stent graft model that has initially been used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of percutaneous femoral closure with the Prostar XL for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to those of open femoral cutdown, and to evaluate factors which may predict the failure of percutaneous closure. Methods: Patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair for an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2005 and 2013 were included. Patient characteristics, anatomic femoral artery measurements, and postoperative complications were recorded retrospectively. Operator experience was defined with a cut-off point of >30 Prostar XL closures performed. Comparisons were made per access site. Results: A total of 443 access sites were included, with percutaneous closure used in 257 cases (58.0%) and open cutdown in 186 cases (42.0%). The complication rate was 2.7% for the percutaneous and 4.3% for the open cutdown group (P =.482). No significant differences between groups were found with respect to 30-day mortality, wound infections, thrombosis, seromas, or bleeding complications. Fourteen failures (5.4%) of percutaneous closure occurred. The success rates were similar for experienced and unexperienced operators (94.2% vs 95.5%, P =.768). Renal insufficiency was more common in the failed than in the successful percutaneous closure group (64.3% vs 24.7%, P =.003). Common femoral artery calcification or diameter, BMI, sheath size, or operator experience did not predict failure. No further complications were seen in follow-up CT at 1-3 years postoperatively. Conclusion: The use of the Prostar XL is safe compared to open cutdown. The success rate is 94.6%. Operator experience, sheath size, obesity, or femoral artery diameter or calcification do not appear to predict a failure of percutaneous closure. Complications seem to occur perioperatively, and late complications are rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events after elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in older patients within the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment. Consecutive patients ages ≥75 years who received GORE EXCLUDER AAA Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, AZ) for elective EVAR. Based on the age at index elective EVAR, patients were categorized into 3 groups for subsequent analyses: those ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and ≥85 years. The primary end points for this study were the incidence of serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. In-hospital complications were defined according to the International Organization for Standardization 14155 standard (https://www.iso.org/standard/71690.html) and considered serious adverse events if they led to any of the following: (1) a life-threatening illness or injury, (2) a permanent impairment of a body structure or a body function, (3) in-patient or prolonged hospitalization, or (4) medical or surgical intervention to prevent life-threatening illness or injury or permanent impairment to a body structure or a body function. Overall, 1,333 older patients (ages 75–79: n = 601; 80–84: n = 474; and ≥85: n = 258) underwent elective EVAR in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment data set and were included in the present analysis. In total, 12 patients (0.9%) died perioperatively, and 103 patients (7.7%) experienced ≥1 in-hospital serious adverse event, with 18 patients (1.3%) experiencing >1 in-hospital complications. No significant differences were seen between the age groups in the rates of in-hospital serious adverse events (7.3% vs 8.2% vs 7.8%; P =.86). In logistic regression analysis, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio = 2.014; 95% confidence interval, 1.215–3.340; P =.006) and prior requirement for dialysis (odds ratio = 4.655; 95% confidence interval, 1.087–19.928; P =.038) resulted as predictors for occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events. In the whole cohort, the 5-year survival was 63% for patients who did not experience any in-hospital serious adverse events compared with 51% for those who experienced any complications (P =.003). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, it was found that the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events (hazard ratio = 6.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8–21.317; P =.003) and being underweight (hazard ratio = 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.371–35.783; P =.019) were the only independent predictors of death in ≤30 days from the initial intervention. Although age did not independently affect the risk for all-cause mortality in ≤180 days after the initial intervention, increasing age was associated with a higher risk for long-term death (ie, ≥181 days from index elective EVAR) in the multivariable analysis (ages 75–79: hazard ratio = 0.379; 95% confidence interval, 0.281–0.512; P <.001; and 80–84: hazard ratio = 0.562; 95% confidence interval, 0.419–0.754; P <.001). After elective EVAR in older patients (ie, ≥75 years), the occurrence of in-hospital serious adverse events appears to increase the risk of death, particularly in ≤180 days after the initial elective EVAR intervention, and might be related to patient baseline characteristics, including history of pulmonary and renal disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate early- and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in young and low surgical risk patients. Methods: The global registry for endovascular aortic treatment (GREAT) was queried for all patients with AAA undergoing standard EVAR; patients were excluded if had previous AAA repair or underwent concomitant procedures. Young patients were defined if age <60; surgical risk was assessed through the validated Medicare perioperative risk score (MPRS) based on age, sex, renal function, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Patients were classified as low (MPRS<3), average (MPRS 3–11), or high (MPRS>11) risk. Young versus older patients and low-risk versus average/high-risk patients were compared. The primary endpoints were early (30 days) major adverse events (MAEs), 5-year freedom from overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and freedom from device-related reinterventions. Time-to-event endpoints were calculated by Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: Of 3217 included patients, 182 (6%) were <60 years old, 956 (30%) had a low surgical risk, 1561 (49%) an average risk, 700 (22%) a high risk. Young patients had a less angulated proximal neck (27.2±18.4° vs 30.9±21.5°; p=0.05); in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients, a longer neck length (3±1.8 vs 2.8±1.4 cm; p=0.01) and lower neck angulation (29.7±21.8° vs 33.2±22.2°; p=0.01) were present. Young age alone had no significant impact on early mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p=0.62.) and MAEs (3.9% vs 6.1%; p=0.20), while these were significantly lower in low-risk compared to average/high-risk patients (early mortality: 0.1% vs 0.7%, p=0.04; MAEs: 4.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.005). At 5 years, overall survival was significantly higher in young (88% vs 76%; p<0.001) and lower-risk (77% vs 54%; p<0.001) patients; low-risk patients also had significantly decreased aortic-related mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.04) and reintervention rates (6% vs 11%; p=0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (0% vs 2%; p=0.42) and reintervention rate (10% vs 10%; p=1.00) between young and older patients. Conclusion: In this real-world registry, EVAR was more often offered in cases with suitable anatomy in young and low-risk patients. Low operative risk, rather than young age alone, predicted excellent early outcomes and low 5-year mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]