Long-term results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in young and fit patients.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of complex abdominal (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) with fenestrated and branched devices (F/BEVAR) represents the first-line treatment in old or unfit patients. Currently, the widespread diffusion of these techniques has led to a progressive increase of complex endovascular procedures also in younger and fitter patients, but the related results have been only minimally reported without long-term data. We investigated the long-term results of F/BEVAR for CAAA and TAAA repair in young and fit patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients, aged 70 or younger, undergone F/BEVAR for CAAA and TAAA over the last 13 years at two tertiary Institutions were included in the study. All subjects presented a low to intermediate risk according to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical comorbidity grading system. The primary endpoints were technical and clinical success, late overall and aortic-related survival. Major complications and specific target vessel-related outcomes were investigated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients (155 males, 84.7%; mean age 64.5 + 5.7 years, range 33-70) underwent F/BEVAR during the study period, for a total of 167 (91.3%) degenerative and 16 (8.7%) post-dissection aneurysms including 44 (24%) juxtarenal, 33 (18%) pararenal and 106 (58%) thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 176 (96.2%) and 171 patients (93.4%), respectively. Four patients (2.2%) died perioperatively, of which 2 (1.1%) operated in emergency. Postoperatively, 5 patients (2.7%) presented permanent grade 3 spinal cord injury, and 3 (1.6%) renal failure needing permanent dialysis. The mean follow-up was 65.7 + 39.6 months (range 1-158). Estimated overall and aortic-related survival at 12, 60, and 120 months was 94.0%, 85.1%, 72.2%, and 97.8%, 97.8%, 96.2%, respectively, while reintervention and branch instability-free survival at the same time spam was 84.4%, 71.8%, 71.8%, and 93.2%, 86.3%, 72.2%, respectively. An aneurysm growth > 5 mm was detected in 6 patients (3.3%) while a sac shrinkage > 5 mm was achieved in 118 cases (64.5%). The Cox regression analysis demonstrated the need for unplanned procedure as the only risk factor for overall mortality [OR=3.331 (1.397-7.940), p < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: F/BEVAR in young and fit patients led to a low perioperative mortality and major morbidity, and favorable overall survival rate in the long-term making this technique particularly appealing in such a subgroup of patients. The availability of long-term data derived from the results of young patients, may additionally provide helpful information to re-define indication for treatment and allow future targeted device and technique improvements.

Long-term results of hybrid repair techniques for Kommerell's diverticulum.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate early and late results of hybrid repair techniques for Kommerell's diverticulum (KD). METHODS: All patients who underwent hybrid repair (thoracic endovascular aortic repair + supra-aortic debranching) for KD between 2009 and 2018 were included in this retrospective multicenter study (three Italian centers). A proximal landing zone (PLZ) of at least 2 cm of healthy aorta was considered adequate for the deployment of a standard thoracic stent graft. The early end points were technical success, in-hospital mortality, and cerebrovascular events. Late outcomes included survival, reintervention, and patency of supra-aortic debranching. We used an embryogenetic anomaly based aortic arch classification for PLZ evaluation to identify the most appropriate hybrid adjunct. RESULTS: Sixteen patients with KD were included. According to the aforementioned classification, stent graft deployment was required in six patients (37.5%) in PLZ 0, nine patients (56.3%) in PLZ 1, and one patient (6.3%) in PLZ 2. Technical success was achieved in all patients. One patient (6.3%) died in the hospital because of posterior cerebral hemorrhage after total debranching (PLZ 0). No further cerebrovascular events were observed. One patient (6.3%) had an asymptomatic left subclavian artery-right left subclavian artery bypass occlusion and required early reintervention. The 30-day secondary patency of supra-aortic debranching was 100%. Two type II endoleaks (12.5%) were detected at 1 month through computed tomography angiography. Further transient complications were found in three cases: hemidiaphragm paralysis in one patient and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis in two patients. At a mean follow-up of 48 months, four patients had died because of nonaortic reasons, and one RCCA-right subclavian artery bypass had lost its patency. None of the patients reported any growth of KD after hybrid repair. Ten patients (62.5%) showed aneurysmal sac shrinkage of at least 5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid repair is confirmed to be a safe and effective approach for KD. Operative risk is associated primarily with the invasiveness of the hybrid adjunct.

Gender Related Access Complications After TEVAR: Analysis from the Retrospective Multicentre Cohort GORE® GREAT Registry Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT), a retrospective sponsored registry, was queried to determine the incidence and identify potential predictors of access related complications after TEVAR. METHODS: This is a multicentre, observational cohort study. For the current study, all patients were treated only with the Conformable GORE® TAG® Thoracic Endoprosthesis and GORE® TAG® Thoracic Endoprosthesis devices for any kind of thoracic aortic disease. All serious adverse events within 30 days of the procedure were documented by sites. The following were considered access related complications: surgical site infection, pseudoaneurysm, avulsion, dissection, arterial bleeding, access vessel thrombosis/occlusion, seroma, and lymphocoele. RESULTS: A total of 887 patients was analysed: most of the cases had an operative indication for TEVAR of degenerative atherosclerotic aneurysm (n = 414, 46.7%) and type B dissection (n = 270, 30.4% either complicated or uncomplicated). Two hundred and ninety-five patients (33.3%) were female. The overall access related complication rate was 2.8% (n = 25): 4.7% (n = 14) in women and 1.8% (n = 11) in men (p = .013). After adjustment for age, urgency, device diameter, introducer sheath (≥24Fr vs. ≤ 24Fr), access vessel diameters, and access method, female gender was significantly associated with the risk of access complications (OR 2.85; p = .038). Brachial artery for access was also found to be an independent predictor of access related complications (OR 8.32; p < .001). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that women may have a higher access related complication rate after TEVAR, irrespective of the clinical setting, type of aortic disease, and device sizing.

iTalian RegIstry of doUble inner branch stent graft for arch PatHology (the TRIUmPH Registry).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair using a double inner branch stent graft (DIBSG) in patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection unfit for open surgery. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, there were 24 patients with aortic arch disease who were treated with a single model of a DIBSG (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, United Kingdom) in nine Italian cardiovascular centers. We investigated technical success, mortality, occurrence of major complications, and need for reintervention in a multicenter, nonrandomized, retrospective fashion. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 16.7%. Cerebrovascular events occurred in 25% of patients and major strokes in 12.5%. Two patients experienced a retrograde dissection (8.3%), whereas none reported any type I or type III endoleak. During a mean follow-up of 18 months (range, 1-60 months), one patient died of a nonaortic cause and one reported a nonarch-related major stroke. No late secondary intervention was needed during the follow-up. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients treated until 2014 as part of the learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke, and retrograde dissection rates were 11.1%, 11.1%, and 5.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular aortic arch repair using this model of DIBSG is feasible, and results are acceptable for a new technique in a high-risk subset of patients. Operative mortality suffers the effect of a learning curve, whereas midterm aorta-related survival is promising. Endovascular repair of aortic arch disease with a DIBSG should always be considered to give high-risk patients a chance of repair. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

The incidence and effect of noncylindrical neck morphology on outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) was designed to evaluate real-world outcomes after treatment with Gore aortic endografts used in a real-world, global setting. We retrospectively analyzed the GREAT data to evaluate the incidence and effects of noncylindrical neck anatomy in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: The present analysis included patients with data in the GREAT who had been treated with the EXCLUDER endograft from August 2010 to October 2016. A noncylindrical neck was defined when the proximal aortic landing zone diameter had changed ≥2 mm over the first 15 mm of the proximal landing zone, indicating a tapered, conical, or hourglass morphology. Cox multivariate regression analyses were performed for any reintervention (including reinterventions on aortic branch vessels), device-related reinterventions, and reintervention specifically for endoleak. Independent binary (cylindrical vs noncylindrical necks) and continuous (percentage of neck diameter change) variables were assessed. The abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter, proximal neck length, maximal infrarenal neck angle, gender, and use of aortic extender cuffs were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 3077 GREAT patients with available proximal aortic landing zone diameter measurements available, 1765 were found to have cylindrical necks and 1312 had noncylindrical necks. The noncylindrical neck cohort had a significantly greater proportion of women (17.4% vs 12.6%; P < .001) and more severe infrarenal angulation (33.8° vs 28.4°; P < .001). A total 14.7% of noncylindrical neck patients and 11.2% cylindrical neck patients underwent implantation outside of the EXCLUDER instructions for use regarding the anatomic inclusion criteria (P = .004). The procedural characteristics were similar between the two cohorts; however, noncylindrical neck patients required significantly more aortic extender cuffs (P = .004). The average follow-up was 21.2 ± 17.5 months and 17.8 ± 15.8 months for the cylindrical and noncylindrical cohorts, respectively (P < .001). The Cox multivariate regression models demonstrated female gender and maximum AAA diameter were significant risk factors for subsequent reintervention (overall, device-related, and endoleak-specific). Women were 2.2 times as likely to require device-related intervention during the follow-up period compared with men (P < .001). Neck shape morphology was not a significant predictor, except for device-related intervention, for which cylindrical necks (binary definition) resulted in a slightly elevated risk (1.5 times; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Noncylindrical neck morphology was more common in women and was associated with an increased use of aortic extender cuffs but did not increase the risk of intervention. Female gender and AAA diameter were associated with an increased need for reintervention.

Standard "off-the-shelf" multibranched thoracoabdominal endograft in urgent and elective patients with single and staged procedures in a multicenter experience.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess immediate and midterm outcomes for urgent/emergent and elective patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) treated with the first commercially available "off-the-shelf" multibranched endograft for endovascular aneurysm repair, with a single-step or a staged surgical approach. METHODS: A multicenter, nonrandomized, retrospective study was conducted of TAAA patients grouped by urgent/emergent and elective treatment with multibranched endograft for endovascular aneurysm repair at 13 Italian centers from November 2012 to August 2016. Urgent/emergent repair was classified as rupture in 16%, impending rupture in 9%, pain in 53%, or a maximum TAAA diameter ≥80 mm in 22%. Study end points were technical success, mortality, spinal cord ischemia, target visceral vessel (TVV) patency, and procedure-related reinterventions at 30 days and at follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients (274 TVVs) were enrolled. Treatment was performed in elective (n = 41 [56%]) or urgent/emergent (n = 32 [44%]) settings, according to a single-step (n = 30 [41%]) or staged (n = 43 [59%]) approach. Technical success was 92%. Mortality within 30 days was 4% (n = 3 urgent/emergent patients) due to myocardial infarction. Spinal cord ischemia was recorded in two patients (3%; elective group). The primary patency of TVVs was 99% (three renal branch occlusions). Procedure-related reinterventions were required in five cases (7%). At least one adverse event from any cause ≤30 days was registered in 42% (n = 31). At a median follow-up of 18 months (range, 1-43 months), eight (11%) deaths (elective vs urgent/emergent, 2% vs 22%; P = .018), three (1%) cases of branch occlusion or stenosis, and five (7%) reinterventions were recorded. A survival of 88% (standard error [SE], 4%), 86% (SE, 4%), and 82% (SE, 5%) was evidenced at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Urgent/emergent repair and female gender were identified as independent risk factors for all-cause mortality (P < .001 and P = .015, respectively), and the staged approach was identified as protective (P = .026). Freedom from reintervention was 86% (SE, 4%) and 83% (SE, 5%) at 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: The first off-the-shelf multibranched endograft seems safe in both urgent/emergent and elective settings. The staged surgical approach appears to positively influence overall survival. This unique device and its operators will usher in a new treatment paradigm for TAAA repair.

Isolated Common Iliac Artery Aneurysms Treated Solely With Iliac Branch Stent-Grafts: Midterm Results of a Multicenter Registry.

PURPOSE: To assess early and midterm outcomes of iliac branch device (IBD) implantation without an aortic stent-graft for the treatment of isolated common iliac artery aneurysm (CIAA). METHODS: From December 2006 to June 2016, 49 isolated CIAAs in 46 patients were treated solely with an IBD at 7 vascular centers. Five patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 41 male patients (mean age 72.5±7.8 years) for analysis. Mean CIAA diameter was 39.1±10.5 mm (range 25-65). Thirty-two patients (2 with bilateral CIAAs) were treated with a Cook Zenith iliac branch device; 9 patients (1 bilateral) received a Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis. Primary endpoints were technical success, survival, aneurysm exclusion, device patency, and freedom from reintervention at 1 and 5 years. Freedom from major adverse events and aneurysm shrinkage at 1 year were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality and the IBD occlusion rate were 2.4% and 2.3%, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 40.2±33.9 months, no patient presented buttock claudication, erectile dysfunction, or bowel or spinal cord ischemia. Three patients died within 6 months after the procedure. Estimates of cumulative survival, device patency, and freedom from reintervention were 90.2%, 95.2%, and 95.7%, respectively, at 1 and 5 years. At 1 year, CIAA shrinkage ≥5 mm was recorded in 21 of 38 survivors. No evidence of endoleak, device migration, or disconnection was found on imaging follow-up. CONCLUSION: The use of IBDs without an aortic stent-graft for isolated CIAAs resulted in excellent patency, with low morbidity and mortality. This, in conjunction with no endoleak or migration and a low reintervention rate, supports the use of isolated IBDs as a stable and durable means of endovascular reconstruction in cases with suitable anatomy. Longer follow-up and a larger cohort are needed to validate these results.

Fourteen-year outcomes of abdominal aortic endovascular repair with the Zenith stent graft.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term results of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair are affected by graft design renewals that tend to improve the performance of older generation prostheses but usually reset the follow-up times to zero. The present study investigated the long-term outcomes of endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) using the Zenith graft, still in use without major modification, in a single center experience. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2011, 610 patients underwent elective EVAR using the Zenith endograft (Cook Inc, Bloomington, Ind) and represent the study group. Primary outcomes were overall survival, freedom from AAA rupture, and freedom from AAA-related death. Secondary outcomes included freedom from late (>30 days) reintervention, freedom from late (>30 days) conversion to open repair, freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement >5.0 mm and freedom from EVAR failure, defined as a composite of AAA-related death, AAA rupture, AAA growth >5 mm, and any reintervention. RESULTS: Mean age was 73.2 years. Mean aneurysm diameter was 55.3 mm. There were five perioperative deaths (0.8%) and three intraoperative conversions. At a mean follow-up of 99.2 (range, 0-175) months, seven AAA ruptures occurred, all fatal except one. Overall survival was 92.8% ± 1.1% at 1 year, 70.1% ± 1.9% at 5 years, 37.8% ± 2.9% at 10 years, and 24 ± 4% at 14 years. Freedom from AAA-rupture was 99.8% ± 0.02 at 1 year (one case), 99.4% ± 0.04 at 5 years (three cases), and 98.1% ± 0.07 at 10 and 14 years. Freedom from late reintervention and conversion was 98% ± 0.6 at 1 year, 87.7% ± 1.5 at 5 years, 75.7% ± 3.2 at 10 years, and 69.9% ± 5.2 at 14 years. Freedom from aneurysm sac growth >5.0 mm was 99.8% at 1 year, 96.6% ± 0.7 at 5 years, 81.0% ± 3.4 at 10 years, and 74.1% ± 5.8% at 14 years. EVAR failure occurred in 132 (21.6%) patients at 14 years. At multivariate analysis, independent predictors of EVAR failure resulted type I and III endoleak (hazard ratio [HR], 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6- 9.7; P < .001], type II endoleak (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4; P < .001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 4 (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.6; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR with Zenith graft represents a safe and durable repair. Risk of rupture and aneurysm-related death is low, whereas overall long-term survival remains poor. Novel endograft models should be tested and evaluated considering that one-fourth of the operated patients will still be alive after 14 years.

Secondary Procedures Following Iliac Branch Device Treatment of Aneurysms Involving the Iliac Bifurcation: The pELVIS Registry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence and reasons for secondary procedures in patients treated with iliac branch devices (IBDs) for isolated iliac aneurysm or aortoiliac aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2015, 575 surgical-high-risk patients (mean age 72.0±8.4 years; 558 men) with isolated iliac aneurysms (n=79) or aortoiliac aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation (n=496) were treated with placement of 650 ZBIS or Gore IBDs (75 bilateral) in 6 European centers. The primary outcome was procedure-related reinterventions for occlusion or high-grade (>70%) stenosis of the bridging device, occlusion of the ipsilateral common or external iliac artery (EIA), type I/III endoleak, rupture, or infection following IBD implantation. Clinical and radiological data were analyzed based on preset definitions of comorbidities, aneurysm morphology, intraoperative variables, and follow-up strategies. RESULTS: Nine (1.6%) reinterventions were performed within 30 days for occlusion or endoleak. Among 10 (1.5%) occluded EIAs ipsilateral to a deployed IBD, 6 underwent a reintervention with additional stent placement after thrombolysis (n=4) or a femorofemoral or iliofemoral crossover bypass (n=2). Three of 14 patients with early type I endoleak had a reintervention for an insufficient proximal sealing zone (stent-grafts in 2 common iliac arteries and 1 bifurcated endograft). Mean clinical and radiological follow-up were 32.6±9.9 and 29.8±21.1 months, respectively. Forty-two (7.3%) patients underwent reinterventions in the follow-up period. The overall postoperative reintervention rate was 8.9%. Both external and common iliac segments occluded in 30 (4.6%) IBDs; 2 patients had a crossover bypass and 14 were treated with endovascular techniques. In the other 14 patients, no specific treatment was performed. Seven (1.2%) patients with isolated EIA occlusion were treated during follow-up. Nineteen of the overall 28 patients with type I endoleak underwent endovascular repair. The other 9 were under radiological surveillance due to less significant (<5 mm) sac increase. No reintervention was performed to recanalize 11 (1.6%) occluded internal iliac arteries. CONCLUSION: Midterm experience with placement of IBDs is associated with a low incidence of secondary procedures due to type I endoleaks and occlusions. The main reasons for reinterventions seem to be short proximal sealing zone and poor conformability of the ZBIS device in elongated EIAs.

A propensity-matched comparison for endovascular and open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes of patients treated with endovascular repair (ER) with the use of fenestrated and branched stent grafts or open surgery (OS) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) in a current series of patients. METHODS: All TAAA patients undergoing repair at three centers between January 2007 and December 2014 were included in a prospective database. Patients were stratified according to treatment by ER or OS, and outcomes were compared using propensity score matching (1:1). Covariates included age, sex, aneurysm extent, hypertension, coronary disease, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and renal function. The primary end points were mortality and paraplegia. Secondary end points included any spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal and respiratory insufficiency, and a composite of these complications or death at 30 days. All-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Of 341 patients, 84 (25%) underwent ER and 257 underwent OS (75%). After propensity score matching (65 patients per group), no significant differences were observed in rates of 30-day mortality (7.7% in ER and 6.2% in OS; P = 1) and paraplegia (9.2% and 10.8%; P = 1). Any SCI, renal insufficiency, and respiratory insufficiency were 12.3% and 20% (P = .34), 9.2% and 12.3% (P = .78), and 0% and 12.3% (P = .006) in ER and OS, respectively. The incidence of the composite end point was significantly lower in ER patients (18.5% in ER vs 36.0% in OS; P =.03). According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, all-cause survival at 24 months was 82.8% in ER and 84.9% in OS, with rates unchanged at 42 months (P = .9). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 91.0% vs 89.7% at 24 months and 80.0% vs 79.9% at 42 months in ER vs OS, respectively (P = .3). CONCLUSIONS: A propensity score analysis in patients with TAAA undergoing repair suggests an early benefit from ER compared with OS with regard to the composite end point because of reduced 30-day respiratory complications. No significant differences were found in SCI and renal insufficiency at 30 days and in survival and reintervention rates at midterm.

The Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment: Objectives and Design.

BACKGROUND: The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is a prospective observational multicenter cohort registry that was initiated in November 2011. The aim of the GREAT is to collect contemporary real-world data on the performance of all Gore aortic endografts in the treatment of multiple aortic pathologies. The primary and secondary objectives, design, and future directions of the GREAT are described. METHODS: The GREAT aims to enroll 5000 consecutive patients with Gore thoracic and abdominal aortic endografts from multiple centers throughout the world. The GREAT has broad inclusion criteria with minimal exclusion criteria to reflect real-world practice such as including off-label use, nonstandard indications and devices deployed outside instruction for use. Follow-up will extend to 10 years providing major insights into the long-term durability and behavior of Gore aortic endografts. Primary end points include the incidence and timing of (1) endoleak of any type, (2) endograft migration and/or stent fracture, (3) endograft explantation, and (4) aortic rupture. Secondary end points include the following: (1) incidence of serious device events by pathology, (2) incidence of serious device events by aortic segment (ascending aorta, arch of aorta, descending thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta), (3) long-term survival by pathology, and (4) aorta-related mortality by pathology. RESULTS: As of June 2015, 2960 patients have been enrolled into the GREAT from 78 centers in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil. The majority of patients and centers are from Europe and the United States. Completion of enrollment is anticipated to be in 2017 with interim results planned to be published during enrollment and on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Upon completion, the GREAT will be among the largest clinical registry to date of abdominal and thoracic aortic devices manufactured by a single sponsor. It will provide valuable real-world data on the use and durability of Gore aortic endografts in the treatment of a variety of aortic pathologies and devices deployed within and outside instruction for use.

Results of aberrant right subclavian artery aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multicenter registry was to review current treatments and late results of repair of aneurysm of aberrant right subclavian artery (AARSA). METHODS: All consecutive AARSA repairs from 2006 to 2013 in seven centers were reviewed. End points were 30-day and late mortality, reintervention rate, and AARSA-related death. RESULTS: Twenty-one AARSA repairs were included (57% men; mean age, 67 years); 3 ruptures (14%) required emergent treatment; 12 (57%) were symptomatic for dysphagia (33%), dysphonia (24%), or pain (19%). Eight cases (38%) presented with thoracic aortic aneurysm, two with intramural hematoma, and one with acute type B aortic dissection. Mean AARSA diameter was 4.2 cm; a single bicarotid common trunk was present in 38% of cases. The majority of patients underwent hybrid intervention (n = 15; 71%) consisting of single (n = 2) or bilateral (n = 12) subclavian to carotid transposition or bypass or ascending aorta to subclavian bypass (n = 1) plus thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR); 19% of cases underwent open repair and 9% simple TEVAR with AARSA overstenting. Perioperative death occurred in two patients (9%): in one case after TEVAR in ruptured AARSA, requiring secondary sternotomy and aortic banding; and in an elective case due to multiorgan failure after a hybrid procedure. Median follow-up was 30 (interquartile range, 15-46) months. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at 36 months was 90% (standard error, 0.64). Late AARSA-related death in one case was due to AARSA-esophageal fistula presenting with continuing backflow from distal AARSA and previous TEVAR. At computed tomography controls, one type I endoleak and one type II endoleak were detected; the latter required reintervention by aneurysm wrapping and ligature of collaterals. AARSA-related death was more frequent after TEVAR, a procedure reserved for ruptures, compared with elective open or hybrid repair. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid repair is the preferred therapeutic option for patients presenting with AARSA. Midterm results show high rates of clinical success with low risk of reintervention. Simple endografting presents high risk of related death; these findings underline the importance of achieving complete sealing to avoid treatment failures.

Contemporary comparison of aortic arch repair by endovascular and open surgical reconstructions.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed total aortic arch reconstruction in a contemporary comparison of current open and endovascular repair. METHODS: Endovascular (group 1) and open arch procedures (group 2) performed during 2007 to 2013 were entered in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. Endovascular repair (proximal landing zones 0-1), with or without a hybrid adjunct, was selected for patients with a high comorbidity profile and fit anatomy. Operations involving coverage of left subclavian artery only (zone 2 proximal landing: n = 41) and open hemiarch replacement (n = 434) were excluded. Early and midterm mortality and major complications were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 100 (78 men; mean age, 68 years) consecutive procedures were analyzed: 29 patients in group 2 and 71 in group 1. Seven group 1 patients were treated with branched or chimney stent graft, and 64 with partial or total debranching and straight stent graft. The 29 patients in group 2 were younger (mean age, 61.9 vs 70.3; P = .005), more frequently females (48.2% vs 11.3; P < .001) with less cardiac (6.9% vs 38.2%; P = .001), hypertensive (58.5% vs 88.4%; P = .002), and peripheral artery (0% vs 16.2%; P = .031) disease. At 30 days, there were six deaths in group 1 and four in group 2 (8.5% vs 13.8%; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-6.66; P = .47), and four strokes in group 1 and one in group 2 (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-5.59; P = 1). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in two group 1 patients and in no group 2 patients. Three retrograde dissections (1 fatal) were detected in group 1. During a mean follow-up of 26.2 months, two type I endoleaks and three reinterventions were recorded in group 1 (all for persistent endoleak), and one reintervention was performed in group 2. According to Kaplan Meier estimates, survival at 4 years was 79.8% in group 1 and 69.8% in group 2 (P = .62), and freedom from late reintervention was 94.6% and 95.5%, respectively (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the older age and a higher comorbidity profile in patients with challenging aortic arch disease suitable and selected for endovascular arch repair, no significant differences were detected in perioperative and 4-year outcomes compared with the younger patients undergoing open arch total repair. An endovascular approach might also be a valid alternative to open surgery in average-risk patients with aortic arch diseases requiring 0 to 1 landing zones, when morphologically feasible. However, larger concurrent comparison and longer follow-up are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Aortic arch debranching and thoracic endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, the best approach to the aortic arch remains unsupported by robust evidence. Most of the available data rely on small sample numbers, heterogeneous settings, and limited follow-up. The objective of this study was to evaluate early and midterm results of arch debranching and endovascular procedures. METHODS: From 2005 through 2013, 104 consecutive patients underwent elective arch treatment with debranching and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Rates of perioperative (30-day) mortality and neurological complications, and mortality, endoleak, supra-aortic vessel patency, and arch diameter changes at 5 years were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 69.8 years, and 90 were males. Twenty arches were repaired for dissection. Nineteen patients required total debranching for diseases extended to zone 0. In 59, debranching and thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedures were staged. At 30 days, death, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia occurred in six, four, and three patients, respectively. Extension to ascending aorta (zone 0 landing) was the only multivariate independent predictor for perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 9.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-59.90; P = .015), but not for stroke. Four retrograde dissections, two fatal, occurred during the perioperative period. At 1, 3, and 5 years, Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 89.0%, 82.8%, and 70.9%, and freedom from persistent endoleak rates were 96.1%, 92.5%, and 88.3%, respectively. Over 5-year follow-up, 34 aneurysms shrank ≥ 5 mm, and four grew. Five reinterventions were required. Two supra-aortic vessel occlusions and no late aorta-related mortalities were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perioperative mortality risk, the late outcome of endovascular arch repair presents a low rate of aorta-related deaths and reinterventions and acceptable midterm survival. Furthermore, more than one-third of the aneurysms' diameters decrease over 5 years as a measure of the long-term efficacy of treatment. Retrograde type A dissection remains a major concern in the perioperative period and careful arch approach is required.

Type II endoleak is an enigmatic and unpredictable marker of worse outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed predictors and the long-term consequence of type II endoleak in a large series of elective endovascular abdominal aneurysm repairs (EVARs). METHODS: Baseline characteristics and operative and follow-up data of consecutive patients undergoing EVAR were prospectively collected. Patients who developed type II endoleak according to computed tomography angiography and those without type II endoleak were compared for baseline characteristics, mortality, reintervention, conversion, and aneurysm growth after repair. RESULTS: In 1997-2011, 1412 consecutive patients (91.4% males; mean age, 72.9 years) underwent elective EVAR and were subsequently followed up for a median of 45 months (interquartile range, 21-79 months). Type II endoleak developed in 218. Adjusted analysis failed to identify significant independent predictors for type II endoleak with the exception of age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05; P = .003) and intraluminal thrombus (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.92; P = .010). Type II endoleak rates were comparable regardless of the device model. Late aneurysm-related survival was comparable (98.4% vs 99.5% at 60 months; P = .73) in patients with and without type II endoleak. However, at 60 months after EVAR, rates of aneurysm sac growth >5 mm (35.3% vs 3.3%; P < .0001) were higher in patients with type II endoleak. Cox regression identified type II endoleak as an independent predictor of aneurysm growth along with age and cardiac disease. The presence of type II endoleak led to reinterventions in 40% of patients and conversion to open surgery in 8%. However, assessment of these patients after reintervention showed similar 60-month freedom rates of persisting type II endoleak (present in more than two after computed tomography angiography scan studies) among those with and without reinterventions (49.8% vs 45.6%; P = .639). Aneurysm growth >5 mm persisted with comparable rates in type II endoleak patients after reintervention and in those who remained untreated (42.9% vs 57.4% at 60 months; P = .117). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention for type II endoleak was common in our practice, yet such intervention did not reliably prevent the continued expansion of the abdominal aortic aneurysm. Our data indicate type II endoleak appears to be a marker of EVAR failure that is difficult to predict and treat effectively.

Abdominal aortic endografting beyond the trials: a 15-year single-center experience comparing newer to older generation stent-grafts.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the late results of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with the endografts currently in use and compare outcomes to older devices. METHODS: Clinical, demographic, and imaging data on consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR from January 1997 to December 2011 at a single center were retrieved from an electronic database and reviewed. Newer stent-grafts (NSG) were defined as those introduced after 2004 (second-generation Excluder and Anaconda) or currently in use without modifications (Zenith, Endurant). Of the 1412 consecutive patients (1290 men; mean age 73 years) who underwent elective EVAR in a tertiary university hospital, 882 were treated with NSGs and 530 with older stent-grafts (OSGs). RESULTS: In the NSG group, the abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) were larger (55.7 vs. 53.2 mm, p<0.0001) and the patients were older (p<0.0001) and less frequently smokers or had pulmonary disease, while hypertension and diabetes were more frequent (all p<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was 0.8% in the NSG group vs. 1.1% in the OSG group (p=NS). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 174 months (mean 54.1±42.4); the OSG patients had longer mean follow-up compared to the NSG group (80.2±47.9 vs. 38.4±29.1 months, p<0.0001). All-cause survival rates were comparable in both groups. Freedom from late conversion (96.1% vs. 89.1% at 7 years, p<0.0001) or reintervention (83.6% vs. 74.2% at 7 years, p=0.015) and freedom from AAA diameter growth >5 mm (p=0.022) were higher in the NSG group. In adjusted analyses, the use of a new-generation device was a negative independent predictor of reintervention [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.93, p=0.015] and aneurysm growth (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, p=0.010). CONCLUSION: Newer-generation endografts can perform substantially better than the older devices. In the long term, incidences of reintervention, conversion, and AAA growth are decreased in patients treated with devices currently in use. However, the need for continuous surveillance is still imperative for all endografts.

Total endovascular solution for complex visceral aneurysms.

Visceral aneurysms are rare in the general population (<2%), and the most serious complication is represented by aneurysm rupture. The use of stent grafts to exclude visceral aneurysms is described in several reports but is reserved for patients with favorable anatomy. We report here on a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm in a liver transplant patient and a patient with an aneurysmal vein graft degeneration of a renal bypass, both with no suitable proximal neck for standard stent grafting. Both patients were successfully treated with a custom-made aortic endograft with a single fenestration for the hepatic or renal artery, together with a visceral covered stent. Although initial results are promising, long-term follow-up is required to assess durability.

Association between sex and perioperative mortality following endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Women are recognized to experience inferior outcomes following open surgery for elective or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) when compared with men. The objective of this review was to assess whether there is a sex difference on mortality in patients receiving endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for rAAA. METHODS: A systematic literature review from 2005 to 2012 was performed to investigate early mortality risk of ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) stratified by sex. Data were analyzed with random-effect meta-analysis; pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for women compared with men. RESULTS: Thirteen studies provided the required information; in most (n = 9), data stratified by sex was identified through unpublished data from direct contact with authors. No study was randomized; there were four prospective and 10 retrospective series. Three were United States population studies. The number of women was limited in most articles. Data were available for 5580 patients treated with rEVAR; 1339 were women (23.9%). Perioperative mortality with rEVAR occurred in 473/1339 women (pooled rate 35.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 33.1-38.2) and in 1334/4241 men (pooled rate 31.7%; 95% CI, 30.3-33.1) without significant difference between sex categories (pooled odds ratio 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97-1.54; P = .09). There was no increased mortality risk in women vs men in ancillary analyses stratified by study size and after excluding unpublished data. CONCLUSIONS: Women may benefit as much as men from EVAR for rAAA. Nevertheless, current evidence supporting EVAR for female patients with rAAA is weak and requires confirmation by further experiences with a larger female representation.

Effects of diabetes on small aortic aneurysms under surveillance according to a subgroup analysis from a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the impact of diabetes in the management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Three-hundred sixty patients with small AAA (4.1-5.4 cm), enrolled in a randomized trial comparing early endovascular repair versus surveillance and delayed repair (after achievement of >5.5 cm or growth>1 cm/yr), were analyzed with standard survival methods to assess the relation between diabetes and risk of all-cause mortality, complications, and aneurysm growth (on computed tomography as per trial protocol) at 36 months. Baseline covariates were selected with partial likelihood stepwise method to investigate factors (demographic, morphologic, medications) associated with risk of aneurysm growth during surveillance. RESULTS: Prevalence of diabetes was 13.6%. The hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality at 36 months was higher in diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients: (HR, 7.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-35.13; P=.012). Baseline aneurysm diameter was comparable between diabetic and nondiabetic patients enrolled in the surveillance arm and was related to subsequent aneurysm growth in covariance analyses adjusted for diabetes (49.3 mm for nondiabetic; 50.2 mm for diabetic). Cox analyses found diabetes as the strongest independent negative predictor of 63% lower probability of aneurysm growth>5 mm during surveillance (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.92; P=.003). Kaplan-Meier cumulative probability of aneurysm growth>5 mm at 36 months was 40.8% in diabetics versus 85.1% in nondiabetics (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Progression of small AAA seems to be more than 60% lower in patients with diabetes. This may help to identify high-risk subgroups at higher likelihood of AAA enlargement, such as nondiabetics, for surveillance protocols in patients with small AAA.

Diabetes is not a predictor of outcome for carotid revascularization with stenting as it may be for carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is prevalent in most patients undergoing carotid revascularization and is suggested as a marker of poor outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Data on outcome of diabetic patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate early and 6-year outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing carotid revascularization with CAS and CEA. METHODS: The database of patients undergoing carotid revascularization for primary carotid stenosis was queried from 2001 to 2009. Diabetic patients were defined as those with established diagnosis and/or receiving oral hypoglycemic or insulin therapy. Multivariate and Kaplan- Meier analyses, stratified by type of treatment, were performed on perioperative (30 days) and late outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2196 procedures, 1116 by CEA and 1080 by CAS (29% female, mean age 71.3 years), were reviewed. Diabetes was prevalent in 630 (28.7%). Diabetic patients were younger (P < .0001) and frequently had hypertension (P = .018) or coronary disease (P = .019). Perioperative stroke/death rate was 2.7% (17/630) in diabetic patients vs 2.3% (36/1566) in nondiabetic, (P = .64); the rate was 3.4% in diabetic CEA group and 2.1% in diabetic CAS group (P = .46). At multivariate analyses, diabetes was a predictor of perioperative stroke/death in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-7.61; P = .04) but not in the CAS group (P = .72). Six-year survival was 76.0% in diabetics and 80.8% in nondiabetics (P = .15). Six-year late stroke estimates were 3.2% in diabetic and 4.6% in nondiabetic patients (P = .90). The 6-year risk of restenosis was similar (4.6% % vs 4.2%) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P = .56). Survival, late stroke, and restenosis rates between diabetics and nondiabetics were similar in CAS and CEA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients are not at greater risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality or late stroke after CAS, however, the perioperative risk can be higher after CEA. This may help in selecting the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization in patients best suited for the type of procedure.