Self-Made Bovine Pericardial Tube Grafts for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Infections.

BACKGROUND: Aortic infections are uncommon but life-threatening diseases. The material of choice for aortic reconstruction is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study is to examine the short- and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of abdominal aortic infections using self-made bovine pericardium tube grafts. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study collected all patients who underwent in situ abdominal aortic reconstruction using self-made bovine pericardial tube grafts between February 2020 and December 2021 in a tertiary care center. Patient comorbidities, symptoms, radiological, bacteriological, and perioperative findings, as well as postoperative outcomes, were analyzed. RESULTS: Bovine pericardial aortic tube grafts were used in 11 patients (10 males, median age 68.7 years). Two patients presented with a native aortic infection, and 9 had graft infections (4 bypass grafts, 4 endografts, and a plurioperated patient who had undergone both endovascular and open procedures). There were 2 emergent surgeries due to infectious aneurysm ruptures. All patients were symptomatic, and the most frequent clinical finding was lumbar or abdominal pain (36%), followed by wound infection (27%), and fever (18%). Seven bifurcated and 4 straight pericardial tube grafts were needed. Purulent drainage was obtained around the previous graft or in the aneurysmal sac in 7 cases; intraoperative cultures were positive in 6 cases (gram + bacteria). Two patients died in the immediate postoperative period (perioperative mortality 18%; urgent procedures 50%; scheduled procedures 11%). One patient had a major complication due to bilateral severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pneumonia. There was 1 single reintervention to control hemostasis due to bleeding nongraft-related. The median follow-up was 14.1 months (3-24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary experience in the treatment of abdominal aortic infections by in situ reconstruction with self-made bovine pericardial tube grafts shows promising results. These should be confirmed in the long term.

Midterm results of endovascular versus open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms in low surgical risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze midterm outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open repair (OR) for treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in low surgical risk patients. METHODS: Elective patients with AAAs undergoing treatment from 2003 to 2017 in a single, tertiary-care institution were evaluated. All patients with a low preoperative risk of complications and perioperative mortality (Medicare Aneurysm Scoring System <3) were included, and rates of perioperative and long-term mortality, adverse events, and reintervention were evaluated for EVAR and OR. A propensity score-matched cohort, leveling age, risk factors, and comorbidities was additionally performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were included (EVAR 59.9% and OR 40.1%) and followed for a mean of 80 ± 48 months. Patients undergoing EVAR were older (66.6 ± 5 vs. 64.1 ± 6 years; P <.001), had a higher body mass index (29.6 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 3 kg/m2; P = .005), a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (27.3% vs 9.9%; P = .001), and lower prevalence of dyslipidaemia (46.3% vs 65.9%; P = .004). Patients undergoing OR had a higher rate of major adverse events (19.7% vs 2.6%; P = .001) and 30-day reinterventions (8.8% vs. 1.5%; P = .016), with 30-day mortality being 0% in both groups. The propensity-score matched cohort included 76 matched pairs (1:1), with differences in hospital stay and major complications remaining significant, without affecting mortality. At 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the reintervention rate (EVAR 18.5% vs OR 17.6%; P = .67) or survival (EVAR 85% vs OR 91%; P = .195). CONCLUSIONS: In low surgical risk patients with AAAs, EVAR may offer comparable midterm results to OR, with a lower rate of major adverse events and a shorter in-hospital stay. With the current OR-first paradigm in low-risk patients, several factors should be taken into account for decision-making (anatomic suitability, risk of sexual dysfunction, risk of type 2 endoleaks, and need for follow-up).

Predictive Factors of Aneurysm Sac Growth in Patients with a Type II Endoleak in the First Post-EVAR Control.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify predictive factors associated with aneurysm sac growth over time in patients diagnosed with a type II endoleak (TII-EL) in the first postoperative control after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing an elective EVAR procedure from January 2003 to December 2011 (9 years) in a single center was performed. Patients with a TII-EL detected in the first post-EVAR imaging control and with over twelve months of follow-up were included. The primary end point was aneurysm sac growth > 5 mm from the first month computed tomography angiography (CTA) to the last available CTA. Demographic variables, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, aneurysm-related data, and procedural information were collected. Three-dimensional volume rendering with the Mimics ® software (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium) was used to measure the endoleak nidus. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses (Cox proportional hazards model) were performed. RESULTS: In this period, 220 EVAR procedures were performed. 63 TII-ELs (28.7%) were detected in the first CTA control (90.5% male, mean age: 75.7 ± 8 years). After a median follow-up of 54 months (interquartile range [IQR], 56.5), aneurysm sac growth > 5 mm was detected in 19 patients (30.1%). Age (P = 0.02) and dyslipidemia (P = 0.03) were associated with sac growth > 5 mm, whereas the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) behaved as a protective factor (P = 0.02). The craniocaudal length of the endoleak nidus (P < 0.01) and the nidus volume (P < 0.001) were the only aneurysm-related variables associated with sac growth. Age (HR: 14.1, 95% CI: 2.1-92.3, P = 0.006) and the presence of COPD (HR: 9.6, 95% CI: 1.4-63.7, P = 0.019) were the only independent predictors in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable predictors of long-term aneurysmal sac growth are lacking, although some variables such as age or nidus volume appear to be associated. Strict surveillance remains mandatory.

An early single-center experience with the Relay double inner-branch arch endograft.

Background: Open surgery remains the gold standard technique for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies, although endovascular techniques offer a new opportunity for patients deemed unfit for open repair. This paper assesses the early outcomes of patients treated with a double inner-branched arch endograft in a single, tertiary-care institution. Methods: All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay® (Terumo Aortic-Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA) double inner-branched endograft; an extra-anatomical bypass was associated in all cases to preserve the patency of supra-aortic trunks. Comorbidities, periprocedural data, immediate results and follow-up complications were analyzed. Results: Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.