Initial Experience of the Covered Endovascular Reconstruction of Iliac Bifurcation Technique.

INTRODUCTION: The distal landing zone in iliac arteries represents an important issue during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). The aim of this study is to present a case series for landing in the external iliac artery (EIA) during EVAR while preserving blood flow in the internal iliac artery (IIA) with the covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation (CERIB) technique. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent EVAR either for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or previous failed EVAR from December 2022 up to September 2023. Indications for treatment were presence of common iliac artery aneurysm (CIAA), short CIA, or endoleak type Ib (ETIb). For the distal sealing zone, we used balloon-expandable covered stent (BXCS). Primary outcomes were technical success and first-month patency rate. Secondary outcomes were endoleak and re-intervention rate. RESULTS: Sixteen patients being treated with 20 CERIBs were included in the study. Four patients had a previous failed EVAR, while 3 patients were treated urgently for a symptomatic para-renal aneurysm. The indications for treatment were EIb (n=2), short CIA (n=4), CIAA with narrow lumen (n=3), and CIA aneurysm (n=11). Platforms that were used were the Cook Zenith Alpha (n=5), Gore C3 (n=2 and 3 limbs), Endurant IIs (n=2, and 3 limbs), and a t-branch device (n=3). Technical success rate was 100% with no adjunctive procedure. No death or re-intervention was recorded for all patients at postoperative 30-day period and at 6 months for 2 patients. At first-month CTA, patency rate was 100% (20/20), while in 2 patients that had 6-month CTA, the patency was also 100% (2/2). No kinking or stenosis was also noted. Two patients had ETIII after branched EVAR (BEVAR), 2 patients had ETII, and 1 patient had gutter ET in the area of the CERIB. CONCLUSION: The CERIB technique seems to be effective and safe in the early period. It is suitable with a variety of commercial endograft platforms. It may be a valuable alternative to iliac branch devices when there are anatomical considerations. Longer follow-up is needed to conclude for long-term patency and durability. CLINICAL IMPACT: The distal landing zone in iliac arteries represents an important issue during EVAR while it is important to preserve blood flow in the internal iliac artery. The covered endovascular reconstruction of the iliac bifurcation (CERIB) technique is a technique for the preservation of internal iliac arteries during EVAR, while it is suitable with a variety of commercial endograft platforms. The CERIB technique seems to be effective and safe in the early period. It may be valuable alternative to iliac branch devices when there are anatomical considerations.

Evaluation of Hemodynamic Properties After Chimney and Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated (FEVAR) and chimney (ChEVAR) endovascular aortic repair have been applied in anatomically suitable complex aortic aneurysms. However, local hemodynamic changes may occur after repair. This study aimed to compare FEVAR's and ChEVAR's hemodynamic properties, focusing on visceral arteries. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiographies have been used to reconstruct patient-based models. Data of 3 patients, for each modality, were analyzed. Following geometric reconstruction, computational fluid dynamics simulations were used to extract near-wall and intravascular hemodynamic indicators, such as pressure drops, velocity, wall shear stress, time averaged wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index, relative residence time, and local normalized helicity. RESULTS: An overall improvement in hemodynamics was detected after repair, with either technique. Preoperatively, a disturbed prothrombotic wall shear stress profile was recorded in several zones of the sac. The local normalized helicity results showed a better organization of the helical structures at postoperative setting, decreasing thrombus formation, with both modalities. Similarly, time averaged wall shear stress increased and oscillatory shear index decreased postoperatively, signaling nondisturbed blood flow. The relative residence time was locally reduced. The flow in visceral arteries tended to be more streamlined in ChEVAR, compared to evident recirculation regions at renal and superior mesenteric artery fenestrations (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: ChEVAR and FEVAR seem to improve hemodynamics toward normal values with a reduction of recirculation zones in the main graft and aortic branches. Visceral artery flow comparison revealed that ChEVAR tended to present lower recirculation regions at parallel grafts' entries while FEVAR showed less intense flow regurgitation in visceral stents.

Transition from Open Repair to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Rupture Aortic Aneurysms throughout a 16-Year Period of Time in a Single Tertiary Center.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended as the first option for both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) with suitable anatomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the gradual adoption of ruptured EVAR (rEVAR) as first option in the management of rAAAs in a reference tertiary center over a 16 year-period. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data was undertaken, including all patients that were treated for rAAA infrarenal or juxtarenal either with open surgical repair (OSR) or EVAR from 2006-2023. Three periods were identified and analyzed: Initial (2006-2011); intermediate (2012-2017); and current (2018-2023). The primary outcomes were the 30-day mortality rate in relation to the changing pattern of treatment. Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during the follow up period. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were treated for rAAA; 52% by endovascular means [EVAR (94), Ch-EVAR (9), and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (1)] and 48% by OSR (96). In the initial period, 61 patients were treated for rAAA (21% EVAR vs. 79% OSR), 68 in intermediate patients (47% EVAR vs. 53% OSR), and 71 in current period (83% EVAR vs. 17% OSR). Only in the current period juxta -renal rAAAs were treated by endovascular means (14%). The 30-day mortality rate was 46% in initial period (31% for EVAR vs. 50% for OSR), 64% in second period (46% in EVAR vs. 80% for OSR), and 35% in third period (25% for EVAR vs. 83% for OSR). The mean follow up did not differ between the groups, (EVAR 28.3 ± 2 months, vs. OSR 33.1 ± 3 months, P = 0.56). The survival rate did not differ between the groups; in rEVAR was 82% (SE 5%), 74% (SE 6%), 68% (SE 6.5%), and 63% (SE 7.7%) at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively, and in OSR was 76% (SE 7%), 66% (SE 8%), and 56% (SE 9.5%) at 6, 24, and 48 months, respectively (P = 0.544). CONCLUSIONS: Through a 16-year period, the implementation of EVAR as treatment of choice for rAAAs over OSR resulted in a noticeable reduction in the 30-day mortality. rEVAR was feasible in over 80% of rAAA patients.

Systematic review of reintervention with fenestrated or branched devices after failed previous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: A proximal seal extension, after previously failed standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been described using various endovascular techniques. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up for patients managed with endovascular methods after failed endovascular repair. METHODS: The present systematic review followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement and was preregistered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42022350436). A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until June 15, 2022, was performed. Observational studies (2000-2022) and case series with at least five patients who had undergone fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) after failed EVAR were considered eligible. Technical success and mortality at 30 days and the mortality and reintervention rates during available follow-up had to have been reported. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was technical success and mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2558 reports. Ten studies were considered eligible, two of which were prospective. A total of 423 patients had undergone F/BEVAR after failed EVAR. The indication for reintervention was the presence of a type Ia endoleak in 44.9%. Technical success was reported in seven studies, and 319 of 336 interventions were considered successful (94.9%), according to each study's criteria. Of the 423 patients, 10 had died within 30 days (2.4%). Seven patients had presented with spinal cord ischemia (2.4%). Twenty-three acute kidney injury events were reported (6.8%). The mean follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-77 months). During follow-up, 47 deaths were reported (14.8%). Finally, 50 reinterventions of 303 procedures (16.5%) had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after failed EVAR can be performed with high technical success and low mortality during the perioperative period. The midterm mortality and reintervention rates were acceptable. However, further data are needed to provide firm conclusions regarding the safety and durability of F/BEVAR after failed EVAR.

Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies Between Self- and Balloon-Expandable Bridging Stent Grafts in Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: Currently there is no robust evidence which type of bridging stent graft provides better outcomes after branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR). Self-expanding (SESG) and balloon-expandable (BESG) stent grafts are both commonly used to connect branches to their respective target vessels (TV). The aim of the current review was to evaluate the impact of the type of bridging stent grafts on TV outcomes during the mid-term follow-up after BEVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was registered to the PROSPERO (CRD42021274766). A search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed and EMBASE databases via Ovid and Cochrane database via CENTRAL, from inception to June 30, 2021, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Only comparative studies on BEVAR reporting TV outcomes related to BESG vs SESG were considered eligible. Individual studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. The primary outcomes were primary patency, freedom from endoleak, TV instability, and re-intervention between BESG and SESG, used as bridging stents in branches. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), through a paired meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five out of 609 articles published from 2016 to 2020 were included in the analysis. In total, 1406 TV were revascularized, 547 (38.9 %) with BESGs and 859 with SESGs. The overall pooled primary patency (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.09; p=.256, I2=4.24%) and freedom from branch-related endoleak (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.17-1.48; p<.122, I2=0.18%) did not differ between the stent types during the available follow-up (17 months, range = 12-35 months). In 4 studies (619 TV), SESG required fewer secondary interventions (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.23-1.83; p=.009, I2=0%) and TV instability rate was lower (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.33-1.65; p=.003, I2=0%) compared with BESG during the available follow-up. CONCLUSION: BESG and SESG seem to perform similarly in terms of primary patency and branch-related endoleak during the mid-term follow-up. Current data from retrospective studies suggest that overall TV instability and re-intervention rates are favorable for SESG as bridging stent grafts in BEVAR.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Stenting for Aortic Coarctation Management in Adults.

PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment of aortic coarctation (CoA) constitutes a valuable alternative with low morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the technical success, re-intervention, and mortality after stenting for CoA in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement and PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) model were followed. An English literature data search was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, until December 30, 2021. Only studies reporting on stenting, for native or recurrent CoA, in adults were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A proportional meta-analysis was performed to assess the outcomes. Primary outcomes were technical success, intra-operative pressure gradient and complications, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles (705 patients) were included (64.0% males, 34.0±13.6 years). Native CoA was present in 65.7%. Technical success was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96%-0.99%; p<0.001, I2=9.49%). Six (odds ratio [OR]: 1%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.02%; p=0.002, I2=0%) ruptures and 10 dissections (OR: 2%; 95% CI, 0.001%-0.02%; p<0.001, I2=0%) were reported. The intra-operative and 30-day mortality were 1% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.02%; p=0.003, I2=0%) and 1% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.02%; p=0.004, I2=0%), respectively. The median follow-up was 29 months. Sixty-eight re-interventions (OR: 8%; 95% CI, 0.05%-0.10%; p<0.001, I2=35.99%) were performed; 95.5% were endovascular. Seven deaths were reported (OR: 2%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.03%; p=0.008, I2=0%). CONCLUSION: Stenting for CoA in adults presents high technical success and the intra-operative and 30-day mortality rates were acceptable. During the midterm follow-up, the re-intervention rate was acceptable, and mortality was low. CLINICAL IMPACT: Aortic coarctation is a quite common heart defect that may be diagnosed in adult patients, as a first diagnosis in native cases or as a recurrent after previous repair. Endovascular management using plain angioplasty has been associated to a high intra-operative complication and re-intervention rate. Stenting in this analysis seems to be safe and effective as is related a high technical success rate, exceeding 95%, with a low intra-operative complication and death rate. During the mid-term follow-up, the re-interventions rate is estimated at less than 10% while most cases are managed using endovascular means. Further analyses are needed on the impact of stent type on endovascular repair outcomes.

Conical Aortic Neck as a Predictor of Outcome after Endovascular Aneurysm Exclusion: Midterm Results.

BACKGROUND: Conical neck may affect endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outcomes. The aim of this study was to present EVAR neck adverse events [endoleak type Ia (ET Ia) and graft migration], in patients with conical neck morphology compared to patients with non-conical necks. An additional analysis of the factors that may affect neck adverse events in patients with conical necks, during the first postoperative year, was executed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospective data was conducted, including patients that underwent elective EVAR, between 2017 and 2019. All patients completed the clinical and imaging follow-up of the initial 12 months. Regarding imaging, all cases underwent computed tomography angiography (CTA), preoperatively, at the 1st and 12th month of follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative aneurysm anatomic characteristics (supra-renal and infra-renal aortic diameters, aneurysm diameter, neck angle, thrombus, and calcification) were recorded. Proximal neck was defined as the infrarenal aortic segment, with a diameter less than 30 mm. Conical neck was any neck with a diameter increase ≥2 mm per cm of length (from outer-to-outer aortic wall). The proximal 15 mm of the neck length were considered the zone of endograft sealing. Migration was any ≥10 mm caudal movement of the endograft, relative to its position detected at the CTA of the first month. Neck adverse events were defined as the composite event of ET Ia and migration. RESULTS: The cohort included 150 patients; 66 (44%) presented conical neck morphology. No significant difference was detected regarding the preoperative anatomic characteristics between the conical and non-conical groups. Only distal (15 mm) neck diameter was wider in the conical group (P < 0.001). Supra-renal active fixation was used in 63.3% of the total cohort; 59.5% in patients with non-conical necks and 68.2% in patients with conical morphology (P = 0.275). Graft oversizing was 18.2% and 18.7% in the non-conical and conical group, respectively (P = 0.248). Oversizing >20% was equal between groups [37.8% vs. 33.3%% (P = 0.608) while oversizing ≥30% was more common among patients with conical necks (3.5% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.001, 3.2 odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 12.91). Regarding ET Ia and migration, no difference was recorded between the groups. In a subanalysis among patients with conical necks, a lower graft migration rate was detected among patients with higher oversizing rate (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR may offer similarly good midterm outcomes in patients with conical and non-conical neck anatomy. An oversizing to the higher suggested rate may be preventive of graft migration during the first postoperative year in necks with conical morphology. Aggressive oversizing (>20%) do not offer any benefit regarding the prevention of adverse events among patients with conical necks.

The Impact of Iliac Artery Anatomy on Distal Landing Zone After EVAR During the 12-Month Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Proximal sealing zone has been the main interest in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), although the distal landing zone remodeling may also affect EVAR durability. The aim of this study was to assess iliac anatomy and its potential impact on distal landing zone adverse events after EVAR during the 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective data collection of patients treated with standard bifurcated EVAR devices for abdominal aortic aneurysm was undertaken between 2017 and 2019. Patients that received extension to the external iliac artery were excluded. Follow-up included computed tomography angiography (CTA) at the 1st and 12th month postoperatively. The common iliac artery (CIA) diameter was assessed in three levels: origin (just below the aortic bifurcation), distally (just above the iliac bifurcation) and the middle of the distance between these two landmarks. Iliac angle, tortuosity indexes, relining and oversizing were also analyzed. Distal landing zone-related adverse events were any limb related re-intervention, endoleak type Ib, graft migration, limb stenosis, or occlusion. RESULTS: In total, 268 iliac limbs (134 patients) were included. In all three levels, the mean iliac artery diameters increased at 12-month follow-up. At the origin of the CIA, the diameter increased from 18.7 ± 10.5 mm to 19.9 ± 9.4 mm (P = 0.04), at the middle portion of the CIA, the diameter changed significantly from 15.5 ± 5.1 mm to 17.4 ± 5.4 mm (P < 0.001) and at the distal CIA, from 14.6 ± 3.3 mm to 15.1 ± 3.9 mm (P = 0.03). The iliac angle remained stable (P = 0.14) while the CIA index decreased significantly from 1.17 ± 0.13 to 1.11 ± 0.09 (P < 0.001). The mean value of oversizing was 21.5 ± 14.5% and affected distal iliac diameter increase (P < 0.001). The composite outcome of distal landing zone adverse events was not associated to diameter changes at any level. In 57 cases, a distal iliac diameter ≥18 mm was recorded. The estimated oversizing was lower (16.3 ± 11.8%) compared to <18 mm arteries (22.5 ± 14.9%, P = 0.01). At 12-month follow-up, iliac diameters remained stable in the ≥18 mm group. Endoleak type Ib was more common in iliac arteries ≥18 mm [3 (5.3%) vs. 1 (0.5%) (P = 0.04)] at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Post-EVAR iliac artery dilation does not seem to have an impact on distal landing zone adverse events during the 12-month follow-up. Aggressive oversizing may be related to iliac dilation. EVAR patients with iliac arteries ≥18 mm are at higher risk for ET Ib.

Treatment of Aortocaval Fistula Secondary to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Aortocaval fistula (ACF) secondary to an abdominal aortic aneurysm is a rare complication, inadvertently caused by a rupture into the inferior vena cava. Different treatment modalities have been applied toward the repair of such lesions, including open surgical and endovascular repair. The aim of this study was to report on ACF treatment and to analyze its early and mid-term outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of the English medical literature published between 2000 and 2022 was undertaken, using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329058). Studies reporting on primary ACF outcomes following open surgical or endovascular repair were included. The ROBINS-I tool was applied for risk of bias assessment. Outcomes included technical success, 30-day and mid-term survival, endoleak following endovascular repair, and reintervention rates. RESULTS: In total, 110 case studies, incorporating 196 patients (mean age; 66.2 years, males 96%) were included. Open surgical repair was applied in 78% (153/196). From the available data, technical success rate for each modality was 99% (152/153) and 100% (43/43), respectively. Open and endovascular repair demonstrated 87.5% (126/144) and 97.6% (42/43) 30-day survival, respectively, while mid-term survival was 86% (74/86) and 95.2% (20/21), respectively (medial follow-up: 14 months [1-54 months]). Endoleaks were reported in 19 endovascular cases (39.5%). Type II endoleak was the most frequent with a rate at 32.5% (14/43). Reintervention rates were 2.5% (4/151) and 35.7% (15/42) for open and endovascular repair, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Only few case studies were published on the treatment of this rare condition, while almost all invasive procedures were performed in males. Management of ACF repair with both open and endovascular approach was associated with excellent technical success rate and acceptable early and mid-term survival outcomes. Reintervention remained an issue for patients who were managed endovascularly.

Systematic review on transcaval embolization for type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: A persistent endoleak type II (ET II) after endovascular repair for aortic aneurysms is not always a benign condition and has been associated to sac expansion, rupture, and reintervention. A variety of different endovascular approaches are available for ET II treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the currently available literature on transcaval embolization for ET II treatment after standard or complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: This systematic review protocol was registered to the PROSPERO (CRD42021289686). The PRISMA guidelines and patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (P.I.C.O.) model was followed. A data search of the literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases, until September 30, 2021. Only studies reporting on ET II embolization using the transcaval approach after endovascular aneurysm repair were included. Studies reporting on different type of endoleak treatment or any other embolization approach were excluded. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success and freedom from ET II persistence during follow-up; secondary outcomes were any postoperative complication associated with the transcaval embolization and need for reintervention. RESULTS: The search yielded 2861 articles in total. Eight articles were included, reporting on 117 patients and 128 transcaval embolizations. The indication for treatment was ET II presence with sac expansion of more than 5 mm; in two studies, the presence of persistent endoleak has set the indication to intervene. The technical success was 91.4% (117/128); a variety of embolic materials were used, including coils, thrombin, and glue. Three cases of deep vein thrombosis were recorded and the remaining morbidity and mortality were null. Follow-up was ranging between 0 and 25 months. Out of 8 studies, persistent ET II rate was 12.8% and 18 reinterventions were performed (14.1%,), including 10 transcaval coil embolizations (56%). Sac expansion was reported in 11 cases, out of 3 studies (17%). Only one case of death, not associated with transcaval embolization, was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Transcaval embolization for ET II treatment presents a high technical success and low mortality in the early and mid-term period. ET II persistence rate is low during the available 12-month follow-up.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on early mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in females in urgent and elective settings.

OBJECTIVE: Females represent a group of patients with higher mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), endovascular (EVAR), or open surgical (OSR), repair. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the 30-day mortality after AAA repair in females, comparing both EVAR and OSR, in elective and urgent settings. METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered to the PROSPERO database (CRD42021242686). A search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, from inception to March 5, 2021, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA). Only studies reporting on 30-day mortality of AAA repair, in urgent and elective settings, comparing EVAR and OSR, in the female population were eligible. Patients were stratified according to the need for elective or urgent repair. Symptomatic and ruptured cases were included into the urgent group. Individual studies were assessed for risk of bias using the (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) ROBINS-I tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after AAA repair in the female population, comparing EVAR and OSR. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), through a paired meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies reported data on 30-day mortality following AAA repair. A total of 56,982 females (22,995 EVAR vs 33,987 OSR) were included. A significantly reduced total 30-day mortality rate was recorded among females that underwent EVAR compared with OSR (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.23-0.27; P < .001; Ι2 = 86%). In addition, a reduced 30-day mortality was found in females that underwent elective EVAR compared with OSR (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.33-0.41; P < .001; Ι2 = 48%). Despite the fact that OSR was more frequently offered in the urgent setting (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23; P < .001; Ι2 = 84%), EVAR was associated with a reduced 30-day mortality (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57; P < .001; Ι2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In females, EVAR is associated with lower 30-day mortality in both elective and urgent AAA repair, although it appears as less likely to be offered in the setting of urgent AAA repair.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch.

PURPOSE: Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement. CLINICAL IMPACT: Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

Factors Associated With Noninfectious Fever After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: The post-endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) inflammatory response, which is very often associated with fever, has been ascribed to a wide range of proinflammatory mediators and operative events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of such factors in the development of fever of noninfectious origin after elective EVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients treated with standard elective EVAR between February 2017 and December 2020 was undertaken. The database included patients' demographics and comorbidities, as well as laboratory inflammatory markers (white blood cell count, neutrophils, and C-reactive protein [CRP]) and anatomical characteristics (sac diameter, inferior mesenteric artery [IMA] patency and diameter, number of patent lumbar arteries, internal iliac artery [IIA] patency or occlusion). Intraoperative details, such as type of stent graft material and IIA overstenting, were also analyzed. Patients with infectious postoperative complications or previously receiving systemic anti-inflammatory medication were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0 for Windows software (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York). RESULTS: From 332 patients treated with elective EVAR between 2017 and 2020, 268 patients (all men) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 72.1±7.5 years and the mean aneurysm diameter was 59.1±12.1 mm. Seventeen patients were excluded due to a known infection site. From the study cohort, 114 (42.5%) patients presented with fever. Multivariate regression analysis confirmed that the occlusion of IMA ≥5 mm (p<0.008) and higher CRP (p<0.001) were independent factors associated with postoperative fever. A subanalysis was performed only on patients with patent IMA before EVAR. In the multivariate regression analysis of this subgroup, IMA ≥5 mm (p=0.008), presence of dyslipidemia (p=0.037), and higher CRP (p<0.001) were related to fever. CONCLUSION: Occlusion of an existing wide (≥5 mm) and patent IMA prior to EVAR may contribute to the development of post-EVAR pyrexia. The CRP is a reliable marker for post-EVAR fever. Further prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

Management of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases have an increasing interest among cardiovascular specialists regarding diagnosis and management. Innovations in endovascular surgery and evolution of open surgery have extended the indications for treatment in patients previously considered unfit for surgery. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to present and analyze current cardiovascular guidelines for overlap and differences in their recommendations regarding ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases and the assessment of evidence. METHODS: The English medical literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 2009 to December 2020. Recommendations on selected topics were analyzed, including issues from definitions and diagnosis (imaging and biomarkers) and indications for treatment to management, including surgical techniques, of the most important ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases. RESULTS: The initial search identified 2414 articles. After exclusion of duplicate or inappropriate articles, the final analysis included 5 articles from multidisciplinary, cardiovascular societies published between 2010 and 2019. The definition of non-A-non-B aortic dissection is lacking from most of the guidelines. There is a disagreement regarding the class of recommendation and level of evidence for the diameter of ascending aorta as an indication. The indication for treatment of aortic disease may be individualized in specific cases while the growth rate may also affect the decision making. The role of endovascular techniques has not been established in current guidelines except by 1 society. Supportive evidence level in the management of aortic arch diseases remains limited. CONCLUSION: In current recommendations of cardiovascular societies, the ascending aorta and aortic arch remain a domain of open surgery despite the introduction of endovascular techniques. Recommendations of the included societies are mostly based on expert opinion, and the role of endovascular techniques has been highlighted only from 1 society. The chronological heterogeneity apparent among guidelines and the inconsistency in evidence level should be also acknowledged. More data are needed to develop more solid recommendations for the ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases.

Editor's Choice - Sex Specific Outcomes After Complex Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As females are at higher mortality risk after endovascular aortic repair, this study aimed to compare the 30-day and 12-month mortality, morbidity, and re-intervention rates between the sexes, treated with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). DATA SOURCES: A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, up to 30 July 2021, was performed. REVIEW METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, and its protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021273418). Observational studies (2010-21), with ≥ 20 patients, reporting on sex specific outcomes (mortality, acute kidney injury [AKI], spinal cord ischaemia [SCI], and re-intervention, after F/BEVAR), were considered eligible. Risk of bias in the studies was assessed using ROBINS-I, and evidence quality was assessed using GRADE. The primary outcome was the sex specific 30-day mortality rate, AKI, SCI, and re-intervention rates; secondary outcomes were survival and freedom from re-intervention at 12 months after F/BEVAR. The outcomes were summarised as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Four retrospective and one prospective study (2 421 patients; 26% females) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 12% in females vs. 3% in males (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.79 - 3.92; Ι2 = 0%). The 30-day AKI, SCI, and re-intervention rates were similar (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03 - 2.03; Ι2 = 0%; OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.27 - 2.74; Ι2 = 38%; and OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.66 - 1.77; Ι2 = 0%, respectively). The 12-month survival rate was lower in females (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 - 0.99; Ι2 = 38%). When excluding 30-day deaths, there was no difference in 12-month survival between sexes (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 - 1.02; Ι2 = 32%). The 12-month freedom from re-intervention was similar between sexes (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.01; Ι2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Female patients treated by F/BEVAR may present worse outcomes in terms of 30-day and 12-month survival. The high peri-operative mortality rate remains an issue. When excluding 30-day deaths, the 12-month survival rate was similar between the sexes. Early morbidity and re-intervention rates were comparable.

Editor's Choice - Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in High Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in high risk patients. METHODS: Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched using combinations of thesaurus and free text terms. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021287207) and reported according to PRISMA 2020. Pooled estimates were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method. EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients over time was examined with mixed effects meta-regression. The GRADE framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The pooled peri-operative mortality in 18 416 high risk patients who underwent EVAR was 3% (95% CI 2.3 - 4%) and has significantly reduced over time (year of publication p = .003; median study point p = .023). The peri-operative mortality was significantly lower in high risk patients treated with EVAR compared with open repair (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 - 0.92), but no significant difference was found in overall (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.76 - 1.49) or aneurysm related mortality (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.21 - 1.55). No significant difference was found in overall mortality between high risk patients treated with EVAR vs. no intervention (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 - 1.26), but the aneurysm related mortality was significantly lower in the former (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14 - 0.63). The peri-operative mortality was higher in high risk than normal risk patients treated with EVAR (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.75 - 3.10), as was the overall mortality (HR 3.50; 95% CI 2.55 - 4.80). The certainty of evidence was very low for EVAR vs. open surgery or no intervention and low for high vs. normal risk patients. CONCLUSION: The EVAR peri-operative mortality in high risk patients has improved over time. Even though the aneurysm related mortality of EVAR is lower compared with no intervention, EVAR may confer no overall survival benefit.

Sarcopenia is a Prognostic Biomarker for Long-Term Survival after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is the loss of muscle mass and strength. It manifests as decreased core muscle area in axial abdominal computed tomography scans. The predictive value of sarcopenia in outcome research has been widely discussed. A systematic review was conducted to assess sarcopenia as a biomarker in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its association with long-term survival. METHODS: A systematic search of the English medical literature, published from 1991 to 2021, was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA, 2020) guidelines. The study protocol was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42021260192). Observational studies reporting on sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients undergoing EVAR were included. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) risk of bias evaluation tool was used for the quality assessment. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), through a paired meta-analysis. The primary outcome was 5-year survival following EVAR. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies, including 2,385 patients (89.6% males) treated with EVAR, between 1999 and 2018, were included in the qualitative synthesis. The mean age was 72.9 years (range 70-76.4 years). Nine of the studies reported on a negative prognostic value of sarcopenia on survival during a long-term follow-up. Six studies stratified their cohorts in sarcopenic versus nonsarcopenic patients (40.3% sarcopenic). The cutoff values (mm2 or mm2/m2) for defining sarcopenic patients were heterogeneous while ranging from 451 to 4,820 mm2/m2 and 1,207 to 11,400 mm2. Eight studies reported data on the mean follow-up duration, ranging from 27 to 101 months. Six studies reported on outcomes in terms of 5-year survival rates after EVAR, favoring nonsarcopenic over sarcopenic patients, with survival rates ranging from 58 to 93% and 24 to 60%, respectively. After a meta-analysis including 3 eligible studies, sarcopenia was associated with worse 5-year survival after EVAR (OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.58, 0.97], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The available data derived from observational studies suggest an association between sarcopenia and worse long-term survival in patients treated with EVAR. There is a lack of a universally accepted definition for sarcopenia and future reporting standards should address this issue. Prospective studies are necessary to establish this negative prognostic value of sarcopenia on long-term survival.

COVID-19 related peripheral arterial thrombotic events in intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit patients: A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 associated arterial thrombosis has been attributed to multiple inflammation and coagulation mechanisms. The aim of this study was to report the experience of a tertiary center on COVID-19 patients managed for acute peripheral arterial thrombosis. METHODS: A single-center case series was conducted, including retrospectively collected data from all COVID-19 patients presenting arterial thrombosis, from March 2020 to February 2022. Intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU cases were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, successful revascularization, and amputation at 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients presented peripheral arterial thrombosis (90% males, mean age 65 years (16-82 years)). Eighteen were diagnosed with the Delta variant and none was previously vaccinated. All cases presented acute lower limb ischemia; in 20% with bilateral involvement. Nine patients were hospitalized in the ward while 11 in the ICU. From the non-ICU cases, five presented Rutherford IIb and four cases, Rutherford's IIa ischemia. Six cases underwent revascularization (67%). Two of them were finally amputated (33%) and two died during hospitalization (33%). Two revascularizations were considered successful (33%). The ICU group presented mainly with Rutherford's III ischemia (54.5%). The mortality in the ICU cohort was 72.7%. Only one patient underwent successful revascularization and two were amputated in this subgroup. Early mortality was 50% for the total cohort while the type of management was not related to mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 related arterial thrombosis in non-vaccinated population is associated with 50% early mortality; increased up to 72% in the ICU patients. The amputation rate was 20% while only 40% of the revascularizations were considered successful.

Clinical effect of accessory renal artery coverage after endovascular repair of aneurysms in abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of accessory renal artery (ARA) coverage on renal function in terms of acute kidney injury (AKI), renal infarction, chronic renal failure (CRF), and mortality in patients undergoing standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms. METHODS: An electronic search of the English language medical literature from 2000 to September 2020 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) method for studies reporting on ARA management in patients undergoing endovascular repair of aneurysms in the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients with ARA coverage; and group 2, patients without an ARA or without coverage of the ARA. Each group included two arms, one of patients who had undergone standard EVAR and one of patients who had undergone endovascular treatment of a complex aortic aneurysm. The GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summary of the findings. The primary outcomes included the incidence of AKI, renal infarction, CRF, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten retrospective, nonrandomized, control studies were included in the systematic review reporting on 1014 patients (302 with a covered ARA vs 712 without an ARA or without ARA coverage). In six studies, the mean diameter of the covered ARA was <4 mm (range, 2.7-3.4 mm). The mean follow-up was 22.74 months (range, 1-42 months). In the standard EVAR subgroup, the risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-2.51; I2 = 0%] in the early period, and CRF (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 0.46-42.61; I2 = 87%) and death (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36-2.31; I2 = 0%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater in group 1 than in group 2 (OR, 93.3; 95% CI, 1.48-5869; I2 = 92%). In the complex aneurysm repair subgroup, the risk of AKI (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.61-5.64; I2 = 42%) in early period and CRF (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.88-3.07; I2 = not applicable) and death (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 0.14-96.29; I2 = 56%) during follow-up were similar between groups 1 and 2. Only the risk of renal infarction was greater for group 1 compared with group 2 (OR, 8.58; 95% CI, 4.59-16.04; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: ARA (<4 mm) coverage in patients undergoing standard EVAR or endovascular repair of complex aneurysms is associated with an increased risk of renal infarction. However, we found no clinical effects of ARA coverage on renal function or mortality in early postoperative and follow-up period. Preservation of an ARA >4 mm should be considered.

Management of Descending Thoracic Aortic Diseases: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines.

Cardiovascular societies have developed recommendations regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases. While improvements in treatment have been observed during the past decade in regard to patient selection, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and associated techniques, and high-volume centralization, the broad expansion of TEVAR has raised considerations about its indications, appropriateness, limitations, and application. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the similarities and differences among current cardiovascular societies' guidelines for the management of thoracic aortic diseases. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2009 to May 2020. The initial search identified 990 articles. After exclusion of duplicate or inappropriate articles, the final analysis included 5 articles from cardiovascular societies published between 2010 and 2020. Selected controversial topics were analyzed, including diagnosis, imaging, spinal cord ischemia prevention, and management of the most important thoracic aortic pathologies. The analysis included data concerning the therapeutic approach in acute and chronic type B aortic dissection, penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, thoracic aortic aneurysm, and traumatic aortic injury, as well a discussion of inflammatory aneurysms, aortitis, and genetic syndromes. The review presents consistent and controversial recommendations, as well as "gray zone" issues that need further investigation. There was significant overlap and agreement among the 5 societies regarding the management of thoracic aortic diseases. Especially in dissection and aneurysm management, TEVAR has established its role as the treatment of choice. However, robust evidence is still needed in many aspects of the management of thoracic aortic pathologies.