Long-term Outcome Comparison of 2 Techniques for Embolization of Splenic Artery Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to analyze our single-center experience in endovascular treatment of splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs) with transcatheter coil embolization, comparing long-term outcomes of packing and sandwich techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2021, 28 patients with certain diagnosis of non-ruptured asymptomatic SAA were treated with 2 different embolization techniques (packing, n=10, and sandwich, n=18). Early outcomes assessed were technical success, overall mortality, mean hospital stay, post-embolization syndrome rate, and freedom from splenectomy rate. Estimated 5-year outcomes in terms of freedom from sac reperfusion, and freedom from reintervention were evaluated and compared between the 2 different embolization techniques. RESULTS: The mean SAA diameter was 2.8±0.8 cm. Overall technical success rate was 100%. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality rates were 0 in both groups. One patient in the sandwich group required a postoperative splenectomy. The mean follow-up period was 58.3±44.5 months. Estimated overall 5-year survival was 86.7%. Five-year freedom from sac reperfusion was 100% in the sandwich group, and 85.7% in the packing group, with no difference between the 2 groups (p=0.131), whereas freedom from reintervention was 100% in the sandwich group, and 75% in the packing group with a statistically significant difference (p=0.049; log-rank=3.750). CONCLUSIONS: Embolization of SAAs seemed to be safe and effective with 100% of technical success rate and good perioperative results. Both sandwich and packing techniques yielded promising results also in the long-term period. CLINICAL IMPACT: Transcatheter coil embolization of splenic artery aneurysms seems to be a safe and effective procedure with a 100% technical success and satisfactory perioperative outcomes. Sandwich and packing techniques offer good results in the long-term period. Freedom from reintervention seems to be optimal and comparable between the 2 techniques.

Distal Repair After Total Aortic Arch Replacement With Frozen Elephant Trunk in Patients With Chronic Multilevel Thoracic Aortic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the management of distal aortic disease after total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk (TAR + FET) in patients with chronic thoracic aortic disease. METHODS: Two centre retrospective study of consecutive patients treated between January 2010 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was 30 day or in hospital death. The secondary endpoint was midterm survival. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The χ2 or Fisher's exact test was used as appropriate. Estimated survival (standard error) was assessed by calculating the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator with right censoring of survival data. A p value of < .050 was considered statistically significant. STROBE guidelines were followed. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients (72 men; median age 70 years, IQR 64, 75; median distal aortic diameter 58 mm, IQR 46, 68; 127 aneurysmal disease, 31 chronic dissection) underwent TAR + FET. The peri-operative mortality rate was 10.1% (9/107 elective, 7/51 non-elective). Of 74 (46.8%) patients with a primary distal seal, seven (9.5%) died peri-operatively, the distal seal was maintained during follow up in 51, nine underwent late distal repair (two planned, seven unplanned; one open, eight endovascular; one peri-operative death) with a median interval to unplanned repair of 777 days (IQR 462, 1480), and seven with loss of seal had no intervention. Distal seal failed in 2/28 (7%) patients with a distal seal length > 30 mm and device oversizing > 10%, compared with 12/39 (31%) patients who did not meet these criteria (p = .031). In 84 patients without a primary distal seal, nine (10.7%) died peri-operatively, the distal aorta remained below the size threshold for repair during follow up in 12 patients, 44 had distal repair (median aortic diameter 64 mm, IQR 60, 75; eight open, one hybrid, 35 endovascular repairs; no deaths) at a median of 256 days (IQR 135, 740), and 19 did not have distal repair at the end of the follow up period: six died before planned repair at a median interval of 115 days (IQR 85, 120); eight were considered unfit; one was assessed as fit but declined; and four patients were awaiting assessment. Median follow up was 46 months (IQR 26, 75): no patients were lost to follow up. Estimated ± standard error five year survival was 61.5 ± 4.1%: elective 70.6 ± 4.7%, non-elective 43.2 ± 7.2%. CONCLUSION: TAR + FET achieved primary distal seal in 47% of patients, but late failure occurred in 21%. Distal repair was ultimately indicated in 84% of survivors without a primary distal seal and of these 70% underwent repair, almost 10% died before planned repair, and 13% were considered unfit. Earlier distal endovascular repair and better assessment of patient fitness may improve midterm outcomes.

The Complementary Roles of Open and Endovascular Repair of Extent I - III Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a United Kingdom Aortic Centre.

OBJECTIVE: A multidisciplinary approach offering both open surgical repair (OSR) and complex endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR) is essential if patients with thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are to receive optimal care. This study reports early and midterm outcomes of elective and non-elective OSR and cEVAR for extent I - III TAAA in a UK aortic centre. METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive patients treated between January 2009 and December 2021. Primary endpoint was 30 day/in hospital mortality. Secondary endpoint was Kaplan-Meier estimates of midterm survival. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: In total, 296 patients (176 men; median age 71 years [IQR 65, 76]; median aneurysm diameter 66 mm [IQR 61, 75]) underwent repair (222 elective, 74 non-elective). OSR patients (n = 66) were significantly younger with a higher incidence of heritable disease and chronic dissection, while cEVAR patients (n = 230) had a significantly higher prevalence of coronary, pulmonary, and renal disease. Overall, in hospital mortality after elective and non-elective repair was 3.2% (n = 7) and 23.0% (n = 17), respectively, with no significant difference between treatment modalities (elective OSR 6.5% vs. cEVAR 2.3%, p = .14; non-elective OSR 25.0% vs. cEVAR 20.3%, p = .80). Major non-fatal complications occurred in 15.3% (33/215) after elective repair (OSR 39.5%, 17/43, vs. cEVAR 9.3%, 16/172; p < .001) and 14% (8/57) after non-elective repair (OSR 26.7%, 4/15, vs. cEVAR 9.5%, 4/42; p = .19). Median follow up was 52 months (IQR 23, 78). Estimated survival ± standard error at 1, 3, and 5 years for the entire cohort was 89.6 ± 2.0%, 76.6 ± 2.9%, and 69.0% ± 3.2% after elective repair, and 67.6 ± 5.4%, 52.1 ± 6.0%, and 41.0 ± 6.2% after non-elective repair. There was no difference in 5 year survival comparing modalities after elective repair for patients younger than 70 years and those with post-dissection aneurysms. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach offering OSR and cEVAR can deliver comprehensive care for extent I - III TAAA with low early mortality and good midterm survival. Further studies are required to determine the optimal complementary roles of each treatment modality.

Phantom Limb Pain and Painful Neuroma After Dysvascular Lower-Extremity Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phantom limb pain (PLP) and symptomatic neuroma can be debilitating and significantly impact the quality of life of amputees. However, the prevalence of PLP and symptomatic neuromas in patients following dysvascular lower limb amputation (LLA) has not been reliably established. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence and incidence of phantom limb pain and symptomatic neuroma after dysvascular LLA. METHODS: Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) were searched on October 5th, 2022. Prospective or retrospective observational cohort studies or cross-sectional studies reporting either the prevalence or incidence of phantom limb pain and/or symptomatic neuroma following dysvascular LLA were identified. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening, data extraction, and the risk of bias assessment according to the PRISMA guidelines. To estimate the prevalence of phantom limb pain, a meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the quantitative analysis, including 1924 amputees. A meta-analysis demonstrated that 69% of patients after dysvascular LLA experience phantom limb pain (95% CI 53-86%). The reported pain intensity on a scale from 0-10 in LLA patients ranged between 2.3 ± 1.4 and 5.5 ± .7. A single study reported an incidence of symptomatic neuroma following dysvascular LLA of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates the high prevalence of phantom limb pain after dysvascular LLA. Given the often prolonged and disabling nature of neuropathic pain and the difficulties managing it, more consideration needs to be given to strategies to prevent it at the time of amputation.

A vascular multi-arm multi-stage trial to prevent groin wound surgical site infection: A feasibility survey.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is common following arterial surgery involving a groin incision. There is a lack of evidence regarding interventions to prevent groin wound SSI, therefore, a survey of vascular clinicians was undertaken to assess current opinion and practice, equipoise and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants at the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting were surveyed regarding three separate interventions designed to prevent SSI in the groin; impregnated incise drapes, diakylcarbomoyl chloride dressings and antibiotic impregnated collagen sponges. Results were collated via an online survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. Seventy-five participants completed the questionnaire, most were consultant vascular surgeons (50/75, 66.7%). The majority agree that groin wound SSI is a major problem (73/75, 97.3%), and would be content using either of the three interventions (51/61, 83.6%) and had clinical equipoise to randomise patients to any of the three interventions versus standard of care (70/75, 93.3%). There was some reluctance to not use impregnated incise drapes as may be considered "standard of care". Groin wound SSI is perceived as major problem in vascular surgery, and a multicentre RCT of three preventative interventions appears acceptable to vascular surgeons.

Emergent management of diabetic foot problems in the modern era: Improving outcomes.

Limb amputation is a consequence, and the leading complication, of diabetic foot ulcers. Prevention depends on prompt diagnosis and management. Patients should be managed by multidisciplinary teams and efforts should be focused on limb salvage ("time is tissue"). The diabetic foot service should be organized in a way to meet the patient's clinical needs, with the diabetic foot centers at the highest level of this structure. Surgical management should be multimodal and include not only revascularization, but also surgical and biological debridement, minor amputations, and advanced wound therapy. Medical treatment, including an adequate antimicrobial therapy, has a key role in the eradication of infection and should be guided by microbiologists and infection disease physicians with special interest in bone infection. Input from diabetologists, radiologists, orthopedic teams (foot and ankle), orthotists, podiatrists, physiotherapists, and prosthetics, as well as psychological counseling, is required to make the service comprehensive. After the acute phase, a well-structured, pragmatic follow-up program is necessary to adequately manage the patients with the aim to detect earlier potential failures of the revascularization or antimicrobial therapy. Considering the cost and societal impact of diabetic foot problems, health care providers should provide resources to manage the burden of diabetic foot problems in the modern era.

Prevalence of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing diagnostic venous ultrasound during the first SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Background: Venous thromboembolism appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 infection than in those without it. However, this varies considerably depending on the cohort studied. The aims of this single-centre, multi-site retrospective cross-sectional study were to assess the number of all venous scans performed in the first month of pandemic in a large university teaching hospital, to evaluate the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and assess the predictive ability of the clinical information available on the electronic patient record in planning work-up for DVT and prioritising ultrasound scans. Patients and methods: All consecutive patients undergoing venous ultrasound for suspected acute DVT between 1st of March and 30th of April 2020 were considered. Primary outcome was the proportion of scans positive for DVT; the secondary outcomes included association of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, demographic, clinical factors, and Wells scores. Results: 819 ultrasound scans were performed on 762 patients across the Trust in March and April 2020. This number was comparable to the corresponding pre-pandemic cohort from 2019. The overall prevalence of DVT in the studied cohort was 16.1% and was higher than before the pandemic (11.5%, p=.047). Clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19, irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result (positive_COVID_PCR OR 4.97, 95%CI 2.31-10.62, p<.001; negative_COVID_PCR OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.12-3.39, p=.016), a history of AF (OR 0.20, 95%CI 0.03-0.73, p=.037), and personal history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.31, p=.014), were independently associated with the diagnosis of DVT on ultrasound scan. Wells score was not associated with the incidence of DVT. Conclusions: Amongst those referred for the DVT scan, SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was associated with an increased risk of VTE and should be taken into consideration when planning DVT work-up and prioritising diagnostic imaging. We postulate that the threshold for imaging should possibly be lower.

Factors Affecting Residual Stump Length Following Endovenous Laser Ablation.

BACKGROUND: Current instruction for endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) recommends that the laser fibre tip should be at least 2 cm caudal to the saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal junction. This is to reduce risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) whilst ensuring that the Great Saphenous Vein (GSV)/Short saphenous vein (SSV) occlusion (residual stump) is close to the SFJ/SPJ to reduce recurrence rates. Our aim was to primarily assess the effects of pre-operative junction distance of the laser fibre on stump length but also look at other factors affecting this. PATIENT AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of an electronic collected database performing EVLA of the GSV and SSV under local anaesthesia. Patients with previous venous thromboembolic events and incomplete data were excluded. Patients were reviewed at 6 weeks with venous Duplex scan to assess for the residual stump distance and DVT. Multivariable logistic regression was used to account for confounders. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, 2341 patients underwent EVLA and complete data were available on 825 (35.2%) patients. All patients were scanned 6 weeks after procedure. Sixty-nine patients (8.4%) had flush occlusion, 3 patients (.4%) had extension into femoral or popliteal vein but not considered to be a DVT and 1 patient had a DVT. High BMI and increasing length of the pre-operative junction was associated with lower incidence of flush occlusion; higher rates of flush occlusions were noted in patients undergoing short saphenous vein (SSV) EVLT (OR 4.11, 95% CI 2.34-7.20; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration should be given to increase the intra-procedure laser tip junction to more than 2 cm particularly in patients undergoing SSV treatment to ensure that residual stump is sufficiently distal to SPJ and SFJ reducing risks of thrombus into the femoral or popliteal veins. Lower BMI may be associated with higher risk of this though the reasons for this are unclear.

Multicenter Study to Evaluate Endovascular Repair of Extent I-III Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms Without Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage.

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of Extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) without prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD). BACKGROUND: Prophylactic CSFD has been routinely used during endovascular TAAA repair, but concerns about major drain-related complications have led to revising this paradigm. METHODS: We reviewed a multicenter cohort of 541 patients treated for Extent I-III TAAAs by FB-EVAR without prophylactic CSFD. Spinal cord injury (SCI) was graded as ambulatory (paraparesis) or nonambulatory (paraplegia). Endpoints were any SCI, permanent paraplegia, response to rescue treatment, major drain-related complications, mortality, and patient survival. RESULTS: There were 22 Extent I, 240 Extent II and 279 Extent III TAAAs. Thirty-day mortality was 3%. SCI occurred in 45 patients (8%), paraparesis occurring in 23 (4%) and paraplegia in 22 patients (4%). SCI was more common in patients with Extent I-II compared with Extent III TAAAs (12% vs. 5%, P =0.01). Rescue treatment included permissive hypertension in all patients, with CSFD in 22 (4%). Symptom improvement was noted in 73%. Twelve patients (2%) had permanent paraplegia. Two patients (0.4%) had major drain-related complications. Independent predictors for SCI by multivariate logistic regression were sustained perioperative hypotension [odds ratio (OR): 4.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.7-11.1], patent collateral network (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.6), and total length of aortic coverage (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10). Patient survival at 3 years was 72%±3%. CONCLUSION: FB-EVAR of Extent I-III TAAAs without CSFD has low mortality and low rates of permanent paraplegia (2%). SCI occurred in 8% of patients, and rescue treatment improved symptoms in 73% of them.

Complex Endovascular Repair of Paravisceral Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To report the early and mid-term outcome of complex endovascular repair (EVAR) for paravisceral infective native aortic aneurysms (INAA). METHODS: Interrogation of a prospectively maintained database identified consecutive patients who underwent non-elective complex EVAR for paravisceral INAAs in a single institution between December 2013 and June 2020. All patients were considered to have definite INAAs based on diagnostic criteria. Patients who had prior aortic repair were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (19 men; mean age 67 years [SD = 11.4]; median diameter 60 mm [IQR: 55-73]) with acute symptomatic (n = 24) or contained ruptured (n = 2) aneurysms underwent surgeon-modified fenestrated EVAR (SM-FEVAR; n = 24) or chimney-periscope EVAR (CHIMPS; n = 2). Median observed follow-up was 36.2 months (18.3-53.5). Nine patients had positive venous blood cultures and a further seven had recent or concomitant infection. All patients received pre- and post-operative antibiotic therapy and rifampicin-soaked endografts. A total of 95 vessels were targeted for preservation and 86 were stent-grafted. One vessel occluded intra-operatively and a further 3 occluded within 30 days. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 11.5% (n = 3), and the estimated 1- and 3-year survival (±SD) was 85% ± 7%. Infection-related complications (IRCs) occurred in two patients: both developed new INAA within 30 days of index repair and were treated by EVAR with no mortality. Estimated 3-year freedom from late re-intervention was 100%. One patient required infrarenal EVAR for a non-infective aneurysm at 43 months. CONCLUSION: Complex EVAR for paravisceral INAAs is associated with acceptable early and mid-term outcomes and is an acceptable alternative to open surgery. We propose that these patients are managed with long-term antimicrobials, impregnation of graft material with rifampicin, and rigorous post-operative surveillance. CLINICAL IMPACT: A multi-disciplinary approach is required to deliver the best possible outcome for patients with this challenging aortic pathology.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for distal thoracoabdominal aortic pathology after total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FBEVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic pathology after total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR+FET). METHODS: Interrogation of prospectively maintained databases from four high-volume aortic centers identified consecutive patients treated with distal FBEVAR after prior TAR+FET between August 2013 and September 2020. The primary end point was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points were technical success, early clinical success, midterm survival, and freedom from reintervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: A total of 39 patients (21 men; median age, 73 years [67-75 years]) with degenerative (n = 22) and postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (n = 17) (median diameter, 71 mm [61-78 mm]) were identified. Distal FBEVAR was intended in 27 patients (median interval, 9.8 months [6.2-16.6 months]), anticipated in 7, and unexpected in 5. A total of 31 patients had a two- (n = 24) or three-stage (n = 7) distal FBEVAR. Renovisceral target vessel preservation was 99.3% (145 of 146). Early primary and secondary technical success was 92% and 97%, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6% (n = 1; respiratory failure and spinal cord ischemia [SCI]). Six survivors also developed SCI, which was associated with complete (n = 4) or partial recovery (n = 2) at hospital discharge. No patients required renal replacement therapy or suffered a stroke. Early clinical success was 95%. Median follow-up was 30.5 months (23.7-49.7 months). Eleven patients required 16 late reinterventions. Estimated 3-year survival and freedom from reintervention were 84% ± 6% and 63% ± 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Distal FBEVAR after prior TAR+FET is associated with high technical success and low early mortality. The risk of SCI is significant although the majority of patients demonstrate full or partial recovery before hospital discharge. Midterm patient survival is favorable, but there remains a high requirement for late reintervention. FBEVAR represents an acceptable alternative to distal open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Open surgical replacement of the descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta in patients with confirmed Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndromes: A 20-year single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVES: A relatively small proportion of patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease require open surgical replacement of the distal thoracic aorta. We reviewed the outcome in patients with Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndromes treated in an aortic centre in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We performed a single-centre retrospective study of consecutive patients treated between October 1999 and December 2019. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points were Kaplan-Meier estimates of medium-term survival and freedom from distal reintervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: A total of 58 patients [33 men; 51 with Marfan syndrome; median age 41 years (35-48); median aneurysm diameter 60 mm (55-74)] underwent open descending (n = 21) or thoracoabdominal aortic replacement (n = 37). All repairs were performed using cardiopulmonary bypass with hypothermic circulatory arrest in 31 patients. The 30-day mortality was 5.2% (n = 3, including 2 patients ≥ 60 years with significant comorbidity). Major non-fatal complications included early reoperation (n = 7), tracheostomy (n = 9), temporary renal replacement therapy (n = 3), permanent spinal cord deficit (n = 2) and permanent stroke (n = 1). Median follow-up was 81 months (48-127). Estimated (±standard error) 5-year survival was 85% ±5%. Seven patients had distal aortic reintervention with no deaths or spinal cord deficit: estimated 5-year freedom from distal reintervention was 94% ±3%. There was no difference in survival or freedom from distal reintervention comparing: elective vs. non-elective; type of heritable thoracic aortic disease; DeBakey type; or extent of surgical repair. CONCLUSIONS: Descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic replacement in patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease can be performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, satisfactory long-term survival and low requirement for distal reintervention.

A risk-adjusted and anatomically stratified cohort comparison study of open surgery, endovascular techniques and medical management for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms-the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In one-third of all abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the aneurysm neck is short (juxtarenal) or shows other adverse anatomical features rendering operations more complex, hazardous and expensive. Surgical options include open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques including fenestrated EVAR, EVAR with adjuncts (chimneys/endoanchors) and off-label standard EVAR. The aim of the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) is to answer the research question identified by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme: 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of strategies for the management of juxtarenal AAA, including fenestrated endovascular repair?' METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UK-COMPASS is a cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of different strategies used to manage complex AAAs with stratification of physiological fitness and anatomical complexity, with statistical correction for baseline risk and indication biases. There are two data streams. First, a stream of routinely collected data from Hospital Episode Statistics and National Vascular Registry (NVR). Preoperative CT scans of all patients who underwent elective AAA repair in England between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019 are subjected to Corelab analysis to accurately identify and include every complex aneurysm treated. Second, a site-reported data stream regarding quality of life and treatment costs from prospectively recruited patients across England. Site recruitment also includes patients with complex aneurysms larger than 55 mm diameter in whom an operation is deferred (medical management). The primary outcome measure is perioperative all-cause mortality. Follow-up will be to a median of 5 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received full regulatory approvals from a Research Ethics Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the Health Research Authority. Data sharing agreements are in place with National Health Service Digital and the NVR. Dissemination will be via NIHR HTA reporting, peer-reviewed journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85731188.

Fenestrated-Branch Endovascular Repair After Prior Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcome of fenestrated and branch endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR-BEVAR) for asymptomatic and acute symptomatic proximal aortic pathology in patients with prior open (OSR) or endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS: This was a single centre retrospective study of consecutive patients with non-ruptured (asymptomatic and acute symptomatic) proximal aortic pathology after prior OSR or EVAR treated between December 2007 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30 day/in hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were technical success, primary clinical success, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The effect of covariates on medium term survival was estimated using multivariable (Cox proportional hazards model) analysis. A p value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients (83 men; median age 75 years [IQR 71 - 80 years]; median diameter 73 mm [IQR 64 - 89 mm]; 82 elective, 10 acute) underwent FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR (n = 47) or EVAR (n = 45). Indications for intervention were aneurysmal degeneration with or without type 1a endoleak (n = 57; four juxtarenal [JR] AAA, 21 extent II/III, 32 extent IV thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms); type 1a endoleak alone (n = 27) and to create a more durable repair after acute infrarenal EVAR (n = 8; JRAAA). In total, 348 renovisceral vessels were targeted for preservation and 324 were stent grafted. Twenty-four unstented vessels comprised one bypass, 11 scallops and six fenestrations intentionally not stent grafted, two vessels occluded before graft implantation, and four vessels occluded intra-operatively. Primary technical success was 95.6%. The thirty day mortality rate was 1.1% and one patient each (1.1%) required permanent dialysis or developed temporary spinal cord ischaemia. Early primary clinical success was 94.6%. Median follow up was 36 months (IQR 23 - 64 months). Estimated overall survival (± standard error) at one, two, and three years was 86% ± 4%, 85% ± 4%, and 70% ± 5%, respectively. Multivariable analysis did not demonstrate any independent predictors of survival. Four target vessels occluded during follow up. Nineteen patients underwent 28 late re-interventions, with almost half performed for issues arising distal to the FEVAR-BEVAR. Patients treated with a cuff were statistically significantly more likely to require distal re-intervention compared with those treated by relining (9/49 vs. 1/43, p = .018 [odds ratio 9.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2 - 423]). In patients with prior EVAR alone, this did not reach statistical significance (cuff 7/25 vs. relining 1/20, p = .059 [odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8 - 350]). Estimated freedom from re-intervention at one, two, and three years was 88% ± 3%, 81% ± 4%, and 81% ± 4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR or EVAR is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and mortality, and acceptable medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Treatment with a FEVAR-BEVAR cuff is associated with a higher requirement for distal re-intervention than relining of the original repair.

Editor's Choice - Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular versus Open Repair for Complex Aortic Aneurysms: Meta-Analysis of Time to Event Propensity Score Matched Data.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to investigate comparative outcomes of fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with open repair for juxta/para/suprarenal or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE and Embase) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared F/BEVAR with open repair for complex aortic aneurysms using propensity score or Cox regression modelling/multivariable logistic regression analysis. Pooled estimates of peri-operative outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The result of time to event analysis was reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Random effects models and the inverse variance method were applied. The quality of evidence was graded using the system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: Eleven studies published between 2014 and 2019 were selected for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis reporting a total of at least 7 061 patients. The odds of peri-operative mortality after F/BEVAR were lower, although not significantly, than after open repair (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.12), whereas the hazard of overall mortality during follow up was higher following F/BEVAR, but, again, without reaching statistical significance (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93-1.67). The hazard of re-intervention was significantly higher after endovascular therapy (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39-3.18). The certainty for the body of evidence for peri-operative and overall mortality during follow up was judged to be very low and moderate, respectively, and for re-intervention it was judged to be high. CONCLUSION: The evidence is uncertain about the effect of F/BEVAR on peri-operative mortality when compared with open repair. There is probably no difference in overall survival, but F/BEVAR results in an increased re-intervention hazard. There is a need for high level evidence to inform decision making and vascular/aortic service provision.

Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to investigate whether patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU) have worse outcomes than patients treated within IFU. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic bibliographic sources were searched up to January 2019 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients treated outside versus within IFU. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted a time-to-event data meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method and reported the results as summary hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% CI. Random-effects methods of meta-analysis were applied. We formed meta-regression models to explore heterogeneity as a result of changes in practice over time. RESULTS: We identified 17 observational cohort studies published between 2011 and 2017, reporting a total of 4498 patients. The pooled prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU was 40% (95% CI, 33-48). Nonadherence to IFU was not associated with increased risk of perioperative mortality (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.01; P = .23), aneurysm rupture (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.30-5.93; P = .70), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.20-3.84; P = .86), technical failure (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.05; P = .56), requirement for adjunctive procedures (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.81-2.71; P = .20), type I endoleak (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.58-8.91; P = .24), aneurysm sac expansion (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = .49), or aneurysm-related reintervention (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34; P = .74). The overall mortality was significantly higher in patients treated outside the IFU (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42; P = .03). Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Standard EVAR outside the IFU was not found to have worse aneurysm-related outcomes than treatment within the IFU. Standard EVAR outside the IFU could be considered in selected patients who are deemed high risk for complex open or endovascular surgery.

Endovascular repair of acute juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with surgeon-modified fenestrated endografts.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to report the short- and medium-term outcome of surgeon-modified fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (SM-FEVAR) for acute complex aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Interrogation of a prospectively maintained database identified consecutive patients who underwent SM-FEVAR for acute complex aortic aneurysms (including mycotic aneurysms treated with rifampicin-soaked endografts) in a single institution between October 2009 and November 2018. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (37 men; median age, 73 years [range, 50-85 years]; aneurysm diameter, 76 mm [interquartile range, 58-90 mm]) with acute thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (n = 50; 40 symptomatic, 10 ruptured; 19 extent I-III, 31 extent IV) or symptomatic type IA endoleaks after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (n = 4) underwent SM-FEVAR. Seven of the patients had adjunct chimney and periscope stent grafts or surgical bypasses. A total of 187 vessels (mean, 3.4 [range, 1-5] per patient) were targeted for preservation; nine occluded intraoperatively or within 30 days. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 16.7% (n = 9; symptomatic, 7.4%; rupture, 50%) and fell significantly from 29.6% (n = 8) in the first 27 patients to 3.7% (n = 1) in the most recent 27 patients (P = .0243). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in one patient (1.9%) who died within 30 days. No survivors required permanent renal dialysis. Estimated survival at 12 and 24 months was 73.2% (standard error [SE], 6.2%). Eight patients underwent 12 late aorta- or graft-related reinterventions. Estimated freedom from reintervention at 12 months and 24 months was 87.9% (SE, 5.2%) and 81.6% (SE, 6.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute complex aneurysms, SM-FEVAR provides a customized solution that is associated with good medium-term survival and durability. The knowledge and skills to perform safe SM-FEVAR should be within the capabilities of high-volume specialist aortic centers.