Mid-term results of "off-label" use of the Endurant stentgraft in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES: EVAR is the preferred treatment modality for patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with suitable anatomy. Each manufacturer of aortic stentgrafts has specific anatomic requirements. In some patients, it is not possible to adhere to the instructions for use, but alternative treatment is also not possible. In these patients, EVAR can be performed outside instructions for use. METHODS: In this study, all consecutive patients in whom an Endurant II or IIS stentgraft was used between 1 January and 31 December were reviewed. We compared the two patient groups in whom this stentgrafts was used outside and inside instructions for use. Patients with planned adjuvant therapy, for example, chimney procedure or iliac side branches, were excluded. RESULTS: In 74 of 178 (41.6%) patients, the instructions for use were not adhered. The main reason was pathology of the aortic neck. There were more patients with type IA endoleak, this difference was borderline significant (p = .06). There were more patients with limb occlusion in the early postoperative period, but at the end of the follow-up period, the incidence was comparable. Aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, real-life experience with the Endurant II and IIS stentgraft is described. Non-adherence with instructions for use was associated with a higher risk of endoleak type IA (p = .06). In the early postoperative period, there were more patients with limb occlusion; this finding was not observed anymore at the end of the follow-up period.

Ethical Considerations and Adverse Events in Cyanoacrylate Embolization for Non-Saphenous Veins: A Case Report.

The cyanoacrylate embolization (CAE) technique for chronic venous disease treatment is less painful and leads to a faster recovery than conventional endovenous thermal treatment. According to the instructions for use (IFU) of the VenaSeal closure system (Medtronic), a representative CAE product, it has only been approved for treating saphenous veins, not non-saphenous veins. Here, we report a case of ignoring the VenaSeal IFU for treating testicular pain using CAE for non-saphenous veins within the abdominal wall, which is a baseless and non-scientific approach nearing malpractice. Hence, it is imperative for physicians to rigorously adhere to the IFU and abstain from experimenting with new treatment methods solely based on personal experience.

A Review of Recent FDA-Approved Biologic-Device Combination Products.

With the remarkably strong growth of the biopharmaceutical market, an increasing demand for self-administration and rising competitions attract substantial interest to the biologic-device combination products. The ease-of-use of biologic-device combination products can minimize dosing error, improve patient compliance and add value to the life-cycle management of biological products. As listed in the purple book issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a total of 98 brand biologic-device combination products have been approved with Biologic License Application from January 2000 to August 2023, where this review mainly focused on 63 products containing neither insulin nor vaccine. Prefilled syringes (PFS) and autoinjectors are the most widely adopted devices, whereas innovative modifications like needle safety guard and dual-chamber design and novel devices like on-body injector also emerged as promising presentations. All 16 insulin products employ pen injectors, while all 19 vaccine products are delivered by a PFS. This review provides a systematic summary of FDA-approved biologic-device combination products regarding their device configurations, routes of administration, formulations, instructions for use, etc. In addition, challenges and opportunities associated with biologic-device compatibility, regulatory complexity, and smart connected devices are also discussed. It is believed that evolving technologies will definitely move the boundaries of biologic-device combination product development even further.

Using the Manufacturer's Instructions for Use and Spaulding Classification System to Assess Disinfection Practices for Ultrasound Transducers in the Perioperative Setting.

Proper use and disinfection of medical devices and instruments is essential to preventing infection and providing safe patient care. Because of an increase in the complexity of medical devices and patient interventions, it has become more difficult for perioperative staff members to ensure that equipment is properly used and disinfected according to the manufacturer's instructions for use and the Spaulding classification system. One type of medical device that may have multiple clinical uses is the ultrasound transducer. In the perioperative setting, ultrasound transducers can be used for surface, percutaneous, and endocavitary procedures. They also may be used at multiple times before, during, and after a procedure, which may make it challenging for perioperative staff members to know the correct disinfection practice. They should use the device's instructions for use and the Spaulding classification system to guide their clinical practice.

Long-term outcomes of the Endurant endograft in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To investigate the long-term outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in a real-world setting using the Endurant endograft (EG). METHODS: 184 EVAR candidates treated with the Endurant family EGs in a single vascular center were prospectively enrolled from January 2009 to December 2016. Kaplan-Meir estimates of long-term standardized primary and secondary outcome measures were performed. Per protocol, subgroup comparison analysis was performed in three groups: patients treated within instructions for use (in-IFU) vs patients treated outside IFU (outside-IFU), EVAR in patients receiving the Endurant proximal diameter 32 or 36 mm EG vs those receiving the <32 mm diameter EG and EVAR with various Endurant EG versions. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 75.09 ± 37.9 months (range: 4.1-172 months). The median age of the patients was 72.96 ± 7.03 years (range: 55-88 years). A total of 177 patients were male (96.2%). Compliance with IFU was followed in 107 patients (58.2%). Overall survival was 69.5% and 48% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Of the 102 all-cause deaths, 7 (6.9%) were aneurysm related. Six of these postimplant deaths occurred in patients presented with aneurysm rupture from type Ia or/and type Ib endoleak. At 5, 8, and 10 years of observation, freedom from aneurysm rupture, open surgical conversion, type I/III endoleak, any type of endoleak, aneurysm-related secondary intervention probabilities, and neck-related events were as follows: 98.1%, 95%, and 89.4%; 95.1%, 91.2%, and 85.7%; 93.6%, 87.3%, and 83.9%; 83.4%, 74%, and 70.9%; 89.8%, 76.7%, and 72%; and 96.3%, 90%, and 87.6%, respectively. Corresponding clinical success was 90%, 77.4%, and 68.4%, respectively. Patients treated outside-IFU had significantly higher risk of aneurysm rupture, open surgical conversion probability, occurrence of type I/III endoleak, and chance of reinterventions and lower clinical success probabilities compared with the in-IFU counterparts at 5 and 8 years. This statistical difference remained when type Ia endoleak or endoleak of any type was considered independently. In addition, it was stronger in patients having extreme anatomic boundaries (>1 hostile anatomic condition), when aneurysm-related death, aneurysm rupture, and clinical success at 5 years were considered. Overall proximal migration and limb occlusion were recorded in 1.1% and 4.9% of the patients, respectively. Overall reintervention rate was 17.4%. An increase in aneurysm sac diameter was observed in 12.5% of patients and was not related to IFU status. The Endurant version or the proximal EG diameter had no significant association with the chance of any complication or adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirmed the durability of the Endurant EG, achieving promising long-term outcomes in a real-world setting. However, its positive performance must be interpreted with caution in patients treated off-label especially those with extreme anatomic boundaries. In this cohort, some of EVAR advantages might be lost in the late future. Further similar studies are warranted.

A Comparison of Instructions for Use Documents and Manufacturer Produced Administration Videos for Biological Products.

OBJECTIVES: To compare Instructions for Use (IFU) and Manufacturer Produced Administration Videos (MPAV) for biological products to describe if they are highly similar or different. To identify differences between the two that may lead to medication errors and to point out possible solutions to optimize safety. METHODS: We screened 139 biological products having both an IFU and a MPAV. Differences between the IFU and MPAV of each biological product were noted and categorized by importance and how likely it would cause harm to patients. Strategies were discussed based on differences observed. RESULTS: Of the products screened, 51 had an IFU and a MPAV available for evaluation. They were primarily made to support the use of auto-injectors (n = 25) and pre-filled syringes (n = 19). Of this group, we found that 11 had no differences between the IFU and MPAV, while the other 40 had at least one or more identifiable differences. Differences were stratified into the following sub-categories from most to least prevalent: word choice differences, supplementary information, missing information, and unaligned directions. We looked at the distribution of differences per biological product and found an average of two differences per MPAV (IQR 1-3). CONCLUSION: We suggest that when sponsors create or update MPAVs, to focus on aligning critical content between the respective IFU and MPAV. We believe that it is possible for MPAVs to potentially reduce medication errors as a non-text-based media form and that care should be taken to avoid substantial differences in critical content between the IFU and MPAV.

Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Late Open Conversion in Patients With Adherence and Nonadherence to Instructions for Use Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as preferred treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has enlarged the number of patients needing open surgical conversion (OSC). The relationship between adherence to Instructions For Use (IFU) and EVAR long-term outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare preoperative differences and postoperative outcomes between EVAR patients not adjusted to IFU and adjusted to IFU who underwent OSC. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study reviewed 33 explanted EVARs between January 2003 and December 2019 at 14 Vascular Units. Patients were included if OSC occurred >30 days after implantation and excluded if explantation was performed to treat an endograft infection, aortic dissection, or traumatic transections. Variables analyzed included baseline characteristics, adherence to IFU, implant and explant procedural details, secondary reinterventions, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Fifteen explanted patients (15/33, 45.5%) were identified not accomplished to IFU (out-IFU) at initial EVAR vs 18 explanted patients adjusted (in-IFU). During follow-up, a mean of 1.73±1.2 secondary reinterventions were performed, with more type I endoleaks treated in the subgroup out-IFU: 16.7% vs 6.3% in-IFU patients and more type III endoleaks (8.3% vs 0%). Patients out-IFU had shorter mean interval from implant to explant: 47.60±28.8 months vs 71.17±48. Type II endoleak was the most frequent indication for explantation. Low-flow endoleaks (types II, IV, V) account for 44% of indications for OSC in subgroup of patients in-IFU, compared with 13.3% in patients out-IFU and high-flow endoleaks (types I and III) were the main indication for patients out-IFU (33.3% vs 16.7% in-IFU). Total endograft explantation was performed in 57.5% of cases (19/33) and more suprarenal clamping was required in the subgroup out-IFU. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 12.1% (4/33): 20% for patients out-IFU and 5.6% in-IFU. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, type II endoleak is the most common indication for conversion and differences have been found between patients treated outside IFU with explantation taking place earlier during follow-up, mainly due to high-flow endoleaks and with higher mortality in comparison with patients adjusted to IFU. Ongoing research is required to delve into these differences.

Editor's Choice - Endurant Stent Graft in Patients with Challenging Neck Anatomy "One Step Outside Instructions for Use": Early and Midterm Results from the EAGLE Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Endurant for Challenging Anatomy: Global Experience (EAGLE) registry is to evaluate prospectively the technical and clinical success rate of a stentgraft used in patients with challenging neck anatomy outside the instructions for use (IFU) but within objective anatomical limits. METHODS: This was a prospective, international, multicentre, observational study. From 1 February 2012 to 1 September 2017, patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm with a challenging infrarenal neck that were deemed suitable for endovascular aneurysm repair were included prospectively at 23 European centres. Patients were distributed by anatomy into three groups: short neck (SN; infrarenal neck 5 - 10 mm in combination with suprarenal angulation [α] ≤ 45° and infrarenal angulation [ß] ≤ 60°); medium neck (MN; infrarenal neck 10 - 15 mm with α ≤ 60° and ß 60° - 75° or α 45°- 60° and ß ≤ 75°; and long angulated neck (LN; infrarenal neck ≥ 15 mm with α ≤ 75° and ß 75°- 90° or α 60°- 75° and ß ≤ 90°. All computed tomography scans were reviewed by an independent core laboratory. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success. Secondary endpoints were peri-operative major adverse events, all cause mortality, aneurysm related mortality, endoleaks, migration, and secondary intervention. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients (81.3% male) were included (SN = 55, MN = 16, LN = 79). The median follow up was 36 ± 12.6 months. In the overall cohort, the technical success rate was 93.3%. Estimated freedom from aneurysm related death was 97.3% at three years. Freedom from secondary interventions was 84.7% at three years. Estimated clinical success was 96.0%, 90.8%, and 83.2% at 30 days, one year, and three years, respectively. Estimated freedom from all cause mortality, late type IA endoleak, and migration at three years was 75.1%, 93.7%, and 99.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The early and midterm results of the EAGLE registry show that endovascular repair with the Endurant stentgraft in selected patients with challenging infrarenal neck anatomy yields results in line with large "real world" registries. Long term results are awaited for more definitive conclusions.

The association between device instructions for use adherence and outcomes after elective endovascular aortic abdominal aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic neck anatomy has a significant impact on the complexity of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), with concern that neck characteristics outside of the instructions for use (IFU) may result in worse outcomes. Therefore, this study determined the impact of neck characteristics outside of the IFU on perioperative and 1-year outcomes and mid-term survival after EVAR. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing elective infrarenal EVAR from December 2014 to May 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Neck characteristics outside of the IFU were determined based the specific device IFU neck characteristics (neck diameter, length, and angulation). Patients without 1-year follow-up were excluded for the 1-year outcomes analyses (n = 6138 [40%]). We used multivariable adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models to identify the independent associations between neck characteristics outside of the IFU and our outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 15,448 patients identified, 22.1% had neck characteristics outside of the IFU, including 6.6% with a infrarenal angle, 6.8% with a neck length, 10.4% with a neck diameter, and 1.1% with a suprarenal angulation outside of the IFU. Of these, 2.4% had more than one neck characteristic outside of the IFU. Patients with neck characteristics outside of the IFU were more often female (27.9% vs 15.0%; P < .001) and were older (median age, 75 years vs 73 years; P < .001). EVAR patients with neck characteristics outside of the IFU had higher rates of type Ia endoleaks at completion (4.8% vs 2.5%; P < .001), perioperative mortality (1.2% vs 0.6%; P < .001), 1-year sac expansion (7.1% vs 5.3%; P = .017), and 1-year reinterventions (4.4% vs 3.2%; P = .03). In multivariable adjusted analyses, neck characteristics outside of the IFU were independently associated with type Ia completion endoleaks (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0; P < .001), perioperative mortality (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .005), 1-year sac expansion (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8; P = .025), and 1-year reinterventions (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .039). The unadjusted midterm survival was lower for patients with neck characteristics outside of the IFU than for patients without (5-year survival 84.0% vs 86.7%; log-rank P < .001). However, after adjustment, survival was similar for patients with neck characteristics outside of the IFU to those within (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Neck characteristics outside of the IFU are independently associated with completion type Ia endoleaks, perioperative mortality, 1-year sac expansion, and 1-year reinterventions among patients undergoing elective EVAR. These results indicate that continued effort is needed to improve the proximal seal in patients with neck characteristics outside of the IFU undergoing EVAR. Also, in patients with severe hostile neck characteristics, alternative approaches such as open repair, use of a fenestrated or branched device, or endoanchors should be considered.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Endovascular device manufacturers have defined specific anatomic criteria for the aneurysm characteristics that should be observed as instructions for use (IFU) for specific grafts. In clinical practice, the prevalence of performing EVAR outside the IFU has been high. In the present study, we aimed to determine the effects of nonadherence to the IFU on the outcomes. METHODS: Patients who had undergone EVAR for an infrarenal AAA between 2005 and 2013 were included. IFU nonadherence was defined as any violation of device-specific IFU criteria and was compared with IFU adherence. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including limb-related adverse events, and type Ia endoleaks. A second aim was to study whether the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients were included, 144 (55.8%) of whom had been treated according to the IFU and 114 (44.2%) outside the IFU. In the IFU nonadherence group, all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.89; P = .037) and aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.4-18.6; P = .015), and the incidence of AAA rupture (HR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.1-26.6; P = .036) and GRAEs (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .025). No significant association was found between the incidence of type Ia endoleaks and neck-related IFU or limb-related adverse events and iliac-related IFU. However, neck length was a risk factor for type Ia endoleaks (HR, 18.2, 95% CI, 6.3-52.2; P < .001), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 8.7; 95% CI, 1.8-41.6; P = .007), AAA rupture (HR, 21.7; 95% CI, 2.8-166; P = .003), and GRAEs (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7; P < .001). An IFU violation regarding neck angulation was also a risk factor for all-cause mortality (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .032), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.4-42.8; P = .021), AAA rupture (HR, 79.4; 95% CI, 6.3-999; P = .001), and GRAEs (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.5; P < .001). The prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU did not increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: Performing EVAR outside the IFU had a negative effect on outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, and GRAEs. Neck angulation and neck length seemed to be the most crucial aneurysm characteristics.

Field Experiences with Handheld Diagnostic Devices to Triage Children under Five Presenting with Severe Febrile Illness in a District Hospital in DR Congo.

As part of a field study (NCT04473768) in children presenting with severe febrile illness to Kisantu hospital (DR Congo), we retrospectively compiled user experiences (not performance) with handheld diagnostic devices assisting triage: tympanic thermometer, pulse oximeter (measuring heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation), hemoglobinometer and glucometer. Guidance documents for product selection were generic and scattered. Stock rupture, market withdrawal and unaffordable prices interfered with procurement. Challenges at implementation included environmental temperature, capillary blood sampling (antisepsis, order of multiple tests, filling microcuvettes and glucose strips), calibration (environmental temperature, cold chain) and liability-oriented communication with a manufacturer. Instructions for use were readable and contained symbol keys; two devices had printed French-language instructions. Shortcomings were poor integration of figures with text and distinct procedures for the oximeter and its sensor. Usability interview revealed appreciations for quick results, visibility of the display and memory function (three devices) but also problems of capillary blood sample transfer, cleaning, too long of a time-to-results (respiratory rate) and size, fitting and disposal of thermometer probes. Pictorial error messages were preferred over alphanumeric error codes but interpretation of symbols was poor. Alarm sounds of the oximeter caused unrest in children and caretakers perceived the device as associated with poor prognosis.

A cross-sectional study on the anatomic feasibility of iliac side branch grafts in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional, single-center study was to analyze the feasibility of different commercially available iliac branch devices in Europe in a cohort of patients with aorto-iliac aneurysms. METHODS: All patients with aorto-iliac or iliac aneurysms that required iliac aneurysm repair, between 2017 and 2021, were included. Morphologic data was analyzed using computed tomography angiograms. The main outcome was the feasibility of each endoprosthesis (Cook ZBIS, Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis [IBE], and JOTEC E-Iliac) according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Secondary outcomes were feasibility in all three devices, in any device, and with adjunctive procedures (liberal criteria). Additionally, a comparative analysis of all three grafts was performed to analyze differences in feasibility. RESULTS: Overall, 119 iliac aneurysms in 101 patients were included. The mean age was 71 ± 11 years, and 91.6% were male. Feasibility was 52.9% for Cook ZBIS, 33.6% for Gore IBE, and 26.9% for the JOTEC E-Iliac device. A total of 65.5% of patients were feasible with at least one device, whereas only 10.1% complied with all three devices. The main reasons for lack of feasibility were a short common iliac artery length (Cook ZBIS), a narrow common iliac artery diameter (Gore IBE), and a >50° angulation between the external and internal iliac arteries (JOTEC E-Iliac). There was a significant difference between the feasibility of the three devices (P < .001). Cook ZBIS was the graft with the higher feasibility, with 3.3 and 4.4 higher odds when compared with Gore IBE and JOTEC E-Iliac devices, respectively. There was no significant difference between the Gore IBE and the JOTEC E-Iliac. By using liberal criteria, the overall feasibility increased to 95.8%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that only 65.5% of patients were feasible with one of the available devices according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. The Cook ZBIS was the device with the overall highest feasibility. Extending the use of these devices with adjunctive measures and a more liberal approach increased feasibility to 95.8%.

Anatomical suitability and off-label use of contemporary transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: Despite excellent procedural results in a broad clinical population, certain anatomical or clinical conditions are still challenging for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI). Whether the adherence to the instructions for use (IFU) or the use of a clinically suitable device is a prerequisite for procedural success has not been well characterized. AIMS: The anatomical and clinical suitability of new-generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) was evaluated in an all-comers population (n = 540) at a high-volume center. METHODS: Conformity with anatomical IFU criteria was evaluated in each implanted THV. In addition, the suitability of the implanted THV was verified in each case according to clinical and anatomical criteria, which had been previously defined according to the results of an international survey including 20 renowned TAVI operators. Furthermore, criteria of clinical suitability and adherence to IFU of each THV were applied to the overall cohort to analyze the proportion of patients in whom the use of the respective THV would have been judged to be unsuitable or off-label. RESULTS: An off-label use of THV based on anatomical considerations was found in 20% of all procedures, whereas the implantation of a THV deemed to be clinically unsuitable was noted in 16.3% of all procedures. Clinical suitability and conformity with IFU were present to a varying extent across the THV systems. Neither clinical suitability, nor conformity with IFU were associated with device failure or periprocedural mortality. On multivariable analysis, aortic tortuosity, mean transaortic gradient and ascending aorta diameter were identified as independent predictors of device failure (VARC-3). CONCLUSIONS: Off-label TAVI and the use of clinically unsuitable THVs were common, but did not affect procedural outcomes. The variety of clinical and anatomical coverage of the different THV systems emphasizes the importance of an individualized THV selection.

Adherence to instruction for use after endovascular repair of popliteal artery aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular repair (ER) of popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) is an alternative to open repair. However, there is no standardized protocol for when to opt for ER and the decision is therefore at the discretion of the clinician. This study aims to evaluate the adherence to the Instruction For Use (IFU) in patients undergoing ER for PAA and factors associated with stent graft patency at one year. METHODS: The adherence to IFU provided by the manufacturer in 55 patients treated with Gore Viabahn® Endoprosthesis with Heparin Bioactive Surface for PAA between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Duplex follow-up was performed at 30 days and one year. RESULTS: The two groups of patients treated within (n = 10) and not within (n = 45) IFU did not differ in patient demographics, diagnostic assessment, treatment or outcome. Forty-five patients (81.8%) received stent graft placement with at least one deviation according to IFU. Distal oversizing >20% was the most frequent deviation against IFU (n = 22, 40.0%). Primary patency at one year was 72%. Diameter size difference >1 mm between overlapping stent grafts (6/14 [43%], p = 0.013) and renal insufficiency (5/12 [42%], p = 0.0086) were associated with lower primary patency at one year. Age-adjusted analysis of tortuosity index (HR 1.78/SD, 95% CI 1.17-2.71; p = 0.0071) and maximal PAA angle (HR 1.73/SD, 95% CI 1.018-2.95; p = 0.043) were associated with major amputation/mortality at end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients undergoing ER for PAA were not treated within IFU. Diameter size difference >1 mm between overlapping stent grafts was associated with a higher loss of primary patency at one year. Multi-center studies with larger sample size and long-term follow up of patency are warranted.

Guidelines in Practice: Instrument Cleaning.

Care of surgical instruments and devices is a multifaceted process that begins with an interdisciplinary team's prepurchase determination that the facility has the resources to correctly process the items. Processing encompasses point-of use removal of organic and inorganic material, transport to the processing area, use of chemicals and equipment to clean and decontaminate the item, and inspection for cleanliness and function. Failure to correctly clean and decontaminate surgical instruments can impede subsequent sterilization processes and place patients at risk for developing surgical site infections. The AORN "Guideline for care and cleaning of surgical instruments" provides general guidance for care of reusable medical devices. When processing instruments, perioperative team members should use the guideline in conjunction with the instrument manufacturer's validated instructions for use. This article discusses the guideline recommendations related to prepurchase evaluation, point-of-use treatment, transport, cleaning and decontamination, and education; it also includes a scenario to illustrate these topics.

Instrument Set Decontamination Workflows Designed for Success in Sterile Processing.

In sterile processing, several factors can result in confusion and unpredictable quality outcomes in surgical instrument sets, including the large number of instruments to manage, the complexity of certain instruments, and the multiple instructions for cleaning solutions and cleaning equipment for use. At a multihospital health system, the director of sterile processing had a vision that involved designing standard decontamination workflows and standardized cleaning pathways based on quality concepts to support patient safety. When there was a pause in elective surgeries in the spring of 2020 as a result of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, sterile processing personnel became available to participate in a project to create and test these new standardized cleaning pathways and decontamination workflows. This article provides an overview of the inception and execution of this project and how instrument cleaning and decontamination was streamlined to promote a more efficient workflow for sterile processing.

Comparison of treatment options for aortic necks outside standard endovascular aneurysm repair instructions for use.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with worse outcomes in patients whose anatomy does not meet the device instructions for use (IFU). However, whether open surgical repair (OSR) and commercially available fenestrated EVAR (Zenith Fenestrated [ZFEN]) represent better options for these patients is unknown. METHODS: We identified all patients without prior aortic surgery undergoing elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≥4 mm at a single institution with EVAR, OSR, and ZFEN. We applied device-specific aneurysm neck-related IFU to EVAR patients, and a generic EVAR IFU to ZFEN and OSR patients. Long-term outcomes were studied using propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR by adherence to IFU and outcomes by repair types in the subset of patients not meeting IFU. RESULTS: Of 652 patients (474 EVAR, 34 ZFEN, 143 OSR), 211 had measurements outside of standard EVAR IFU (109 EVAR [23%], 27 ZFEN [80%], and 74 OSR [52%]). Perioperative mortality was 0.5% overall. For EVAR, treatment outside the IFU was associated with significantly higher adjusted rates of long-term type IA endoleak (22% at 5 years compared to 2% within IFU, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8 [3.1-10.9], P < .001), and lower survival (5- and 10-year survival: 56% and 34% vs 81% and 53%, HR: 2.3 [1.2-4.3], P = .01). There was no difference in reinterventions or open conversion. In patients not meeting IFU, ZFEN was associated with higher adjusted rates of reinterventions (EVAR as referent: HR: 2.6 [1.5-4.4, P < .001), whereas OSR and EVAR patients experienced similar reintervention rates (HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.1], P = .13). Patients outside the IFU experienced lower mortality with OSR compared with either EVAR (HR: 0.4 [0.2-0.9], P = .005) or ZFEN (HR: 0.3 [0.1-0.7], P = .002). When restricted to patients outside the IFU deemed fit for open repair, OSR patients remained associated with lower adjusted mortality compared with ZFEN (HR: 0.2 [0.1-0.5], P < .001), but statistical significance was lost in the comparison to EVAR (HR: 0.6 [0.3-1.1], P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outside device-specific IFU is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Open surgical repair is associated with higher long-term survival in patients who fall outside of the EVAR IFU and should be favored over EVAR or ZFEN in suitable patients. A three-vessel-based fenestrated strategy may not be a durable solution for difficult aortic necks, but more data are needed to evaluate the performance of newer, four-vessel devices.

The Impact of Endograft Selection on Outcomes Following Treatment Outside of Instructions for Use (IFU) in Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR).

Background Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the treatment modality of choice in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. This has resulted in endograft utilization within instructions for use (IFU) and in cases with proximal neck anatomy outside of IFU. Purpose To identify whether graft selection influences outcomes following EVAR outside of IFU. Methodology A retrospective analysis was conducted from previously published data for 636 patients, collated from the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Post-Market Registry (ENGAGE) and the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). Patients were recruited into the ENGAGE registry between 2009 and 2011 and into the GREAT registry between August 2010 and October 2016. In ENGAGE, they received the Medtronic Endurant stent graft (Medtronic Vascular Inc, Dublin, Ireland) for infrarenal AAA repair while patients analyzed in GREAT received the Gore Excluder stent-graft (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Arizona). Analyses were performed to evaluate all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, endoleak occurrence, and surgical reintervention rates between the two cohorts. Results Of the 636 patients, 225 were from ENGAGE (mean age 73 years) and 411 were from GREAT (mean age 75 years). 17.8% were treated outside of IFU in the ENGAGE registry, while 12.4% were treated outside IFU in the GREAT cohort. Five-year freedom from all-cause mortality was similar in both cohorts (65.6% vs. 63.8%). The rate of type IA endoleak development was lower in the Excluder cohort, although this may have been impacted by the fact that only endoleaks that underwent reintervention were recorded within GREAT analysis (Endurant 10.6% vs. Excluder 7.0%). The reintervention rate was 16% at five years following the Endurant aortic graft while it was 13.3% at five years with the Excluder. Conclusion Treatment outside of IFU, be it with a suprarenal or an infrarenal fixation device, is associated with worse outcomes. This analysis reinforces the importance of the consideration of either fenestrated or open repair in those aneurysms that fail to satisfy IFU while endovascular repair in such a setting should be reserved as a last resort strategy.

Morphological applicability of currently available stent grafts in the endovascular repair of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm in East-Central European patients.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is a wide range of commercially available devices for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) that differ in terms of both anatomical requirements and the technology and technique of deployment. AIM: To assess the applicability of currently commercially available devices for EVAR in the treatment of an asymptomatic abdominal aneurysm (AAA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group included 100 patients with infrarenal AAA with a maximum diameter ≥ 50 mm, qualified for invasive treatment at the University Hospital in 2013-2014. The aortoiliac morphological characteristics of the AAA were evaluated on preoperative computed tomography angiograms using the OsiriX DICOM viewer in the 3D-MPR mode. The morphological applicability of 14 types of CE-marked and FDA-approved stent grafts was determined based on their instructions for use (IFU). RESULTS: EVAR was feasible with at least one of the analysed devices in 68% of patients. The morphological applicability was as follows: Excluder Conformable (65%), Ovation iX (51%), Endurant II (47%), Treo (45%), Excluder C3 (45%), AFX 2 (45%), Incraft (44%), E-tegra (44%), Zenith Alfa (41%), Zenith Flex (40%), Anaconda (39%) Aorfix (37%), Altura (34%), and E-vita (20%). The differences in the stent graft applicability were statistically significant (p < 0.001). A wide diameter of the common iliac artery, angulated proximal neck, and diameter of proximal neck out of range constituted the most frequent causes of EVAR inapplicability. CONCLUSIONS: The IFU-based applicability of currently available AAA stent graft systems differs significantly. Despite the constant evolution of EVAR technology, at least 32% of AAA will require a different therapeutic approach.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in thoracic aortic aneurysm and penetrating aortic ulcer using the Conformable Gore TAG within and outside the instructions for use.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in thoracic aortic aneurysm and penetrating aortic ulcer with respect to instructions for use status. METHODS: Between October 2009 and September 2017, a total of 532 patients underwent TEVAR; of which 195 have been treated using the Conformable GORE® TAG® thoracic endoprosthesis (CTAG). Fifty-six patients of this cohort underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm/penetrating aortic ulcer using the CTAG. Depending on the preoperative computed tomography angiography findings, patients were classified as inside or outside the device's instructions for use. All inside instruction for use patients underwent postoperative reclassification regarding the instructions for use status. Study endpoints included TEVAR-related reintervention, exclusion of the pathology (endoleak type I/III), TEVAR-related mortality, and graft-related serious adverse events. The median duration of follow-up was 29.7 months (range: 0-109.4 months). RESULTS: Of the 56 patients, 17 were primarily classified as outside instruction for use, and in additional 13 patients, TEVAR was performed outside instruction for use, leading to 30 outside instruction for use patients (53.6%). Twenty-six patients (46.4%) were treated inside instruction for use. Reintervention-free survival was lower in outside instruction for use patients (P = 0.016) with a hazard ratio of 9.74 (confidence interval 1.2-80.2; P = 0.034) for TEVAR-related reintervention. With respect to endoleak type I/III, relevant difference was detected between inside/outside instruction for use status (P = 0.012). The serious adverse event rate was 30.4%, mainly in outside instruction for use patients (P = 0.004). Logistic regression analysis indicated an association between graft-related serious adverse event/instructions for use status (odds ratio 6.11; confidence interval 1.6-30.06; P = 0.012). In-hospital death was seen more frequently in outside instruction for use patients (P = 0.12) as was procedure-related death (log-rank test: P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm/penetrating aortic ulcer is frequently performed outside instruction for use despite preoperative inside instruction for use eligibility, leading to important consequences for technical/clinical outcome. Instructions for use adherence in TEVAR should be of interest for further large-scale studies.