Compressive pancreaticoduodenal artery aneurysm associated with celiac artery stenosis.

Peripancreatic artery aneurysms are a rare condition, representing <2% of all splanchnic artery aneurysms, and have been significantly related to celiac axis stenosis. While they are most often asymptomatic, those aneurysms have a strong tendency to rupture (52% rupture rate at the initial presentation) and, in this case, the outcome is often dramatic. Given that reports of this disease are rare, appropriate guidelines are difficult to formulate and different treatment strategies have been proposed. Endovascular management seems to be efficient in the large majority of most recent reports, but open surgery still remains necessary for complex cases, especially when associated with celiac axis stenosis. We report a new occurrence of a symptomatic compressive aneurysm related to common bile duct compression that we treated using a hybrid procedure.

Comparison of short- and mid-term follow-up between standard and fenestrated endografts.

BACKGROUND: This study compared early and mid-term results of endovascular treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and pararenal aneurysms (PRAs). METHODS: Using data from a prospective database, patients treated with endografts for AAA and PRA between January 2007 and December 2009 were analyzed. In both groups, mortality, endoleak rates, evolution of renal function, reintervention rate at 30 days and at mid-term follow-up, and aneurysmal sac evolution at 1 year were compared. RESULTS: In total, 379 patients were included: 264 treated for AAA and 115 for PRA. Median follow-up was 24 months (range 12-46 months) in both groups. Risk factors and medical history were comparable in both groups, except for chronic renal failure (higher in the PRA group; P = 0.003). The mortality rates at 30 days were 1% and 3% in the AAA and APR groups, respectively (P = 0.10). During follow-up, the mortality rates were 11.1% and 12.8% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.72). The reoperation rates at 30 days were 8% and 10% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.72). During follow-up, the reoperation rates were 9.2% and 9.9% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.85). At 1 year, retraction of the aneurysmal sac was diagnosed in 48% of the patients in the AAA group and in 56% of the patients in the PRA group (P = 0.41). The incidence rates of new postoperative cases of renal insufficiency were 19.3% and 8.1% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.008). At 30 days, the endoleak rates were 27.5% and 12.7% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.001). At 1 year, the endoleak rates were 19.4% and 7.3% in the AAA and PRA groups, respectively (P = 0.007). When type II endoleaks were excluded, the endoleak rates were comparable in both groups (P = 0.5). At 1 year, in both groups, a retraction of the aneurysmal sac was significantly correlated to the absence of endoleak (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early and mid-term results of AAA treatment with standard endografts and PRA treatment with fenestrated endografts are comparable.

Should we modify our indications after the EVAR-2 trial conclusions?

BACKGROUND: To compare the results of the endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients considered as unfit for surgery in a "high volume" center with the EVAR-2 trial results. METHODS: In our center, between January 2006 and December 2008, 469 endovascular aorta treatments were performed in high-risk patients. All the data were prospectively collected in a database. Among 469 patients, we selected 191 patients considered as unfit for open surgery (group 1) corresponding to the EVAR trial criteria. Variables such as postoperative mortality at 30 days and 1 year, complications rates, as well as early and late redo surgery were evaluated. Long-term pharmacological treatment before surgery was listed. These results were compared with the EVAR trial (group 2). Survival during the follow-up was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Mortality at 30 days was 1.6% and 9% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.002). Global complication rate was 44% and 43% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.52). Over the follow-up period, the redo surgery rate was 13% and 26% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.0102). In our cohort, the survival rate at 2 years was 84% with a residual number of 102 patients. Before surgery, a long-term antiplatelet treatment was prescribed in 89% and 58% of the patients and statins in 74% and 39% of the patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The EVAR-2 trial conclusions are in opposition to the practice of French vascular surgeons. Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in high-risk patients is justified. This study confirms the importance of a multidisciplinary treatment for high-risk patients in high-volume centers.

Challenging catheterization of a branch in an endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair.

PURPOSE: To describe a novel technique of cannulating a side branch during endovascular repair of a thoracoabdominal aneurysm (TAAA). TECHNIQUE: The approach evolved during endovascular repair of a type III TAAA in which a custom-designed graft with 3 caudally directed branches was being deployed in a patient who had a prior surgical repair for a type IV TAAA. Two of the branches were successfully cannulated and stented, but repeated efforts to cannulate the left renal branch and artery via the standard brachial approach were unsuccessful. A catheter positioned between the graft and the aneurysm sac was used to gain retrograde access to this branch. From a left brachial access this guidewire was snared and used to allow bridging stent deployment between the branch and the renal artery, thus completing the procedure. CONCLUSION: This report describes a novel technique to deal with challenging side branch cannulation that may be encountered during branched stent-graft deployment.

Inverted limbs in fenestrated and branched endografts.

PURPOSE: To describe our experience with the use of custom-designed branched or fenestrated endoprostheses incorporating an inverted contralateral limb in the bifurcated component. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair using modular branched or fenestrated devices at a university teaching hospital between January 2004 and February 2010. Of 102 cases, 7 male patients (mean age 69 years) were treated with modular devices that incorporated an inverted contralateral limb in the bifurcated component. Five patients had thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (4 type IV and 1 type II), 1 patient had a pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, and another had type I endoleak from a migrated AneuRx stent-graft. The technique was used primarily because of an existing bifurcated prosthesis (n=5), but in 2 patients without prior open surgery, this technique was needed because of anatomical constraints. RESULTS: All devices were implanted as planned. There was no mortality. One patient required temporary hemodialysis prior to discharge; another patient developed permanent paraplegia, likely related to extensive aortic coverage. No device migration, component separation, or type I or III endoleaks were detected during a mean follow-up of 25 months, and no reinterventions have been necessary. CONCLUSION: The use of an inverted limb in the bifurcated component of modular endografts may allow endovascular treatment in scenarios where there is insufficient space to deploy a standard bifurcated component. This design modification allows an adequate sealing zone between the iliac extension limbs and the bifurcated component.

Challenging treatment of a secondary endoleak in a fenestrated endograft.

PURPOSE: To describe the novel use of an Amplatzer occluder device to seal a secondary endoleak arising at a scallop in a fenestrated stent-graft. CASE REPORT: A 67-year-old man with comorbidities precluding standard endovascular repair of a pararenal aortic aneurysm was treated with a fenestrated endoprosthesis containing one fenestration for the left renal artery and one scallop for the celiac trunk; the right renal and superior mesenteric arteries were occluded at presentation. Interval imaging at 2 years showed a proximal type I endoleak at the celiac trunk scallop associated with expansion of the aneurysm sac. Attempted repair with an aortic extension cuff and a "chimney" stent was unsuccessful. An Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale occluder device was deployed across the endoleak to provide aneurysm sac exclusion, which has been maintained at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment of a secondary type I endoleak after implantation of a fenestrated endoprosthesis is challenging. The novel use of an Amplatzer occluder in this setting may be applicable to other situations in which an endovascular solution is desirable for complications of complex endovascular aneurysm repair.

Management of isolated spontaneous dissection of superior mesenteric artery.

PURPOSE: Our objectives were to clarify the management of isolated spontaneous dissection of the superior mesenteric artery (DSMA). METHODS: We reviewed seven patients diagnosed as having DSMA from 2002 to 2007 (group A). Simultaneously, we analyzed 50 cases of DSMA previously reported in the literature between 2000 and 2008 (group B). In each group, clinical presentation, Sakamoto's classification, imaging appearances, need for emergent surgery, failure of medical management, and long-term outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: In group A, according to Sakamoto's classification, there were two type I, two type II, and three type III. Two patients needed surgery (one type II, one type III). In group B, according to Sakamoto's classification, there were seven type I, five type II, 14 type III, and six type IV. Intestinal revascularization was necessary for 21 patients, especially for types II and III, while medical management was more frequent for types I and IV. We identified four indications for intestinal revascularization: acute mesenteric ischemia with mesenteric thrombosis, arterial rupture, chronic mesenteric ischemia with superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenosis, and SMA dissecting aneurysm of at least 2 cm in diameter. If abdominal pain lasts for more than 1 week, types I and IV were able to be medically managed, whereas intestinal revascularization has to be considered in types II and III. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptoms lasting for more than 1 week, aneurysmal dilatation more than 2 cm in diameter, and SMA stenosis are suitable candidates for surgical management.