Late Neck Related Adverse Events are Rare Among Patients with Wide Aortic Neck Undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with the Ovation Endograft.

BACKGROUND: Patients with wide aortic necks undergoing Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) have been shown to be at a higher risk for neck-related complications. We aim to examine outcomes of EVAR with an endograft exerting minimal outward pressure (Ovation-Endologix) in patients with a large baseline neck diameter. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single center study, including consecutive patients undergoing EVAR with the Ovation system from May 2011 to April 2021. Patients were divided in Groups 1 and 2 if the 20, 23, 26, 29 mm or the 34 mm proximal diameter main body was used, respectively. According to the instructions for use of the device, for neck diameters 27-30 mm the 34 mm main body is required. Primary endpoint was rate of neck related complications during follow-up, (type Ia endoleak, migration >10 mm and neck-related re-interventions) and rate of aortic neck dilatation (AND). AND was determined based on multiple aortic neck diameters that were recorded and compared between the 1-month computed tomography angiography (CTA) after EVAR and the last available follow-up CTA.Secondary endpoints were peri-procedural and follow-up outcomes such as endoleaks, reinterventions and overall mortality. RESULTS: In total 281 patients were included, 222 in Group 1 and 59 in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 presented significantly shorter neck length, higher neck angulation and more common reversed tapered configuration. Median follow-up was 36 months (Range: 6-106). Early and late type Ia endoleak was observed in 4 and 2 patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.063 and P = 0.195, respectively). Distal migration was observed in 2 patients in Group 2 and AND was recorded in 2 patients in each group (P = 0.195). Freedom from the primary endpoint was estimated at 98%, 94%, 94% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and at 98%, 95%, 86% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.266). Probability of survival was 95%, 86%, 75% at 12-, 36-, 60-months for Group 1 and 83%, 77%, 72% for Group 2 (P-Value 0.226).Multivariate regression analysis identified neither Group 1 versus Group 2 nor absolute value of aortic neck diameter as significant predictors of neck-related adverse events. Neck diameters did not display significant differences over time in any of the levels evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR with the Ovation endograft results in low rates of late neck related complications which is also true for patients with wide baseline aortic necks.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Varicocele Embolisation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous embolisation is an effective, minimally invasive means of treating a variety of benign and malignant lesions and has been successfully used to treat varicoceles since the late 1970s, with refined and expanded techniques and tools currently offering excellent outcomes for varicocele embolisation. PURPOSE: This document will presume that the indication for treatment is clear and approved by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and will define the standards required for the performance of each modality, as well as their advantages and limitations. CIRSE Standards of Practice documents are not intended to impose a standard of clinical patient care, but recommend a reasonable approach to, and best practices for, the performance of percutaneous varicocele embolisation. METHODS: The writing group was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee and consisted of five clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in embolisation of male varicoceles. The writing group reviewed the existing literature on varicocele embolisation, performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to search for publications in English and relating to human subjects published from 2006 to 2021. The final recommendations were formulated through consensus. CONCLUSION: Embolisation has an established role in the successful management of male varicoceles. This Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for the safe performance of varicocele embolisation.

Abdominal aortic calcification in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: does anti-tumor necrosis factor α use protect from chronic inflammation-induced atherosclerosis?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Abdominal aortic calcium (AAC) deposition has been suggested as a marker of early atherosclerosis. There is no published data on the evaluation of AAC in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: AAC was quantified by computed tomography or enterography scans performed in 98 IBD patients and 1:1 age and sex matched controls. AAC deposition was correlated with IBD characteristics, disease activity or severity parameters, laboratory tests and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. RESULTS: Moderate-severe grade of AAC was found in 35.7% of IBD patients compared to 30.6% of controls (P= 0.544). IBD with CVD and ulcerative colitis patients had significantly higher rates of more severe atherosclerotic lesions (P= 0.001 and P= 0.01, respectively). AAC deposition was similarly distributed in age groups ( < 45, 45-64, and ≥ 65 years) among patients and controls. Multivariate analysis after excluding CVD risk confounders for non-CVD patients found extensive disease (P= 0.019) and lifetime steroids (P= 0.04) as independent risk factors for AAC. Anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) use was negatively associated with AAC deposition in non-CVD IBD patients (odds ratio, 0.023; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.594; P= 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of IBD patients have moderate to severe AAC. Better control of inflammation with anti-TNF-α agents seems to protect IBD patients from ACC deposition and subsequent atherosclerosis.

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.

Meta-Analysis of the Crossed Versus Standard Limb Configuration in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the crossed-limb technique confers better or worse clinical outcomes compared to the standard straight limb configuration in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR with the crossed versus standard limb configuration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched in March 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Summary estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. Random-effects models were employed. RESULTS: Four observational studies qualified for inclusion, reporting a total of 1132 patients. All presented contemporary experiences. Baseline clinical characteristics were largely similar between patients with and without the crossed-limb configuration, but the anatomy tended to be less favourable in patients treated with the crossed-limb technique. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcomes: limb occlusion (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 - 3.19), type Ib endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.04), type III endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 - 0.03); or secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.03), type Ia endoleak (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.02), type II endoleak (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 - 3.74), procedure duration (MD 18.07 min, 95% CI -1.14-37.29). Inconsistency across studies was low for all outcomes. The studies were judged to be of high quality on the NOS. The main bias identified using the ROBINS-I tool was due to confounding. CONCLUSIONS: The crossed-limb technique was not found to confer inferior clinical outcomes in the medium term compared to the standard limb configuration in patients who undergo standard EVAR.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Institutional and Surgeon Procedure Volume on Outcomes After Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a correlation between institutional or surgeon case volume and outcomes in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). DATA SOURCES: The Healthcare Database Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence was used to search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with the protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020213121). Prognostic studies were considered comparing outcomes of patients with rAAA undergoing repair in high and low volume institutions or by high and low volume surgeons. Pooled estimates for peri-operative mortality were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel method. Analysis of adjusted outcome estimates was performed with the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reporting a total of 120 116 patients were included. Patients treated in low volume centres had a statistically significantly higher peri-operative mortality than those treated in high volume centres (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.22 - 1.59). Subgroup analysis showed a mortality difference in favour of high volume centres for both endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11 - 2.35) and open repair (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25 - 1.81). Adjusted analysis showed a benefit of treatment in high volume centres for open repair (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21 - 2.33) but not for EVAR (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.84 - 2.41). Differences in peri-operative mortality between low and high volume surgeons were not statistically significant for either EVAR (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.89) or open surgical repair (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 - 1.63). CONCLUSION: A high institutional volume may result in a reduction of peri-operative mortality following surgery for rAAA. This peri-operative survival advantage is more pronounced for open surgery than EVAR. Individual surgeon caseload was not found to have a significant impact on outcomes.

Time-to-event data meta-analysis of late outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the well-documented perioperative survival advantage of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair would be sustained during follow-up. METHODS: A systematic review conforming to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement standards was conducted to identify studies that had reported the follow-up outcomes of endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE [medical literature analysis and retrieval system online], Embase [Excerpta Medica database], CINAHL [cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature], and CENTRAL [Cochrane central register of controlled trials]) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom). A time-to-event data meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method, and the results were reported as summary hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mixed effects regression was applied to investigate the outcome changes over time. The quality of the body of evidence was appraised using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) system. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies reporting a total of 31,383 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. The mean follow-up duration across the studies ranged from 232 days to 4.9 years. The overall all-cause mortality was significantly lower after EVAR than after open repair (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). However, the postdischarge all-cause mortality was not significantly different (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43). The aneurysm-related mortality, which was reported by one randomized controlled trial, was not significantly different between EVAR and open repair (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). Meta-regression showed the mortality difference in favor of EVAR was more pronounced in more recent studies (P = .069) and recently treated patients (P = .062). The certainty for the body of evidence for overall and postdischarge all-cause mortality was judged to be low and that for aneurysm-related mortality to be high. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR showed a sustained mortality benefit during follow-up compared with open repair. A wider adoption of an endovascular-first strategy is justified.

A novel personalized dosimetry method for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate radiation doses for the primarily irradiated organs/tissues of patients subjected to standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures using a novel personalized dosimetry method. METHODS: Dosimetric and anthropometric data were collected prospectively for eight patients who underwent standard EVAR procedures. Patient-specific Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate organ/tissue doses from each of the fluoroscopic and digital subtraction angiography acquisitions involved in EVAR. Individual-specific cumulative absorbed doses were estimated for the skin, spinal bone marrow, heart, kidneys, liver, colon, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and spleen and compared to corresponding values estimated through a commercially available dosimetric software package that employs standardized phantoms. RESULTS: The highest organ/tissue radiation doses from EVAR were found for the skin, spinal bone marrow, kidneys, and spleen as 192.4 mGy, 96.7 mGy, 72.9 mGy, and 33.6 mGy respectively, while the doses to the heart, liver, colon, bladder, pancreas, and stomach were 6.3 mGy, 14.4 mGy, 18.4 mGy, 14.8 mGy, 21.6 mGy, and 11.2 mGy respectively. Corresponding dose values using standardized phantoms were found to differ up to 151%. CONCLUSION: Considerable radiation doses may be received by primarily exposed organs/tissues during standard EVAR. The specific size/anatomy of the patient and the variation in exposure parameters/beam angulation between different projections commonly involved in EVAR procedures should be taken into account if reliable organ dose data are to be derived. KEY POINTS: • A novel patient-specific dosimetry method was utilized to estimate radiation doses to the primarily irradiated organs/tissues of patients subjected to standard endovascular aneurysm repair procedures. • The use of standardized mathematical anthropomorphic phantoms to derive organ dose from fluoroscopically guided procedures may result in considerable inaccuracies due to differences in the assumed organ position/volume/shape compared to patients.

The Use of a Suture Mediated Vascular Closure Device to Achieve Hemostasis following Arterial Access through Previously Implanted Synthetic Grafts.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and peripheral interventions using the Perclose Proglide suture mediated system has not been adequately studied in patients with synthetic grafts at access sites. METHODS: We report the use of the Perclose Proglide in 10 patients in whom previously inserted synthetic grafts in the groin were punctured for arterial access (5 for peripheral interventions and 5 undergoing EVAR). In patients undergoing peripheral interventions a single device was used, while in patients undergoing EVAR 2 devices were employed per access site. The preclosing technique was used in every case. RESULTS: Hemostasis was achieved in all patients. No complications were observed except for a small laceration and a localized hemodynamically nonsignificant stenosis, without any clinical sequel. CONCLUSIONS: This small case series indicates the feasibility of percutaneous access with the Perclose Proglide system to perform EVAR and peripheral endovascular interventions in the presence of synthetic grafts in the groin, with promising outcomes.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Peri-operative Anticoagulation Management During Interventional Radiology Procedures.

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is aimed at interventional radiologists and provides best practices for peri-operative anticoagulation management during interventional radiology procedures.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with Bifurcated Stent Grafts in Patients with Narrow Versus Regular Aortic Bifurcation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Narrow aortic bifurcation (NAB) is considered as a risk factor for endograft limb thrombosis. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of narrow aortic bifurcation on outcomes of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A systematic review that conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. We searched electronic bibliographic databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary (thesaurus) and free-text terms to identify relevant studies comparing outcomes of EVAR in patients with NAB versus those with regular aortic bifurcation. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) and those of continuous outcomes using mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI). To account for expected heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Six observational studies were included, reporting a total of 2,673 patients (412 with NAR and 2,261 with friendly anatomy). Perioperative mortality was similar between the groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.30-4.34, P = 0.85, I2 = 0%). Limb stenosis and kinking requiring additional intraoperative procedures was significantly more common among patients with NAB (OR 3.02, 95% CI 2.16-4.22, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, 30-day reintervention rate was similar between the groups, as was the rate of limb occlusion during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that at the expense of significantly more intraoperative additional procedures, EVAR with bifurcated devices can be safely performed in patients with NAB.

Imaging findings and available percutaneous techniques for the treatment of bile leaks after hepatobiliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and management of postoperative bile leaks, reporting typical diagnostic findings and available percutaneous techniques in association with other diagnostic and management methods. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (28 male) were treated for postoperative bile leaks. A biliary leak was clinically suspected in case of persistent leakage of bilious material from a surgical drain, or in the presence of non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain, fever and anorexia, with or without laboratory alteration of liver enzymes. Radiological confirmation was mainly based on noninvasive methods such as ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. We assessed each treatment by evaluating multiple factors, including technical success (TS) and clinical effectiveness (CE), defined as primary or secondary. We also evaluated overall CE (OCE), defined as leak control with either single or multiple procedures. RESULTS: TS and OCE were achieved in all patients (36/36; 100%) with a grade A or B biliary leak. No grade C was observed. There were no major complications. Minor complications were observed in 7/36 (19.4%) patients. No procedure-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, considering all percutaneous techniques, leak healing was achieved in all the patients with a grade A or B biliary leak. These procedures provide a less invasive approach and are increasingly recognized as having a significant role in the management of complications and should be considered as an integral component in the postoperative management of these patients.

An update on the improvement of patient eligibility with the use of new generation endografts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PURPOSE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), performed within device instructions for use (IFU), offers improved outcomes. New endograft designs attempt to increase eligibility rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients treated within device IFU. We aim to examine the anatomic suitability of the Ovation endograft in our AAA patients and compare it with the other contemporary devices. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three-hundred and seven consecutive elective AAA patients treated during a 5-year period were included. Patient-specific anatomic characteristics were based on endograft IFUs to determine eligibility rates of each system. RESULTS: Two-hundred-twenty-five patients underwent EVAR and 82 open surgery. Ineligibility for device implantation was significantly lower for the Ovation iX system (32%) compared to other devices (AFX-2:49%, Altura:49%, Anaconda:54%, Endurant II:46%, Excluder:52%, Excluder Conformable:39%, Incraft:43%, E-Tegra:52%, Zenith-Alpha:52%; P-Value<0.001). The Alto system (next-generation Ovation) achieved an even lower ineligibility rate of 30% (P = 0.008). Short proximal aortic neck length followed by access vessel inadequacy were the primary reasons for ineligibility. CONCLUSION: The Ovation-iX included more patients with anatomic characteristics within device IFUs resulting in improved eligibility rates compared with the rest of contemporary devices. Its evolution, the Alto system, further improves patient eligibility due to the inclusion of shorter aortic necks. EXPERT OPINION: The Ovation iX system presented a significantly better performance and was eligible for use in a greater number of patients in our series of elective AAA repairs, accommodating patient-specific aortic anatomies. Of course, performing EVAR within the endograft's IFU is important to achieve optimal and durable outcomes. The proximal neck length followed by the size of the access vessels are the two more common factors resulting in loss of eligibility. Except for overall eligibility rates, a case by case decision must be made on which is the most suitable device for each patient, based on the specific characteristics of its unique anatomy.

Endovascular Treatment of Malignant Superior Vena Cava Syndrome through Upper-Limb Access: A Comparison between Venous-Dedicated and Conventional Stents.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the technical and clinical outcomes of superior vena cava (SVC) stent placement through upper-limb venous access in malignant SVC syndrome (SVCS) and compare the efficacy of different nitinol stent types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2018, 156 patients (132 male; mean age, 62 y; age range, 33-81 y) underwent SVC stent placement for malignant obstructions through upper-limb venous access with 1 of 3 types of nitinol stent: 1 venous-dedicated (Sinus-XL stent) and 2 non-venous-dedicated (E-Luminexx Vascular Stent and Protégé GPS). Cases of common femoral vein access or non-nitinol stents were excluded from further analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 8 mo. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 99.3% of cases. One patient died during the procedure as a result of cardiac tamponade. Balloon predilation was performed in 10 patients and postdilation in 126. Mean procedural time was 34.4 min (range, 18-80 min). Overall survival rates were 92.3%, 57.3%, and 26.8%, and overall primary patency rates were 94.5%, 84.8% and 79.6%, at 1, 6, and 12 mo, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in primary patency rates between venous- and non-venous-dedicated stents or among different Stanford SVCS grading groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: SVC stent placement through an upper-limb approach is a safe, fast, and effective technique. There is no evident benefit of venous-dedicated vs non-venous-dedicated stents in the treatment of malignant SVCS.

Complexity-based local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish complexity-based local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures. METHODS: Dosimetric data for 73 consecutive patients were collected prospectively. All procedures were performed on a Siemens Axiom Artis FA angiographic unit (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Fluoroscopy time (FT), dose area product (DAP), air kerma (Ka.r) at reference point as well as patient's age, height and weight were recorded for each procedure. Moreover, the complexity level of each procedure was evaluated. Spearman rank correlation tests were used to evaluate the degree of association between variables. RESULTS: 2nd quartiles of DAP for low, medium and high complexity standard EVAR procedures were 144.2 Gycm2, 160.1 Gycm2 and 189.5 Gycm2respectively. The median DAP of the full sample was 153.2 Gycm2. Statistical analysis showed a strong correlation between BMI and DAP (r = 0.68, p-value < 0.0001) and a moderate correlation between BMI and Ka.r (r = 0.52, p-value < 0.0001). Furthermore, a strong correlation was found between Ka.r and FT (r = 0.76, p-value < 0.0001) and a moderate correlation was found between DAP and FT (r = 0.57, p-value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The complexity of an EVAR procedure is associated with the total burden of radiation. Establishment of complexity-based DRLs for interventional radiology procedures can contribute to the radiation protection of patients and staff.

Dynamic CT perfusion imaging for type 2 endoleak assessment after endograft placement.

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a widely performed treatment method due to its minimal invasiveness, reduced need for intensive care unit (ICU), shorter hospitalization and lower 30-day morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery. Endoleak is the drawback of this procedure and is considered the main culprit for re-interventions due to the risk of late aneurysm sac growth and rupture. Type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most common type of endoleak which is also the most controversial regarding its management. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT for the assessment of T2EL after endovascular aneurysm repair using qualitative and quantitative image analysis of the aneurysmal sac.

Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of Outcomes of Endovascular and Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess peri-operative mortality of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and to investigate whether outcomes have improved over the years and whether there is an association between institutional caseload and peri-operative mortality. METHODS: Electronic information sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2019. A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42018106084). Studies were selected that reported peri-operative mortality of EVAR for ruptured AAA. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted, and summary estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for EVAR vs. open surgical repair were obtained using random effects models. Mixed effects regression models were developed to investigate outcome changes over time and with institutional caseload. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six studies were included in quantitative synthesis reporting a total of 267 259 patients (EVAR 58 273; open surgery 208 986). The pooled peri-operative mortality of EVAR and open surgical repair was 0.245 (95% CI 0.234-0.257) and 0.378 (95% CI 0.364-0.392), respectively. EVAR was associated with reduced peri-operative mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.51-0.57, p < .001). Meta-regression analysis found decreasing peri-operative mortality over the years following EVAR (p < .001) and open repair (p < .001), and a decreasing OR of peri-operative mortality in favour of EVAR (p = .053). Meta-regression found a significant positive association between peri-operative mortality and institutional case load for open repair (p = .004). CONCLUSION: If EVAR can be done, it is a better treatment for ruptured AAA in view of the reduced peri-operative mortality compared with open surgery. The outcomes of both EVAR and open surgical repair have improved over the years, and the difference in peri-operative mortality in favour of EVAR has become more pronounced. There is a significant association between peri-operative mortality and institutional case load for open repair of ruptured AAA.

Does a previous aortic endograft confer any protective effect during abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture? Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVES: Whether prior endovascular aneurysm repair confers a protective effect in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is not known. We aimed to systematically review and compare the outcomes of rAAA in patients with and without prior endovascular aneurysm repair. METHODS: We performed a systematic review that conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. We selected studies comparing the outcomes in patients with rAAA after prior endovascular aneurysm repair (group 1) and those with de novo rAAAs (group 2). We conducted a proportion meta-analysis of perioperative mortality and obtained summary estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included four studies (retrospective observational studies) in quantitative synthesis reporting a total of 719 patients (group 1 (89) group 2 (630)). The perioperative mortality in groups 1 and 2 was 30.4% and 41%, respectively, and there was no statistical significant difference between the groups (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30-1.43, P = 0.29, I2=58%). However, patients presenting with rAAA following previous endovascular aneurysm repair were more hemodynamically stable (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.90, P = 0.03, I2=74%). The choice between endovascular or open surgery treatment in group 1 did not affect the perioperative mortality (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.41-3.04 P = 0.82, I2=0%). Endoleak types I and III were the main causes of rAAA in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative mortality was similar for rAAA either de novo or after prior endovascular aneurysm repair. However, ruptures in patients with prior endovascular aneurysm repair presented hemodynamically more stable.