Assessment of Pull-out Forces in TEVAR and ANACONDA FEVAR Combination and Early Clinical Results: Creation of a Proximal Landing Zone for FEVAR in Patients with Extent I and Extent IV TAAAs.

BACKGROUND: Although recent data on the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are promising, in some cases, the paravisceral segment of the aorta may not be suitable for a branched endograft due to space restrictions. A combination of a fenestrated aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with a thoracic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) may represent a feasible treatment option. The current investigation was performed to assess the stability of a fenestrated Anaconda device implanted into a set of thoracic endografts from different manufacturers. We then assessed our clinical results with the FEVAR/TEVAR combination. METHODS: Pull-out forces were measured in vitro after docking a fenestrated Anaconda graft within the distal end of different TEVAR devices. Anaconda devices were implanted in 28- or 30-mm thoracic tube grafts (oversizing of at least 2 mm: 13.3-21.4; minimum overlap of 15 mm). Continuously increasing longitudinal pull forces of up to 100 N were applied on an Instron Tensile Tester. Initial break point and damage to the endografts were documented. Clinical results of patients treated with such an FEVAR/TEVAR combination at our institution are presented as a second part of this study. RESULTS: Median pull-out forces ranged from 2.38 N to 55.0 N. The highest stability was achieved with 34-mm Anaconda devices in 28-mm thoracic tube grafts. Grafts with either thinner Dacron material or those featuring a polytetrafluorethylene membrane seemed especially vulnerable to punctures and tears caused by the downward-looking hooks of the Anaconda device. Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018, in 28 of 172 patients treated with a fenestrated Anaconda device, prior implantation of a thoracic tube graft was necessary to create a sufficient proximal landing zone. In 25 cases (89.3%), the aneurysm was successfully treated. Although the 30-day reintervention rate in this subgroup was relatively high at 28.6%, none of these was due to a failure of the FEVAR/TEVAR combination. Upon an average follow-up of 15 months, no failure of the graft connection and no type III endoleak due to membrane damage were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a thoracic tube graft and a fenestrated Anaconda device is a viable option for the treatment of patients with Extent I or IV TAAAs with no adequate landing zone above the celiac trunk. Although pull-out testing has shown good stability with most assessed grafts, the thoracic devices with thicker Dacron membranes seemed to be especially suitable.

Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Because of its minimally invasive nature, percutaneous femoral access for endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) is currently undergoing rapid popularization. Compared with surgical cutdown for femoral access (cEVAR), it offers the advantage of faster recovery after surgery as well as a reduction in wound complications. Despite proposed advantages, the method is largely considered uneconomical because of its reliance on costly closure devices. METHODS: There were 50 patients undergoing EVAR who were enrolled in this randomized prospective single-center trial. Each patient randomly received percutaneous access in one groin and surgical access in the other. The primary end points were access duration and cost. Secondary end points were wound complications and the postoperative pain levels. RESULTS: Surgery was performed per protocol in 44 patients. Mean access times for pEVAR and cEVAR were 11.5 ± 3.4 minutes and 24.8 ± 12.1 minutes (P < .001), respectively. Total access costs were €559.65 ± €112.69 for pEVAR and €674.85 ± €289.55 for cEVAR (P = .016). Eight complications in six patients were attributed to cutdown, none to pEVAR (P = .02). The percutaneously accessed groin was significantly less painful at day 1 and day 5 after surgery (P < .001). An intention-to-treat analysis (N = 50 patients) included six cases of pEVAR conversion due to technical failure in three patients (6%) and change of the operative strategy in another three patients (eg, aortouni-iliac stent graft followed by crossover bypass). The intention-to-treat analysis showed shorter mean overall access time for pEVAR (pEVAR, 14.65 ± 10.20 minutes; cEVAR, 25.12 ± 11.77 minutes; P < .001) and no cost difference between the two methods (pEVAR, €651.29 ± €313.49; cEVAR, €625.53 ± €238.29; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm proposed potential benefits attributable to the minimally invasive nature of pEVAR while demonstrating cost-effectiveness despite the additional cost of closure devices. Taking into account pEVAR failures still does not increase pEVAR costs over cEVAR. Further considering reduced postoperative pain and wound complications, the technique deserves consideration in suitable patients.