Local Anesthesia for Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Allows for Accurate Graft Deployment with Durable Results.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia (LA) is sparsely used in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) despite short-term benefit, likely secondary to concerns over patient movement preventing accurate endograft deployment. The objective of this study is to examine the association between anesthesia type and endoleak, sac regression, reintervention, and mortality. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all EVAR cases from 2014 to 2022. Patients were included if they underwent percutaneous elective EVAR with anatomical criteria within instructions for use of commercially approved endografts. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to determine the association between anesthesia type on the risk of any endoleak noted by intraoperative completion angiogram and sac regression. Multivariable survival analysis with propensity score weighting was used to determine the association between anesthesia type and endoleak at 1 year, long-term reintervention, and mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand nine hundred thirty two EVARs met inclusion criteria: 1,075 (8%) LA and 12,857 (92%) general anesthesia (GA). On completion angiogram, LA was associated with fewer rates of any endoleaks overall (16% vs. 24%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis with propensity score weighting, LA was associated with similar adjusted odds of any endoleak on intraoperative completion angiogram (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.68) as well as combined type 1a and type 1b endoleaks (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47-1.09). Follow-up computed tomography imaging at 1 year was available for 4,892 patients, 377 (8%) LA and 4,515 (92%) GA. At 1 year, LA was associated with similar rate of freedom from any endoleaks compared to GA (0.66 [95% CI 0.63-0.69] vs. 0.71 [95% CI 0.70-0.72], P = 0.663) and increased rates of sac regression (50% vs. 45%, P = 0.040). On multivariable analysis with propensity score weighting, LA and GA were associated with similar adjusted odds of sac regression (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97-1.55). LA and GA had similar rates of endoleak at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR] 0.14, 95% CI 0.63-1.07); however, LA was associated with decreased hazards of combined type 1a and 1b endoleaks at 1 year (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.96). LA and GA had similar adjusted long-term reintervention rate (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44-1.38) and long-term mortality (HR 1.100, 95% CI 079-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: LA is not associated with increased adjusted rates of any endoleak on completion angiogram or at 1-year follow-up compared to GA. LA is associated with decreased adjusted rates of type 1a and type 1b endoleak at 1 year, but similar rates of sac regression, long-term reintervention, and mortality. Concerns for accurate graft deployment should not preclude use of LA and LA should be increasingly considered when deciding on anesthetic type for standard elective EVAR.

Impact of patient demographics and intraoperative characteristics on abdominal aortic aneurysm sac following endovascular repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Its main aim is to seal the perfusion of the aneurysmal sac and, thus, induce sac regression and subsequent aortic remodelling. Aneurysmal sac regression has been linked to the short- and long-term clinical outcomes post-EVAR. It has also been shown to be influenced by endograft device choice, with several of these available commercially. This review summarises and discusses current evidence on the influence of pre- and intraoperative factors on sac regression. Additionally, this review aims to highlight the device-specific variations in sac regression to provide an overall holistic approach to treating AAAs with EVAR. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases to identify and extract relevant data. RESULTS: Female sex, >70 mm original sac diameters, higher pre-procedural fibrinogen levels, smoking and low intra-aneurysmal pressure were found to positively impact sac regression. Whereas renal impairment, ischemic heart disease, high intra-aneurysmal pressure and aneurysm neck thrombus negatively influenced sac regression. Patent lumbar arteries, age, statins and hypercholesterolaemia displayed conflicting evidence regarding sac regression. Regarding the EVAR endografts compared, newer generation devices such as the Anaconda mainly showed the most optimal results. CONCLUSION: Sac regression following EVAR in AAA is an important prognostic factor for morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, several pre- and intraoperative factors can have an influence on sac regression. Therefore, it is necessary to take them into account when assessing AAA patients for EVAR to optimise outcomes. The choice of EVAR stent-graft can also affect sac regression, with evidence suggesting that the Fenestrated Anaconda is associated with the most favourable results.

Treatment of a Delayed Type IIIb Endoleak 20 Years Post EVAR With Inverted Contralateral Limb Custom-Made Device: A Case Report.

PURPOSE: Type III endoleak can be difficult to distinguish from Type I endoleak. Depending on the stent graft anatomy, the use of standard bifurcated endografts may not be technically feasible, and patients may have to be subject to an aorto-uni-iliac repair with femoral-femoral bypass or open surgery. CASE REPORT: We report a case of an 86-year-old male who had a Type IIIb endoleak 20 years post EVAR which was characterized on angiography to be from a hole close to the bifurcation limb origin. The initial Talent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) device had a 50 mm main body common trunk, which was not amenable to treatment with standard devices. He was successfully treated with a custom-made device with an inverted contralateral limb. CONCLUSIONS: Our case highlights the need for lifelong surveillance post EVAR as endoleak may present decades post initial EVAR. It also demonstrates that many Type III endoleak which were otherwise deemed unsuitable for treatment with standard devices may potentially be treatable with custom-made device (CMD). This solution preserves a percutaneous option in a now older person which avoids surgical bypass. Further studies are required to establish the durability of this treatment and survey for recurrence.

Decreasing trends in reintervention and readmission after endovascular aneurysm repair in a multiregional implant registry.

OBJECTIVE: As endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) matures into its third decade, measures such as long-term reintervention and readmission have become a focus of quality improvement efforts. Within a large United States integrated health care system, we describe time trends in the rates of long-term reinterventions utilization measures. METHODS: Data from a United States multiregional EVAR registry was used to perform a descriptive study of 3891 adults who underwent conventional infrarenal EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2010 and 2019. Three-year follow-up was 96.7%. Outcomes included 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft revision (defined as a procedure involving placement of a new endograft component), secondary interventions (defined as a procedure necessary for maintenance of EVAR integrity [eg, coil embolization and balloon angioplasty/stenting]), conversion to open, interventions for type II endoleaks alone, and 90-day readmission. Crude cause-specific reintervention probabilities were calculated by operative year using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, with death as a competing risk and December 31, 2020 as the study end date. RESULTS: Excluding interventions for type II endoleak alone, 1-year secondary intervention incidence decreased from 5.9% for EVARs in 2010 to 2.0% in 2019 (P < .001) and 3-year incidence decreased from 7.2% to 3.6% from 2010 to 2017 (P = .03). The 3-year incidences of graft revision (mean incidence, 3.4%) and conversion to open remained fairly stable (mean incidence, 0.6%) over time. The 3-year incidence of interventions for type II endoleak alone also decreased from 3.4% in 2010 to 0.7% in 2017 (P = .01). Ninety-day readmission rates decreased from 19.3% for index EVAR in 2010 to 9.2% in 2019 (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive data from a multiregional health care system demonstrates decreasing long-term secondary intervention and readmission rates over time in patients undergoing EVAR. These trends are not explained by evolving management of type II endoleaks and suggest improving graft durability, patient selection, or surgical technique. Further study is needed to define implant and anatomic predictors of different types of long-term reintervention.

Midterm outcomes for 605 patients receiving Endologix AFX or AFX2 Endovascular AAA Systems in an integrated healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Endologix issued important safety updates for the AFX Endovascular AAA System in 2016 and 2018 owing to the risk of type III endoleaks. Outcomes with these devices are limited to small case series with short-term follow-up. We describe the midterm outcomes for a large cohort of patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device. STUDY DESIGN: Data from an integrated healthcare system's implant registry, which prospectively monitors all patients after endovascular aortic repair, was used for this descriptive study. Patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair with three AFX System variations (Strata [AFX-S], Duraply [AFX-D], and AFX2 with Duraply [AFX2]) were identified (2011-2017). Crude cumulative event probabilities for endoleak (types I and III), major reintervention, conversion to open, rupture, and mortality (aneurysm related and all cause) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 605 patients, 375 received AFX-S, 197 received AFX-D, and 33 received AFX2. Median follow-up for the cohort was 3.9 (interquartile range, 2.5-5.1) years. The crude 2-year incidence of overall endoleak, any subsequent reintervention or conversion, and mortality was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-12.3), 12.0% (95% CI, 9.1-15.9), and 8.8% (95% CI, 6.3-12.2) for AFX-S. Respective estimates for AFX-D were 7.9% (95% CI, 4.8-13.0), 10.6% (95% CI, 6.9-16.1), and 9.7% (95% CI, 6.3-14.7); for AFX2, they were 14.1% (95% CI, 4.7-38.2), 16.2% (95% CI, 6.4-37.7), and 21.2% (95% CI, 10.7-39.4). CONCLUSIONS: The midterm outcomes of a large U.S. patient cohort with an Endologix AFX or AFX2 System demonstrate a concerning rate of adverse postoperative events. Patients with these devices should receive close clinical surveillance to prevent device-related adverse events.

Survival and Reintervention Risk by Patient Age and Preoperative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Diameter after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but questions remain regarding the benefit in high-risk and elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of age, preoperative AAA diameter, and their interaction on survival and reintervention rates after EVAR. METHODS: Our integrated health system's AAA endograft registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective EVAR between 2010 and 2014. Of interest was the effect of patient age at the time of surgery (≤80 vs. >80 years old), preoperative AAA diameter (≤5.5 cm vs. >5.5 cm), and their interaction. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and reintervention. Between-within mixed-effects Cox models with propensity score weights were fit. RESULTS: Of 1,967 patients undergoing EVAR, unadjusted rates for survival at 4 years after EVAR was 76.1%, and reintervention-free rate was 86.0%. For mortality, there was insufficient evidence for an interaction between age and AAA size (P = 0.309). Patient age >80 years was associated with 2.53-fold higher mortality risk (hazard ratios [HR] = 2.53; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.73-3.70; P < 0.001), whereas AAA > 5.5 cm was associated with 1.75-fold higher mortality risk (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.26-2.45; P = 0.001). For reintervention risk, there were no significant interactions or main effects for age or AAA diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Age and AAA diameter are independent predictors of reduced survival after EVAR, but the effect is not amplified when both are present. Age >80 years or AAA size >5.5 cm did not increase the risk of reintervention. No specific AAA size, patient age, or combination thereof was identified that would contraindicate AAA repair.

Analysis of the position of EndoAnchor implants in therapeutic use during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the penetration depth, angles, distribution, and location of deployment of individual EndoAnchor (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) implants. METHODS: Eighty-six primary and revision arm patients (procedural success, 53; persistent type IA endoleak, 33) treated for type IA endoleaks with a total of 580 EndoAnchor implants from a subset of the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) were included in this study. Procedural success was defined as the absence of a type IA endoleak on the first postprocedural computed tomography scan after the EndoAnchor implantation procedure. Endograft malapposition along the circumference was assessed at the first postoperative computed tomography scans and expressed as clock-face range and width in degrees and normalized such that the center was translated to 0 degrees. The position and penetration of each EndoAnchor implant were measured as the clock-face orientation. EndoAnchor implant penetration into the aortic wall was categorized as follows: good penetration, ≥2 mm; borderline penetration, <2 mm or ≥2-mm gap between the endograft and aortic wall; or no penetration. The orthogonal and longitudinal angles between the EndoAnchor implant and the interface plane of the aortic wall were determined. Location of deployment was investigated for each EndoAnchor implant and classified as maldeployed when it was above the fabric or in a gap >2 mm between the endograft and aortic wall due to >2-mm thrombus or positioning of the EndoAnchor implant below the aortic neck. RESULTS: A total of 170 (29%) EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment and were therefore beyond recommended use and not useful. After EndoAnchor implantation, the procedural success and persistent type IA endoleak groups had 3 (1%) and 4 (2%) EndoAnchor implants positioned above the fabric as well as 60 (18%) and 103 (42%) placed in a gap >2 mm, respectively. The amount of EndoAnchor implants with good, borderline, and no penetration was significantly different between both groups (success vs type IA endoleak) after exclusion of maldeployed EndoAnchor implants (235 [87.4%], 14 [5.2%], and 20 [7.4%] vs 97 [68.8%], 18 [12.8%], and 26 [18.4%], respectively; P < .001). Good penetration EndoAnchor implants were more closely aligned with a 90-degree orthogonal angle than the borderline penetration and nonpenetrating EndoAnchor implants. The longitudinal angle was more distributed, which was observed through all three penetration groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this subcohort of ANCHOR patients, almost 30% of the EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment, which may be prevented by careful preoperative planning and measured intraoperative deployment. If endoleaks are due to >2-mm gaps, EndoAnchor implants alone may not provide the intended sealing, and additional devices should be considered.

Influence of aortic neck characteristics on successful aortic wall penetration of EndoAnchors in therapeutic use during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to quantify EndoAnchor (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) penetration into the aortic wall in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and to assess predictors of successful penetration and its relationship to postprocedural type IA endoleak. METHODS: A subset of patients from the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) were included if they met the following criteria: the indication for EndoAnchor use was to treat a type IA endoleak, and postprocedure contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans of sufficient quality were available for core laboratory review. Patients undergoing implantation of cuffs or stents during the EndoAnchor implantation procedure were excluded. Baseline anatomic characteristics were recorded. The cohort was divided into patients with and without persistent type IA endoleaks at the first postoperative CT scan. Penetration of each EndoAnchor measured on this CT scan was defined as good penetration when the EndoAnchor penetrated ≥2 mm into the aortic wall, borderline penetration when EndoAnchor penetration was <2 mm or a gap remained between the endograft and aortic wall, or no penetration when the EndoAnchor did not penetrate into the aortic wall. Differences between the groups were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of EndoAnchor penetration, and procedural success was defined by absence of type IA endoleak. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients of the primary (n = 61 [71%]) and revision (n = 25 [29%]) arms of the ANCHOR registry were included. There were 53 (62%) without and 33 (38%) with persistent type IA endoleaks on the first postprocedural CT scan. The median number of EndoAnchors with good penetration was significantly greater in the cohort without endoleaks, 4 (interquartile range, 3-5) vs 3 (interquartile range, 1.5-4), respectively (P = .002). A multivariate model for EndoAnchor penetration identified use of a Medtronic Endurant endograft as a factor associated with good penetration (P = .001), whereas poor penetration was associated with a larger aortic neck diameter 10 mm distal to the lowest renal artery (P < .001) and greater proximal neck calcium thickness (P = .004). EndoAnchor penetration was the only variable that attained significance (P < .001) in the multivariate model for successful treatment of a type IA endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate EndoAnchor penetration into the aortic wall is less likely when the aortic neck diameter is large or when the neck contains significant mural calcium. No penetration of the EndoAnchor was the only factor predictive of postprocedural type IA endoleak. This study stresses the importance of careful selection of patients based on preoperative assessment of the infrarenal neck on CT angiography and emphasizes careful deployment of EndoAnchors into the aortic wall to improve successful treatment of type IA endoleaks.

An Institution-Wide Algorithm for Treatment of Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR).

OBJECTIVES: Multiple endovascular techniques have been described for the treatment of persistent type II endoleaks (pT2ELs) causing aneurysm sac growth following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the event of a failed endovascular procedure and a pT2EL, a consensus regarding further treatment is lacking, and the literature suggests repeated endovascular attempts are rarely successful. Herein, we propose an algorithm for definitive management of pT2ELs with persistent sac growth following EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective review of 29 patients who underwent treatment of persistent sac growth in the setting of pT2ELs was performed. Intervention methods were determined at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Aneurysmal sac enlargement was defined as a diameter increase > 5 mm, and persistent endoleak was defined as lasting greater than 6 months. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2015, 917 EVAR procedures were performed at our institution. Isolated pT2ELs with sac enlargement were identified in 29 patients. Twenty-five patients underwent direct translumbar sac puncture and coiling and/or Onyx (Onyx, Plymouth, Minnesota) embolization of the culprit vessels. Thirteen (52%) of 25 patients had pT2EL after first endovascular intervention, and 10 (40%) of 25 patients failed 2 endovascular treatments. Of those 10, 7 displayed persistent aneurysmal sac growth and underwent a third embolization procedure. Type II endoleaks persisted in 6 patients; 3 patients were subsequently treated with laparotomy, ligation of lumbar vessels, sac exploration, and sac plication around the endograft. Technical success for this technique was 100%. During a mean follow-up of 38.4 months, no recurrent T2ELs, stent graft migration, and/or disjunction were observed. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a new algorithm for the management of pT2ELs. If 2 endovascular procedures fail to control of the endoleak, repeat endovascular attempts are not recommended. Endovascular failure should be followed by laparotomy with surgical ligation of culprit feeding vessels followed by sac exploration and plication of the sac, and endoaneurysmorrhaphy.

Parallel placement of Excluder legs for treatment of type IIIb endoleaks caused by fabric tear after endovascular aneurysm repair.

A total of 576 patients underwent endovascular aneurysm repair using main body devices for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms or iliac artery aneurysms. During follow-up, type IIIb endoleaks caused by fabric tear occurred in six patients (1.0% [6/576]). The device used was Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) in five cases and Talent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif) in one case. All endoleaks were close to the flow divider of the main body devices. The distance between the lower renal artery and the top end of the contralateral leg was 53 ± 14 mm. Bell-bottom-shaped Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) legs were placed parallel from the top of the main body device through both legs to treat these endoleaks. In two patients, coil embolization was required to treat gutter endoleaks. Postoperative computed tomography showed the obliteration of type IIIb endoleaks in all patients. Our technique may be an acceptable method for treatment of type IIIb endoleaks, especially when they occur near the flow divider.

Prophylactic Intraoperative Embolization of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sacs Using N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate/Lipiodol/Ethanol Mixture with Proximal Neck Aortic Balloon Occlusion during Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of prophylactic intraoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac embolization using a mixture of N-butyl cyanoacrylate/Lipiodol/ethanol (NLE) with proximal neck aortic balloon occlusion during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to prevent the occurrence of endoleak and aneurysm sac expansion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prophylactic intraoperative AAA sac embolization was performed in 24 patients with an infrarenal neck angulation > 60° (n = 16) or AAA sac diameter > 60 mm (n = 17). AAA sac pressure was continuously measured with a 3-F catheter inserted into the AAA sac. The systolic sac pressure index (SPI) was calculated as the ratio of systolic AAA sac pressure to the simultaneously measured systolic aortic pressure, and was measured with and without proximal neck aortic balloon occlusion. The aneurysm sac was embolized with NLE during proximal neck aortic balloon occlusion immediately after EVAR. Endoleak and AAA sac diameter were evaluated by enhanced computed tomography and subtraction magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months and yearly after EVAR. RESULTS: Mean SPIs after EVAR with and without proximal neck aortic balloon occlusion were 0.36 and 0.57, respectively. There were no adverse events related to intraoperative sac embolization. Follow-up imaging (mean, 12.1 mo) revealed three minor endoleaks (12.5%) and no aneurysm sac expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic intraoperative sac embolization with NLE during proximal neck aortic balloon occlusion was safe and feasible and may reduce endoleaks and prevent sac expansion after EVAR in patients with unfavorable anatomic factors.

Endovascular aneurysm repair with the Ovation TriVascular Stent Graft System utilizing a predominantly percutaneous approach under local anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System (TriVascular Inc., Santa Rosa, CA) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and compare results according to the type of anaesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective study including patients who underwent EVAR using the Ovation endograft between May 2011 and July 2014. Outcome was evaluated regarding pre-, peri- and immediate postoperative and follow-up measures. Overall results are reported, while additional analysis was performed to compare the outcome between groups of patients undertaking either local or regional/general anaesthesia (LA vs RGA). RESULTS: 66 patients were included. Median follow-up was 13 months (range, 1-39 months). Median age was 72 years and median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was 58 mm (range, 54-100 mm). Technical success was 63 (95%), while there were 2 (3%) conversions to open surgery. A total percutaneous approach was used in 50/66 (76%) cases. Overall, 9/66 (14%) subjects suffered from any kind of morbidity. Median hospitalization was 3 days (range, 1-16 days). Immediate and midterm mortality rate was 0%. No endoleak Type I, III, IV or stent migration was observed. There were 8 (13%) Type II endoleaks. Overall, additional endovascular procedures were required in 6 (9%), while surgery was performed in 4 (6%) patients. 44 (67%) patients underwent LA and 22 (23%) RGA. Differences between groups were significant for procedural time (85 vs 107 min; p < 0.001), percutaneous access (91% vs 45%; p < 0.001) and systematic complications (2.3% vs 14%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: EVAR with the use of the Ovation endograft shows promising short-term and midterm results regarding safety and effectiveness. Completion of the procedures under LA using a total percutaneous approach seems advantageous and may be used in routine practice. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System is an ultra-low profile stent graft system that allows percutaneous deployment for EVAR and offers excellent overall efficacy and safety. Totally percutaneous EVAR under LA seems advantageous and may be used as a routine with this specific endograft.

Early and delayed rupture after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a 10-year multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVE: Rupture after abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a function of graft maintenance of the seal and fixation. We describe our 10-year experience with rupture after EVAR. METHODS: From 2000 to 2010, 1736 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from 17 medical centers underwent EVAR in a large, regional integrated health care system. Preoperative demographic and clinical data of interest were collected and stored in our registry. We retrospectively identified patients with postoperative rupture, characterized as "early" and "delayed" rupture (≤30 days and >30 days after the initial EVAR, respectively), and identified predictors associated with delayed rupture. RESULTS: The overall follow-up rate was 92%, and the median follow-up was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.2-4.4 years) in these 1736 EVAR patients. We identified 20 patients with ruptures; 70% were male, the mean age was 79 years, and mean AAA size at the initial EVAR was 6.3 cm. Six patients underwent initial EVAR for rupture (n = 2) or symptomatic presentation (n = 4). Of the 20 post-EVAR ruptures, 25% (five of 20) were early, all occurring within 2 days after the initial EVAR. Of these five patients, four had intraoperative adverse events leading directly to rupture, with one type I and one type III endoleak. Of the five early ruptures, four patients underwent endovascular repair and one received repair with open surgery, resulting in two perioperative deaths. Among the remaining 15 patients, the median time from initial EVAR to rupture was 31.1 months (interquartile range, 13.8-57.3 months). Most of these delayed ruptures (10 of 15) were preceded by AAA sac increases, including three patients with known endoleaks who underwent reintervention. At the time of delayed rupture, nine of 15 patients had new endoleaks. Among all 20 patients, six patients did not undergo repair (all delayed patients) and died, nine underwent repeated EVAR, and five had open repair. For patients who underwent repair for delayed rupture, mortality at 30 days and 1 year were 44.4% and 66.7%, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified age 80 to 89 (hazard ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-9.4; P = .03), and symptomatic or ruptured initial indication for EVAR (hazard ratio, 7.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-24.8; P < .01) as significant predictors of delayed rupture. CONCLUSIONS: Rupture after EVAR is a rare but devastating event, and mortality after repair exceeds 60% at 1 year. Most delayed cases showed late AAA expansion, thereby implicating late loss of seal and increased endoleaks as the cause of rupture in these patients and mandating vigilant surveillance.

Sudden cardiac arrest immediately after stent graft deployment during treatment of iliac aneurysm with iliocaval fistula.

An 84-year-old woman with heaviness of the right lower extremity had an iliocaval fistula related to a right internal iliac aneurysm. Immediately after deployment of an endovascular device, cardiac arrest occurred because of severely decreased sympathetic activity. After surgery, the patient recovered well and has been followed up with exclusion of the arteriovenous fistula and resolution of the type II endoleak. Endovascular treatment for large arteriovenous fistulas induces rapid closure of the fistula together with restoration of blood supply to the lower extremity. Markedly deactivated sympathetic nerve traffic could result in a critical hemodynamic status in association with endograft deployment.

Ten-year results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from a large multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in an integrated health care system. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2010, 1736 patients underwent EVAR at 17 centers. Demographic data, comorbidities, and outcomes of interest were collected. EVAR in patients presenting with ruptured or symptomatic aneurysms was categorized as urgent; otherwise, it was considered elective. Primary outcomes were mortality and aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Secondary outcomes were change in aneurysm sac size, endoleak status, major adverse events, and reintervention. RESULTS: Overall, the median age was 76 years (interquartile range, 70-81 years), 86% were male, and 82% were Caucasian. Most cases (93.8%) were elective, but urgent use of EVAR increased from 4% in the first 5 years to 7.3% in the last 5 years of the study period. Mean aneurysm size was 5.8 cm. Patients were followed for an average of 3 years (range, 1-11 years); 8% were lost to follow-up. Intraoperatively, 4.5% of patients required adjunctive maneuvers for endoleak, fixation, or flow-limiting issues. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.2%, and the perioperative morbidity rate was 6.6%. Intraoperative type I and II endoleaks were uncommon (2.3% and 9.3%, respectively). Life-table analysis at 5 years demonstrated excellent overall survival (66%) and freedom from ARM (97%). Postoperative endoleak was seen in 30% of patients and was associated with an increase in sac size over time. Finally, the total reintervention rate was 15%, including 91 instances (5%) of revisional EVAR. The overall major adverse event rate was 7.9% and decreased significantly from 12.3% in the first 5 years to 5.6% in the second 5 years of the study period (P < .001). Overall ARM was worse in patients with postoperative endoleak (4.1% vs 1.8%; P < .01) or in those who underwent reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results from a contemporary EVAR registry in an integrated health care system demonstrate favorable perioperative outcomes and excellent clinical efficacy. However, postoperative endoleak and the need for reintervention continue to be challenging problems for patients after EVAR.

Transcatheter transcaval embolization of a type II endoleak after EVAR using a transseptal needle-sheath system.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to present an alternative technique for management of a type II endoleak associated with aneurysm sac enlargement. TECHNIQUE: We report the use of a transseptal needle-sheath system for a transcatheter transcaval embolization (TTE) in a 3-staged treatment of a persistent type II endoleak after abdominal EVAR. Inferior vena cava is cannulated through a femoral venous access, and aneurysmal sac access is gained with a puncture through the walls of the 2 vessels at the site where the vein is adjacent to the aneurysm. The whole system (sheath-dilator-needle) is then advanced across the vascular walls into the aortic sac. Thus, embolization with glue is performed. CONCLUSION: The TTE using a transseptal needle-sheath system demonstrated to be feasible and effective to treat a persistent type II endoleak after failure of 2 attempts of transarterial embolization of the feeding vessels.