Incidence and Treatment of Limb Occlusion of the Anaconda Endograft After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence and treatment of limb occlusions of the second- and third-generation Anaconda endografts. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted involving 317 consecutive patients (mean age 76 years; 289 men) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair for elective asymptomatic, symptomatic intact, and ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with 2 versions of the Anaconda device. From September 2003 to July 2011, the second-generation device was used in 189 patients (mean age 77 years; 169 men) and from July 2011 to September 2015, the third-generation device was implanted in 128 patients (mean age 75 years; 120 men). The rates of limb occlusion were compared between groups and according to compliance with the instructions for use (IFU); predictors were sought in multivariate analysis. The results of the latter are given as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier freedom of occlusion estimates for second- and third-generation devices, respectively, was 96.6% and 95.0% at 1 year, 89.9% and 95.0% at 2 years, and 86.5% and 88.6% at 5 years. There was no significant difference in overall occlusion rate between the second-generation devices (p=0.332) or with regard to use within the IFU (p=0.827); however, there was a clinically relevant decrease in the occlusion rate for elective patients treated with the third-generation device (6.4% vs 13.1%, p=0.077). There was an increase in the occlusion rate when the iliac limb diameter was ≤13 mm. In multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor of limb occlusion was a small distal prosthesis diameter (HR 0.732, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86, p<0.001). Symptomatic nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) interventions had an almost 2-fold increased risk of occlusion (HR 1.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.11, p=0.078), though this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The Anaconda design has proven effectiveness in AAA exclusion in daily practice inside the IFU. However, efforts could be made to further reduce the limb occlusion rate.

Retrograde open mesenteric stenting for acute mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) encompasses the sequels of end-stage untreated chronic mesenteric ischemia and acute mesenteric artery thrombosis. Percutaneous mesenteric artery stenting (PMAS) is the preferred treatment of patients with AMI but is not always feasible. Retrograde open mesenteric stenting (ROMS) is a hybrid technique that combines the advantages of open surgical and endovascular approaches. The literature on the results of this new technique is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of ROMS in a consecutive series of patients with AMI. METHODS: All patients with emergent mesenteric revascularization for AMI between January 2007 and September 2011 were entered in our prospective registry. Technical success, mortality, patency, clinical success, and complication rate at 30 days and 6 and 12 months were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients presented with AMI and 54 underwent PMAS, of which four were unsuccessful and followed by ROMS. Eleven patients were directly treated with ROMS, making a total of 15 patients (10 women and five men; median age, 66 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). In all patients, only the superior mesenteric artery was revascularized. In nine of the 15 patients, all three mesenteric arteries were severely stenotic or occluded. Technical success was achieved in 14 patients. At ROMS in two patients, the small bowel was severely ischemic. One of these patients needed a partial bowel resection because of irreversible transmural ischemia. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 20% and the primary patency was 92%. Ten patients underwent unplanned relaparotomy, of whom one needed resection of a large part of the small bowel. At 12 months, the mortality rate was still 20%. The primary patency was 83%. Primary assisted patency was 91%, and secondary patency was 100%. Clinical success at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively, was 73%, 67%, and 67%. CONCLUSIONS: AMI is still a devastating event. If PMAS is not feasible, ROMS is a reliable alternative and is associated with a relatively low mortality and morbidity rate.