Midterm Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Use of an Endoanchor System for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety, technical success, and midterm outcomes of endoanchor (Heli-FX, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) deployment in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-institution, retrospective study of all endoanchor procedures was performed from February 1, 2017 to March 30, 2021. All procedures were performed percutaneously by interventional radiologists. Clinical information and outcome data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Fifty patients (14% females, n = 7; 86% males, n = 43; median age, 79 years [range, 56-93 years]) underwent Endoanchor procedures, with 349 Endoanchors implanted; 33 procedures were primary deployments (at initial stent deployment) and 17 were secondary deployments (previous stent deployment). For the primary group (4 TEVARs and 29 EVARs), indications were prophylactic (n = 30), hostile neck (n = 28), hostile distal landing zone (n = 2), and intraprocedural type 1a endoleaks (n = 3). For the secondary group (4 TEVARs and 13 EVARs), indications were graft migration (n = 8), seal zone expansion without proven endoleak (n = 7) (proximal [n = 4] or distal seal [n = 3]), and proven type 1a endoleak (n = 2). RESULTS: Median number of endoanchors deployed per procedure was 7 (range, 3-10). Median time to deploy endoanchors was 22 minutes (range, 8-46 minutes). The technical success rate of Endoanchor was 99.7% (348/349). The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. The overall adverse event rate was 6% (n = 3). Reinterventions were performed in 12% of patients (n = 6). Median follow-up was 38 months (range, 2-71 months). Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 95% and 85%, respectively. Overall freedom from type 1a endoleak at 1 and 3 years was 96% and 93%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endoanchor procedures are safe with excellent technical success rate and good midterm clinical outcomes.

An unusual cause of a haemothorax following pacemaker implantation: A case report.

Background: Haemothoraces are a reported but extremely rare complication of pacemaker implantation. Haemothoraces can be a consequence of lead perforation through the right ventricle (RV) and pericardium into the pleural space, direct lung or vascular injury during access. Case summary: A 72-year-old woman presented 24 h after a pacemaker implantation with chest pain and shortness of breath. Computed tomography of the chest confirmed perforation of the RV lead into the left pleural cavity with a large left sided haemothorax. Following percutaneous drainage of the left sided haemothorax, the patient became haemodynamically unstable necessitating emergent sternotomy. During surgery, the extra-cardiac portion of the pacing lead was cut, the RV repaired and a large haematoma evacuated from the left pleural space. Despite this, the patient remained hypotensive, and further exploration showed a bleeding intercostal artery that had been lacerated by the pacing lead. This was treated by electrocautery, and the patient's haemodynamic status improved. The RV lead remnant was removed transvenously via the subclavian vein, and the patient was left with a single chamber atrial pacemaker. Discussion: Prompt recognition of RV lead perforation and its associated sequalae, often utilising multi-modality imaging, is vital to enable transfer to a centre with cardiac surgical expertise. In this case, the perforating RV lead lacerated an intercostal artery, and this was only identified at the time of surgery. In order to minimize the risk of perforation, multiple fluoroscopic views should be used, and care should be taken during helix deployment.

Technique-Based Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Aortic Remodelling Following TEVAR in Acute and Subacute Type B Aortic Dissection.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and aortic remodelling rates following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute or subacute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) based on technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All TEVARs for acute/subacute TBAD between 01/01/2008 and 01/06/2020 were included. TEVARS were grouped by technique (TEVAR only, PETTICOAT and STABILISE). Aortic remodelling was assessed at three aortic levels on follow-up CT. Thirty-day technical/clinical success rates, re-intervention rates and complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included. The median age was 55 years (31-82). The median duration from initial presentation to TEVAR was 7 days (0-84). Intra-procedural complications included one aortic rupture from balloon moulding in a STABILISE case. Thirty-day mortality, stroke, spinal cord ischaemia and visceral ischaemia were 3% (n = 1), 3% (n = 1), 3% (n = 1) and 3% (n = 1), respectively. (All occurred in acute TBAD.) Overall survival was 50.5 months (18-115). Median follow-up was 31 months (1-115). Six patients (21%) required re-intervention, with a median time of 5 months (5-46) from first TEVAR. Overall complete aortic remodelling rates were: 89% at the proximal descending thoracic aorta, 78% at the distal thoracic aorta and 50% at the infra-renal abdominal aorta. At the infra-renal aorta, the STABILISE group (n = 11) had a higher complete aortic remodelling rate (82%) compared to TEVAR alone (n = 12) (20%). CONCLUSION: Endovascular intervention for acute and subacute TBAD is safe with a high rate of technical success. STABILISE results in higher aortic remodelling at the infra-renal aorta (82%) compared to TEVAR alone (20%) but risks aortic rupture from balloon moulding.

The Use of Closure Devices for Aortic Stent-Graft Insertion: Outcomes Following a Paradigm Shift to Percutaneous Access in a Tertiary Vascular Center.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective case series aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Perclose ProGlide system for postoperative hemostasis following aortic stent-graft insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients with a minimum follow-up of 12 months following percutaneous aortic procedures was interrogated. Preprocedural computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed to assess existing stenosis in the common femoral artery (CFA). Arteries with an estimated stenosis of greater than 25% on visual inspection underwent quantification using multiplanar and curved planar reformation. The preoperative and 1-year follow-up CTs of these patients were assessed for change in stenosis. Analysis was performed by 2 independent reviewers, with senior authors reviewing any discrepancies. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) were performed. The ProGlide system was used in 235 arteries, yielding a high success rate in obtaining postprocedural hemostasis (94%). There were 13 postprocedural access-related complications, including 5 patients requiring surgical closure due to inadequate seal. Two patients required thrombectomy due to distal embolization. One patient required CFA endarterectomy at 6 months for the treatment of preexisting short distance claudication. Vessel analysis was performed in 31 arteries. Mean preoperative stenosis was 32% (range: 20%-57%). Mean postoperative stenosis was 32% (21%-57%). No significant change in degree of stenosis was detected (defined as a 5% change). CONCLUSIONS: The ProGlide system yielded a high success rate in obtaining postoperative hemostasis with low rate of conversion to surgical closure and low complication rates. There was no evidence of worsening vessel stenosis in arteries with preprocedural stenotic disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Case Series.