Editor's Choice - Comparison of Open Surgery and Endovascular Techniques for Juxtarenal and Complex Neck Aortic Aneurysms: The UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) - Peri-operative and Midterm Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of juxtarenal and complex neck abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is now commonly by endovascular rather than open surgical repair (OSR). Published comparisons show poor validity and scientific precision. UK-COMPASS is a comparative cohort study of endovascular treatments vs. OSR for patients with an AAA unsuitable for standard on label endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: All procedures for AAA in England (November 2017 to October 2019) were identified, AAA anatomy assessed in a Corelab, peri-operative risk scores determined, and propensity scoring used to identify patients suitable for either endovascular treatment or OSR. Patients were stratified by aneurysm neck length (0 - 4 mm, 5 - 9 mm, or ≥ 10 mm) and operative risk; the highest quartile was considered high risk and the remainder standard risk. Death was the primary outcome measure. Endovascular treatments included fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and off label standard EVAR (± adjuncts). RESULTS: Among 8 994 patients, 2 757 had AAAs that were juxtarenal, short neck, or complex neck in morphology. Propensity score stratification and adjustment method comparisons included 1 916 patients. Widespread off label use of standard EVAR devices was noted (35.6% of patients). The adjusted peri-operative mortality rate was 2.9%, lower for EVAR (1.2%; p = .001) and FEVAR (2.2%; p = .001) than OSR (4.5%). In standard risk patients with a 0 - 4 mm neck, the mortality rate was 7.4% following OSR and 2.3% following FEVAR. Differences were smaller for patients with a neck length ≥ 5 mm: 2.1% OSR vs. 1.0% FEVAR. At 3.5 years of follow up, the overall mortality rate was 20.7% in the whole study population, higher following FEVAR (27.6%) and EVAR (25.2%) than after OSR (14.2%). However, in the 0 - 4 mm neck subgroup, overall survival remained equivalent. The aneurysm related mortality rate was equivalent between treatments, but re-intervention was more common after EVAR and FEVAR than OSR. CONCLUSION: FEVAR proves notably safer than OSR in the peri-operative period for juxtarenal aneurysms (0 - 4 mm neck length), with comparable midterm survival. For patients with short neck (5 - 9 mm) and complex neck (≥ 10 mm) AAAs, overall survival was worse in endovascularly treated patients compared with OSR despite relative peri-operative safety. This warrants further research and a re-appraisal of the current clinical application of endovascular strategies, particularly in patients with poor general survival outlook owing to comorbidity and age.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Open, Standard, and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair Treatments for Juxtarenal/Short Neck Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with adverse morphology of the aneurysm neck are "complex". Techniques employed to repair complex aneurysms include open surgical repair (OSR) and a number of on label endovascular techniques such as fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with adjuncts (including chimneys and endo-anchors), as well as off label use of standard EVAR. The aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published comparative outcomes. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These databases were interrogated using the PubMed interface and the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) interface developed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Online databases were interrogated up to April 2020. Studies were included if they compared outcomes between at least two methods of repair for complex aneurysms (those with at least one adverse neck feature: absent/short neck, conicality, angulation, calcification, large diameter, and thrombus). The primary outcome measure was peri-operative death. Pre-registration was done in PROSPERO (CRD42020177482). RESULTS: The search identified 24 observational studies and 7854 patients who underwent OSR, FEVAR, off label EVAR, or chimney EVAR. No comparative studies included EVAR with endo-anchors. NMA was performed on 23 studies that reported outcomes of aneurysms with short/absent infrarenal neck. Compared with OSR, off label EVAR (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 - 0.41) and FEVAR (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32-0.94) were associated with lower peri-operative mortality. This difference was not seen at the midterm follow up (30 months). Compared with OSR, FEVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative myocardial infarction (MI) rate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 - 0.62) but a higher midterm re-intervention rate (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 - 2.66). All studies had a "moderate" or "high" risk of bias. Confidence in the network findings (GRADE) was generally "low". CONCLUSION: This NMA demonstrated a peri-operative survival benefit for off label EVAR and FEVAR compared with OSR, potentially due to reduced risk of MI. FEVAR carries a greater midterm re-intervention risk than OSR, with potential implications for cost effectiveness. There is paucity of comparative data for cases with adverse neck features other than short length.

Computational fluid dynamic analysis of the effect of morphologic features on distraction forces in fenestrated stent grafts.

OBJECTIVE: Secure fixation of endovascular stent grafts is essential for successful endovascular aneurysm repair. Hemodynamic distraction forces are generated by blood pressure and blood flow and act against fixation force to encourage migration that may eventually lead to late stent graft failure. The aim of this in silico study was to determine which morphologic features were associated with greater distraction force. METHODS: Computer models of 54 in situ fenestrated stent grafts were constructed from postoperative computed tomography scans by use of image processing software. Computational fluid dynamic analysis was then performed by use of a commercial finite volume solver with boundary conditions representative of peak systole. Distraction force results were obtained for each component of the stent graft. Distraction force was correlated with lumen cross-sectional area (XSA) at the inlet and outlet of components and was compared between groups of components, depending on the magnitude of four predefined angles within the aortoiliac territory that we describe in detail. RESULTS: Median total resultant distraction force (RDF) acting on the fenestrated proximal bodies was 4.8 N (1.3-15.7 N); bifurcated distal bodies, 5.6N (1.0-8.0 N); and limb extensions, 1.7 N (0.6-8.4N). Inlet XSA exhibited strong, positive correlation with total RDF in proximal body and distal body components (Spearman correlation coefficient ρ, 0.883 and 0.802, respectively). Outlet XSA exhibited a similarly strong, positive correlation with total RDF in limb extension components (ρ, 0.822). Outlet angulation ≥ 45 degrees was associated with greater total RDF in the limb extension components only (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: For a given blood pressure, XSA was the most important morphologic determinant of total RDF. Angulation within the aorta was not large enough to influence this, whereas iliac angulation affecting outlet angulation of limb extension components was associated with significantly greater total RDF.

Comparison of fenestrated endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms not suitable for standard endovascular repair.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms that are unsuitable for a standard endovascular repair (EVAR) could be considered for fenestrated endovascular repair (f-EVAR). The aim of this study was to conduct a risk-adjusted retrospective concurrent cohort comparison of f-EVAR and open repair for such aneurysms. METHODS: All patients who underwent repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm that was unsuitable for a standard EVAR due to inadequate neck within one institution between January 2006 and December 2010 were identified. Case notes were retrieved for clinical data, Vascular Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (V-POSSUM) score, and aneurysm morphology. Computed tomography scans were reviewed to establish aneurysm morphology. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were identified. The open surgery cohort included 54 patients (35 men) who were a median age of 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 9.5; range, 60-86 years). The aortic cross-clamp was infrarenal in 20 patients, suprarenal or above in 21, and inter-renal in eight. Postoperatively, 63 major complications were noted in 30 patients, nine of whom required 16 reinterventions. Cumulative hospital stay of the cohort was 1170 days (median, 12; IQR, 13; range, 1-205 days) of which 234 days (median, 28; IQR, 36; range, 1-77 days) were in the intensive therapy unit (ITU). Perioperative mortality was 9.2% (n = 5), exactly as estimated by V-POSSUM. The f-EVAR cohort included 53 patients (47 men) who were a median age of 76 years (IQR, 11.50; range, 55-87 years). Two fenestrations and one scallop was the most frequent configuration (n = 31). Postoperatively, 37 major complications were noted in 18 patients, six requiring reintervention. Hospital stay was 559 days (median, 7; IQR, 4.5; range, 4-64 days), of which 31 days (median, 4; IQR, 10.5; range, 1-15 days) were in the ITU. Two patients died perioperatively (3.7%), resulting in an observed crude absolute risk reduction of 5.5% compared with open repair. The V-POSSUM estimated perioperative death in five patients (9.4%) in the f-EVAR cohort. In a hypothetic scenario of the f-EVAR cohort undergoing open repair, V-POSSUM estimated seven deaths (13.2%), resulting in an estimated risk-adjusted absolute risk reduction due to f-EVAR of 9.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients, f-EVAR reduced mortality and morbidity substantially compared with open repair and also reduced total hospital stay and ITU utilization.

Defining a role for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endovascular aneurysm repair surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance includes duplex ultrasound, abdominal radiography, and computed tomography angiography. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has emerged as an additional modality whose role remains undefined. We evaluated whether a potential role for CEUS was the elucidation of unresolved issues following standard surveillance modalities. METHODS: All patients undergoing EVAR at a tertiary referral center had surveillance based on plain abdominal radiograph and duplex ultrasound, with single arterial phase computed tomography angiography reserved for abnormalities or nondiagnostic imaging. In this prospective evaluation, from April 2010 to July 2011, discordance between imaging modalities or unresolved surveillance issues prompted CEUS. Cases and imaging were discussed in a multidisciplinary setting and outcomes recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 539 patients underwent EVAR surveillance, of whom 33 (6%) had CEUS for unresolved issues (median age, 79; range, 66-90; 28 male). Median follow-up after EVAR was 23 months (range, 0-132). In all cases, CEUS was able to resolve the clinical issue, resulting in secondary intervention in 10 patients (30%). The remaining patients were returned to surveillance. Within the cohort of 33 patients, the clinical issues were categorized into three groups. Group 1: Endoleak of uncertain classification (n = 27: 21 type II, four type I, two had endoleak excluded). Group 2: Significant aneurysm expansion (≥ 5 mm) without apparent endoleak (n = 4: one type II, three had endoleak excluded). Group 3: Target vessel patency following fenestrated EVAR (n = 2: patency confirmed in both). CONCLUSIONS: CEUS can enhance EVAR surveillance through clarification of endoleak and target vessel patency when standard imaging modalities are not diagnostic.

Characterising the incidence and mode of visceral stent failure after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR).

BACKGROUND: In FEVAR, visceral stents provide continuity and maintain perfusion between the main body of the stent and the respective visceral artery. The aim of this study was to characterise the incidence and mode of visceral stent failure (type Ic endoleak, type IIIa endoleak, stenosis/kink, fracture, crush and occlusion) after FEVAR in a large cohort of patients at a high-volume centre. METHODS: A retrospective review of visceral stents placed during FEVAR over 15 years (February 2003-December 2018) was performed. Kaplan-Meier analyses of freedom from visceral stent-related complications were performed. The outcomes between graft configurations of varying complexity were compared, as were the outcomes of different stent types and different visceral vessels. RESULTS: Visceral stent complications occurred in 47/236 patients (19.9%) and 54/653 stents (8.3%). Median follow up was 3.7 years (IQR 1.7-5.3 years). There was no difference in visceral stent complication rate between renal, SMA and coeliac arteries. Visceral stent complications were more frequent in more complex grafts compared to less complex grafts. Visceral stent complications were more frequent in uncovered stents compared to covered stents. Visceral stent-related endoleaks (type Ic and type IIIa) occurred exclusively around renal artery stents. The most common modes of failure with SMA stents were kinking and fracture, whereas with coeliac artery stents it was external crush. CONCLUSION: Visceral stent complications after FEVAR are common and merit continued and close long-term surveillance. The mode of visceral stent failure varies across the vessels in which the stents are located.

Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism following superficial endovenous treatment: A UK and Republic of Ireland consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism is a potentially fatal complication of superficial endovenous treatment. Proper risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis could mitigate this hazard; however, there are currently no evidence-based or consensus guidelines. This study surveyed UK and Republic of Ireland vascular consultants to determine areas of consensus. METHODS: A 32-item survey was sent to vascular consultants via the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (phase 1). These results generated 10 consensus statements which were redistributed (phase 2). 'Good' and 'very good' consensus were defined as endorsement/rejection of statements by >67% and >85% of respondents, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-two consultants completed phase 1. This generated seven statements regarding risk factors mandating peri-procedural pharmacoprophylaxis and three statements regarding specific pharmacoprophylaxis regimes. Forty-seven consultants completed phase 2. Regarding venous thromboembolism risk factors mandating pharmacoprophylaxis, 'good' and 'very good' consensus was achieved for 5/7 and 2/7 statements, respectively. Regarding specific regimens, 'very good' consensus was achieved for 3/3 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The main findings from this study were that there was 'good' or 'very good' consensus that patients with any of the seven surveyed risk factors should be given pharmacoprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin. High-risk patients should receive one to two weeks of pharmacoprophylaxis rather than a single dose.

Use of a superficial femoral artery autograft as a femoral vein replacement during en bloc sarcoma resection.

INTRODUCTION: Soft tissue malignancy encasing axial vessels presents a surgical challenge when the goal is limb-preserving radical excision. REPORT: We describe a case where limb-preserving resection of a myxoid liposarcoma involving the femoral vessels was successfully performed in the absence of autologous superficial vein for vascular reconstruction. The proximal ipsilateral superficial femoral artery was harvested as an autograft for venous reconstruction, with the arterial defect bridged using a polytetrafluoroethylene interposition graft. DISCUSSION: This technique may be selectively extended to other indications where limb viability is dependent upon availability of a high-quality graft, and conventional conduits are either unavailable or unreliable.

Risk-adjusted outcome analysis of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a large population: how do stent-grafts compare?

PURPOSE: To compare differences in the applicability and incidence of postoperative adverse events among stent-grafts used for repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An analysis of 6787 patients from the EUROSTAR Registry database was conducted to compare aneurysm morphological features, patient characteristics, and postoperative events for the AneuRx, EVT/Ancure, Excluder, Stentor, Talent, and Zenith devices versus the Vanguard device (control) and each other. Annual incidence rates of complications were determined, and risks were compared using the Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: The annual incidence rates were: device-related endoleak (types I and III) 6% (range 4%-10%), type II endoleak 5% (range 0.3%-11%), migration 3% (range 0.5%-5%), kinking 2% (range 1%-5%), occlusion 3% (range 1%-5%), rupture 0.5% (range 0%-1%), and all-cause mortality 7% (range 5%-8%). After adjustment for factors influencing outcome, AneuRx, Excluder, Talent, and Zenith devices were associated with a lower risk of migration, kinking, occlusion, and secondary intervention compared to the Vanguard device. Significant increased risk for conversion (EVT/Ancure) and reduced risk of aneurysm rupture (AneuRx and Zenith) and all-cause mortality (Excluder) were found compared to the Vanguard device. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between stent-grafts of different labels in terms of applicability and complications during intermediate to long-term follow-up. Since each stent-graft has its drawbacks, no single label can be identified as the best. It is reassuring that developments in stent-grafts indeed result in better performance than the early stent-grafts. However, a single device incorporating all the perceived improvements should still be pursued.

Heterogeneity of tensile strength and matrix metalloproteinase activity in the wall of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To measure the tensile strength of the aneurysm wall and the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) activity in similar samples of aortic tissue. METHODS: Detailed mechanical testing was conducted on 124 standardized specimens of aneurysm wall harvested from 24 patients undergoing elective aneurysm repair. The intrasac pressure required to cause aneurysm rupture was calculated based upon the Law of Laplace. In addition, MMP-2 and 9 were assayed from these specimens. Sixty specimens of nonaneurysmal aorta from 6 cadaveric organ donors served as controls. Intrasubject and intersubject variations were analyzed. RESULTS: In the aneurysm specimens, the Young's modulus was 1.80x10(6) N/m(2), the load at break was 6.36 N, the strain at break was 0.30, the ultimate strength was 0.53x10(6) N/ m(2), and the MMP activity was 312 for MMP-2 and 460 for MMP-9. In the controls, the circumferential measurements were a Young's modulus of 1.82x10(6) N/m(2), a load at break of 5.43 N, strain at break of 0.29, ultimate strength of 0.61x10(6) N/m(2), and MMP activity of 395 for MMP-2 and 2019 for MMP-9. Longitudinal measurements in controls were a Young's modulus of 1.38x10(6) N/m(2), a load at break of 11.39 N, a strain at break of 0.33, and ultimate strength of 1.30x10(6) N/m(2). Intra and intersubject variation of all parameters was very high. Based upon the lowest measured tensile strength for each aneurysm, the intrasac pressure required to cause rupture varied from 142 to 982 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Localized "hot spots" of MMP hyperactivity could lead to focal weakening of the aneurysm wall and rupture at relatively low levels of intraluminal pressure. These data suggest that tensile strength of the sac is just as important as intrasac tension in determining the risk of rupture. Moreover, these observations may explain why some small aneurysms rupture and larger aneurysms do not. Assessment of rupture risk based on computation or measurement of wall stress may be subject to error and inaccuracy due to variations in wall tensile strength.

Can intrasac pressure monitoring reliably predict failure of endovascular aneurysm repair?

PURPOSE: To determine if pressure measured at a single location within aneurysm sac thrombus accurately reflects the force applied to the aneurysm wall and the risk of rupture by examining (1) if pressure is distributed uniformly within aneurysm thrombus, (2) the pressure transmission through aneurysm thrombus, and (3) the microstructural basis for pressure transmission. METHODS: Pressure within aneurysm thrombus was measured by direct puncture through the aneurysm wall at 121 sites in 26 patients during open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Measurements were taken prior to cross clamping and compared with intrasac pressure measured at 30 sites in 6 patients without aneurysm thrombus (controls). Transmission of pressure through aneurysm thrombus was further examined ex vivo by subjecting fresh thrombus to a pressure gradient in a custom-made pressure cell. Pressure transmission was correlated with matrix density as determined by light microscopy and image analysis. RESULTS: Mean pressure within aneurysm thrombus was higher than mean systemic pressure in 11 patients, lower in 1, and identical in 9. In 5 patients, the pressure was greater than systemic in some areas of the thrombus but less in others. Sac pressure was identical to systemic pressure at all sites in the controls. In 12 thrombus specimens (6 patients) examined in the pressure cell, pressure transmission varied significantly between specimens, correlating directly with matrix density (R(2)=0.747, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pressure transmission through aneurysm thrombus is variable and depends upon the microstructure of the thrombus. Pressure measured at a single location may not, therefore, accurately reflect the pressure acting on the aneurysm wall.