The Fate of Patients Opportunistically Screened for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms During Echocardiogram or Arterial Duplex Scans.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long term outcomes of individuals who attended for transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) or lower limb arterial duplex scans (LLADS) and were opportunistically screened for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Follow up of a prospective single centre pilot cohort study conducted between December 2012 and September 2014 at a tertiary vascular centre in the United Kingdom. Men and Women aged 65 and over were invited to undergo AAA screening when attending hospital for TTE or LLADS. Screening was performed by ultrasonographic examination of the abdomen at the end of their planned scans. AAA was defined as an abdominal aorta outer wall to outer wall anteroposterior diameter of 30 mm or more. Patients were excluded if they had a known AAA or previous abdominal aorta intervention. Follow up outcomes were evaluated in December 2020. RESULTS: 762 patients were enrolled in this study; 486 had TTE and 276 patients had LLADS. The overall incidence of AAA was 54 (7.1%) in the combined cohort, 25 (5.1%) in the TTE group, and 29 (10.5%) in the LLADS group. After a median 7.6 years, two of the 54 AAAs received intervention in the form of endovascular repair. Three others reached treatment threshold but were managed conservatively. The overall intervention rate was 3.7% of detected AAAs. Adjusted mortality rates in those with AAA vs. without was 64.8% and 36%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, p < .001). Diabetes (HR 1.35, p = .015) and older age (HR 1.18, p = .17) were the other factors associated with death. CONCLUSION: AAA is associated with a significantly increased mortality rate. Populations attending hospital for TTE or LLADS demonstrate a higher prevalence of AAA than population based screening; however, the proportion offered AAA intervention was low. Further research into opportunistic screening should target those more likely to undergo AAA repair, unless other interventions are demonstrated, to reduce the general increased mortality in AAA patients.

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.

Anatomical Applicability of Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Techniques in a Consecutive Cohort of Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs.

PURPOSE: To determine how many endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) procedures with/without off-label use of chimneys (ChEVAS) could have been performed in a cohort of patients who had undergone fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR). METHODS: Sixty patients (median age 76.3 years; 54 men) who underwent FEVAR in our institution between 2013 and 2015 were selected for the study. The median aneurysm diameter was 62.0 mm (interquartile range 59.3, 69.0). Preoperative computed tomography angiograms (CTA) were anonymized and sent to 2 physicians with experience of more than 40 ChEVAS interventions. These ChEVAS planners were blinded to the study purpose and asked to agree upon an EVAS/ChEVAS plan. The primary outcome was the percentage of the FEVAR patients in whom an EVAS/ChEVAS was technically possible. The secondary outcomes were a comparison of seal zones, number of target vessels, and device cost. RESULTS: An EVAS-based intervention would have been technically possible in 56 (93.3%) of the FEVAR patients. The median proximal aortic seal zone was significantly more distal in the EVAS/ChEVAS procedures vs the FEVAR cases (zone 8 vs zone 7, p<0.001) and fewer target vessels were involved (median 2 vs 3, p<0.001). The cost of the EVAS/ChEVAS device was 66% of the FEVAR device. Planners would not currently advocate an EVAS-based intervention in 43 (76.8%) of these 56 patients due to concerns regarding the risk of migration associated with the lumen thrombus ratios observed. CONCLUSION: EVAS is technically feasible in the majority of patients undergoing FEVAR in our institution but currently advocated in only 23.2%. The seal zone was more distal, fewer target vessels were involved, and the device cost was lower in the planned EVAS/ChEVAS interventions.