Treatment of Aorto-iliac and Infrainguinal Vascular Infections with a Prefabricated Bovine Pericardial Graft.

BACKGROUND: The use of biological grafts provides acceptable mid- and long-term results in native or prosthetic vascular infections. Several reports describe the successful use of bovine pericardium in case of vascular infections, mainly as a large patch to be sutured as a tubular graft. Recently, a novel prefabricated bovine pericardium graft (Biointegral Surgical No-React® Inc, Mississauga, ON, Canada) has been introduced in clinical practice with promising results. In this study, we report our preliminary experience utilizing Biointegral Surgical graft in case of native and or prosthetic aorto-iliac and infrainguinal infection. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 20 patients with native or prosthetic aorto-iliac and infrainguinal infection who underwent in situ reconstruction (ISR) with a Biointegral Surgical No-React bovine pericardium prosthesis between October 2020 and February 2023 at the Vascular Surgery Unit of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli - IRCCS in Rome, Italy. All patients followed a standardized protocol including postoperative anticoagulation and long-term intravenous antibiotics. RESULTS: The indication for surgery was: mycotic aortic aneurysm in 4 patients (20%), graft infection after abdominal aortic repair in 11 patients (55%), peripheral graft infection in 5 patients (25%). Complete excision of the infected aorta or prosthetic graft, surgical debridement and ISR were performed in all patients. Hospital mortality rate was 5% (n = 1) and graft-related mortality of 0%. During follow-up (median 13 months, range 6-34 months), reinfection was 5.2% and primary graft patency 94.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prefabricated bovine pericardial grafts represents a promising option for the treatment of native and prosthetic aorto-iliac and infrainguinal infections. The application of this biological graft with a standardized postoperative protocol has been associated with a satisfactory patency and reinfection rate without increased bleeding complications.

Endosutured aneurysm repair (ESAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms with short necks achieves acceptable mid-term outcomes - results from the PERU registry.

INTRODUCTION: The study aims to describe midterm outcomes following treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short necks by endosutured aneurysm repair (ESAR) using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor system. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from nine vascular surgery departments between June 2010 - December 2019, including treated AAAs with neck lengths ≤ 10mm. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each centre's practice. There were two subgroups further assessed according to neck length, A (≥4 and < 7mm) and B (≥7 and ≤10mm). The main outcomes analysed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (TIaEL), sac size increase, all-cause (ACM) and aneurysm related mortality (ARM). RESULTS: 76 patients were included in the study, 17 fell into Subgroup A and 59 into subgroup B. Median follow-up for the cohort was 40.5 (IQR 12-61) months. A median of 6 (IQR 3) EndoAnchors were deployed in each subject. Technical success was 86.8% for the total group, 82.4% and 88.1% (p=0.534) for subgroups A and B respectively. Six out of ten (60%) of TIaELs at the completion angiographies showed spontaneous resolution. Cumulative freedom from TIaEL at 3 and 5 years for the total group was 89% and 84% respectively; this was 93% and 74% for subgroup A and 88% at both intervals in subgroup B (p=0.545). In total, there were 7 (9.2%) patients presenting with type Ia endoleaks over the entire study period. Two (11.8%) in subgroup A and 5 (8.5%) in subgroup B (p=0.679). There were more patients with sac regression in subgroup B (subgroup A=6 - 35.3% versus subgroup B=34 - 57.6%, p=0.230) with no statistical significance. ACM was 19 (25%) patients, with no difference (4 - 23.5% versus 15 - 25.4%, p=0.874) between subgroups; whereas ARM occurred in one patient from subgroup A and 3 from subgroup B. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates reasonable outcomes for patients with short-necked AAAs treated by ESAR in terms of type Ia endoleaks up to 5 year follow up. EndoAnchor use should be judiciously evaluated in short necks and may be a reasonable option when anatomical constraints are encountered, mainly for those with 7-10mm neck lengths. Shorter neck length aspects, as indicated by the results from Group A, may be an alternative when no other options are available or feasible.

Endovascular reconstruction of the aortic arch with new-generation dual-branch and triple-branch endograft: design, applicability, indications, outcomes, and future directions.

INTRODUCTION: Repair of aortic arch pathologies such as degenerative aneurysms and dissections still represents a significant challenge for vascular and cardiac surgeons. We focused on the design, evolution, implementation, and prospects of endovascular dual branch technology for treatment of pathologies in the aortic arch. AREAS COVERED: The literature search was conducted in a non-systematic fashion through the PubMed and Scopus databases; articles deemed relevant to the scope of the work and fully published in English language from January 12,000 until December 2023 were considered for inclusion. Two companies so far have developed and launched in market a dedicated arch dual branch platform: Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical. EXPERT OPINION: A common limitation to the available technology is represented by the fact that urgent cases (i.e. large or rapidly growing aneurysms, symptomatic patients) cannot be treated because the customization process generally takes between 6 and 8 weeks, and there is an inherent risk for aorta-related adverse events to happen during the waiting time. While the future holds much promise, several technical hurdles still exist and further developments (in device design, operators' skills, patients' selection, and outcomes assessment) are needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of treatment particularly over the long-run.

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. METHODS: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document. RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.

Intraoperative immunomodulation during left heart bypass in open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Despite the technical innovations introduced in the previous decades, open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair still represents an enormous challenge for patients and surgeons. Logically, the systemic inflammatory response resulting from these massive operations appears considerable; however, the response has never been thoroughly investigated. In addition, intraoperative adjuncts to modulate the postoperative activation of the immune system have not yet been introduced into clinical practice. We report a case of intraoperative hemadsorption during open repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm through the introduction of a CytoSorb device (CytoSorbents Corp) in the left heart bypass circuit. The technique appeared feasible and safe and probably contributed to the good clinical outcomes.

Bypass vs endovascular treatment for occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry). METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test. RESULTS: At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.

Severe local wound infections after vascular exposure in the groin and other body areas: Prevention, treatment and prognosis.

Severe surgical site infections (SSIs) are a frequent nosocomial complication after vascular interventions, an important cause of postoperative morbidity, and a substantial burden to the health care system. Patients undergoing arterial interventions are at elevated risk of SSIs, possibly because of the presence of several risk factors in this patient population. In this review, we examined the available clinical evidence for the prevention, treatment, and prognostication of postoperative severe SSIs after vascular exposure in the groin and other body areas. Results from studies evaluating preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative preventive strategies and several treatment options are reviewed. In addition, risk factors for surgical wound infections are analyzed in detail and related evidence from the literature is highlighted. Although several measures have been implemented over the time to prevent them, SSIs continue to pose a substantial health care and socioeconomic challenge. Therefore, strategies to decrease the risk and improve the treatment of SSIs for the high-risk vascular patient population should be the focus of continuing improvement and critical review. This review aimed at identifying and reviewing the current evidence for preventing, treating, and performing stratification according to the prognosis of postoperative severe SSIs after vascular exposure in the groin and other body areas.

International Multi-Institutional Experience with Presentation and Management of Aortic Arch Laterality in Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Kommerell's Diverticulum.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) with or without Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) is a rare anatomic aortic arch anomaly that can cause dysphagia and/or life-threatening rupture. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of ASA/KD repair in patients with a left versus right aortic arch. METHODS: Using the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium methodology, a retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years old with surgical treatment of ASA/KD from 2000 to 2020 at 20 institutions. RESULTS: 288 patients with ASA with or without KD were identified; 222 left-sided aortic arch (LAA), and 66 right-sided aortic arch (RAA). Mean age at repair was younger in LAA 54 vs. 58 years (P = 0.06). Patients in RAA were more likely to undergo repair due to symptoms (72.7% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.01), and more likely to present with dysphagia (57.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.01). The hybrid open/endovascular approach was the most common repair type in both groups. Rates of intraoperative complications, death within 30 days, return to the operating room, symptom relief and endoleaks were not significantly different. For patients with symptom status follow-up data, in LAA, 61.7% had complete relief, 34.0% had partial relief and 4.3% had no change. In RAA, 60.7% had complete relief, 34.4% had partial relief and 4.9% had no change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASA/KD, RAA patients were less common than LAA, presented more frequently with dysphagia, had symptoms as an indication for intervention, and underwent treatment at a younger age. Open, endovascular and hybrid repair approaches appear equally effective, regardless of arch laterality.

Long-Term Propensity-Matched Comparison of Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Open Surgical Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the long-term outcomes of patients treated with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (c-AAAs). Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms are defined as aneurysms that involve the renal or mesenteric arteries and extend up to the level of the celiac axis or diaphragmatic hiatus but do not extend into the thoracic aorta. This study compares with a propensity-score matching the outcome of these procedures from 2 high-volume aortic centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with c-AAAs undergoing repair at 2 centers between January 2010 and June 2016 were included. The long-term imaging follow-up consisted in a yearly computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the F-BEVAR group. Yearly abdominal ultrasound examination and 5-year CTA were performed in the OSR group. The primary endpoints were long-term mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and chronic renal decline (CRD), defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or >20%/de novo dependence on permanent dialysis in patients with normal or abnormal preoperative renal function, respectively. Secondary endpoints included aortic-related reinterventions, target vessel occlusion, proximal aorta degeneration, access-related complications, graft infection, and the composite endpoint of clinical failure during follow-up. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity matching, 102 consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR and OSR, respectively, were included. The median follow-up was 67 months. There was no significant difference in long-term overall mortality (40.2% vs 36.3%; p=0.40) and aneurysm-related mortality (6.8% vs 5.8%; p=0.30), in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively. During follow-up, late renal function decline occurred in 27 (27.8%) versus 46 patients (47.4%) in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively (p<0.01). During follow-up, 23 reinterventions (23.5%) were performed in the F-BEVAR group, and 5 (5.1%) in the OSR group (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality were observed. Chronic renal decline was significantly higher after OSR, while the reintervention rate was higher in the F-BEVAR group. These long-term results reflect the outcomes of a complex procedure performed by a single experienced operator in 2 high-volume centers, and followed with a strict surveillance imaging follow-up. CLINICAL IMPACT: Nowadays, F-BEVAR and OSR are considered two established techniques for the treatment of c-AAA. However, long-term comparative outcomes are not well studied, and concerns may rise in terms of durability of the repair, risk of reinterventions and late chronic renal decline. The present study showed, with a median follow-up > 5 years, no differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality. Chronic renal decline was significantly higher after OSR, while the reintervention rate was higher in the endovascular group. To achieve the best possible long-term outcomes, both techniques should be performed in high volume aortic centres, tailored to the patient, and with an adequate surveillance imaging.

"Redo" 2D-3D Fusion Technique during Endovascular Redo Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to describe a new 2D-3D fusion registration method in the case of endovascular redo aortic repair and compare the accuracy of the registration using the previously implanted devices vs. bones as landmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center study prospectively analyzed all the patients that underwent elective endovascular re-interventions using the Redo Fusion technique between January 2016 and December 2021 at the Vascular Surgery Unit of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPUG)-IRCCS in Rome, Italy. The fusion overlay was performed twice, first using bone landmarks (bone fusion) and the second using radiopaque markers of a previous endovascular device (redo fusion). The pre-operative 3D model was fused with live fluoroscopy to create a roadmap. Longitudinal distances between the inferior margin of the target vessel in live fluoroscopy and the inferior margin of the target vessel in bone fusion and redo fusion were measured. RESULTS: This single-center study prospectively analyzed 20 patients. There were 15 men and five women, with a median age of 69.7 (IQR 42) years. The median distance between the inferior margin of the target vessel ostium in digital subtraction angiography and the inferior margin of the target vessel ostium in bone fusion and redo fusion was 5.35 mm and 1.35 mm, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The redo fusion technique is accurate and allows the optimization of X-ray working views, supporting the endovascular navigation and vessel catheterization in case of endovascular redo aortic repair.

Contemporary outcomes after treatment of aberrant subclavian artery and Kommerell's diverticulum.

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and Kommerell's diverticulum (KD) are rare vascular anomalies that may be associated with lifestyle-limiting and life-threatening complications. The aim of this study is to report contemporary outcomes after invasive treatment of ASA/KD using a large international dataset. METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment for ASA/KD (2000-2020) were identified through the Vascular Low Frequency Disease Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration to investigate uncommon vascular disorders. We report the early and mid-term clinical outcomes including stroke and mortality, technical success, and other operative outcomes including reintervention rates, patency, and endoleak. RESULTS: Overall, 285 patients were identified during the study period. The mean patient age was 57 years; 47% were female and 68% presented with symptoms. A right-sided arch was present in 23%. The mean KD diameter was 47.4 mm (range, 13.0-108.0 mm). The most common indication for treatment was symptoms (59%), followed by aneurysm size (38%). The most common symptom reported was dysphagia (44%). A ruptured KD was treated in 4.2% of cases, with a mean diameter of 43.9 mm (range, 18.0-100.0 mm). An open procedure was performed in 101 cases (36%); the most common approach was ASA ligation with subclavian transposition. An endovascular or hybrid approach was performed in 184 patients (64%); the most common approach was thoracic endograft and carotid-subclavian bypass. A staged operative strategy was employed more often than single setting repair (55% vs 45%). Compared with endovascular or hybrid approach, those in the open procedure group were more likely to be younger (49 years vs 61 years; P < .0001), female (64% vs 36%; P < .0001), and symptomatic (85% vs 59%; P < .0001). Complete or partial symptomatic relief at 1 year after intervention was 82.6%. There was no association between modality of treatment and symptom relief (open 87.2% vs endovascular or hybrid approach 78.9%; P = .13). After the intervention, 11 subclavian occlusions (4.5%) occurred; 3 were successfully thrombectomized resulting in a primary and secondary patency of 95% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 39 months. Among the 33 reinterventions (12%), the majority were performed for endoleak (36%), and more reinterventions occurred in the endovascular or hybrid approach than open procedure group (15% vs 6%; P = .02). The overall survival rate was 87.3% at a median follow-up of 41 months. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 4.2% and 4.9%, respectively. Urgent or emergent presentation was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 19.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-116.6), overall mortality (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-11.2) and intraoperative complications (OR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.8-25.1). Females had a higher risk of reintervention (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.5). At an aneurysm size of 44.4 mm, receiver operator characteristic curve analysis suggested that 60% of patients would have symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ASA/KD can be performed safely with low rates of mortality, stroke and reintervention and high rates of symptomatic relief, regardless of the repair strategy. Symptomatic and urgent operations were associated with worse outcomes in general, and female gender was associated with a higher likelihood of reintervention. Given the worse overall outcomes when symptomatic and the inherent risk of rupture, consideration of repair at 40 mm is reasonable in most patients. ASA/KD can be repaired in asymptomatic patients with excellent outcomes and young healthy patients may be considered better candidates for open approaches versus endovascular or hybrid modalities, given the lower likelihood of reintervention and lower early mortality rate.

European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm. BACKGROUND: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes. RESULTS: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Mid-term outcomes of the use of endoanchors during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in multicentre analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe mid-term outcomes of the use of EndoAnchors as an adjunct for arch and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: A retrospective multicentre series from nine centres using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA) at TEVAR over May 2014-May 2019 is presented. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT04100499. The primary outcome was freedom from Type I endoleak at EndoAnchors deployments; secondary outcomes included evaluation of aortic wall penetration (AWP) at first computed tomography scan, EndoAnchor-related issues and mortality. RESULTS: 54 high-risk patients (35 males/19 females, age 73 ± 11 years) with arch, thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysmal disease (3 chronic post-dissection and one patch pseudoaneurysm), with a mean neck length 19.7 ± 6.6 mm that were treated with multiple hybrid and endovascular techniques were included. A total of 329 EndoAnchors were used with a mean of 6.1 ± 2.5 per patient. Overall adequate AWP was 86%, whereas arch (Ishimaru's zones 0-2) deployments achieved 80.6% when compared to 87.3% in descending thoracic aorta (dTA); although there was no statistical significance. Freedom from type I endoleaks was 88% at 2 year follow-up, due to 4 type IA endoleaks, two of them successfully treated, one with conservative treatment due to complexity of repair and remaining patient died 1 year later due to endograft infection. There were reported five EndoAnchor-related issues; four losses and one renal stent-graft was crushed due to catheter deflection solved with balloon reinflation. None of the losses had clinical significance. Overall mortality is described for 7 (9.5%) patients, one of them aneurysm-related. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in TEVAR and complex TEVAR procedures achieved acceptable outcomes at midterm in a high-risk series with hostile seal zones. Still, they should be still judiciously used as there is lack of data to suggest a more liberal use; therefore, the landing zone should not be compromised in favour of their use.

Long-Term Results of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Open Repair.

This study investigated the long-term outcomes of patients treated with open surgical repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (c-AAAs). A total of 119 patients with c-AAAs undergoing repair between January 2010 and June 2016 in a high-volume aortic center were included. The long-term imaging follow-up consisted of yearly abdominal ultrasound examinations and 5-year computed tomography angiography. At a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 38 months), forty-three deaths (37%) and three (2.5%) aortic-related deaths were observed. Long-term chronic renal decline was observed in fifty (43.8%) patients, significantly correlated with post-operative acute kidney injury. During the follow-up, five reinterventions (4.3%) were performed. The present study suggests that open c-AAA repair can be performed with acceptable operative risk with durable results. To achieve the best possible long-term outcome, the open surgery repair of complex AAA should be performed in high-volume aortic centers and tailored to the patient.

A New Mini-Invasive Approach for a Catastrophic Disease: Staged Endovascular and Endoscopic Treatment of Aorto-Esophageal Fistulas.

Aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF) is an uncommon but usually fatal disorder. Surgery with resection of an aneurysm and esophagus, in situ reconstruction of the descending aorta and omental flap installation offers the gold standard for the reduction of infections, but it is burdened by high intraoperative and perioperative mortality rates. We report our experience with a combined minimally invasive approach for the multi-stage treatment of three cases of aorto-esophageal fistula caused by thoracic aneurysm rupture. In all of the patients, the aneurysm was treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair and the esophageal lesion was treated with esophageal endoprosthesis placement. According to our experience, the combined strategy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and esophageal less invasive endoscopic treatments represents an alternative solution in frail patients with high surgical risk.

Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature.

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Postoperative Intensive Care Management of Aortic Repair.

Vascular surgery patients have multiple comorbidities and are at high risk for perioperative complications. Aortic repair surgery has greatly evolved in recent years, with an increasing predominance of endovascular techniques (EVAR). The incidence of cardiac complications is significantly reduced with endovascular repair, but high-risk patients require postoperative ST-segment monitoring. Open aortic repair may portend a prohibitive risk of respiratory complications that could be a contraindication for surgery. This risk is greatly reduced in the case of an endovascular approach, and general anesthesia should be avoided whenever possible in the case of endovascular repair. Preoperative renal function and postoperative kidney injury are powerful determinants of short- and long-term outcome, so that preoperative risk stratification and secondary prevention are critical tasks. Intraoperative renal protection with selective renal and distal aortic perfusion is essential during open repair. EVAR has lower rates of postoperative renal failure compared to open repair, with approximately half the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and one-third of the risk of hemodialysis requirement. Spinal cord ischemia used to be the most distinctive and feared complication of aortic repair. The risk has significantly decreased since the beginning of aortic surgery, with advances in surgical technique and spinal protection protocols, and is lower with endovascular repair. Endovascular repair avoids extensive aortic dissection and aortic cross-clamping and is generally associated with reduced blood loss and less coagulopathy. The intensive care physician must be aware that aortic repair surgery has an impact on every organ system, and the importance of early recognition of organ failure cannot be overemphasized.