Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP): the profile.

INTRODUCTION: With the incidence of thoracic aortic disease on the rise, total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) remains the gold-standard management strategy due to optimal results. Several FET devices exist commercially on the global market. However, the mainstay and most commonly used and reported device is the Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP), with several recent reports suggesting its superiority. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to collate and summarize the evidence in the literature on the clinical outcomes of TAR with FET using THP, with a focus on mortality, neurological complications, endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (dSINE), aortic remodeling, coagulopathy, and graft kinking. In addition, the design features of THP is discussed, and an overview of market competitors is also highlighted. EXPERT OPINION: THP consistently demonstrates its effectiveness in treating complex thoracic aortic pathology through favorable clinical outcomes, which can be attributed to its unique and innovative design. Rates of early mortality ranged 0.6-14.2%, neurological complications 0-25%, endoleak 0-8.4% and dSINE 0-14.5%, with minimal incidence of graft kinking and coagulopathy. Aortic remodeling is favorable and comparable to competitors. All this evidence solidifies THP as the leading FET device, particularly when combined with appropriate patient selection and surgical planning.

[Partial Arch Repair for Reruptured Aortic Arch Aneurysm due to Endoleak After 2-debranching Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair:Report of a Case].

A 67-year-old male was admitted to our hospital for sudden onset chest pain and hoarseness. He underwent 2-debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for a ruptured aortic arch aneurysm four years prior. However, computed tomography (CT) revealed an aneurysmal rerupture due to a typeⅠa endoleak. We performed partial arch replacement with uncovered stent removal under intermittent hypothermic circulatory arrest. We needed to be more careful than usual open heart surgery because a non-anatomical bypass procedure was performed. The surgery was successful without any major complications, and the patient was discharged on the 23th postoperative day. Reinterventions post-endovascular repair are sometimes difficult;thus, open surgery could be useful for arch replacement.

Large-Diameter Fenestrated Endograft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Is Not Associated With Medium-Term Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggests that infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair (EVAR) with large diameter grafts (LGs) may have a higher risk of endoleak and reintervention. However, this has not been studied extensively for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR). We, therefore, sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing fEVAR with large-diameter endografts. METHODS: Patients from the national Vascular Quality Initiative registry who underwent fEVAR for intact juxtarenal AAA were identified. Patients with genetic causes for aneurysms, those with prior aortic surgery, and those undergoing repair for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Rates of endoleaks and reintervention at periprocedural and long-term follow-up timepoints (9-22 mo) were analyzed in grafts 32 mm or larger (LG) and were compared to those smaller than 32 mm (small diameter graft). RESULTS: A total of 693 patients (22.8% LG) were identified. Overall, demographic variables were comparable except LG exhibited a more frequent history of coronary artery disease (32.9% versus 25.4%, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences in the rates of endoleak at procedural completion. Overall survival at 5 y was no different. The rate of reintervention at 1 y was also no different (log-rank P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: While graft size appears to have an association with outcomes in infrarenal aneurysm repair, the same does not appear to be true for fEVAR. Further studies should evaluate the long-term outcomes associated with LG which could alter the approach to repair of AAA with large neck diameters traditionally treated with standard infrarenal EVAR.

One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sacs with polyurethane shape memory polymer (SMP) devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), using a technique to fully treat the target lumen after endograft placement (aortic flow volume minus the endograft volume). SMP devices self-expand in the sac to form a porous scaffold that supports thrombosis throughout its structure. METHODS: Two identical prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies were conducted in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The study population was adult candidates for elective EVAR of an infrarenal AAA (diameter of ≥55 mm in men and ≥50 mm in women). Key exclusion criteria were an inability to adequately seal a common iliac artery aneurysm, patent sac feeding vessels of >4 mm, and a target lumen volume of <20 mL or >135 mL. Target lumen volumes were estimated by subtracting endograft volumes from preprocedural imaging-based flow lumen volumes. SMP devices were delivered immediately after endograft deployment via a 6F sheath jailed in a bowed position in the sac. The primary efficacy end point was technical success, defined as filling the actual target lumen volume with fully expanded SMP at the completion of the procedure. Secondary efficacy outcome measures during follow-up were the change in sac volume and diameter, rate of type II endoleak and type I or III endoleaks, and the rate of open repair and related reinterventions, with data collection at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year (to date). Baseline sac volumes and diameters for change in sac size analyses were determined from 30-day imaging studies. Baseline and follow-up volumes were normalized by subtraction of the endograft volume. RESULTS: Of 34 patients treated with SMP devices and followed per protocol, 33 patients were evaluable at 1 year. Preprocedural aneurysm volume was 181.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 150.7-212.1 mL) and preprocedural aneurysm diameter was 60.8 mm (95% CI, 57.8-63.9 mm). The target lumen volume was 56.3 mL (95% CI, 46.9-65.8 mL). Technical success was 100% and the ratio of SMP fully expanded volume to estimated target lumen volume was 1.4 ± 0.3. Baseline normalized sac volume and diameter were 140.7 mL (95% CI, 126.6-154.9 mL) and 61.0 mm (95% CI, 59.7-62.3 mm). The adjusted mean percentage change in normalized volume at 1 year was -28.8% (95% CI, -35.3 to -22.3%; P < .001). The adjusted mean change in sac diameter at 1 year was -5.9 mm (95% CI, -7.5 to -4.4 mm; P < .001). At 1 year, 81.8% of patients (95% CI, 64.5%-93.0%) achieved a ≥10% decrease in normalized volume and 57.6% of patients (95% CI, 39.2%-74.5%) achieved a ≥5 mm decrease in diameter. No device- or study procedure-related major adverse events occurred through 1 year after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of AAA sacs with SMP devices during EVAR resulted in significant sac volume and diameter regression at 1 year with an acceptable safety profile in this prospective study.

Time Dependent Correlation Between Sac Behaviour and Re-intervention after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the correlation between aneurysm sac behaviour and time to re-intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study of patients who underwent EVAR at a single centre between January 2008 and November 2011 and who were followed up for a mean of 6.6 ± 2.9 years was conducted. Based on sac appearances on pre-operative imaging and imaging at the end of follow up, patients were stratified into two groups: (1) sac regression; and (2) no sac regression. The no sac regression group was further subdivided into stable sac group and sac expansion group. Sac regression and expansion throughout follow up were defined as a decrease or increase in the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameter of ≥ 5 mm compared with the pre-operative size. A Cox proportional hazards model using multiple failure per subject data was used to identify sac behaviour as a predictor of re-intervention free time. RESULTS: Patients with sac regression had a higher probability of freedom from re-intervention compared with those with a stable or expanding aneurysm sac (94%, 57%, and 16% at 12 years, respectively; log rank, p < .001). Mean time to re-intervention was 11.3 years for the sac regression group, 8.8 years for the stable sac group, and 5.0 years for the sac expansion group (p < .001). In the stable sac group, the risk of re-intervention increased sharply six years after EVAR, whereas in the sac expansion group a sharp rise in re-intervention was noted 3.5 years after EVAR, reaching a plateau after year 6. CONCLUSION: A time dependent correlation between aneurysm sac behaviour and re-intervention was found. Such findings have implications for surveillance strategies.

Ultrasound Coded-Excitation Imaging for Endoleak Detection After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Several imaging modalities have been suggested for surveillance after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in general and endoleak detection in specific. In the present project a coded excitation-based ultrasound (B-Flow) was investigated for endoleak detection after complex endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Patients post complex endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR or T/FEVAR) undergoing follow-up appointments including ultrasonography of the aorta at a vascular and endovascular surgery outpatient center were included in the study. B-Flow was compared with computed tomography angiography (CTA), Duplex ultrasound (DUS), and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) regarding agreement and reliability for endoleak detection and characterization. RESULTS: In total, 47 follow-ups were included. They accumulated in a total of 149 imaging investigations. Endoleaks were discovered in 44.7% of B-Flow studies and a majority of these endoleaks were classified as type II. Agreement between B-Flow and other imaging modalities was good (>80.0%) in general. However, with B-Flow 6 and 2 endoleaks would have been missed compared with CEUS and CTA, respectively. Regarding endoleak classification, B-Flow had a strong agreement (94.5%) with CEUS in detected cases. Furthermore, in a limited subset analysis, imaging findings were externally validated using findings from angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography allows for endoleak detection and characterization without an invasive procedure or the use of potentially nephrotoxic contrast medium and can reduce radiation exposure. While CEUS mitigates issues of radiation and nephrotoxicity it still requires the intravenous application of contrast enhancers. Ultrasound coded-excitation imaging such as B-Flow could therefore further simplify endoleak surveillance after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

A Single-Institution Case Series of Total Endovascular Relining for Type 3 Endoleaks in Traditional Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Grafts with Raised Bifurcations.

BACKGROUND: The endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms can be performed with a wide variety of devices. Many of these grafts elevate the aortic bifurcation which can limit future repairs if the graft material fails thereby creating a type III endoleak to aorto-uniliac grafts. Many manufacturers have grafts susceptible to this, but we have seen this in the Medtronic AneuRx graft. Our goal is to provide technical details and outcomes regarding a novel technique to reline these grafts while maintaining inline flow to the iliac arteries. METHODS: This was a single-institution review of patients who had endoleaks requiring intervention after a previously placed graft with an elevated aortic bifurcation. Primary outcomes included technical success defined as placement of all planned devices, resolution of type III endoleak, aneurysm size at follow-up, and requirement of reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, aneurysm-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. Technical details of the operation include back-table deployment of an Ovation device, modification of the deployment system tether and pre-emptive placement of an up and over 0.014″ wire. The wire is placed up and over and hung outside the contralateral gate. Once the main body is introduced above the old graft, the 0.014" is snared from the contralateral side and externalized. The main body is then able to be seated at the bifurcation as the limb is not fully deployed and then device deployment is completed per instructions for use. RESULTS: Our study consists of 4 individuals, 3 of which had an abdominal aortic aneurysm initially managed with an AneuRx endovascular aneurysm repair and 1 with a combination of Gore and Cook grafts. All 4 patients were male with an average age of 84.5 years at time of reline. All patients had at least 10 years between initial surgery and reline at our institution. Primary outcomes revealed no type 1 or 3 endoleaks at follow-up, technical success was 100% and 1 patient required reintervention for aneurysm growth and type 2 endoleak. In terms of our secondary outcomes, there was 1 postoperative complication which was cardiac dysfunction secondary to demand ischemia, aneurysm-related mortality was 0% and all-cause mortality was 25% at average follow-up of 2.44 years. CONCLUSIONS: As individuals continue to age, there are more patients who would benefit from less invasive reinterventions following endovascular aneurysm repair. Whether this is due to aortic degeneration, stent migration, or stent material damage is not always known. In this study, we present an endovascular approach to treating type III endoleak patients with a previous graft and elevated aortic bifurcation using Ovation stent grafts and found no evidence of type 1 or 3 endoleaks on follow-up imaging. This approach may allow patients with type III endoleak the option of a minimally invasive, percutaneous approach where they previously would not have had one.

Intra-Sac Injection of Thrombin During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair to Remedy Type II Endoleak and Promote Sac Shrinkage.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intra-sac thrombin injection to remedy type II endoleaks (T2ELs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 224 cases abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were treated with EVAR. For the 52 cases of intra-operative type II endoleaks and 8 cases of ruptured AAAs, after the grafts were deployed, thrombin was injected into the aneurysm sac through a preset catheter. The occurrence of endoleaks post-EVAR were followed up with by Computed Tomography (CT) angiogram. The diameter and the volume of the aneurysm sac were also measured. Endpoints included incidence of T2ELs, AAA sac shrinkage and re-intervention rate and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The overall technical success rate was 100%. Fifty-two patients were followed up with for 9-56 (median 24) months. No serious complications were observed during follow-up. The incidence of endoleak was 5.8% (3/52) during follow-up. The maximum diameter of the aneurysm decreased from 61.1 ± 14.2 mm to 53.7 ± 10.6 mm, 47.9 ± 8.3 mm and 43.7 ± 7.2 mm (87.9%, 78.4% and 71.5% of pre-EVAR) at the 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively (P < .05). The volume of the aneurysm sac shrank from 236.2 ± 136.2 cm3 to 202.6 ± 114.1 cm3, 155.6 ± 68.4 cm3 and 129.7 ± 52.4 cm3 (85.8%, 65.9%, and 54.9% of pre-EVAR) at the 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively (P < .05). The rate of various endoleaks was 5.8% (3/52) and the re-intervention rate was 1.9% (1/52) in this research. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes show that intra-sac injection of thrombin during EVAR is safe and may be effective in remedying small amount and low-velocity endoleaks and promoting shrinkage of the aneurysm sac.

Image Guidance Techniques and Treatment Approach Optimization in the Management of Type-II Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 3 decades endovascular aortic aneurysm repair emerged as the primary approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm management, however the occurrence of endoleak following endograft implantation imposes a high toll on patients and hospitals alike. The early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of endoleaks is associated with better outcomes, which calls for more advanced imaging and a standardized approach for endoleak diagnosis and management following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Although conventional strategy with non-targeted deployment of coils and embolic material in the aneurysm sac is considered to be the standard approach in many hospitals, it may not prove to be a viable option, given that it affects any further follow-up imaging in the event of sub-optimal therapy and consequent recurrence. METHODS: Based on our tertiary aortic referral center experience we summarize and describe strategies for optimal selection of various treatment approaches for Type-II Endoleak management including endovascular, percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches with particular focus on intraoperative image guidance techniques. RESULTS: After failed conventional endovascular embolization attempt we recommend specific complex type II endoleak management approaches based on the location of the endoleak within the aneurysm sac along the x, y and z axis. A transabdominal or laparoscopic approach enable treatment in endoleaks located in the anterior portion of the sac. Endoleaks in the posterior portion of the sac could be treated using the transcaval or the translumbar approach, depending on whether the endoleak is situated on the left or the right side. Alternative strategies should be considered if patient anatomy does not allow for either transcaval or translumbar approach. The transgraft technique is reserved for endoleaks located in the cranial portion of the sac, while the perigraft approach could present a means of treatment for endoleaks situated in the caudal portion of the aneurysm sac. CONCLUSION: We encourage establishing a patient specific treatment plan in accordance with individual anatomy based on cross sectional imaging modality (time resolved dynamic imaging in selected cases) and intraoperative image guidance to provide a safe and accurate endoleak localization and embolization for patients undergoing type II endoleak treatment.

Use of physician-modified inverted limb in conjunction with Zenith fenestrated stent graft to rescue failed previous endovascular and open repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes and performance of inverted limbs (ILs) when used in conjunction with Zenith fenestrated stent grafts (Zfens) to treat patients with short distance between the lowest renal artery (RA) and aortic or graft bifurcation (A/GB). METHODS: This study was a multicenter, retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients with complex aortic aneurysms, failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), or open surgical repair (OSR) with short distance between LRA and A/GB treated using a combination of Zfen and an IL between 2013 and 2023. Endpoints included technical success, aneurysm sac regression, long-term device integrity, and target vessel patency. We defined technical success as implantation of the device with no endoleak, conversion to an aorto-uni-iliac or OSR. RESULTS: During this time, 52 patients underwent endovascular rescue of failed repair. Twenty (38.5%) of them required relining of the failed repairs using IL due to lowest RA to A/GB length restrictions. Two patients had undergone rescue with a fenestrated cuff alone but developed type III endoleaks. One patient with no previous implant had a short distance between the lowest RA and aortic bifurcation to accommodate the bifurcated distal device, and two patients had failed OSR or anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. The majority (94%) were men with a mean age of 76.8 ± 6.1 years. The mean aortic neck diameter and aneurysm size were 32 ± 4 cm and 7.2 ± 1.3 cm, respectively. The median time laps between initial repair and failure was 36 months (interquartile range [IQR], 24-54 months). Sixteen patients (80%) were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists class III, whereas four were class IV. Seventy-eight vessels were targeted and successfully incorporated. Technical success was 100%, and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL (IQR, 100-200 mL). Mean fluoroscopy time and dose were 61 ± 18 minutes and 2754 ± 1062 mGy, respectively. Average hospital length of stay was 2.75 ± 2.15 days. Postoperative complication occurred in one patient who required lower extremity fasciotomy for compartment syndrome. At a median follow-up of 50 months (IQR, 18-58 months), there were no device migration, components separation, aneurysmal related mortality, and type I or type III endoleak. Aneurysm sac regression (95%) or stabilization (5%) was observed in all patients, including in four patients (25%) with type II endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IL in conjunction with Zfen to treat patients with short distance between the lowest RA and A/GB is safe, effective, and has excellent long-term results. The technique expands the indication of Zfen, especially in patients with failed previous EVAR.

Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

A Greek Multicentre Study Assessing the Outcome of Late Rupture After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Late rupture after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an increasing complication associated with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to analyse the causes and outcomes in patients with AAA rupture after EVAR. METHODS: A multi-institutional Greek study of late ruptures after EVAR between 2008 - 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes were intra-operative and in hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients presented with late rupture after EVAR (proportion of ruptured EVARs among all EVARs, 0.6%; 69 males; mean age 77.2 ± 6.7 years). The mean time interval between EVAR and late rupture was 72.3 months (range 6 - 180 months). In all cases the cause of rupture was the presence of an endoleak (type I, 73%) with sac enlargement. Moreover, 34% of subjects with rupture after EVAR had been lost to follow up and 32% underwent a secondary intervention. Additionally, 57 patients (81%) were treated by conversion to open surgical repair (COSR) and the remainder by endovascular correction of endoleak (ECE). Eleven intra-operative deaths (16%) were recorded. The overall in hospital mortality rate was 41% (23% ECE vs. 46% COSR; p = .21). Of the patients who presented as initially haemodynamically stable, 23% died during hospitalisation, while the respective mortality rate for patients who presented as unstable was 78% (odds ratio [OR] 11.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6 - 39.1; p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that severity of haemodynamic shock was the most significant risk factor for intra-operative (OR 7.15, 95% CI 1.58 - 32.40; p = .010) and in hospital death (OR 9.53, 95% CI 2.79 - 32.58; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These data underline the devastating prognosis of late rupture after EVAR. Haemodynamic status at presentation was an important predictive factor for death both in the ECE and COSR groups. Rigorous follow up and prompt evaluation of an unstable patient in case of rupture after EVAR is recommended.

Predictive Parameters of Type 1A Endoleak for Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: One of the most important factors that affects the success of Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) treatment is the morphology of the neck of the aneurysm. Today, EVAR can be performed even in patients who do not meet the Instruction For Use criteria with hostile neck risk factors; thanks to the developing experience and technology. Our aim in this study was to determine risk factors for Type 1a endoleaks in patients who underwent EVAR and predictive factors for Type 1a endoleaks in patients with combinations of these risk factors. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm in our medical center between July 2016 and January 2021 were enrolled. Of these 244 patients, 180 patients with documented preoperative and postoperative computed tomographic angiography results and a follow-up of at least 1 year were included in the study. The Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t-test were used to assess the relationship between nominal data and numerical values, and the t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare dependent groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to model risk factors associated with endoleaks. RESULTS: The results showed that a neck length less than 15 mm increased the development of type 1a endoleak by 10.4 times (P < 0.001). Furthermore, a neck diameter more than 28 mm increased the development of type 1a endoleak by 21.9 times (P = 0.04). A conical neck structure (gradual neck dilation > 2 mm) increased the development of type 1a endoleaks 4.8 times (P = 0.04). The presence of calcification (> 150 Hounsfield Unit and > 2 mm) in the neck increased the risk of type 1a endoleaks fourfold (P = 0.04). Hostile neck parameters were analyzed and patients with only 1 parameter (n = 69) had a 7.2% type 1a endoleak rate, while patients with 2 parameters (n = 15) had 26.6% and patients with more than 2 parameters (n = 11) had 45.5% type 1a endoleak rate. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologic features of the neck structure of the aneurysm are among the most important parameters that affect the success of EVAR treatment. Alternative treatments should be considered in patients with more than 1 unfavorable neck parameter.

Impact of the Lumbar Arteries on Aneurysm Diameter and Type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended to prevent type 2 endoleak (T2EL). However, the impact of patent lumbar arteries (LAs) on T2ELs and aneurysm diameter has not been elucidated. METHODS: Fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between January 2013 and September 2022 and whose IMA had been occluded preoperatively or newly occluded postoperatively were included in the study. Predictive factors for aneurysm sac enlargement, sac shrinkage, and T2EL were investigated. RESULTS: T2ELs occurred in 22.8% of the patients. The 4-year cumulative incidence rates of sac enlargement and shrinkage were 6.7% and 64.6%, respectively. The number of postoperative patent LAs was identified as a risk factor for T2ELs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54-12.7, P = 0.0065). The number of postoperative patent LAs was found to be a significant predictor of sac enlargement (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 3.15, 95% CI: 1.43-6.96, P = 0.0045) and shrinkage (AHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.91, P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated that the number of postoperative patent LAs had a significant impact on the development of T2ELs and the change in aneurysm diameter in patients in whom the IMA was occluded after EVAR.

Computational prediction of proximal sealing in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with unfavorable necks.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms in most centers. However, proximal sealing complications leading to endoleaks and migrations sometimes occur, particularly in unfavorable aortic anatomies and are strongly dependent on biomechanical interactions between the aortic wall and the endograft. The objective of the present work is to develop and validate a computational patient-specific model that can accurately predict these complications. METHODS: Based on pre-operative CT-scans, we developed finite element models of the aorta of 10 patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, 7 with standard morphologies and 3 with unfavorable anatomies. We simulated the deployment of stent grafts in each aorta by solving mechanical equilibrium with a virtual shell method. Eventually we compared the actual stent ring positions from post-operative computed-tomography-scans with the predicted simulated positions. RESULTS: A successful deployment simulation could be performed for each patient. Relative radial, transverse and longitudinal deviations were 6.3 ± 4.4%, 2.5 ± 0.9 mm and 1.4 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The numerical model predicted accurately stent-graft positions in the aortic neck of 10 patients, even in complex anatomies. This shows the potential of computer simulation to anticipate possible proximal endoleak complications before EVAR interventions.

[Delayed Type â ¢b Endoleak After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: Report of a Case].

An 85-year-old woman underwent aortic arch replacement and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) 5 years ago. She suffered from chest and back pain. Computed tomography (CT) demonstrated enlargement of the aortic aneurysm by a type Ⅲb endoleak. TEVAR was performed to close a type Ⅲb endoleak with a relining technique uneventfully. Intraoperative completion aortography and postoperative CT confirmed the disappearance of a type Ⅲb endoleak. She was discharged 27 days after the treatment.

Multicenter Comparison of Aortic Arch Aneurysms and Dissections Zone 0 Hybrid and Total Endovascular Repair.

PURPOSE: Comparison of hybrid and total endovascular aortic arch repair at two tertiary vascular surgery centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing hybrid (HG) or total endovascular (TEG) total aortic arch repair for aneurysms or dissections were included (2008-2022). Primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were major complications, technical success (defined as absence of surgical conversion/mortality, high-flow endoleaks or branch/limb occlusion), clinical success (defined as absence of disabling clinical sequelae), late and aortic-related mortality/reinterventions, freedom from endoleaks, aortic diameter growth > 5 mm, graft migration and supra-aortic trunks (SAT) patency. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were included, 17 in HG and 13 in TEG. TEG presented shorter intervention time (240.5 vs 341 min, p = 0.01), median ICU stay (1 vs 4.5 days, p < 0.01) and median length of stay (8 vs 17.5 days, p < 0.01). No intraoperative deaths occurred. Technical success was 100%; clinical success was 70.6% in HG and 100% in TEG (p = 0.05). Thirty-day mortality was 13.3%, exclusively in HG (p = 0.11). Nine major complications occurred in 8 patients, 5 in HG and 3 in TEG (p = 0.99), among which five strokes, two in HG and three in TEG (p = 0.62). Late mortality was 38.5%, six patients in HG and four in TEG, p = 0.6. Two late aortic-related deaths occurred in HG (p = 0.9). Two aortic-related reinterventions, no graft migration or SAT occlusion was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Total endovascular repair seems to shorten operative times and provide higher clinical success compared with hybrid solutions, without significant 30-day mortality differences. The most common major complication is stroke.