Serious Failure Modes After EVAR Are Device Specific.

OBJECTIVES: Type I and III endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can lead to catastrophic events that require major re-interventions. We reviewed our experience with aortic endograft re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks and other serious failures among different devices. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with a prior EVAR who underwent open conversion (OC) or major endovascular intervention (MEI) (re-lining, cuff/limb extension, parallel graft) for type I/III endoleaks at our institution from 2002 to 2019. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, re-interventions, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients (194 men) underwent re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks after EVAR (90 OC, 139 MEI) for devices implanted between 1997 and 2019. Average age at re-intervention was 78±8.5 years. A total of 135 (59%) were implanted at our institution, whereas 93 (41%) were referred. Median time to re-intervention was 4 years with 25% to 75% interquartile range (IQR) of 2.2-6.6 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics or type of re-interventions (OC/MEI) between device types. 42/229 (18%) presented with ruptured aneurysms, 20/229 (9%) were symptomatic, whereas the rest presented with asymptomatic radiographic findings. Type 1A endoleak was present in 146/229 (63.8%-72 with proximal migration), type IB in 46/229 (20.1%), type IIIA in 37/229 (16.6%), type IIIB in 15/229 (6.5%), and persistent aneurysm sac growth with no radiographic evidence of an endoleak in 6/229 (2.6%). Devices included most commercial products: AFX, Excluder, AneuRx, Ancure, Endurant, and Zenith. A smaller number of investigational devices accounted for the rest. Type 1A endoleak was the most common indication for re-intervention among all devices except for AFX and ancure devices, proximal migration was a frequent presentation with AneuRx. AFX devices more frequently presented with a type III and ancure devices more frequently presented with a type IB endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: Serious failure modes after EVAR differ between endografts and occur throughout the follow-up period. This is important to guide targeted interrogation of surveillance studies and follow-up schedules, even for discontinued devices, as well as comparisons between various series and estimation of EVAR failure rates. CLINICAL IMPACT: Surveillance after EVAR is critical for long term success of the repair, understanding of the differential modes of failure of every graft available is important in the longitudinal evaluation of these endografts. Equally important is the understanding of the modes of failure of legacy endografts that are no longer on the market but still being followed, in order to be able to tailor a surveillance regiemn and the evntual repair if needed.

Technical and patient-related characteristics associated with challenging retrieval of inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient-related and device-specific predictors of challenging and failed inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrievals. METHODS: Retrospective single center review of consecutive retrievable IVC filters placed between 2004 and 2009. Retrieval was defined as challenging when it was unsuccessful owing to reported technical failure or when adjunctive endovascular maneuvers or access sites were recruited. Data regarding patient- and filter-specific information were collected. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of the reported outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. RESULTS: Four hundred and one patients underwent retrievable IVC filter placement-the majority indicated for prophylaxis (67%). Two hundred and fifty-nine retrievals were attempted and 237 filters were successfully retrieved (overall retrieval rate: 59.1%). Eleven out of 259 (4.2%) attempts were aborted owing to significant thrombus within the filter and 11 (4.2%) were technically unsuccessful. In 142 patients no attempt for filter retrieval was made-the major reason being physician oversight (44.3%). Thirty-eight out of 248 (15.3%) non-aborted filter retrievals were recorded as challenging. Failed retrievals were predicted by prolonged dwell time (96.9 ± 111.9 vs. 29.5 ± 25.1 days, odds ratio [OR] 1.034, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.016-1.053, p < .001), therapeutic indication (OR 5.197, 95% CI 1.200-22.511, p = .028), and filter wall apposition (OR 11.857, 95% CI 2.069-67.968, p = .006). Challenging retrievals were predicted by dwell time (51.1 ± 69.8 vs. 29.1 ± 24.5 days, OR 1.017, 95% CI 1.005-1.029, p = .007), filter tilt (OR 2.607, 95% CI 1.045-6.508, p = .040) and filter wall apposition (OR 6.149, 95% CI 2.398-15.763, p = <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician oversight leads to poor IVC filter retrieval rates. Retrievals can be challenging or fail when the dwell time is >50 days and >90 days, respectively, and when the filter hook apposes the caval wall. Filter tilt increases retrieval difficulty but not failure rates.

Cryoplasty offers no advantage over standard balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent stenosis.

In-stent restenosis is the primary failure mode of endovascular treatment of occlusive disease in the femeropopliteal segment. Cryoplasty has been proposed to reduce intimal hyperplasia through induction of apoptosis. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of cryoplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis compared to conventional balloon angioplasty (CBA). After IRB approval, a retrospective record review was performed of reinterventions for in-stent restenosis by a single vascular surgery group at a university hospital. Reinterventions involving cryoplasty and CBA were evaluated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after intervention with duplex imaging to identify significant recurrent stenosis utilizing established velocity criteria. Data collected included basic demographic information and comorbidities as well as time to restenosis. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan­Meier survival curves with the log rank test, Wilcoxon rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. From December 2004 to November 2007, 76 reinterventions were performed using CBA (n = 39) or cryoplasty (n = 37) for in-stent restenosis without placement of additional stents. Periprocedural technical success (>30% residual stenosis) was 100% for both groups, with no complications. The two cohorts were statistically similar in mean age, gender, comorbidities, tobacco use and use of statins, aspirin and Plavix. However, the mean lesion length was significantly longer in the cryoplasty cohort (CBA: 140.9 mm, Cyro: 191.7 mm; P = 0.032). The mean time to recurrent stenosis or need for additional secondary intervention was significantly shorter for the cyroplasty cohort than for the CBA, 4.09 and 10.79 months, respectively (P = .0001). Recurrent stenosis-free survival was significantly lower in the cyroplasty cohort at 3 months (CBA: 96.9%, Cyro: 88.9%) and 6 months (CBA: 84.0%, Cyro: 43.8%; P = .0089). Cyroplasty as a modality for treatment of in-stent stenosis in the femoropopliteal segment offers no benefit over CBA.

Carotid artery stenosis: what is left to surgery.

While carotid angioplasty and stenting has been clearly established as a minimally invasive alternative to endarterectomy for patients with carotid occlusive disease, its indications continue to evolve, being refined as more controlled data of large studies are being accumulated. The purpose of this article is to review the current evidence supporting the application of either technique in certain subsets of patients, and the relative contraindications for their use.

Evolution of the treatment of carotid occlusive disease: indications for carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was established as the gold standard for treatment of carotid occlusive disease by several landmark papers published in the 1990's. Several decades of experience with CEA, however, has revealed high-risk subsets of patients in whom CEA carries increased risk of adverse events. These patients have subsequently been the focus of several randomized trials and registry databases which evaluated and proved non-inferiority of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in recent years. CAS is now considered an appropriate and equivalent alternative to CEA in these high-risk patients, defined by the presence of severe cardiac, pulmonary, or renal disease or by the presence of local factors such as prior neck radiation, prior neck operations, contralateral carotid occlusion, or surgically inaccessible lesions. Although ongoing trials in normal-risk patients may ultimately expand the indications for CAS, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend CAS in these patients over CEA. In addition, specific subsets of patients, such as octogenarians or those with anatomic complexity, may have increased incidence of adverse events with CAS and are best served by CEA.

Systemic sclerosis complicated by diffuse alveolar hemorrhage.

A 38-year-old woman with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis and pulmonary fibrosis developed diffuse alveolar hemorrhage during the course of her disease that responded well to steroids. We present the clinical history of the patient and discuss the different theories behind the association. The importance of steroid therapy for treatment of alveolar hemorrhage in this particular condition is emphasized.