Impact of Previous Open Abdominal Surgery on Open Abdominal Aortic Repair: A Study from the NSQIP Database.

BACKGROUND: While endovascular aneurysm repair has become a first-line strategy in many centers, open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is still the best option for certain patients. A significant number of patients who are offered OSR for AAA have been previously submitted to other open abdominal surgeries (PAS). It is unclear, however, how this may impact their outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an association between PAS and outcomes of OSR of AAA. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study based on clinical data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, including all patients undergoing elective OSR for AAA between 2011 and 2017. Excluded were patients with missing data on prior abdominal surgery, supramesenteric clamping, or urgent repairs. Patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS) and patients without prior abdominal surgeries (nonPAS) were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were operating time, ischemic colitis, postoperative complications, and lengths of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 2034 patients included, 27% had previous open abdominal surgery and 73% did not. Overall, the median age was 71(interquartile range 65-76), 72% of patients were male, 44% were smokers, and the average body mass index was 27 kg/m2. Univariate analysis showed no difference in postoperative 30-day mortality (4.0% PAS vs. 4.1% nonPAS, P = 0.91) or overall postoperative complication rates (33% PAS vs. 29% nonPAS, P = 0.07). Previous open abdominal surgery was significantly associated with longer operating times (P = 0.032) and an almost doubled rate of ischemic colitis (4.7% PAS vs. 2.6% nonPAS, P = 0.02). Postoperative intensive care unit and hospitalization were also significantly longer in patients with prior abdominal surgery (P = 0.005 and P = 0.014, respectively). Finally, there were significantly less patients discharged home, as opposed to institutionalized care (75.7% PAS down from 82.4% nonPAS, P = 0.001). Despite these initial univariate analysis results, on multivariate analysis, PAS actually did not prove to be a statistically significant independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients who have undergone PAS may have some disadvantages in OSR of AAA. However, these negative trends do not go so far as to statistically significantly identify PAS as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, ischemic colitis, or longer operating times. As such, we suggest that a history of previous open abdominal surgery, in and of its own, should not exclude patients from consideration for open aortic abdominal aneurysm repair.

Current state and future directions of endovascular ascending and arch repairs: The motion towards an endovascular Bentall procedure.

Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch has evolved at an astonishing pace in the past several decades. Results of endovascular arch repair in experienced centers have been improving and the technology evolving, and it has begun to challenge the current gold standard status of open surgery in some groups of patients. Hybrid strategies with adjunctive cervical debranching for distal arch lesions are being replaced by fenestrated arch repairs. Total endovascular repair for proximal aortic arch pathologies with the use of inner branches has achieved the best results; however, the main current limitations of endovascular arch repair are diameter-, length-, and angulation-related issues with the ascending aorta (proximal landing zone). Ascending aorta endovascular repair has allowed extending treatment further proximally in patients with post-surgical pseudoaneurysms of the ascending aorta or post-type A chronic aortic dissections. However, sufficient proximal landing zone is still needed in the proximal aorta for these repairs; in a significant number of patients, this is not feasible with simple proximal tubular grafts. Therefore, new technologies and techniques are being developed to deal with this limitation, including the endovascular Bentall concept, with incorporation of the aortic valve and coronary ostia. In this review, the current state and future directions of endovascular ascending and arch repairs and the motion towards an endovascular Bentall procedure are discussed.

Postoperative Outcomes and Reinterventions Following Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Post-Dissection and Complex Degenerative Abdominal and Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of FBEVAR in post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms has not been well established in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare midterm outcomes following FBEVAR in post-dissection aneurysms to degenerative aneurysms. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing FBEVAR in a single center between 2017 and 2020. The baseline characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of patients with post-dissection aneurysms were compared to those with degenerative outcomes. The primary end point was unplanned reinterventions. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the determinants of worse outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 137 subjects with a mean age of 70 ± 10 years were included in the study, out of which 30 presented post-dissection aneurysms (22%). Custom-made devices were employed in 119 patients, off-the-shelf devices in 13 and physician-modified endografts in 5, with incorporation in 505 target vessels. The technical success rate was comparable in both groups (97% vs. 98%, p = 0.21). However, the one-year freedom from unplanned reintervention was lower in the post-dissection group (67% vs. 89%, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: FBEVAR in post-dissection aneurysms is associated with a favorable technical success rate, but reintervention rates remain high. Long procedural duration and the use of adjunctive techniques are associated with increased risk of reinterventions.

Effect of iliac tortuosity on outcomes after iliac branch procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To report a two-centers evaluation of the effects of iliac axis tortuosity on iliac branch device (IBD) results. METHODS: From 2015 to 2021, all IBD procedures performed at two European centers were analyzed retrospectively. The preoperative pelvic tortuosity index (PTI), external tortuosity index (ETI), and double iliac sign (DIS) were assessed for each iliac axis submitted to IBD. The primary endpoints were technical success, early and mid-term IBD complications (occlusion, stenosis, endoleaks [ELs]) and reinterventions, and the association with the PTI, ETI, and DIS. The 30-day mortality, survival, freedom from complications and freedom from reinterventions (FFR) were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: During the study period, 224 patients had undergone 256 IBD procedures for 165 (64.5%) aortoiliac aneurysms, 44 (17.2%) isolated iliac aneurysms, 11 (4.3%) abdominal aortic aneurysms with a short iliac landing zone, and 36 (14.1%) type Ib ELs. IBD was planned with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for 158 (61.7%), fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for 45 (7.6%), and isolated for 53 (20.7%) cases. Technical success and 30-day mortality were 99.2% (254 of 256) and 0.9% (2 of 224), respectively. A PTI >1.4, an ETI >1.7, and the DIS were tested to identify the risk factors for the endpoints. No ELs and 9 (3.5%) IBD occlusions, requiring five reinterventions (2%), had occurred within 30 days. No association with the PTI, ETI, or DIS was identified; IBD oversizing of ≥25% on the external iliac artery was independently related to occlusion (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-18.1; P = .045). The mean follow-up was 31 ± 27 months, with 11 IBD occlusions, 14 ELs, and 21 reinterventions. At 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up survival, IBD patency, and FFR were 95%, 89%, and 80%; 93%, 91%, and 90%; and 93%, 89%, and 83%, respectively. The risk factors for overall complications (n = 34; 13.3%) and reinterventions (n = 26; 10.2%) were an ETI >1.7 (P = .037 and P = .019), a PTI >1.4 (P = .016 and P = .012), and a type Ib EL as the indication (P = .025 and P = .001), respectively. Cox regression confirmed PTI >1.4 as an independent predictor of overall complications and reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4; P = .018; and HR, 3 95% CI, 1.3-6.8; P = .018, respectively) and ETI >1.7 as an independent risk factor for ELs (HR 6; 95% CI, 2.1-17.5; P = .001). The freedom from complications and FFR were significantly lower with a PTI >1.4 at 3 years (73% vs 92% [log-rank P = .01] and 77% vs 93% [log-rank P = .001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found IBDs to be safe and effective in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms. Early complications are uncommon and related to endograft oversizing rather than anatomic characteristics in the present study. Iliac tortuosity is a risk factor for overall complications and reinterventions, in particular for IBD-related ELs.

A systematic review of experimental and clinical studies reporting on in situ laser fenestration of aortic endografts.

OBJECTIVE: We have summarized the available in situ laser fenestration (ISLF) literature, including experimental studies with their subsequent recommendations regarding the optimal fenestration technique and fabric, and the short- and mid-term results of clinical studies. METHODS: A systematic search for English-language reports was performed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and EMBASE in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines by two investigators (C.F.P. and D.L.). The search period was from inception of the databases to August 31, 2020. The search terms included in situ, laser, fenestration, and endograft. A quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale by two other investigators (G.T. and A.W.) independently. RESULTS: A total of 19 clinical studies were included, with a total of 428 patients (390 cases of supra-aortic trunk ISLF, 38 cases of visceral vessel ISLF). The technical success rate was 96.9% and 95.6% for supra-aortic and visceral vessel ISLF, respectively. Most studies had reported <12 months of follow-up. The longest available follow-up was in one study at 5 years for left subclavian artery ISLF and 17 months for visceral vessel ISLF. Overall, the quality of the evaluated clinical studies was low. Six experimental studies were included, with the highest level of evidence suggesting fenestration of multifilament polyethylene terephthalate grafts, followed by dilation with either a 6- or 8-mm noncompliant balloon. CONCLUSIONS: The results from experimental studies favor the use of multifilament polyethylene terephthalate, followed by dilation with noncompliant balloons as the most durable in vitro technique for ISLF. The short-term outcomes for arch and visceral vessel revascularization have been promising, with low rates of in-hospital mortality, stroke, and end-organ ischemia. Nonetheless, the long-term durability of ISLF has not yet been determined, and ISLF should be limited to selected symptomatic and urgent cases.

[Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - Endovascular Therapy Today and in the Future]. / Aorta ascendens und Arcus aortae ­ endovaskuläre Therapie heute und in der Zukunft.

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.

[Acute Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair - Off-the-shelf vs. Surgeon-modified Stent Grafts]. / Akute komplexe endovaskuläre Aortenchirurgie ­ Off-the-Shelf vs. Surgeon-modified Stentgrafts.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms is challenging. Open surgical repair is a high-risk operation, especially in emergency cases. Endovascular aneurysm repair with a patient-specific custom-made stent graft in patients with symptomatic or ruptured complex aortic aneurysms is not possible, due to the manufacturing time required. In such cases, alternative endovascular techniques can be used. RESULTS: The "off-the-shelf" and "surgeon-modified" stent grafts are valid options for the endovascular treatment of complex aneurysms in urgent and emergent patients. The former are standardised commercially manufactured fenestrated or branched stent grafts, which are available off-the-shelf with an anatomical feasibility in 50 - 80% of the patients. The "surgeon-modified" stent grafts refer to a technique, in which a commercially available stent graft is modified by the surgeon under sterile conditions directly before the implantation, in order to add the required fenestrations, scallops and/or branches. The modification takes approximately 60 - 120 min and haemodynamic stability of the patient is mandatory. Because of the off-label use of the commercial stent graft, detailed patient consent about the modification complications and risks should be performed whenever possible. A comparison of results on mortality and morbidity between "off-the-shelf" and "surgeon-modified" stent grafts has been published, although a direct comparison would be unfair for several reasons (different design, lack of extensive outcomes reports, long learning curve and different modification techniques). CONCLUSION: The "surgeon-modified" and "off-the-shelf" fenestrated/branched stent grafts are used in the treatment of high-risk patients with symptomatic or contained ruptured complex aneurysms. The outcomes of the two techniques are good, although the long-term durability of the former should be further investigated.

Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: a retrospective cohort analysis of 2 decades of experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse and report the changes in the management of blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) in a single centre during the last 2 decades. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients diagnosed with BTAI from January 1999 to January 2020 was performed. Data were collected from electronic/digitalized medical history records. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included [median age 42.4 years (16-84 years), 71.7% males]. The predominant cause of BTAI was car accidents (54.5%, n = 24) and all patients presented with concomitant injuries (93% bone fractures, 77.8% abdominal and 62.2% pelvic injuries). Over 70% presented grade III or IV BTAI. Urgent repair was performed in 73.8% of patients (n = 31), with a median of 2.75 h between admission and repair. Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) was performed in 87% (n = 49), open surgery (OS) in 10.9% (n = 5) and conservative management in 2.1% (n = 1). Technical success was 82.6% (92.1% TEVAR, 79% OS). In-hospital mortality was 19.5% (17.5% TEVAR, 40% OS). Of these, 3 died from aortic-related causes. Seven (15.2%) required an early vascular reintervention. The median follow-up was 34 months (1-220 months), with 19% of early survivors having a follow-up of >10 years. Only 1 vascular reintervention was necessary during follow-up: secondary TEVAR due to acute graft thrombosis. Of the patients who survived the initial event, 6.7% died during follow-up, none from aortic-related causes. CONCLUSIONS: Even with all the described shortcomings, in our experience TEVAR for BTAI proved to be feasible and effective, with few complications and stable aortic reconstruction at mid-term follow-up. With the current technical expertise and wide availability of a variety of devices, it should be pursued as a first-line therapy in these challenging scenarios.