Predictors for reintervention and survival during long-term follow-up after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported short- and intermediate-term outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA); however, reports on long-term (10 years) outcomes are sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze predictors impacting long-term outcome after TEVAR for DTAA. METHODS: Databases from four academic institutions were reviewed and consecutive cases of TEVAR for DTAA between 1999 and 2021 were included in this retrospective multicenter study (case series). Ethical approval from the institutional review board was obtained and patient demographics and treatment data, as well as follow-up information were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 305 patients (mean age, 72 ± 10 years) who were treated with TEVAR for degenerative DTAA with a mean aortic diameter of 64 mm. Altogether 445 endografts were implanted via femoral access (93%) with a technical success of 94%. Operative mortality, stroke rate, and rate of spinal cord ischemia were 6% (5% for intact, 12% for ruptured DTAA), 4%, and 3%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival rates were 76%, 59% and 34% at 1, 5 and 10 years and freedom from reintervention rates were 84%, 73% and 58% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 5 and nonelective case were identified as predictors for death, whereas as fusiform DTAA, proximal landing zone 2, and hypertension, but not device generation, were predictive for reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study is, to date, the largest reporting long-term (10 years) outcome on TEVAR for DTAA. We found acceptable rates for long-term survival and freedom from reintervention that were independent of endovascular device generation.

Implications of aortic neck dilation following thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports on a retrospective observational study designed to evaluate the incidence, etiology, and clinical implications of aortic neck dilation following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysms with landing zones II and III. METHODS: The study included 37 patients who underwent TEVAR and had postoperative computed tomography angiography available within 30 days and at least one computed tomography angiography at 1 year postoperatively. The primary end point was proximal aortic dilation (defined as growth ≥5 mm or ≥10% of the original diameter), and secondary end points included annual growth of the aneurysmal sac, device migration, endoleak, and reintervention with additional neck-related adverse events. The measurements taken during follow-up included the maximum diameter of the aneurysm and aortic diameter at various locations relative to the stent graft. RESULTS: During follow-up, a significant increase in aortic diameter was observed at the proximal edge of TEVAR. The estimated freedom from 5 mm or 10% proximal aortic neck growth at 1, 2, and 3 years was 81%, 70%, and 65%, respectively. At the proximal edge of TEVAR the type III aortic arch was significantly associated with 5 mm growth during follow-up (P = .047) and this growth (5 mm or 10%) as well as a 10% increase at +20 mm were significantly associated with more aortic-related reinterventions. Moreover, an aortic diameter at the start <36 mm was associated with a greater increase during follow-up (area under curve in receiver operating characteristic >80%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The study concludes that proximal aortic dilation after TEVAR is a common and progressive phenomenon, and the management strategies for aortic neck dilation, including surveillance, secondary interventions, and open conversion, should be considered carefully to optimize patient outcomes and improve the long-term success of the procedure.

[Debate on Infrarenal AAA in Young and Fit Patients ('Fit for Open Repair'): Open Repair is Safe and Long-term Results are Better]. / Debatte infrarenales AAA bei jüngeren Patienten ("fit for open repair"): Der offene Aortenersatz ist sicher und hat ein besseres Langzeitergebnis.

Endovascular aortic repair, initially developed for patients at prohibitively high risk for an open repair, has undergone significant technical evolution and refinement and has emerged as the preferred treatment option for patients with an infrarenal aortic aneurysm. However, analysis of long-term data of the randomised studies revealed inferior results with regards to survival and freedom-from-reintervention after eight years. Open aortic repair has been performed for more than seven decades and especially for the younger patients with few comorbidities, results are excellent. Potential drawbacks of open repair like incisional hernias, erectile dysfunction and quality of life can either be effectively prevented (mesh reinforcement) or actually failed to show a significant difference compared to open repair in recent studies. Therefore, meticulous assessment of patient comorbidites using validated parameters is the key element for decision-making and parameters such as young age, low comorbidity profile, large aneurysm and presence of atopic renal arteries or a dominant inferior mesenteric artery should prompt a recommendation of open repair.

Adjunct Perfusion Branch for Reduction of Spinal Cord Ischemia in the Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: To analyze utilization of a perfusion branch for temporary sac perfusion to reduce the spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in the endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: Between January 2012 and August 2016, 30 patients (18, men; median age 72 years) were treated for TAAAs with total endovascular repair using customized branched/fenestrated endografts in our institution. The median aneurysm size was 6.6 cm. Types of TAAA were: type I, 9 (30%), type II, 5 (16.6%), type III, 4 (13.3%), type IV, 6 (20%), and type V, 6 (20%). Ten patients received a perfusion branch to create an intentional endoleak, which was occluded with vascular plugs in mean interval time of 8.2 weeks (range: 6-10). Staged procedure and automated cerebrospinal fluid drainage were used in 23 (77%) and 24 (80%) patients, respectively. RESULTS: The technical success was 97%; 107 renovisceral target vessels were revascularized (32 fenestrations, 75 branches). At the time of the planned reinterventions, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) gradients were measured between the temporarily perfused aneurysm sac and the aortic endografts, and they were significantly higher (mean gradients 42.5 ± 10 mm Hg; range: 30-60) within the aortic grafts. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality was 3.3%. The incidence of postoperative SCI was 3/20 (15%) in the standard group and 0% in the group of the perfusion branch (p = 0.28). The mean follow-up was 12 months (range: 2-51). CONCLUSION: We experience that the use of a dedicated perfusion branch is feasible and may serve as protective adjunct to reduce the risk of SCI in endovascular treatment of TAAA. The risk of rupture in interval appears to be low. Larger series and multicenter studies are warranted to corroborate these results.

Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) and Chimney EVAS in the Treatment of Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs.

PURPOSE: To assess the technical success and clinical outcome of reinterventions using the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System to treat complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients (mean age 79 years; 14 men) with prior EVAR were treated with EVAS between March 2014 and December 2015 at 2 institutions. The failed prior EVARs included 13 bifurcated endografts, 1 bifurcated graft plus fenestrated cuff, and 1 tube endograft. Endoleaks were the predominant indications: type Ia in 10 and type III in 5 (3 type IIIa and 2 type IIIb). All patients presented with progressive aortic aneurysms (median 7.85-cm diameter; range 6.5-11). Eight patients were treated on an urgent or emergency basis (6 symptomatic aneurysms and 2 contained ruptures). All patients underwent Nellix relining of the failed stent-graft; 10 had chimney (Ch) procedures in combination with EVAS (chEVAS) because the proximal landing zones were inadequate. RESULTS: Technical success was 100%. All endoleaks were successfully sealed, and no additional intervention was required. No further endoleak after EVAS or chEVAS was recorded. Endobag protrusion occurred in 1 case without sequelae. One elderly patient with ruptured aneurysm died from multiple organ failure 2 months postoperatively. One renal artery guidewire injury led to nephrectomy because of active bleeding. No reinterventions, aneurysm-related mortalities, graft thrombosis, endoleaks, or chimney graft occlusions were observed during a median follow-up of 8 months (range 3-24). CONCLUSION: The present preliminary experience demonstrates that the use of EVAS/chEVAS is feasible for treatment of failed EVAR. This technique may be used as bailout or an alternative treatment when other established methods are infeasible or not available.

Quality Control in 3D Printing: Accuracy Analysis of 3D-Printed Models of Patient-Specific Anatomy.

As comparative data on the precision of 3D-printed anatomical models are sparse, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-printed models of vascular anatomy generated by two commonly used printing technologies. Thirty-five 3D models of large (aortic, wall thickness of 2 mm, n = 30) and small (coronary, wall thickness of 1.25 mm, n = 5) vessels printed with fused deposition modeling (FDM) (rigid, n = 20) and PolyJet (flexible, n = 15) technology were subjected to high-resolution CT scans. From the resulting DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) dataset, an STL file was generated and wall thickness as well as surface congruency were compared with the original STL file using dedicated 3D engineering software. The mean wall thickness for the large-scale aortic models was 2.11 µm (+5%), and 1.26 µm (+0.8%) for the coronary models, resulting in an overall mean wall thickness of +5% for all 35 3D models when compared to the original STL file. The mean surface deviation was found to be +120 µm for all models, with +100 µm for the aortic and +180 µm for the coronary 3D models, respectively. Both printing technologies were found to conform with the currently set standards of accuracy (<1 mm), demonstrating that accurate 3D models of large and small vessel anatomy can be generated by both FDM and PolyJet printing technology using rigid and flexible polymers.