Background

Type II endoleaks (ELII) are the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Persistent ELII require continual surveillance and have been shown to increase the risk of Type I and III endoleaks, sac growth, need for intervention, conversion to open or even rupture, directly or indirectly. These are often difficult to treat following EVAR, and there are limited data regarding the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment of ELII. The aim of this study is to report the midterm outcomes of prophylactic perigraft arterial sac embolization (pPASE) performed in patients undergoing EVAR.

Methods

This is a comparison of 2 elective cohorts of those undergoing EVAR using the Ovation stent graft with and without prophylactic branch vessel and sac embolization. Patients who underwent pPASE at our institution had their data collected in a prospective, institutional review board-approved database. These were compared against the core lab-adjudicated data from the Ovation Investigational Device Exemption trial. Prophylactic PASE was performed at the time of EVAR with thrombin, contrast, and Gelfoam if the lumbar or mesenteric arteries were patent. Endpoints included freedom from ELII, reintervention, sac growth, all-cause mortality, and aneurysm-related mortality.

Results

Thirty-six patients (13.1%) underwent pPASE, while 238 patients (86.9%) had standard EVAR. Median follow-up was 56 months (33-60 months). The 4-year freedom from ELII estimates were 84% for the pPASE versus 50.7% for the standard EVAR group (P = 0.0002). All aneurysms in the pPASE group remained stable in size or demonstrated regression, whereas aneurysm sac expansion was seen in 10.9% of the standard EVAR group, P = 0.03. At 4 years, mean AAA diameter decreased by 11 mm (95% CI 8-15) in the pPASE group versus 5 mm (95% CI 4-6) for the standard EVAR group, P = 0.0005. There were no differences in the 4-year freedom from all-cause mortality and aneurysm-related mortality. However, the difference in reintervention for ELII trended toward significance (0.0% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, pPASE was associated with a 76% reduction in ELII [(95% CI): 0.24 (0.08-0.65), P = 0.005].

Conclusions

These results suggest that pPASE in those undergoing EVAR is safe and effective in the prevention of ELII and significantly improves sac regression over standard EVAR while minimizing the need for reintervention.

BACKGROUND: Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches. METHODS: Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.

Objective

Physician modified endografts (PMEG) and custom manufactured devices (CMD) use branched and fenestrated techniques (F/BEVAR) to repair complex aneurysms. Traditionally many of these are deployed through a combination of upper and lower extremity access. However, with newer steerable sheaths, you can now simulate upper extremity access from a transfemoral approach. Single institution studies have demonstrated increased risks of access site complications and stroke when upper extremity access is used. This study compares outcomes after F/BEVAR in a national database between total transfemoral (TTF) access and mixed upper extremity (UEM) access.

Methods

This study is an analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiate for all patients who underwent F/BEVAR from 2014-2021. Patients were stratified based on a TTF delivery of all devices versus any UEM access for deployment of target vessel stents. Primary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction and perioperative death. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, occlusion, or embolization, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and technical success. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

3146 patients underwent a F/BEVAR; 2309 (73.4%) TTF and 837 (26.6%) UEM. Logistic regression analysis indicated a two-fold increased risk of death and MI and a three-fold increased risk of stroke in the UEM group. Furthermore, there is decreased operative time (221 versus 297 minutes, p<0.001) and fluoroscopy time (62 versus 80 minutes, p<0.001) in the TTF group and no difference in technical success between groups (96% versus 97%, p=0.159). Finally, there was a decrease in access site hematoma 2.54% versus 4.31% (p=0.013), access site occlusion 0.61% versus 1.91% (p=0.001) and extremity embolization 2.17% versus 3.58% (p=0.026) in the TTF versus UEM group.

Conclusion

This study using VQI data demonstrates that patients who undergo a F/BEVAR utilizing UEM access have an increased risk of perioperative MI, death and stroke compared to TTF access.

Objective

The introduction of endovascular procedures has revolutionized the management of complex aortic aneurysms. Although repair has traditionally required longer operative times and increased radiation exposure compared with simple endovascular aneurysm repair, the recent introduction of three-dimensional technology has become an invaluable operative adjunct. Surgical augmented intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving tool initiated at our institution in June 2019. In our study, we sought to determine whether this technology improved patient and operator safety.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who had undergone endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (pararenal, juxtarenal, or thoracoabdominal), type B dissection, or infrarenal (endoleak, coil placement, or renal angiography with or without intervention) at a tertiary care center from August 2015 to November 2021 was performed. Patients were stratified according to the findings from intelligent maps, which are patient-specific AI tools used in the operating room in conjunction with real-time fluoroscopic images. The primary outcomes included operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. The secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and long-term follow-up. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between AI use and the main outcomes.

Results

During the 6-year period, 116 patients were included in the present study, with no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Of the 116 patients, 76 (65.5%) had undergone procedures using AI and 40 (34.5%) had undergone procedures without AI software. The intraoperative outcomes revealed a significant decrease in radiation exposure (AI group, 1955 mGy; vs non-AI group, 3755 mGy; P = .004), a significant decrease in the fluoroscopy time (AI group, 55.6 minutes; vs non-AI group, 86.9 minutes; P = .007), a decrease in the operative time (AI group, 255 minutes; vs non-AI group, 284 minutes; P = .294), and a significant decrease in contrast use (AI group, 123 mL; vs non-AI group, 199 mL; P < .0001). No differences were found in the 30-day and long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

The results from the present study have demonstrated that the use of AI technology combined with intraoperative imaging can significantly facilitate complex endovascular aneurysm repair by decreasing the operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. Overall, evolving technology such as AI has improved radiation safety for both the patient and the entire operating room team.

Background

The endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) 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 (AUI) 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 re-line 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 (ARM), and all-cause mortality (ACM). Technical details of the operation include back table deployment of an Ovation device, modification of the deployment system tether and preemptive 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 IFU.

Results

Our study consists of four individuals, three of which had an AAA initially managed with an AneuRx EVAR and one with a combination of Gore and Cook grafts. All four patients were male with an average age of 84.5 years at time of re-line. All patients had at least 10 years between initial surgery and re-line at our institution. Primary outcomes revealed no type 1 or 3 endoleaks at follow-up, technical success was 100% and one patient required reintervention for aneurysm growth and type 2 endoleak. In terms of our secondary outcomes, there was one postoperative complication which was cardiac dysfunction secondary to demand ischemia, ARM was 0% and ACM was 25% at average follow up of 2.44 years.

Conclusion

As individuals continue to age, there are more patients who would benefit from less invasive reinterventions following EVAR. 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.

Background

Poststent ballooning/angioplasty (post-SB) have been shown to increase the risk of stroke risk after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the advancement of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic cerebral blood flow reversal, we aimed to study the impact of post-SB during TCAR.

Methods

Patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between September 2016 and May 2019 were included and were divided into three groups: those who received prestent deployment angioplasty only (pre-SB, reference group), those who received poststent deployment ballooning only (post-SB), and those who received both prestent and poststent deployment ballooning (prepost-SB). Patients who did not receive any angioplasty during their procedure (n = 367 [6.7%]) were excluded because these represent a different group of patients with less complex lesions than those requiring angioplasty. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

Of 5161 patients undergoing TCAR, 34.7% had pre-SB only, 25% had post-SB only, and 40.3% had both (prepost-SB). No differences in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death were observed among the three groups; in-hospital stroke/death in the pre-SB group was 1.4% (n = 25), post-SB 1.2% (n = 16), and prepost-SB 1.4% (n = 29; P = .92). However, patients undergoing post-SB and prepost-SB had higher rates of in-hospital transient ischemic attacks (TIA) (post-SB, 0.9%; prepost-SB, 1% vs pre-SB, 0.2%, P < .01) and postprocedural hypotension (16.6% and 16.8% vs 13.1%, respectively; P < .001). Post-SB also had longer operative times, as well as flow reversal and fluoroscopy times. On multivariable analysis, no association was seen between post-SB and the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke/death (post-SB odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.73; prepost-SB OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Similarly, no significant differences were noted in terms of postprocedural hemodynamic instability and 30-day outcomes. However, post-SB and prepost-SB were associated with four times the odds of in-hospital TIA compared with pre-SB alone (post-SB OR, 4.24 [95% CI, 1.51-11.8]; prepost-SB OR, 4.76 [95% CI, 1.53-14.79]; P = .01). Symptomatic patients had higher rates of in-hospital stroke/death compared with their asymptomatic counterparts; however, there was no significant interaction between symptomatic status and ballooning in predicting the primary outcome.

Conclusions

Post-SB was used in 65.3% of TCAR patients. This maneuver seems to be safe without an increase in the odds of postoperative in-hospital stroke/death. However, the increased rates of TIA associated with post-SB requires further investigation.