Are abdominal aortic aneurysms with hostile neck really unsuitable for EVAR? Our experience

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

A Statistical Shape Model of the Morphological Variation of the Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Neck

Hostile aortic neck characteristics, such as short length and large diameter, have been associated with type Ia endoleaks and reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, such characteristics partially describe the complex aortic neck morphology. A more comprehensive quantitative description of 3D neck shape might lead to new insights into the relationship between aortic neck morphology and EVAR outcomes in individual patients. This study identifies the 3D morphological shape components that describe the infrarenal aortic neck through a statistical shape model (SSM). Pre-EVAR CT scans of 97 patients were used to develop the SSM. Parameterization of the morphology was based on the center lumen line reconstruction, a triangular surface mesh of the aortic lumen, 3D coordinates of the renal arteries, and the distal end of the aortic neck. A principal component analysis of the parametrization of the aortic neck coordinates was used as input for the SSM. The SSM consisted of 96 principal components (PCs) that each described a unique shape feature. The first five PCs represented 95% of the total morphological variation in the dataset. The SSM is an objective model that provides a quantitative description of the neck morphology of an individual patient.

New Morphological Factor for Predicting Late Proximal Type I Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Although we have witnessed several cases of late proximal type I endoleak (T1AEL) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), most patients did not have "hostile neck" preoperatively. We hypothesized that the distance between the lowest renal artery and the neck angulation point and neck length are the 2 most important factors for maintaining long-term proximal sealing. This study evaluated "neck hostility," which is the product of the distance to the angulation point and the neck length, as a preoperative morphological risk factor for the development of late T1AEL after EVAR.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively assembled database was performed for all patients who had undergone EVAR at a single institution from June 2007 to May 2017. Patient demographics and preoperative imaging data were collected, and Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for late T1AEL.

RESULTS

Of the 655 patients who underwent EVAR during the study period, 115 were excluded due to complex EVAR (n = 14), primary indications for iliac aneurysms (n = 86), primary T1AEL (n = 3), or other reasons (n = 15). Of the remaining 537 patients, twelve patients (2.2%) developed late T1AEL a median of 3.2 (interquartile range [IQR]; 3.0, 5.4) years after EVAR. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed a neck hostility cutoff value of 8. Cox regression analysis revealed that a neck hostility value ≤8 and conical neck anatomy were risk factors for the development of late T1AEL after EVAR. Well-known hostile neck factors such as short neck, severe angulated neck, and severe calcification/thrombus in the proximal neck were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated a correlation between late T1AEL and the product of the angulation distance and the neck length. This factor may be useful for predicting poor late proximal outcomes after EVAR.