Editor's Choice - A Comparison of Computed Tomography Angiography and Colour Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance Post Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Financial Implications and Impact of Different International Surveillance Guidelines

Imaging Surveillance Adherence After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair at VA Hospitals

Importance

Guidelines recommend annual imaging surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). How these guidelines translate into practice among veterans remains poorly described.

Objective

To characterize post-EVAR surveillance among veterans.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study evaluated veterans who underwent EVAR between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2023, at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and received follow-up care at VA and non-VA hospitals and imaging centers with payment via Medicare or the VA. Veterans treated with EVAR in VA hospitals during the study period were included.

Exposure

Years after EVAR.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was annual surveillance adherence, measured as 1 or more imaging studies in the abdomen or pelvis each year after EVAR. Stepwise logistic regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with poor adherence. Secondary outcomes were imaging type (cross-sectional, ultrasonography, or ultrasonography followed by cross-sectional imaging) and factors associated with lower adherence.

Results

The cohort included 27 792 veterans (27 624 male [99.4%]; 22 521 aged ≥65 years [81.0%]). Mean (SD) follow-up was 6.0 (4.0) years. The mean (SD) proportion of time that veterans were surveillance adherent was 71.1% (28.5%). Surveillance was initially high, with 25 026 of 27 792 veterans (90.0%) undergoing surveillance imaging in year 1 after EVAR. However, this proportion decreased further out from EVAR, with 12 401 of 21 384 veterans (58.0%) undergoing surveillance imaging by year 4 after EVAR. Veterans were most likely to undergo imaging with computed tomography scans (21 911 veterans [78.8%]). However, the proportion with surveillance via ultrasonography alone increased from 823 of 25 026 veterans (3.3%) in year 1 after EVAR to 2567 of 12 401 veterans (20.7%) in year 4 after EVAR. White race (odds ratio [OR] vs all other racial groups, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98), married status (OR vs all other social status categories, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), having a service-connected disability (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77), and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (OR per 1-unit increase, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95) were associated with lower odds of poor surveillance adherence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, post-EVAR imaging surveillance was high, although surveillance lapses were more likely further out from EVAR and for patients with certain characteristics. This information may inform future patient-centered efforts to improve post-EVAR imaging adherence.

The Effect of EndoAnchors on Aneurysm Sac Regression for Patients Treated With Infrarenal Endovascular Repair With Hostile Neck Anatomies: A Propensity Scored Analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze sac evolution patterns in matched patients with hostile neck anatomy (HNA) treated with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (sEVAR) and endosutured aneurysm repair (ESAR).

METHODS

Observational retrospective study using prospectively collected data between June 2010 and December 2019. ESAR group data were extracted from the primary arm of the PERU registry with an assigned identifier (NCT04100499) at 8 centers and those from the sEVAR came from 4 centers. Suitability for inclusion required: no proximal endograft adjuncts (besides EndoAnchor use), ≤15 mm neck length and minimum of 12-months follow-up imaging. Bubble-shaped neck (noncylindrical short neck with discontinuous seal) aspect was analyzed. Both groups were analyzed using propensity score matching (PSM) for aortic neck length, width, angulation, and device fixation type. Main outcome assessed was sac evolution patterns (sac expansion and regression were defined as >5mm increase or decrease, of the maximum sac diameter respectively; all AAAs within this ±5 mm range in diameter change were considered stable) and secondary outcomes were type-Ia endoleaks; other endoleaks and mortality. A power analysis calculation >80% was confirmed for sac regression evaluation.

RESULTS

After exclusions, PSM resulted in 96 ESAR and 96 sEVAR patients. Mean imaging follow-up (months) was 44.4±21.3 versus 43.0±19.6 (p=0.643), respectively. The overall number of patients achieving sac regression was higher in the ESAR group (n=57, 59.4% vs n=31, 32.3%; p<0.001) and the cumulative sac regression achieved at 5 years was 65% versus 38% (p=0.003) in favor of the ESAR group. There were no statistically significant differences in type-Ia endoleak and/or other endoleaks. Univariate analysis for sac regression patients in the sEVAR and ESAR group individually showed the bubble-shape neck as a predictor of sac regression failure. There were no statistical differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality.

CONCLUSION

Endosutured aneurysm repair provided improved rates of sac regression for patients with AAA and HNA when compared with sEVAR at midterm and up to 5 years, despite similar rates of type-Ia endoleaks, and the need to consider some important limitations. The presence of bubble-shaped neck was a predictor of sac regression failure for both groups equally.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The use of EndoAnchors aids and improves EVAR treatment in hostile neck anatomies by an increased rate of sac regression when compared to EVAR treatment alone in up to 5 year analysis. Moreover, a trend to reduced number of type Ia endoleaks is also achieved, although not significant in the present study. This data, adds to current and growing evidence on the usefulness of EndoAnchors for AAA endovascular treatment.

Shortest Apposition Length at the First Postoperative Computed Tomography Angiography Identifies Patients at Risk for Developing a Late Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

Imaging surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is strictly recommended. This study investigates the value of endograft apposition and position relative to the aortic neck on the first postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) in determining patients at risk for a late type Ia endoleak (T1aEL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a T1aEL after the first postoperative CTA were selected from a consecutive database and matched with uncomplicated controls. Endograft apposition and position, including the shortest apposition length (SAL), were determined on the first postoperative CTA. The SAL is the shortest distance between the proximal endograft fabric and the first slice where circumferential apposition with the aortic wall is lost. Differences in endograft apposition at the first postoperative CTA were compared between groups. Logistic regression analysis identified independent predictors for late T1aEL.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients with a late T1aEL were included and matched with 32 uncomplicated controls. Median follow-up after primary EVAR was 62.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 36.8, 83.5) months in the T1aEL group compared with 47.5 (IQR: 34.0, 79.3) months in the control group; p=0.265. Median preoperative neck diameter was significantly larger in the T1aEL group than in the control group (26.6 [IQR: 24.9, 29.6] mm versus 23.4 [IQR: 22.5, 25.3] mm); p<0.001. Patients in the T1aEL group had a median SAL of 11.6 (IQR: 4.3, 20.5) mm compared with 20.7 (IQR: 13.1, 24.9) mm in the control group; p=0.002. SAL <10mm on the first postoperative CTA (odds ratio [OR]: 9.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60-57.99) and larger neck diameter (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.26-2.57) were independent predictors for developing a late T1aEL.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative neck diameter and SAL on the first postoperative CTA following EVAR are important predictors for the development of a late T1aEL. Patients with a SAL of <10mm had a significantly higher risk of developing a late T1aEL. Future research should determine whether these patients would benefit from reintervention before an actual T1aEL is present.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Understanding the mechanisms of endovascular aneurysm repair failure is essential to further enhance clinical outcomes. Adequate proximal sealing is necessary to foster freedom from type 1a endoleak. This study demonstrates that the shortest apposition length (SAL) at the first postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) is able to identify patients at risk for a late type 1a endoleak. Especially patients with a SAL <10mm are at high risk. Currently, the guidelines advice repeated imaging with CTA in patients with a seal <10mm. Future research should determine whether these patients would benefit from re-intervention before an actual type 1a endoleak is present.

Ultrasound Surveillance is Feasible After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is traditionally done with computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans that exposes patient to radiation, nephrotoxic contrast media, and potentially increased risk for cancer. Ultrasound (US) is less labor intensive and expensive and might thus provide a good alternative for CTA surveillance. The aim of this study was to evaluate in real-life patient cohorts whether US is able to detect post-EVAR aneurysm-related complications similarly to CTA.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared the outcome of consecutive patients who underwent EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm and were surveilled solely by CTA (CTA-only cohort, n = 168) in 2000-2010 or by combined CTA and US (CTA/US cohort, n = 300) in 2011-2016, as a standard surveillance protocol in the department of vascular surgery, Helsinki University Hospital. The CTA-only patients were imaged at 1, 3, and 12 months and annually thereafter. The CTA/US patients were imaged with CTA at 3 and 12 months, US at 6 months and annually thereafter. If there were suspicion of >5 mm aneurysm growth, CTA scan was performed. The patients were reviewed for imaging data, reinterventions, aneurysm ruptures, and death until December 2018. The 2 groups were compared for secondary rupture, aneurysm-related and cancer-related death, reintervention related to abdominal aortic aneurysm, and maximum aneurysm diameter increase ≥5 mm. The mean follow-up in the CTA-only cohort was 67 months and in CTA/US cohort 43 months.

RESULTS

The 2 cohorts were alike for basic characteristics and for the mean aneurysm diameter. The total number of CT scans for detecting aneurysm was 84.1/100 patient years in the CTA-only cohort compared to 74.5/100 patient years for US/CTA cohort. Forty percent of patients under combined CTA/US surveillance received 1 or more additional CTA scans. The 2 cohorts did not differ for 1-year, 5-year and 8-year freedom from aneurysm related death, secondary sac rupture, nor the incidence of rupture preventing interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the follow-up data of this real-life cohort of 468 patients, combined surveillance with US and additional CTA either per protocol or due to suspicion of aneurysm-related complications had comparable outcome with sole CTA-surveillance. Thus, US can be considered a reasonable alternative for the CTA. However, our study showed also that the need of additional CTAs due to suspicion of endoleak or aneurysm nonrelated reasons is substantial.

Image Guidance Techniques and Treatment Approach Optimization in the Management of Type-II Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Over the past 3 decades endovascular aortic aneurysm repair emerged as the primary approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm management, however the occurrence of endoleak following endograft implantation imposes a high toll on patients and hospitals alike. The early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of endoleaks is associated with better outcomes, which calls for more advanced imaging and a standardized approach for endoleak diagnosis and management following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Although conventional strategy with non-targeted deployment of coils and embolic material in the aneurysm sac is considered to be the standard approach in many hospitals, it may not prove to be a viable option, given that it affects any further follow-up imaging in the event of sub-optimal therapy and consequent recurrence.

METHODS

Based on our tertiary aortic referral center experience we summarize and describe strategies for optimal selection of various treatment approaches for Type-II Endoleak management including endovascular, percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches with particular focus on intraoperative image guidance techniques.

RESULTS

After failed conventional endovascular embolization attempt we recommend specific complex type II endoleak management approaches based on the location of the endoleak within the aneurysm sac along the x, y and z axis. A transabdominal or laparoscopic approach enable treatment in endoleaks located in the anterior portion of the sac. Endoleaks in the posterior portion of the sac could be treated using the transcaval or the translumbar approach, depending on whether the endoleak is situated on the left or the right side. Alternative strategies should be considered if patient anatomy does not allow for either transcaval or translumbar approach. The transgraft technique is reserved for endoleaks located in the cranial portion of the sac, while the perigraft approach could present a means of treatment for endoleaks situated in the caudal portion of the aneurysm sac.

CONCLUSION

We encourage establishing a patient specific treatment plan in accordance with individual anatomy based on cross sectional imaging modality (time resolved dynamic imaging in selected cases) and intraoperative image guidance to provide a safe and accurate endoleak localization and embolization for patients undergoing type II endoleak treatment.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aims to assess the role of Color Duplex Ultrasound with or without contrast media for surveillance following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A systematic search of the literature published until April 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled rates of endoleak detection through Contrast-Enhanced or Color Duplex Ultrasound (CEUS or CDUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect analysis. Thirty-eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. The total number of patients in the included studies was 5214 between 1997 and 2021. The overall pooled rate of endoleak detection using CDUS and CTA was 82.59% and 97.22%, while the rates for CEUS and CTA were 96.67% and 92.82%, respectively. The findings of the present study support the use of the CEUS for endoleak detection. However, it should be integrated into institutional protocols for EVAR surveillance to further evaluate its clinical utility in the post-EVAR period before it can be recommended as the sole imaging modality after EVAR.

An unusual cause of failure in Zenith Alpha Abdominal endograft

Background

Graft disruption is an unusual complication of the endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Case presentation

A 71-year-old man underwent standard EVAR with Zenith Alpha Abdominal endograft. Follow-up examinations revealed an initial significant sac shrinkage. At 24 months, duplex ultrasound (DUS) scan and computed tomography showed increase of the sac diameter associated with complete disconnection of the suprarenal stent-graft from the main body without evidence of endoleak. A standard relining with a thoracic endograft was performed between the suprarenal stent and the main body of the previous graft. At 6 months DUS revealed sac shrinkage.

Conclusions

This report demonstrates an uncommon cause of endograft failure with suprarenal stent disconnection from main body and highlights the need for continuous follow-up in patients undergoing EVAR.

Longer follow-up intervals following EVAR are safe and appropriate after marked aneurysm sac regression

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) shrinkage after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a surrogate marker for successful exclusion. Our study characterized aneurysm sac remodeling after EVAR to identify a pattern that may be associated with benign AAA behavior and would safely allow a less rigorous follow-up regimen after EVAR.

METHODS

Elective infrarenal EVARs performed between 2008 and 2011 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. AAA sac diameters using the minor axis measurement from ultrasound imaging or computer tomography angiogram imaging were compared with the baseline diameter from the 1-month postoperative computer tomography angiogram. The primary outcome was a composite of freedom from postoperative reintervention or rupture. We compared those with AAA sacs who regressed to predefined minimum diameter thresholds with those who did not. Outcomes were plotted with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank testing and Fine-Gray regression using death as a competing risk, clustered on graft type. For patients whose AAA reached the minimum sac diameter, landmark analysis evaluated ongoing size changes including further regression and sac re-expansion.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients (aged 75.1 ± 8.2 years; 82.0% male) underwent EVAR with an average preoperative AAA size of 55.2 ± 11.5 mm. The median postoperative follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range, 1.4-8.7 years) during which 64 patients underwent reintervention and 4 ruptured. AAA sac regression to ≤40 mm in diameter was associated with improved freedom from reintervention or rupture overall (log-rank, P < .01), which was maintained after controlling for the competing risk of death (P < .01). In 376 patients (70%) whose aneurysm sac remained >40 mm, 99 reinterventions were performed on 63 patients. Of 166 (31%) patients whose sac regressed to ≤40 mm, only 1 patient required a reintervention, and no one ruptured. The mean time to a diameter of ≤40 mm was 2.3 ± 1.9 years. Only eight patients (5%) developed sac re-expansion to >45 mm; all but two occurred at least 3 years after initially regressing to ≤40 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-term follow-up, patients whose minimum AAA sac diameter regressed ≤40 mm after EVAR experienced a very low rate of reintervention, rupture, or sac re-expansion. Most sac re-expansion occurred at least 3 years after reaching this threshold and did not result in clinical events. Increasing follow-up frequency up to 3-year intervals once the AAA sac regresses to 40 mm would carry minimal risk of aneurysm-related morbidity.