Does complete aneurysm exclusion ensure long-term success after endovascular repair?

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 12 Years of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair (ER) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a new technique, and reported rates of endoleak, conversion to open repair, rupture and mortality vary widely. The aim of this study was to estimate these rates from the published data, and examine how this has changed as more patients have undergone ER.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications identified through searches of the electronic databases EMBASE and Medline. All publications quoting endoleak, conversion to open repair, rupture and mortality rates for a series of patients undergoing ER were included.

RESULTS

163 studies pertaining to 28,862 patients undergoing ER were identified as relevant for the review and meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for operative mortality was 3.3% (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.6%). The pooled estimate for type 1 endoleaks was 10.5% (95% confidence interval 9.0 to 12.1%), with an annual rate of 8.4% (95% confidence interval 5.7% to 12.2%). The pooled estimate of type 2,3 and 4 endoleaks was 13.7% (95% confidence interval 12.3 to 15.3%), with an annual rate of 10.2% (95% confidence interval 7.4% to 14.1%). The pooled estimate for primary conversion to open repair was 3.8% (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.4%), and for secondary conversion to open repair 3.4% (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 4.2%). The pooled estimate for post-operative rupture was 1.3% (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.7%), with an annual rupture rate of 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5% to 0.8%). Multivariate meta-regression analysis showed that rates of operative mortality, post-operative rupture and total number of endoleaks all fell significantly (p<0.05) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a low mortality and a gradual reduction in vascular morbidity and mortality associated with endovascular repair since it was first introduced.

Systematic review of recent evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective endovascular repair in the management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Conventional management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is by open repair and is associated with a mortality rate of 2–6 per cent. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an alternative technique first introduced in 1991. A systematic review was undertaken of the evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective EVAR in the management of asymptomatic infrarenal AAA.

Methods

Thirteen electronic bibliographical databases were searched, covering biomedical, health-related, science and social science literature. Outcomes were assessed with respect to efficacy (successful deployment, technical success, conversion rates and secondary intervention rates) and safety (30-day mortality rate, procedure morbidity rates and technical issues—endoleaks, graft thrombosis, stenosis and migration).

Results

Of 606 reports identified, 61 met the inclusion criteria (three randomized and 15 non-randomized controlled trials, and 43 uncontrolled studies). There were 29 059 participants in total; 19 804 underwent EVAR. Deployment was successful in 97·6 per cent of cases. Technical success (complete aneurysm exclusion) was 81·9 per cent at discharge and 88·8 per cent at 30 days. Secondary intervention to treat endoleak or maintain graft patency was required in 16·2 per cent of patients. Mean stay in the intensive care unit and mean hospital stay were significantly shorter following EVAR. The 30-day mortality rate for EVAR was 1·6 per cent (randomized controlled trials) and 2·0 per cent in nonrandomized trials and case series. Technical complications comprised stent migration (4·0 per cent), graft limb thrombosis (3·9 per cent), endoleak (type I, 6·8 per cent; type II, 10·3 per cent; type III, 4·2 per cent) and access artery injury (4·8 per cent).

Discussion

EVAR is technically effective and safe, with lower short-term morbidity and mortality rates than open surgery. However, there is a need for extended follow-up as the long-term success of EVAR in preventing aneurysm-related deaths is not yet known.

AneuRx Device Migration: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences

Success after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is dependent on device positional stability. The quest for such stability has motivated different endograft designs, and the risk factors entailed remain the subject of debate. This study aims at defining the incidence, risk factors, and clinical implications of device migration after EVAR with the AneuRx endograft. In this study we included all consecutive 109 patients submitted to primary AneuRx placement for infrarenal aortic or aortoiliac aneurysms. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed for the following anatomic characteristics: neck length, diameter, angulation, calcification, and thrombus load; and sac diameter and thrombus load. Percentage of device oversizing relative to the proximal neck diameter was determined. All postoperative CT scans were reviewed, and the distance between the lowest renal artery and the craniad end of the device was measured. A >/=5-mm increase in such distance was considered indicative of device migration. Migration cumulative incidence was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and its association with any of the preoperative anatomical characteristics was tested using Cox proportional hazards models. Median follow-up time was 9 (range, 1-31) months. Migration occurred in nine patients, corresponding to a 15.6% estimated probability of migration at 30 months (SE = 5.1%). Migration was associated with the risk of proximal type I endoleak (hazard ratio = 3.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-7.87; p = 0.007). This type of endoleak occurred in three of the migration-affected patients (33.3%); all of them were resolved by additional cuff placement at the proximal landing zone. No other migration-related reinterventions were performed. The only significant associations between anatomic factors and device migration probability were the protective effects of longer necks (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71 for each additional 5 mm, p = 0.045) and longer overlapped portions of neck and device (OR = 0.56 for each additional 5 mm, p = 0.003). There was a trend toward higher probability of migration among reverse-tapered necks (OR = 1.75, p = 0.109). Percentage of device oversizing correlated with early neck dilation (between preoperative and first postoperative diameters, correlation coefficient = 0.4, p < 0.0001), but not with late neck dilatation (between first postoperative and 1.5-year scan diameters, correlation coefficient = 0.29, p = 0.112). There was a trend toward higher mean percentage of late dilation among migrators (11.4%, standard error of the mean [SEM] 2.6) than nonmigrators (5.7%, SEM = 1) (p = 0.08), but both groups had similar mean percentages of early dilation (3%, SEM = 1.6%, vs. 5.5%, SEM = 0.6%; p = 0.365). This result indicates that device migration is not a rare event after AneuRx implantation. This phenomenon is associated with proximal type I endoleaks. Deployment of the endograft immediately below the renal arteries might help to prevent migration, since use of greater lengths of overlapped device relative to the proximal neck has a protective effect. Migration seems to be independent of the degree of device oversizing.

Modeling endoleaks and collateral reperfusion following endovascular AAA exclusion

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect on intrasac pressure of stent-graft deployment within a life-size silicone rubber model of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) maintained under physiological conditions of pressure and flow.

METHODS

A commercial bifurcated device with the polyester fabric preclotted with gelatin was deployed in the AAA model. A pump system generated physiological flow. Mean and pulse aortic and intrasac pressures were measured simultaneously using pressure transducers. To simulate a type I endoleak, plastic tubing was placed between the aortic wall and the stent-graft at the proximal anchoring site. Type II endoleak was simulated by means of side branches with set inflow and outflow pressures and perfusion rates. Type IV endoleak was replicated by removal of gelatin from the graft fabric.

RESULTS

With no endoleak, the coated graft reduced the mean and pulse sac pressures to negligible values. When a type I endoleak was present, mean sac pressure reached a value similar to mean aortic pressure. When net flow through the sac due to a type II endoleak was present, mean sac pressure was a function of the inlet pressure, while pulse pressure in the sac was dependent on both inlet and outlet pressures. As perfusion rates increased, both mean and pulse sac pressures decreased. When there was no outflow, mean sac pressure was similar to mean aortic pressure. In the presence of both type I and type II endoleaks, mean sac pressure reached mean aortic pressure when the net perfusion rate was low.

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro studies are useful in gaining an understanding of the impact of different types of endoleaks, in isolation and in combination, on intrasac pressure after aortic stent-graft deployment.

Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is reported to result in less initial patient morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional AAA repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval.

METHODS

The records of all admissions for all patients who underwent AAA repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-seven (337) patients underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuRx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P =.24 to P =.92) or configuration (P =.24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P =.009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the patients who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with patients who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after AAA repair at 12 months was 95% for patients for open AAA repair versus 71% for patients for endovascular repair (P <.001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent AAA-related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for patients who underwent endovascular versus open AAA procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P =.21). The patients for endovascular AAA repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of endoleak (n = 31), wound infection (n = 12), and graft limb thrombosis (n = 9). Although women had similar LOS to men for endovascular repair (P =.44), they had longer initial LOS for open AAA repair (15 versus 10 days; P =.03). After endovascular repair, women were more likely than men to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P =.03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P =.006). No gender differences were identified for patients after open AAA repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P =.09) or LOS on readmission (P =.98).

CONCLUSION

Although initial LOS was shorter for the patients who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional AAA repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, chiefly endoleak. These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and endovascular AAA repair.