Endovascular vs Open AAA Repair: Does Size Matter?

Anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and possible benefits of low profile delivery systems

The aim of the study was to evaluate the anatomic suitability for endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) according to instructions for use (IFUs) of three commercially available bifurcated stent graft devices and explore the possible benefits of low-profile delivery systems. Computed tomography scans of 241 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were evaluated for suitability of Zenith Flex®, Gore Excluder® and Endurant® bifurcated stent graft systems according to their IFUs. The most common exclusion criteria and possible benefits of smaller diameter delivery systems were analyzed. When choosing the most suitable graft model for each patient, the overall suitability was 49.4%. By brand, the suitability was 28.6% for Zenith®, 25.7% for Gore Excluder® and 48.1% for Endurant®. By step wise accepting iliac diameters of ≥6 mm, ≥5 mm and ≥4 mm the overall suitability increased to 56.7, 58.9 and 60.2%, respectively ( P < 0.001). Diameters below 4 mm had no additional effect on suitability as combinations of other anatomical features, with or without narrow iliacs, accounted for the remaining excluding factors. In conclusion, Less than half of patients with AAAs are suitable for EVAR according to current IFUs. Low-profile delivery systems may allow for endovascular treatment in up to 60% of patients.

Unique operative approach for dealing with a tortuous external iliac artery during abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms offers many benefits over open repair. However, there are many characteristics that can exclude patients from undergoing this minimally invasive procedure, such as iliac arterial pathology. The present report describes the case of an 85-year-old patient with an aneurysm in which the right external iliac artery presented a challenge for vascular access due to its severe tortuosity and hairpin turn. Access for endovascular repair was achieved via an end-to-end anastomosis of the external iliac artery through a transverse inguinal incision. This represents a new option for achieving endograft placement when confronted with vascular tortuosity.

Final 12-year follow-up of Surgery versus Surveillance in the UK Small Aneurysm Trial

Background

The aim was to determine whether early open surgical repair would benefit patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with surveillance on long-term follow-up.

Methods

The 1090 patients who were enrolled into the UK Small Aneurysm Trial between 1991 and 1995 were followed up for aneurysm repair and mortality until November 2005.

Results

By November 2005, 714 patients (65·5 per cent) had died, 929 (85·2 per cent) had undergone aneurysm repair, 150 (13·8 per cent) had died without aneurysm repair and 11 (1·0 per cent) remained alive without aneurysm repair. After 12 years, mortality in the surgery and surveillance groups was 63·9 and 67·3 per cent respectively, unadjusted hazard ratio 0·90 (P = 0·139). Three-quarters of the surveillance group eventually had aneurysm repair, with a 30-day elective mortality of 6·3 per cent (versus 5·0 per cent in the early surgery group, P = 0·366). Estimates suggested that the cost of treatment was 17 per cent higher in the early surgery group, with a mean difference of £1326. The death rate in these patients was about twice that in the population matched for age and sex.

Conclusion

There was no long-term survival benefit of early elective open repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Even after successful aneurysm repair, the mortality among these patients was higher than in the general population.