The Effect of Age on Peri-Operative Outcomes after FEVAR

INTRODUCTION

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) has become a popular custom-made treatment option for juxtarenal and pararenal aneurysms. It has been previously investigated whether octogenarians as a distinct subgroup are at increased risk for adverse outcomes after FEVAR. With diverging results and an inconclusive understanding of age as a risk factor in general, an analysis of the historical data of a single center was conducted to add to the available body of evidence and further investigate the effect of age as a continuous risk factor.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of a prospectively maintained single-center database of all patients who underwent FEVAR at a single department of vascular surgery was performed. The main endpoint was post-operative survival. In addition to association analyses, potential confounders such as co-morbidities, complication rates, or aneurysm diameter were examined. In terms of sensitivity analyses, logistic regression models were created for the dependent variables of interest.

RESULTS

During the observation period from April 2013 to November 2020, 40 patients over the age of 80 and 191 patients under the age of 80 were treated by FEVAR. The 30-day survival showed no significant difference between the groups (95.1% in octogenarians and 94.3% in patients under 80 years of age). The sensitivity analyses conducted also showed no difference between the two groups, and complication and technical success rates were comparable. The aneurysm diameter was 67 ± 13 mm in the study group and 61 ± 15 mm in those under 80 years of age. Additionally, the sensitivity analyses showed that age as a continuous variable exhibits no effect on the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, age was not associated with adverse peri-operative outcomes after FEVAR, including mortality, lower technical success rates, complications, or length of hospital stay. Essentially, the most highly associated factor with hospital and ICU length of stay was time spent in surgery. However, octogenarians had a significantly larger aortic diameter at the time of treatment, which might indicate the potential introduction of bias by pre-interventional patient selection. Nevertheless, the usefulness of research on octogenarians as a distinct subgroup might be questionable regarding the scalability of results, and future studies might focus on age as a continuous risk factor instead.

Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) is technically more challenging when performed after a failing EVAR procedure (FEVAR after EVAR). This study aims to assess the technical outcome of FEVAR after EVAR and to identify factors that may influence complication rates.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single department of vascular and endovascular surgery. The rate of FEVAR after EVAR compared to primary FEVAR is reported. Complication and primary unconnected fenestration (PUF) rates as well as survival were assessed for the FEVAR after EVAR cohort. PUF rates and operating time were also compared to all primary FEVAR patients. Patient characteristics and technical factors such as number of fenestrations or use of a steerable sheath were assessed as possible influencers on technical success when performing FEVAR after EVAR.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine fenestrated devices were implanted during the study period (2013 to April 2020). Thirty-five patients (16.7% of all FEVAR patients) had undergone FEVAR after EVAR and were included in the study. Overall survival at last follow-up (20.2±19.1 months) was 82.9% in FEVAR after EVAR patients. Rates of technical failure dropped significantly after 14 procedures (42.9% vs. 9.5%; p=0.03). Primary unconnected fenestrations were seen in 3 cases of FEVAR after EVAR (8.6%) and 14 of 174 primary FEVAR cases (8.0%; p>0.99). Operating time for FEVAR after EVAR was significantly higher than for primary FEVAR (301.1±110.5 minutes vs. 253.9±103.4 minutes; p=0.02). The availability of a steerable sheath was a significant predictor of reduced risk of PUFs, whereas age and gender, number of fenestrations or suprarenal fixation of the failed EVAR did not significantly influence PUF rates.

CONCLUSION

Fewer technical complications were seen over the study period in FEVAR after EVAR patients. While rates of PUFs were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR can be a valuable and safe tool to treat patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR but may be more complex to achieve than primary FEVAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This retrospective study assesses the technical outcome of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fenestrated EVAR; FEVAR) after prior EVAR. While rates of primary unconnected fenestrations were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR after prior EVAR may be technically more challenging than primary FEVAR procedures, but could be performed with equally good results in this patient cohort. FEVAR offers a feasible treatment option for patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR.

Complex Aortic Interventions Can Be Safely Introduced to the Clinical Practice by Physicians Skilled in Basic Endovascular Techniques

Our purpose was to evaluate the risk associated with the learning curve of starting a complex aortic programme in an Eastern European country. A retrospective study was conducted involving the initial 20 patients (16 males, mean age: 65 ± 11 years) undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair in a single centre. Demographic, anatomical, procedural, and postoperative variables were collected. Our elective patient cohort consisted of 9 pararenal aneurysms (45%) and 11 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (55%), with the latter including 4 chronic dissection cases (20%). A total of 71 branch vessels were incorporated (3.5 ± 0.9 per patient). The per vessel technical success rate was 100%. In-hospital mortality was 5% (1/20). At an average follow-up of 14 ± 22 months, the primary clinical success rate was 45% (9/20) and the secondary clinical success was achieved in 75% of cases (15/20). All-cause mortality at 14 months was 20% (4/20; aortic related: 1/20, 5%). Four bridging stent occlusions were found (5.6%). Mortality and reintervention rates were comparable to the initial results of high-volume centres, while the complexity of our cases and the per vessel technical success rate was comparable to the values reported as late experience. The morbidity of the learning curve could be decreased if operators are skilled in basic endovascular procedures.

Multicentre experience with an iliac fenestrated device

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to present a multicentre experience of technical results and mid-term follow-up using a custom-made iliac fenestrated device (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, Renfrewshire, UK) for the treatment of iliac aneurysms and endoleaks.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective evaluation of 22 patients (3-12 per institution) with either an iliac artery aneurysm or endoleak treated with an iliac fenestrated device was performed. Data were gathered from 3 departments of vascular and endovascular surgery at 3 European institutions.

RESULTS

Ten of the included patients (45.5%) were treated for an endoleak and 12 had aorto-iliac aneurysms (54.5%). Two patients underwent bilateral fenestrated device implantation for a total of 24 devices included in this analysis. Primary technical success was 91.7% (22 of 24 implanted devices). One of the 24 internal iliac arteries could not be cannulated and was covered (primary assisted technical success rate 95.8%) and 1 patient required a relining of the stent graft due to a mid-grade stenosis opposite the internal iliac artery fenestration. Survival at the last available follow-up (mean 15.2 ± 12.0 months, range 0.5-36.6 months) was 90.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation adds to a growing body of literature on custom-made endografts and their usefulness in achieving endovascular repair without compromising blood flow via important arterial branch vessels, such as the internal iliac artery. It presents encouraging technical and mid-term follow-up data from consecutive patients treated for iliac aneurysms or endoleaks using this custom-made device. The technique may help avoid adverse sequelae associated to a coil-and-cover approach when iliac branch devices are not feasible.

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Arterial Puncture and Closure Device Training in a Pulsatile Model

OBJECTIVE

The current study assesses the feasibility of in vitro practice of percutaneous puncture techniques in a pulsatile flow-model.

DESIGN

Prospective, controlled, randomized study.

SETTING

The percutaneous access to endovascular aortic repair is considered safe, but success rates may be dependent on surgeon experience with the technique.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen vascular surgery trainees and consultants were enrolled and randomized to a study or control group with both groups receiving instructions by a tutor on how to perform ultrasound guided percutaneous puncture and closure using a suture-mediated closure device. The study group received additional hands-on training on a pulsatile flowmodel of the groin and the performance of both groups was then graded. Study group participants were timed during and after their training on the model.

RESULTS

The study group achieved higher overall grading than the control group on a 5-point scale with higher scores indicating a better performance (mean overall scores 4.0 ± 0.7 versus 2.8 ± 1.0, respectively; p = 0.03). Experienced participants (more than 20 punctures performed before the study) achieved higher overall scores than trainees (3.8 ± 0.4 versus 2.5 ± 0.8, respectively; p = 0.01). Five participants in the study group could deploy and close the ProGlide closure device correctly without the help of a tutor while being graded (71% in the study versus 0% in the control group; p = 0.02). Study group participants improved their overall score from 3.2 ± 0.9 to 4.0 ± 0.7 during training (p = 0.02). Time needed to complete the puncture and closure reduced from 456 seconds on average before, to 302 seconds after training (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Study group participants could improve their overall score while working on the simulator. More experienced participants performed better during the simulation, which may indicate the model to be life-like and a potential skills assessment tool. Simulation training may be a valuable adjunct to traditional forms of training when teaching an endovascular technique but is limited by its reliance on simulators and demo devices.