Dataset Information

Preloaded contralateral gate techniques during endovascular aortic repair for aneurysms and occlusive disease.

ABSTRACT: We present two preloaded techniques to facilitate gate cannulation during endovascular aortic repair. In the first case, we relined the aorta using a Gore iliac branch endoprosthesis (WL Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) for acute occlusion. This allowed for preloading the contralateral gate, which was compressed when deployed, and subsequently dilated open over the preloaded wire to allow for cannulation. The second patient had had an infrarenal aneurysm. A Gore Excluder was partially deployed extracorporeally to preload the gate from the ipsilateral side. The "snare ride" technique was used to rapidly cannulate the gate. Preloaded wire techniques during endovascular aortic repair can facilitate rapid gate cannulation, especially in patients with challenging anatomy.

SUBMITTER: Mirza AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903463 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preloaded contralateral gate techniques during endovascular aortic repair for aneurysms and occlusive disease.

Mirza Aleem K AK Manunga Jesse J Schumacher Clark C Stassi-Fritz Monica M Skeik Nedaa N

Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques 20201128 1

We present two preloaded techniques to facilitate gate cannulation during endovascular aortic repair. In the first case, we relined the aorta using a Gore iliac branch endoprosthesis (WL Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) for acute occlusion. This allowed for preloading the contralateral gate, which was compressed when deployed, and subsequently dilated open over the preloaded wire to allow for cannulation. The second patient had had an infrarenal aneurysm. A Gore Excluder was partially deplo ...[more]

PMID: 33665538

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Project description:ImportanceKnowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies.ObjectiveTo determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019.ExposuresElective EVAR or OSR for AAA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture.ResultsAmong 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years.Conclusions and relevanceEndovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Dataset Information

Preloaded contralateral gate techniques during endovascular aortic repair for aneurysms and occlusive disease.

Publications

Preloaded contralateral gate techniques during endovascular aortic repair for aneurysms and occlusive disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets