Dataset Information

Incidence and Risk Factors for Sac Expansion after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the sac changes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

Materials and We examined the aneurysm sac size initially and regularly after surgery in 157 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR in 2009-2019. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans were used as well as ultrasound images with non-enhanced CT scans in the patients with renal insufficiency. Sac expansion (SE) at 3 years was divided into two categories: progressive SE (PSE) defined as continuous sac enlargement of ≥5 mm on serial follow-up images at 1 and 3 years compared with the initial sac and delayed SE (DSE) defined as re-expansion of ≥5 mm compared with the regressed or stable sac at 1 year. The SE rate at 1 and 3 years and the risk factors for SE at 3 years were analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

During a median follow-up of 32.5 months, nine reinterventions in six patients were performed with open conversion (n=5) and endovascular repair (n=4). At 1 year, 112 patients underwent follow-up imaging. SE and sac regression were noted in 4 (3.6%) and 57 (50.9%) patients, respectively. Of the 64 patients with 3-year follow-up images, 16 (25%) exhibited SE (PSE [n=6] and DSE [n=10]). In the multivariable analysis, the risk factors for overall SE at 3 years were endoleaks at 1 year (P=0.006) and renal insufficiency (P=0.003).

Conclusion

During post-EVAR follow-up, patients with any endoleak at 1 year or renal insufficiency must be strictly monitored for SE development.

SUBMITTER: Hwang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8580744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been performed by various surgical specialties for many years. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may be a disruptive technology, having an impact on which specialties care for patients with AAA. Therefore, we examined the proportion of AAA repairs performed by various specialties over time in the United States and evaluated the impact of the introduction of EVAR.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2001-2009) was queried for intact and ruptured AAA and for open repair and EVAR. Specific procedures were used to identify vascular surgeons (VSs), cardiac surgeons (CSs), and general surgeons (GSs) as well as interventional cardiologists and interventional radiologists for states that reported unique treating physician identifiers. Annual procedure volumes were subsequently calculated for each specialty.ResultsWe identified 108,587 EVARs and 85,080 open AAA repairs (3011 EVARs and 12,811 open repairs for ruptured AAA). VSs performed an increasing proportion of AAA repairs during the study period (52% in 2001 to 66% in 2009; P < .001). GSs and CSs performed fewer repairs during the same period (25% to 17% [P < .001] and 19% to 13% [P < .001], respectively). EVAR was increasingly used for intact (33% to 78% of annual cases; P < .001) as well as ruptured AAA repair (5% to 28%; P < .001). The proportion of intact open repairs performed by VSs increased from 52% to 65% (P < .001), whereas for EVAR, the proportion went from 60% to 67% (P < .001). The proportion performed by VSs increased for ruptured open repairs from 37% to 53% (P < .001) and for ruptured EVARs from 28% to 73% (P < .001). Compared with treatment by VSs, treatment by a CS (0.55 [0.53-0.56]) and GS (0.66 [0.64-0.68]) was associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing endovascular rather than open AAA repair.ConclusionsVSs are performing an increasing majority of AAA repairs, in large part driven by the increased utilization of EVAR for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. However, GSs and CSs still perform AAA repair. Further studies should examine the implications of these national trends on the outcome of AAA repair.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge 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. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 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. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The 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. Results:Among 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 Relevance:Endovascular 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.