| 1. |
- Budtz-Lilly, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 278:2, s. E389-E395
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective:To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR).Methods:Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm.Background:Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes.Results:There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P<0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P=0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P=0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P=0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P=0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%).Conclusions:Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dias, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 278:4, s. 568-577, s. 568-577
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).Background: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described.Methods: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair.Results: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72 +/- 10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P < 0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months ( interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50 +/- 4% vs 70 +/- 1% and 21 +/- 3% vs 7 +/- 1%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality ( hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P < 0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P < 0.001).Conclusions: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dias-Neto, Marina, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 77:6, s. 1588-1597
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single-or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality.Results: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 +/- 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9 +/- 1.3% vs 79.6 +/- 1.7%) and 3 years (72.7 +/- 2.1% vs 64.2 +/- 2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach.Conclusions: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.
|
|
| 4. |
- Verscheure, Dorian, et al.
(författare)
-
Endovascular Treatment of Post Type A Chronic Aortic Arch Dissection With a Branched Endograft : Early Results From a Retrospective International Multicenter Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 273:5, s. 997-1003
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aortic arch repair for chronic dissection with a custom-made branched endograft.BACKGROUND: Acute type A aortic dissections are often treated with prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta. During follow-up, repair of an aneurysmal evolution of the false lumen distal to the ascending prosthesis can be a challenge both for the surgeon and the patient.METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive patients from 14 vascular units treated with a custom-made, inner-branched device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for chronic aortic arch dissection. Rates of in-hospital mortality and stroke, technical success, early and late complications, reinterventions, and mortality during follow-up were evaluated.RESULTS: Seventy consecutive patients were treated between 2011 and 2018. All patients were considered unfit for conventional surgery. In-hospital combined mortality and stroke rate was 4% (n = 3), including 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke causing death, and 1 death following multiorgan failure. Technical success rate was 94.3%. Twelve (17.1%) patients required early reinterventions: 8 for vascular access complication, 2 for endoleak correction, and 2 for pericardial effusion drainage. Median follow-up was 301 (138-642) days. During follow-up, 20 (29%) patients underwent secondary interventions: 9 endoleak corrections, 1 open repair for prosthetic kink, and 10 distal extensions of the graft to the thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta. Eight patients (11%) died during follow-up because of nonaortic-related cause in 7 cases.CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch chronic dissections with a branched endograft is associated with low mortality and stroke rates but has a high reintervention rate. Further follow-up is required to confirm the benefits of this novel approach.
|
|
