Technical pitfalls and proposed modifications of instructions for use for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder conformable device in angulated and short landing zones

We describe a case of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and angulated proximal neck treated with a Gore Excluder conformable endoprosthesis and show relevant technical pitfalls in the deployment of the graft main body. An 82-year-old man presented with a 71-mm asymptomatic AAA with an angulated infrarenal proximal neck (75°) and was referred to our unit. The patient was treated with a 26-mm Gore Excluder conformable device, which was deployed slightly above the renal arteries after precatheterization of the lowest renal artery. The graft was then repositioned with support of the introducer sheath and a stiff guide wire. The proximal sealing zone was ballooned before the endograft delivery system was retrieved to avoid distal migration. Technical success was achieved. The patient was discharged with no complications. No type Ia endoleak was present on the 6-month computed tomography scan. Endovascular treatment of an AAA with a severe angulated proximal neck can be effective with a conformable stent graft if technical measures are used during deployment of the main body to optimize the seal.</p

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

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

Absent left atrial appendage: case report and review of the literature

Congenital absence of left atrial appendage (LAA) is an extremely rare condition and is usually diagnosed incidentally in imaging intended for other purposes. Herein, we report a rare case of absent left atrial appendage in an 80-year-old gentleman who was candidate for radiofrequency catheter ablation procedure for atrial flutter rhythm in whom we observed the absence of left atrial appendage in echocardiographic examination. Computed tomography angiographic examination performed in the evaluation course of the patient was also confirmative of this finding. As there is no data on anticoagulating of patients with absent left atrial appendage, after successful radiofrequency catheter ablation procedure, we continued rivaroxaban per guidelines. The results of a second imaging modality and a thorough medical history are critical for diagnosis of absent left atrial appendage. These steps are required to rule out imitating conditions such as prior surgical/percutaneous exclusion, unusual anatomical features or flush thrombotic exclusion of left atrial appendage. In this case report, we also provide a brief review of the characteristics of 17 cases that have been reported in the literature so far. © 201

Changes in renal-mesenteric duplex ultrasound velocities after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Objective: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods:Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with &lt;60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches. Results: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement. Conclusions: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR.</p

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

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. Conclusion: 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

Outcomes of elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair for treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.This work was presented at the 143rd Annual Meeting of the American Surgical Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 20-22, 2023.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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio