Novel application of custom-made stent-grafts with inner branches for secondary treatment after stent-graft migration of previous infrarenal endovascular aortic repair

Purpose: We present a novel application of custom-made stent grafts (CMSGs) with inner branches to incorporate target vessels (TVs) as an alternative to fenestrations or directional branches for secondary treatment after stent graft migration of previous infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Case report: Two consecutive patients with stent graft migration of previous EVAR were electively treated at our institution from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Stent graft migration was defined as radiologic evidence of stent graft displacement >10 mm. In both cases, a proximal type I endoleak was noted, and the residual infrarenal aorta above the previous endograft was unsuitable as the proximal landing zone for a nonfenestrated cuff. Repair was planned by means of a CMSG with 4 inner branches. The procedures were conducted in two-stage fashion to minimize the risk of spinal cord ischemia. The procedures were technically successful with a total of 8 TVs stented. Both patients did not suffer from any early (i.e., up to 30 days) major adverse events, and no access-site complications were noted. At one-year follow-up, computed tomography angiography showed regular placement of the CMSGs, widely patent TVs, absence of any type I or III endoleak, and stable sac size. No late reinterventions were recorded. Conclusions: Secondary treatment of stent graft migration after previous EVAR is safe and feasible using CSMGs with 4 inner branches. This technique is effective as showed by stable sac size and 100% freedom from TVI at mid-term imaging follow-up. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the preliminary results

Comparative outcomes of aortobifemoral bypass with or without previous endovascular kissing stenting of the aortoiliac bifurcation

Objective: The aim of this multicenter national study was to compare the outcomes of primary open surgery by aorto-bifemoral bypass (ABFB) with those performed after a failed endovascular treatment (EVT) by kissing stent technique for complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) lesions (TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus [TASC] II C and D). Methods: All consecutive ABFB cases carried out at 12 vascular surgery centers between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Data included patients' baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, procedural details, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up results (survival, patency, amputation). The study cohort was divided into two groups based on indications for ABFB: primary treatment vs secondary treatment after EVT failure. Results: Overall, 329 patients underwent ABFB during the study period (71% males; mean age, 64 years), of which 285 were primary treatment and 44 were after prior EVT. At baseline, no significant differences were found between study groups in demographics and clinical characteristics. TASC C and D lesions were similarly represented in the study groups (TASC C: 22% vs 78%; TASC D: 16% vs 84%). No major differences were found between study groups in terms of procedural details, early mortality, and perioperative complications. At 5 years, primary patency rates were significantly higher for primary ABFB (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2%-84%) as compared with ABFB after prior EVT (69%; 95% CI 84.9%-55%; log rank P value < .001); however, the 5-year rates of secondary patency (100% vs 95%; 95% CI, 100%-86%) and limb salvage (97%; 95% CI, 99%-96 vs 97%; 95% CI, 100%-94%) were similar between study groups. Conclusions: Surgical treatment of TASC C/D AIOD with ABFB seems to be equally safe and effective when performed after prior EVT, although primary ABFB seemed to have higher primary patency rates. Despite the need for more frequent reinterventions, secondary patency and limb salvage rates were similar. However, future large prospective trials are required to confirm these findings

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the care of patients with acute and chronic aortic conditions

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures. METHODS Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared. RESULTS No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.04; P = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded ( 12 h 68% in 2020, 12 h 66% in 2019 P = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76-0.87; P < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (-40%, P < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality