Investigation of the Hemodynamic Effect of Stent Wires on Renal Arteries in Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Treated with Suprarenal Stent-Grafts

The purpose of the study was to investigate the hemodynamic effect of stent struts (wires) on renal arteries in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated with suprarenal stent-grafts. Two sample patients with AAA undergoing multislice CT angiography pre- and postsuprarenal fixation of stent-grafts were selected for inclusion in the study. Eight juxtarenal models focusing on the renal arteries were generated from the multislice CT datasets. Four types of configurations of stent wires crossing the renal artery ostium were simulated in the segmented aorta models: a single wire crossing centrally, a single wire crossing peripherally, a V-shaped wire crossing centrally, and multiple wires crossing peripherally. The blood flow pattern, flow velocity, wall pressure, and wall shear stress at the renal arteries pre- and post-stent-grafting were analyzed and compared using a two-way fluid structure interaction analysis. The stent wire thickness was simulated with a diameter of 0.4, 1.0, and 2.0 mm, and hemodynamic analysis was performed at different cardiac cycles. The interference of stent wires with renal blood flow was mainly determined by the thickness of stent wires and the type of configuration of stent wires crossing the renal ostium. The flow velocity was reduced by 20–30% in most of the situations when the stent wire thickness increased to 1.0 and 2.0 mm. Of the four types of configuration, the single wire crossing centrally resulted in the highest reduction of flow velocity, ranging from 21% to 28.9% among three different wire thicknesses. Wall shear stress was also dependent on the wire thickness, which decreased significantly when the wire thickness reached 1.0 and 2.0 mm. In conclusion, our preliminary study showed that the hemodynamic effect of suprarenal stent wires in patients with AAA treated with suprarenal stent-grafts was determined by the thickness of suprarenal stent wires. Research findings in our study are useful for follow-up of patients treated with suprarenal stent-grafts to ensure long-term safety of the suprarenal fixation

Endovascular repair versus open surgery in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: Clinical outcomes with 1-year follow-up

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of treatment after endovascular repair and open surgery in patients with ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), including 1-year follow-up.MethodsAll consecutive conscious patients with ruptured infrarenal AAAs who presented to our tertiary care teaching hospital between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, were included in this study (n = 55). Twenty-six patients underwent endovascular repair, and 29 patients underwent open surgery. Patients who were hemodynamically too unstable to undergo a computed tomography angiography scan were excluded. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, systemic complications, complications necessitating surgical intervention, and mortality and complications during 1-year follow-up. The statistical tests we used were the Student t test, χ2 test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test (two sided; α = .05).ResultsThirty-day mortality was 8 (31%) of 26 patients who underwent endovascular repair and 9 (31%) of 29 patients who underwent open surgery (P = .98). Systemic complications and complications necessitating surgical intervention during the initial hospital stay were similar in both treatment groups (8/26 [31%] and 5/26 [19%] for endovascular repair, respectively, and 9/29 [31%] and 8/29 [28%] for open surgery, respectively; P > .40). During 1-year follow-up, two patients initially treated with endovascular repair died as a result of non–aneurysm-related causes; no death occurred in the open surgery group. Complications during 1-year follow-up were 1 (5%) of 20 for endovascular repair and 4 (16%) of 25 for open surgery (P = .36).ConclusionsOn the basis of our study with a highly selected population, the mortality and complication rates after endovascular repair may be similar compared with those after open surgery in patients treated for ruptured infrarenal AAAs

Aneurysms—from traumatology to screening

This paper deals with aneurysmal disease, primarily when localized in the abdominal aorta. It is based on the Olof Rudbeck lecture 2009. Aneurysm is a localized widening of an artery, and its definition has become an important issue today when the disease is in focus for screening programmes. Aetiology and pathogenesis are still poorly understood, but a genetic component determining the strength of the aortic wall is important, and there is a strong male dominance. Historically, several attempts have been made to treat the disease, but reconstructive treatment has been possible only since 1951, in an increasing number of cases performed endovascularly. By early detection through screening, and thereby the possibility to treat before rupture, it has now become possible to decrease the total mortality from the disease in the population

Predictors of adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A meta-analysis of case reports

Introduction: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a life-saving intervention. Nevertheless, complications have a major impact. We review the evidence from case reports for risk factors of complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Case presentation: We selected case reports from PubMed reporting original data on adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Extracted risk factors were: age, sex, aneurysm diameter, comorbidities, re-interventions, at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient. Extracted outcomes were: death, rupture and (non-)device-related complications. In total 113 relevant articles were selected. These reported on 173 patients. A fatal outcome was reported in 15% (N = 26) of which 50% came after an aneurysm rupture (N = 13). Non-fatal aneurysm rupture occurred in 15% (N = 25). Endoleaks were reported in 52% of the patients (N = 90). In half of the patients with a rupture no prior endoleak was discovered during follow-up. In 83% of the patients one or more re-interventions were performed (N = 143). Mortality was higher among women (risk ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.0), while the presence of comorbidities was strongly associated with both ruptures (risk ratio 1.6; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.9) and mortality (risk ratio 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.7). Missing one or more follow-up visits (≥1) or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient was strongly related to both ruptures (risk ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 7.0) and mortality (risk ratio 3.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 8.3). Conclusion: Female gender, the presence of comorbidities and at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient appear to increase the risk for mortality after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Larger aneurysm diameter, higher age and multimorbidity at the time of surgery appear to increase the risk for rupture and other complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These risk factors deserve further attention in future studies

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus sham procedure for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: An external feasibility randomized controlled trial

© 2015 Mouton et al. Background: Despite advances in perioperative care, elective abdominal aorta aneurysm (AAA) repair carries significant morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIC) is a physiological phenomenon whereby a brief episode of ischaemia-reperfusion protects against a subsequent longer ischaemic insult. Trials in cardiovascular surgery have shown that RIC can protect patients' organs during surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate whether RIC could be successfully introduced in elective AAA repair and to obtain the information needed to design a multi-centre RCT. Methods: Consecutive patients presenting for elective AAA repair, using an endovascular (EVAR) or open procedure, in a single large city hospital in the UK were assessed for trial eligibility. Patients who consented to participate were randomized to receive RIC (three cycles of 5 min ischaemia followed by 5 min reperfusion in the upper arm immediately before surgery) or a sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 6 months. We assessed eligibility and consent rates, the logistics of RIC implementation, randomization, blinding, data capture, patient and staff opinion, and variability and frequency of clinical outcome measures. Results: Between January 2010 and December 2012, 98 patients were referred for AAA repair, 93 were screened, 85 (91 %) were eligible, 70 were approached for participation and 69 consented to participate; 34 were randomized to RIC and 35 to the sham procedure. There was a greater than expected variation in the complexity of EVAR that impacted the outcomes. Acute kidney injury occurred in 28 (AKIN 1: 23 %; AKIN 2: 15 % and AKIN 3: 3 %) and 7 (10 %) had a perioperative myocardial infarction. Blinding was successful, and interviews with participants and staff indicated that the procedure was acceptable. There were no adverse events secondary to the intervention in the 6 months following the intervention. Conclusions: This study provided essential information for the planning and design of a multi-centre RCT to assess effectiveness of RIC for improving clinical outcomes in elective AAA repair. Patient consent was high, and the RIC intervention was carried out with minimal disruption to clinical care. The allocation scheme for a definite trial should take into account both the surgical procedure and its complexity to avoid confounding the effect of the RIC, as was observed in this study. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19332276(date of registration: 16 March 2012). The trial protocol is available from the corresponding author