Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. Methods:Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan–Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. Results: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p &lt; .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 – 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p &lt; .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p &lt; .001). Conclusion: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.</p

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. Methods:Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan–Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. Results: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p &lt; .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 – 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p &lt; .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p &lt; .001). Conclusion: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.</p

Aneurysm Sac Dynamics and its Prognostic Significance Following Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Objective: This study aimed to assess aneurysm sac dynamics and its prognostic significance following fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). Methods: Patients undergoing F/BEVAR for degenerative complex aortic aneurysm from 2008 to 2020 at two large vascular centres with two imaging examinations (30 day and one year) were included. Patients were categorised as regression and non-regression, determined by the proportional volume change (&gt; 5%) at one year compared with 30 days. All cause mortality and freedom from graft related events were assessed using Kaplan–Meier methods. Factors associated with non-regression at one year and aneurysm sac volume over time were examined for FEVAR and BEVAR independently using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed effects modelling. Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients were included: 122 FEVAR, of whom 34% did not regress at one year imaging (20% stable, 14% expansion); and 43 BEVAR, of whom 53% failed to regress (26% stable, 28% expansion). Following F/BEVAR, after risk adjusted analysis, non-regression was associated with higher risk of all cause mortality within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 – 5.37; p = .032) and higher risk of graft related events within five years (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10 – 5.26; p = .029). Following multivariable logistic regression, previous aortic repair (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% CI 1.11 – 5.96; p = .029) and larger baseline aneurysm diameter (OR/mm 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 – 1.09; p = .037) were associated with non-regression at one year, whereas smoking history was inversely associated with non-regression (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 – 0.96; p = .045). Overall following FEVAR, aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly up to two years (baseline vs. two year, 267 [95% CI 250 – 285] cm 3 vs. 223 [95% CI 197 – 248] cm 3), remaining unchanged thereafter. Overall following BEVAR, aneurysm sac volume remained stable over time. Conclusion: Like infrarenal EVAR, non-regression at one year imaging is associated with higher five year all cause mortality and graft related events risks after F/BEVAR. Following FEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs generally displayed regression (66% at one year), whereas after BEVAR for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs displayed a concerning proportion of growth at one year (28%), potentially suggesting a persistent risk of rupture and consequently requiring intensified surveillance following BEVAR. Future studies will have to elucidate how to improve sac regression following complex EVAR, and whether the high expansion risk after BEVAR is due to advanced disease extent.</p

Aneurysm Sac Dynamics and its Prognostic Significance Following Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Objective: This study aimed to assess aneurysm sac dynamics and its prognostic significance following fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). Methods: Patients undergoing F/BEVAR for degenerative complex aortic aneurysm from 2008 to 2020 at two large vascular centres with two imaging examinations (30 day and one year) were included. Patients were categorised as regression and non-regression, determined by the proportional volume change (&gt; 5%) at one year compared with 30 days. All cause mortality and freedom from graft related events were assessed using Kaplan–Meier methods. Factors associated with non-regression at one year and aneurysm sac volume over time were examined for FEVAR and BEVAR independently using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed effects modelling. Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients were included: 122 FEVAR, of whom 34% did not regress at one year imaging (20% stable, 14% expansion); and 43 BEVAR, of whom 53% failed to regress (26% stable, 28% expansion). Following F/BEVAR, after risk adjusted analysis, non-regression was associated with higher risk of all cause mortality within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 – 5.37; p = .032) and higher risk of graft related events within five years (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10 – 5.26; p = .029). Following multivariable logistic regression, previous aortic repair (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% CI 1.11 – 5.96; p = .029) and larger baseline aneurysm diameter (OR/mm 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 – 1.09; p = .037) were associated with non-regression at one year, whereas smoking history was inversely associated with non-regression (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 – 0.96; p = .045). Overall following FEVAR, aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly up to two years (baseline vs. two year, 267 [95% CI 250 – 285] cm 3 vs. 223 [95% CI 197 – 248] cm 3), remaining unchanged thereafter. Overall following BEVAR, aneurysm sac volume remained stable over time. Conclusion: Like infrarenal EVAR, non-regression at one year imaging is associated with higher five year all cause mortality and graft related events risks after F/BEVAR. Following FEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs generally displayed regression (66% at one year), whereas after BEVAR for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs displayed a concerning proportion of growth at one year (28%), potentially suggesting a persistent risk of rupture and consequently requiring intensified surveillance following BEVAR. Future studies will have to elucidate how to improve sac regression following complex EVAR, and whether the high expansion risk after BEVAR is due to advanced disease extent.</p

Molecular Imaging of Aortic Aneurysm and Its Translational Power for Clinical Risk Assessment

Aortic aneurysms (AAs) are dilations of the aorta, that are often fatal upon rupture. Diagnostic radiological techniques such as ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) are currently used in clinical practice for early diagnosis as well as clinical follow-up for preemptive surgery of AA and prevention of rupture. However, the contemporary imaging-based risk prediction of aneurysm enlargement or life-threatening aneurysm-rupture remains limited as these are restricted to visual parameters which fail to provide a personalized risk assessment. Therefore, new insights into early diagnostic approaches to detect AA and therefore to prevent aneurysm-rupture are crucial. Multiple new techniques are developed to obtain a more accurate understanding of the biological processes and pathological alterations at a (micro)structural and molecular level of aortic degeneration. Advanced anatomical imaging combined with molecular imaging, such as molecular MRI, or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT provides novel diagnostic approaches for in vivo visualization of targeted biomarkers. This will aid in the understanding of aortic aneurysm disease pathogenesis and insight into the pathways involved, and will thus facilitate early diagnostic analysis of aneurysmal disease. In this study, we reviewed these molecular imaging modalities and their association with aneurysm growth and/or rupture risk and their limitations. Furthermore, we outline recent pre-clinical and clinical developments in molecular imaging of AA and provide future perspectives based on the advancements made within the field. Within the vastness of pre-clinical markers that have been studied in mice, molecular imaging targets such as elastin/collagen, albumin, matrix metalloproteinases and immune cells demonstrate promising results regarding rupture risk assessment within the pre-clinical setting. Subsequently, these markers hold potential as a future diagnosticum of clinical AA assessment. However currently, clinical translation of molecular imaging is still at the onset. Future human trials are required to assess the effectivity of potentially viable molecular markers with various imaging modalities for clinical rupture risk assessment

Sex-related Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for intact isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sex and outcomes following TEVAR for intact isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (iiDTAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Data regarding sex-related long-term outcomes after TEVAR for iiDTAA are limited and conflicting results regarding perioperative outcomes have been reported. METHODS: We included all TEVAR for iiDTAA between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims, allowing reliable assessment of long-term outcome data. Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures of the thoracic aorta. Secondarily we assessed perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 685 patients, of which 54% were females. Females had higher aortic size index (females vs. males: 3.31 [IQR, 2.81-3.85] cm/m2 vs. 2.93 [IQR, 2.42-3.36] cm/m2; P.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females who undergo TEVAR for iiDTAA have similar 5-year and perioperative outcomes as compared with males

The Impact of Proximal Neck Anatomy on the 5-Year Outcomes Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair With the Ovation Stent Graft

Purpose: Hostile proximal neck anatomy has historically been associated with worse outcomes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We investigated the impact of proximal neck anatomy on the outcomes following EVAR with the Ovation abdominal stent graft (Endologix, Irving, Calif). Methods: We used prospectively collected data from the Effectiveness of Custom Seal with Ovation: Review of the Evidence database, compromised of pooled data from 6 clinical trials and the European Post-Market Registry of patients undergoing elective infrarenal EVAR (2009–2017). We investigated the impact of short neck length (&lt;10 mm), wide neck diameter (≥28 mm), reverse taper shape (&gt;10%), and neck angulation (&gt;45°) on the outcomes. The primary outcome was type IA endoleak. Secondary outcomes included any type I/III endoleak, sac expansion, aneurysm-related reinterventions, and all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, and a combined endpoint of type IA endoleak, graft migration, AAA-related reintervention, conversion, and aneurysm rupture. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the 30 day and 5 year rates and assess univariate and risk-adjusted differences. Results: Of the 1020 patients, 60 patients had a short neck, 113 had a wide neck diameter, 279 were reverse taper shaped, and 99 had neck angulation &gt;45°. Wide proximal neck was associated with higher 5 year type IA endoleak estimates compared with favorable neck anatomy (7.1% vs 4.3%; p=0.02). No association with 5 year type IA endoleak was found for short neck length (1.7% vs 4.3%; p=0.52), reverse taper shape (3.2% vs 4.3%; p=0.99), or neck angulation (6.1% vs 4.3%; p=0.13). A wide neck diameter compared with favorable anatomy was also associated with higher 5 year estimates of graft migration (3.8% vs 0.4%; p=0.03) and the combined neck-related adverse outcome endpoint (16% vs 9.5%; p=0.002). The estimates of aneurysm sac expansion, rupture, and overall and aneurysm-related mortality were similar between the hostile proximal neck anatomy cohorts and favorable anatomy. Conclusion: Wide proximal neck is associated with higher 5 year type IA endoleak rates for patients treated with the Ovation stent graft. However, short neck length, reverse taper shape, and neck angulation are not associated with higher 5 year type IA endoleak rates. Clinical Impact: Hostile proximal neck anatomy has historically been associated with worse outcomes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Ovation stent graft platform uses a different proximal sealing method using a polymer inflatable ring, aiming to improve sealing between the graft and aortic wall. This study demonstrated that short, angulated, and reverse taper-shaped neck anatomy did not result in increased type IA endoleak estimates in patients treated with the Ovation stent graft platform. Potentially, the different sealing mechanisms played a role in mitigating the historically worse outcomes in patients with short, angulated, and reverse taper-shaped neck anatomy.</p