Placement of an aortomonoiliac stent graft without femorofemoral revascularization in endovascular aneurysm repair: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Endovascular aortic repair, if technically feasible, is the treatment of choice for patients with a contained ruptured aortic aneurysm who are unfit for open surgery.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the case of an 80-year-old Caucasian man who presented with an unusually configured, symptomatic infrarenal aortic aneurysm. His aneurysm showed an erosion of the fourth lumbar vertebra and a severely arteriosclerotic pelvic axis. A high thigh amputation of his right leg had been performed 15 months previously. On his right side, occlusion of his external iliac artery, common femoral artery, and deep femoral artery had occurred. His aneurysm was treated by a left-sided aortomonoiliac stent graft without femorofemoral revascularization, resulting in occlusions of both internal iliac arteries. No ischemic symptoms appeared, although perfusion of his right side was maintained only over epigastric collaterals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The placement of aortomonoiliac stent grafts for endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms without contralateral revascularization is a feasible treatment option in isolated cases. In this report, access problems and revascularization options in endovascular aneurysm repair are discussed.</p

Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. Methods From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (≥5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. Results The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.