Literature DB >> 29802043

Comparative study of clinical outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysms repair in large diameter aortic necks (>31 mm) versus smaller necks.

Ali F AbuRahma1, Trevor DerDerian2, Zachary T AbuRahma2, Stephen M Hass2, Michael Yacoub2, L Scott Dean3, Shadi Abu-Halimah2, Albeir Y Mousa2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compares short-term (30 days) and intermediate term (3 years) clinical outcomes in patients with large (≥31 mm) versus small aortic neck diameters (≤28 and ≤31 mm).
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 741 patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair were analyzed. Some surgeons have reported the threshold for a large aortic neck for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair to be 28 mm, whereas for others it is 31 mm. Therefore, we classified aortic neck diameter into less than or equal to 28 versus greater than 28 mm; and less than or equal to 31 versus greater than 31 mm. Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare outcomes.
RESULTS: There were 688 patients who had a defined aortic neck diameter: 592 with less than or equal to 28 mm, 96 with greater than 28 mm, 655 with less than or equal to 31 mm, and 33 with greater than 31 mm. The mean follow-up was 25.2 months for less than or equal to 31 mm versus 31.8 months for greater than 31 mm. Clinical characteristics were similar in all groups, except that there were more patients outside the instructions for use in the greater than 31 mm versus less than or equal to 31 mm group (94% vs 44%; P < .0001). There was a significant increase in early type I endoleak for patients with an aortic neck diameter of greater than 31 versus less than or equal to 31 mm (9 [27%] vs 74 [11%]; P = .01); late type I endoleaks (4 [14%] vs 18 [3%]; P = .01); sac expansion (5 [17%] vs 28 [5%]; P = .01); late intervention (5 [17%] vs 23 [4%]; P = .01); and death (9 [31%] vs 48 [8%]; P < .0001). There were no differences in outcomes between the patients with greater than 28 mm aortic neck diameters and the less than or equal to 28 mm diameters. Freedom from late type I endoleak at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96%, 88%, and 88% for patients with a neck diameter of greater than 31 mm versus 97%, 97%, and 97% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P = .19). The rate of freedom from sac expansion for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm was 88%, 81%, and 81% at 1, 2, and 3 years versus 99%, 97%, and 92% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P = .02). Freedom from late intervention for 1, 2, and 3 years for patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm were 91%, 91%, and 91% versus 99%, 97%, and 96% for those with a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for a diameter greater than 31 mm were 83%, 74%, and 68% versus 96%, 92%, and 90% for a diameter less than or equal to 31 mm (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a diameter greater than 31 mm had an odds ratio of 6.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-16.8) for mortality, 4.7 (95% CI, 1.4-15.5) for sac expansion, and 4.9 (95% CI, 1.4-17.4) for late type I endoleak.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with large aortic neck diameters (>31 mm) had higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, sac expansion, late intervention, and mortality.
Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominal aortic aneurysms; Aortic neck size; EVAR; Endovascular; Endovascular aneurysm repair

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29802043      PMCID: PMC6203596          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.02.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  33 in total

1.  Aortic neck dilation after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: should oversizing be blamed?

Authors:  Sergio M Sampaio; Jean M Panneton; Geza Mozes; James C Andrews; Audra A Noel; Manju Kalra; Thomas C Bower; Kenneth J Cherry; Timothy M Sullivan; Peter Gloviczki
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2006-05-19       Impact factor: 1.466

2.  Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in VA hospitals.

Authors:  Ruth L Bush; Michael L Johnson; Tracie C Collins; William G Henderson; Shukri F Khuri; Hong-Jen Yu; Peter H Lin; Alan B Lumsden; Carol M Ashton
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair performed in abdominal aortic aneurysms with large infrarenal necks.

Authors:  Mauro Gargiulo; Enrico Gallitto; Helene Wattez; Fabio Verzini; Claudio Bianchini Massoni; Diletta Loschi; Antonio Freyrie; Stephan Haulon
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.268

4.  A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  Monique Prinssen; Eric L G Verhoeven; Jaap Buth; Philippe W M Cuypers; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Ron Balm; Erik Buskens; Diederick E Grobbee; Jan D Blankensteijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with an unfavorable proximal neck using large stent-grafts.

Authors:  Hany A Zayed; Rachel E Bell; Rachel E Clough; Stephen Thomas; Tarun Sabharwal; John F Reidy; Tom W Carrell; Peter R Taylor
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  AneuRx stent graft versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: multicenter prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  C K Zarins; R A White; D Schwarten; E Kinney; E B Diethrich; K J Hodgson; T J Fogarty
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.268

7.  A multicenter controlled clinical trial of open versus endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Authors:  Jon S Matsumura; David C Brewster; Michel S Makaroun; David C Naftel
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 8.  A meta-analysis of outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile and friendly neck anatomy.

Authors:  George A Antoniou; George S Georgiadis; Stavros A Antoniou; Ganesh Kuhan; David Murray
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 4.268

9.  Endograft migration one to four years after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the AneuRx device: a cautionary note.

Authors:  Michael S Conners; W Charles Sternbergh; Glen Carter; Britt H Tonnessen; Moises Yoselevitz; Samuel R Money
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 10.  Proximal Aortic Neck Progression: Before and After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment.

Authors:  Konstantinos A Filis; George Galyfos; Fragiska Sigala; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Ioannis Tsagos; Georgios Karantzikos; Christos Bakoyiannis; George Zografos
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2017-05-04
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion.

Authors:  Pasqualino Sirignano; Silvia Ceruti; Francesco Aloisi; Ascanio Sirignano; Mario Picozzi; Maurizio Taurino
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.