Management of Type IA Endoleak After EVAR by Explantation or Custom Made Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
/ diagnostic imaging
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Device Removal
/ adverse effects
Endoleak
/ diagnostic imaging
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Male
Prosthesis Design
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Endoleak
Fenestrated endograft: F-EVAR
Open conversion
Journal
European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery
ISSN: 1532-2165
Titre abrégé: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9512728
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
09
12
2019
revised:
08
06
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
25
5
2021
entrez:
8
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Proximal type 1 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) remains challenging to solve with no existing consensus. This work aims to compare two different surgical strategies to remedy type IA endoleak: endograft explantation (EXP) and aortic reconstruction or relining by custom made fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR). A retrospective single centre analysis between 2009 and 2018 was conducted including patients treated for type IA endoleak after EVAR with either EXP or F-EVAR. The choice of surgical technique was based on morphological factors (F-EVAR eligibility), sac growth rate, emergency presentation and/or patient symptoms. Technical success, morbidity, secondary interventions, 30 day mortality, and long term survival according to Kaplan-Meier were determined for each group and compared. Fifty-nine patients (91% male, mean age 79 years) underwent either EXP (n = 26) or F-EVAR (n = 33) during the study period. The two groups were equivalent in terms of comorbidity and age at the time of procedure. The median time from initial EVAR was 60.4 months (34-85 months), with no difference between groups. The maximum aneurysm diameter was greater in the EXP group compared with the F-EVAR group, 86 mm (65-100) and 70 mm (60-80), respectively (p = .008). Thirty day secondary intervention (EXP: 11.5% vs. F-EVAR: 9.1%) and mortality (EXP: 3.8% vs. F-EVAR: 3.3%) rates did not differ between groups, while major adverse events at 30 days, defined by the current SVS guidelines, were lower in the F-EVAR group (2.4% vs. 13.6%; p = .016). One year survival rates were similar between the groups (EXP: 84.0% vs. F-EVAR: 86.6%). Open explantation and endovascular management with a fenestrated device for type IA endoleak after EVAR can be achieved in high volume centres with satisfactory results. F-EVAR is associated with decreased early morbidity. Open explantation is a relevant option because of acceptable outcomes and the limited applicability of F-EVAR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33414067
pii: S1078-5884(20)30993-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.10.033
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
571-578Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest S Haulon and J Sobocinski are consultants for Cook Medical.