Loading…

Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of vascular surgery 2018-12, Vol.68 (6), p.1676-1687.e3
Main Authors: Dias, Agenor P., Farivar, Behzad S., Steenberge, Sean P., Brier, Corey, Kuramochi, Yuki, Lyden, Sean P., Eagleton, Matthew J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3
container_end_page 1687.e3
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1676
container_title Journal of vascular surgery
container_volume 68
creator Dias, Agenor P.
Farivar, Behzad S.
Steenberge, Sean P.
Brier, Corey
Kuramochi, Yuki
Lyden, Sean P.
Eagleton, Matthew J.
description The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/B-EVAR). A retrospective analysis (1999-2016) of 247 patients who underwent either explantation (n = 162) or F/B-EVAR (n = 85) for failed EVAR was performed. F/B-EVAR was performed under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. Demographics of the patients, clinical presentation and failure etiology, perioperative management, rate of reinterventions, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Those undergoing surgical explantation were compared with those undergoing F/B-EVAR conversion. Statistical analysis included multivariable logistic regressions, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test. The majority of patients were male (n = 216 [87%]), with a mean age of 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The mean time from primary EVAR was higher in F/B-EVAR (46 ± 7 months vs 69 ± 41 months; P < .001). Graft manufacturer did not differ between those requiring explantation and those having endovascular rescue (P = .170). All emergencies (n = 24 [10%]) and infections (n = 28 [11%]) were treated with open conversion. Endoleak was the most common reason for failure in both explantation and F/B-EVAR groups (75% vs 64%, respectively; P = .052). Type I endoleak was the most common endoleak reported in both groups, occurring more frequently in F/B-EVAR (64% vs 40%; P < .001); type II endoleak was more common in those undergoing open repair (28% vs 2%; P < .001). Graft migration (12% vs 26%; P = .005) and neck degeneration/disease progression (14% vs 59%; P < .001) were more prevalent in F/B-EVAR, but aneurysm enlargement was more common in explantation (68% vs 33%; P < .001). Thirty-day reintervention rates did not differ between F/B-EVAR and explantation (odds ratio, 0.6258; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.86; P = .4115); however, 30-day mortality was lower in the F/B-EVAR group (5% vs 10%; P = .0192). Similarly, aneurysm-related mortality was also lower in the F/B-EVAR group (hazard ratio, 0.0683; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.44; P = .0048). A subset analysis excluding emergencies and infections did not alter the lack of difference in terms of freedom from reinterventions (P = .1175), 30-day mortality (P = .6329), or aneurysm-related mortality (P = .7849). Explantation and
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.03.418
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2059040574</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S074152141830911X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2059040574</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtuFDEQRS1ERIbAB7BBXrLpptwvu8UKRbykRNnA2qq2q4lH3fZguwfyA3x3HE1giVjV5tyruoexVwJqAWJ4u6_3x1Q3IFQNbd0J9YTtBIyyGhSMT9kOZCeqvhHdOXue0h5AiF7JZ-y8GcdWNqrbsd_X6PE7reQzDzOf0S1kOXkbjpjMtmDkGGJ2hqOnLd6llUc6oIv8p8u3nH4dFvQZswueh8hn8pRyxEy2miJ6c_t_bS_Y2YxLopeP94J9-_jh6-Xn6urm05fL91eVacchV1INg0JlzNjYtlcwGDVSDwQCh061IGaJsldkJ9VMylqcTD9ME05NgSVie8HenHoPMfzYyqt6dcnQUkZQ2JJuoB-hg152BRUn1MSQUqRZH6JbMd5pAfpBv97rol8_6NfQ6qK_ZF4_1m_TSvZv4o_vArw7AVRGHh1FnYwjb8i6SCZrG9w_6u8BLuuZ6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2059040574</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair</title><source>BACON - Elsevier - GLOBAL_SCIENCEDIRECT-OPENACCESS</source><creator>Dias, Agenor P. ; Farivar, Behzad S. ; Steenberge, Sean P. ; Brier, Corey ; Kuramochi, Yuki ; Lyden, Sean P. ; Eagleton, Matthew J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dias, Agenor P. ; Farivar, Behzad S. ; Steenberge, Sean P. ; Brier, Corey ; Kuramochi, Yuki ; Lyden, Sean P. ; Eagleton, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><description>The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/B-EVAR). A retrospective analysis (1999-2016) of 247 patients who underwent either explantation (n = 162) or F/B-EVAR (n = 85) for failed EVAR was performed. F/B-EVAR was performed under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. Demographics of the patients, clinical presentation and failure etiology, perioperative management, rate of reinterventions, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Those undergoing surgical explantation were compared with those undergoing F/B-EVAR conversion. Statistical analysis included multivariable logistic regressions, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test. The majority of patients were male (n = 216 [87%]), with a mean age of 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The mean time from primary EVAR was higher in F/B-EVAR (46 ± 7 months vs 69 ± 41 months; P &lt; .001). Graft manufacturer did not differ between those requiring explantation and those having endovascular rescue (P = .170). All emergencies (n = 24 [10%]) and infections (n = 28 [11%]) were treated with open conversion. Endoleak was the most common reason for failure in both explantation and F/B-EVAR groups (75% vs 64%, respectively; P = .052). Type I endoleak was the most common endoleak reported in both groups, occurring more frequently in F/B-EVAR (64% vs 40%; P &lt; .001); type II endoleak was more common in those undergoing open repair (28% vs 2%; P &lt; .001). Graft migration (12% vs 26%; P = .005) and neck degeneration/disease progression (14% vs 59%; P &lt; .001) were more prevalent in F/B-EVAR, but aneurysm enlargement was more common in explantation (68% vs 33%; P &lt; .001). Thirty-day reintervention rates did not differ between F/B-EVAR and explantation (odds ratio, 0.6258; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.86; P = .4115); however, 30-day mortality was lower in the F/B-EVAR group (5% vs 10%; P = .0192). Similarly, aneurysm-related mortality was also lower in the F/B-EVAR group (hazard ratio, 0.0683; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.44; P = .0048). A subset analysis excluding emergencies and infections did not alter the lack of difference in terms of freedom from reinterventions (P = .1175), 30-day mortality (P = .6329), or aneurysm-related mortality (P = .7849). Explantation and F/B-EVAR are necessary options in treating patients with failed EVAR, and both techniques have competitive results. Different modes of failure may point to a preferred method of treatment; consequently, rescue of failed EVAR should be individualized according to each patient’s presentation and resources available.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0741-5214</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6809</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.03.418</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29937284</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abdominal aortic aneurysm ; Endoleak ; EVAR ; Explantation ; Failed EVAR ; Fenestrated-branched endograft ; Open conversion ; Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm</subject><ispartof>Journal of vascular surgery, 2018-12, Vol.68 (6), p.1676-1687.e3</ispartof><rights>2018 Society for Vascular Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29937284$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dias, Agenor P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farivar, Behzad S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steenberge, Sean P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brier, Corey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuramochi, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyden, Sean P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eagleton, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><title>Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair</title><title>Journal of vascular surgery</title><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><description>The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/B-EVAR). A retrospective analysis (1999-2016) of 247 patients who underwent either explantation (n = 162) or F/B-EVAR (n = 85) for failed EVAR was performed. F/B-EVAR was performed under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. Demographics of the patients, clinical presentation and failure etiology, perioperative management, rate of reinterventions, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Those undergoing surgical explantation were compared with those undergoing F/B-EVAR conversion. Statistical analysis included multivariable logistic regressions, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test. The majority of patients were male (n = 216 [87%]), with a mean age of 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The mean time from primary EVAR was higher in F/B-EVAR (46 ± 7 months vs 69 ± 41 months; P &lt; .001). Graft manufacturer did not differ between those requiring explantation and those having endovascular rescue (P = .170). All emergencies (n = 24 [10%]) and infections (n = 28 [11%]) were treated with open conversion. Endoleak was the most common reason for failure in both explantation and F/B-EVAR groups (75% vs 64%, respectively; P = .052). Type I endoleak was the most common endoleak reported in both groups, occurring more frequently in F/B-EVAR (64% vs 40%; P &lt; .001); type II endoleak was more common in those undergoing open repair (28% vs 2%; P &lt; .001). Graft migration (12% vs 26%; P = .005) and neck degeneration/disease progression (14% vs 59%; P &lt; .001) were more prevalent in F/B-EVAR, but aneurysm enlargement was more common in explantation (68% vs 33%; P &lt; .001). Thirty-day reintervention rates did not differ between F/B-EVAR and explantation (odds ratio, 0.6258; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.86; P = .4115); however, 30-day mortality was lower in the F/B-EVAR group (5% vs 10%; P = .0192). Similarly, aneurysm-related mortality was also lower in the F/B-EVAR group (hazard ratio, 0.0683; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.44; P = .0048). A subset analysis excluding emergencies and infections did not alter the lack of difference in terms of freedom from reinterventions (P = .1175), 30-day mortality (P = .6329), or aneurysm-related mortality (P = .7849). Explantation and F/B-EVAR are necessary options in treating patients with failed EVAR, and both techniques have competitive results. Different modes of failure may point to a preferred method of treatment; consequently, rescue of failed EVAR should be individualized according to each patient’s presentation and resources available.</description><subject>Abdominal aortic aneurysm</subject><subject>Endoleak</subject><subject>EVAR</subject><subject>Explantation</subject><subject>Failed EVAR</subject><subject>Fenestrated-branched endograft</subject><subject>Open conversion</subject><subject>Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm</subject><issn>0741-5214</issn><issn>1097-6809</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMtuFDEQRS1ERIbAB7BBXrLpptwvu8UKRbykRNnA2qq2q4lH3fZguwfyA3x3HE1giVjV5tyruoexVwJqAWJ4u6_3x1Q3IFQNbd0J9YTtBIyyGhSMT9kOZCeqvhHdOXue0h5AiF7JZ-y8GcdWNqrbsd_X6PE7reQzDzOf0S1kOXkbjpjMtmDkGGJ2hqOnLd6llUc6oIv8p8u3nH4dFvQZswueh8hn8pRyxEy2miJ6c_t_bS_Y2YxLopeP94J9-_jh6-Xn6urm05fL91eVacchV1INg0JlzNjYtlcwGDVSDwQCh061IGaJsldkJ9VMylqcTD9ME05NgSVie8HenHoPMfzYyqt6dcnQUkZQ2JJuoB-hg152BRUn1MSQUqRZH6JbMd5pAfpBv97rol8_6NfQ6qK_ZF4_1m_TSvZv4o_vArw7AVRGHh1FnYwjb8i6SCZrG9w_6u8BLuuZ6g</recordid><startdate>201812</startdate><enddate>201812</enddate><creator>Dias, Agenor P.</creator><creator>Farivar, Behzad S.</creator><creator>Steenberge, Sean P.</creator><creator>Brier, Corey</creator><creator>Kuramochi, Yuki</creator><creator>Lyden, Sean P.</creator><creator>Eagleton, Matthew J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201812</creationdate><title>Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair</title><author>Dias, Agenor P. ; Farivar, Behzad S. ; Steenberge, Sean P. ; Brier, Corey ; Kuramochi, Yuki ; Lyden, Sean P. ; Eagleton, Matthew J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Abdominal aortic aneurysm</topic><topic>Endoleak</topic><topic>EVAR</topic><topic>Explantation</topic><topic>Failed EVAR</topic><topic>Fenestrated-branched endograft</topic><topic>Open conversion</topic><topic>Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dias, Agenor P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farivar, Behzad S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steenberge, Sean P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brier, Corey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuramochi, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyden, Sean P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eagleton, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dias, Agenor P.</au><au>Farivar, Behzad S.</au><au>Steenberge, Sean P.</au><au>Brier, Corey</au><au>Kuramochi, Yuki</au><au>Lyden, Sean P.</au><au>Eagleton, Matthew J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair</atitle><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><date>2018-12</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1676</spage><epage>1687.e3</epage><pages>1676-1687.e3</pages><issn>0741-5214</issn><eissn>1097-6809</eissn><abstract>The incidence of failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasing, and understanding the different methods of management and repair is paramount. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical management and rescue of failed EVAR by either explantation or fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/B-EVAR). A retrospective analysis (1999-2016) of 247 patients who underwent either explantation (n = 162) or F/B-EVAR (n = 85) for failed EVAR was performed. F/B-EVAR was performed under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption. Demographics of the patients, clinical presentation and failure etiology, perioperative management, rate of reinterventions, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Those undergoing surgical explantation were compared with those undergoing F/B-EVAR conversion. Statistical analysis included multivariable logistic regressions, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test. The majority of patients were male (n = 216 [87%]), with a mean age of 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The mean time from primary EVAR was higher in F/B-EVAR (46 ± 7 months vs 69 ± 41 months; P &lt; .001). Graft manufacturer did not differ between those requiring explantation and those having endovascular rescue (P = .170). All emergencies (n = 24 [10%]) and infections (n = 28 [11%]) were treated with open conversion. Endoleak was the most common reason for failure in both explantation and F/B-EVAR groups (75% vs 64%, respectively; P = .052). Type I endoleak was the most common endoleak reported in both groups, occurring more frequently in F/B-EVAR (64% vs 40%; P &lt; .001); type II endoleak was more common in those undergoing open repair (28% vs 2%; P &lt; .001). Graft migration (12% vs 26%; P = .005) and neck degeneration/disease progression (14% vs 59%; P &lt; .001) were more prevalent in F/B-EVAR, but aneurysm enlargement was more common in explantation (68% vs 33%; P &lt; .001). Thirty-day reintervention rates did not differ between F/B-EVAR and explantation (odds ratio, 0.6258; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.86; P = .4115); however, 30-day mortality was lower in the F/B-EVAR group (5% vs 10%; P = .0192). Similarly, aneurysm-related mortality was also lower in the F/B-EVAR group (hazard ratio, 0.0683; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.44; P = .0048). A subset analysis excluding emergencies and infections did not alter the lack of difference in terms of freedom from reinterventions (P = .1175), 30-day mortality (P = .6329), or aneurysm-related mortality (P = .7849). Explantation and F/B-EVAR are necessary options in treating patients with failed EVAR, and both techniques have competitive results. Different modes of failure may point to a preferred method of treatment; consequently, rescue of failed EVAR should be individualized according to each patient’s presentation and resources available.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29937284</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jvs.2018.03.418</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0741-5214
ispartof Journal of vascular surgery, 2018-12, Vol.68 (6), p.1676-1687.e3
issn 0741-5214
1097-6809
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2059040574
source BACON - Elsevier - GLOBAL_SCIENCEDIRECT-OPENACCESS
subjects Abdominal aortic aneurysm
Endoleak
EVAR
Explantation
Failed EVAR
Fenestrated-branched endograft
Open conversion
Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm
title Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T23%3A04%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Management%20of%20failed%20endovascular%20aortic%20aneurysm%20repair%20with%20explantation%20or%20fenestrated-branched%20endovascular%20aortic%20aneurysm%20repair&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20vascular%20surgery&rft.au=Dias,%20Agenor%20P.&rft.date=2018-12&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1676&rft.epage=1687.e3&rft.pages=1676-1687.e3&rft.issn=0741-5214&rft.eissn=1097-6809&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.03.418&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2059040574%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78668a8cc92d35806c89e50e01a648301f7a758edb82b8ddabc56bbab25807aa3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2059040574&rft_id=info:pmid/29937284&rfr_iscdi=true