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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of vascular surgery 2018-12, Vol.68 (6), p.1676-1687.e3 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
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 < .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 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 < .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 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 < .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 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 |