scholarly journals Assessment of Pre-Operative Delays in the Management of Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
U Sadat ◽  
PD Hayes ◽  
ME Gaunt ◽  
K Varty ◽  
JR Boyle

INTRODUCTION Successful endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) requires detailed pre-operative imaging to allow device planning. This process may delay surgery and some aneurysms may rupture prior to intervention. The aim of this study was to quantify these delays. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected prospectively on all patients presenting with non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) between January 2003 and October 2005. The delay between referral, the first out-patient visit, CT-scan, follow-up appointment and surgery were quantified in all patients and compared between two groups undergoing open repair and EVAR. RESULTS A total of 146 patients underwent AAA repair during the study (48 EVAR versus 98 open repair). There was no significant differences in the wait for CT scans between the groups (median 42 days for EVAR versus 47 days for open repairs [P = 0.48]) or the median interval between decision to operate and surgery (56 days versus 42 days [P = 0.075]). However, the median delay between referral and surgery was significantly longer in those patients undergoing EVAR at 129 days versus 77 days for open repair (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Patients presenting electively with AAAs experienced significant delay from referral to surgery. This delay was significantly greater in those patients undergoing endovascular repair. Inevitably, some patients will rupture whilst waiting and strategies aimed at reducing delay should be pursued.

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 993-1000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Gallitto ◽  
Gianluca Faggioli ◽  
Rodolfo Pini ◽  
Chiara Mascoli ◽  
Stefano Ancetti ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES Our objective was to report the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) with endografts. METHODS Between January 2010 and April 2018, patients with TAAAs, considered at high surgical risk for open surgery and treated by Cook-Zenith fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair, were prospectively enrolled and retrospectively analysed. The early end points were 30-day/hospital mortality rate, spinal cord ischaemia and 30-day cardiopulmonary and nephrological morbidity. Follow-up end points were survival, patency of target visceral vessels and freedom from reinterventions. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients (male: 77%; mean age: 73 ± 7 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists 3/4: 58/42%) were enrolled. Using Crawford’s classification, 43 (49%) were types I–III and 45 (51%) were type IV TAAAs. The mean aneurysm diameter was 65 ± 15 mm. Custom-made and off-the-shelf endografts were used in 60 (68%) and 28 (32%) cases, respectively. Five (6%) patients had a contained ruptured TAAA. The procedure was performed in multiple steps in 42 (48%) cases. There was 1 (1%) intraoperative death. Five (6%) patients suffered spinal cord ischaemia with permanent paraplegia in 3 (3%) cases. Postoperative cardiac and pulmonary complications occurred in 7 (8%) and 12 (14%) patients, respectively. Worsening of renal function (≥30% of baseline level) was detected in 11 (13%) cases, and 2 (2%) patients required haemodialysis. The 30-day and hospital mortality rates were 5% and 8%, respectively. The mean follow-up was 36 ± 22 months. Survival at 12, 24 and 36 months was 89%, 75% and 70%, respectively. The patency of target visceral vessels at 12, 24 and 36 months was 92%, 92% and 92%, respectively. Freedom from reinterventions at 12, 24 and 36 months was 85%, 85% and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The endovascular repair of TAAAs with fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair is feasible and effective with acceptable technical/clinical outcomes at early/midterm follow-up.


Vascular ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Allan Marc Conway ◽  
Khalil Qato ◽  
Gautam Anand ◽  
Laurie Mondry ◽  
Gary Giangola ◽  
...  

Objectives Marfan syndrome patients are at risk for aortic degeneration. Repair is traditionally performed with open surgery as this is deemed more durable. Endovascular aneurysm repair remains controversial. We report on the outcomes of Marfan syndrome patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair. Methods The Vascular Quality Initiative registry identified 35,889 patients, including 29 with Marfan syndrome, treated with endovascular aneurysm repair from January 2003 to December 2017. Outcomes were analyzed per the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Results Median age was 70.0 years (IQR, 57.0–75.0), and 22 (75.9%) were male. Median aneurysm diameter was 5.3 cm (IQR, 4.9–6.3 cm), with an aortic neck length and diameter of 2.0 cm (IQR, 1.6–2.8 cm) and 2.5 cm (IQR, 2.2–2.8 cm), respectively. Twenty-one (72.4%) patients were asymptomatic, seven (24.1%) symptomatic, and one (3.4%) presented with rupture. Ten (34.5%) patients had prior aortic surgery. Six (20.7%) were unfit for open surgical repair. Length of stay was 2.0 days (IQR, 1.0–3.0 days). Percutaneous femoral access was performed in 15 (51.7%) patients with no complications. A type IA endoleak was present in one (3.4%), type IB in one (3.4%), and type II endoleak in two (6.9%) patients. There were no postoperative pulmonary, cardiac, or neurological complications. In-hospital mortality occurred in one (3.4%) patient who presented with a rupture and had been deemed unfit for open repair. A conversion to open repair was required. The patient expired on post-operative day 0. Early clinical success was achieved in 26 (89.7%) patients. Follow-up was available for 15 (51.7%) patients at a median time of 766 days (IQR, 653–937). There were no reinterventions or mortalities. Change in sac diameter was −0.6 cm (IQR, −1.1 to −0.2 cm), with no type I or III endoleaks. Discussion Endovascular aneurysm repair for patients with Marfan syndrome is feasible, and can be performed safely. Mid-term outcomes suggest this technique is durable. More robust long-term follow-up is needed.


Vascular ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinay Kansal ◽  
Sudhir Nagpal ◽  
Prasad Jetty

Objective Endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is being increasingly applied as the intervention of choice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether survival and reintervention rates after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm vary between endograft devices. Methods This cohort study identified all ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms performed at The Ottawa Hospital from January 1999 to May 2015. Data collected included patient demographics, stability index at presentation, adherence to device instructions for use, endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality. Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare outcomes between groups. Mortality outcomes were assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and multivariate Cox regression modeling. Results One thousand sixty endovascular aneurysm repairs were performed using nine unique devices. Ninety-six ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms were performed using three devices: Cook Zenith ( n = 46), Medtronic Endurant ( n = 33), and Medtronic Talent ( n = 17). The percent of patients presented in unstable or extremis condition was 30.2, which did not differ between devices. Overall 30-day mortality was 18.8%, and was not statistically different between devices ( p = 0.16), although Medtronic Talent had markedly higher mortality (35.3%) than Cook Zenith (15.2%) and Medtronic Endurant (15.2%). AUI configuration was associated with increased 30-day mortality (33.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.02). Long-term mortality and graft-related reintervention rates at 30 days and 5 years were similar between devices. Instructions for use adherence was similar across devices, but differed between the ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and elective endovascular aneurysm repair cohorts (47.7% vs. 79.0%, p < 0.01). Notably, two patients who received Medtronic Talent grafts underwent open conversion >30 days post-endovascular aneurysm repair ( p = 0.01). Type 1 endoleak rates differed significantly across devices (Cook Zenith 0.0%, Medtronic Endurant 18.2%, Medtronic Talent 17.6%, p = 0.01). Conclusion Although we identified device-related differences in endoleak rates, there were no significant differences in reintervention rates or mortality outcomes. Favorable outcomes of Cook Zenith and Medtronic Endurant over Medtronic Talent reflect advances in endograft technology and improvements in operator experience over time. Results support selection of endograft by operator preference for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 317-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cleona Gray ◽  
Patrick Goodman ◽  
Stephen A. Badger ◽  
M. Kevin O’Malley ◽  
Martin K. O’Donohoe ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document