Aortic Neck Anatomic Features and Predictors of Outcomes in Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Following vs Not Following Instructions for Use.

Authors:
Ali F Aburahma
Ali F Aburahma
West Virginia University
United States
Michael Yacoub
Michael Yacoub
St John Hospital and Medical Center
United States
Albeir Y Mousa
Albeir Y Mousa
Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center
Stephen M Hass
Stephen M Hass
West Virginia University
Morgantown | United States
Jenna Kazil
Jenna Kazil
West Virginia University
United States
Mohit Srivastava
Mohit Srivastava
West Virginia University
United States

J Am Coll Surg 2016 Apr 13;222(4):579-89. Epub 2016 Jan 13.

Department of Surgery, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV.

Background: A significant number of patients undergo endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) outside the instructions for use (IFU). This study will examine various aortic neck features and their predictors of clinical outcomes.

Study Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on EVAR patients. Neck features outside IFU were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses were used to predict their effect as single features, or in combination, on outcomes.

Results: Fifty-two percent of 526 patients had 1 or more features outside the IFU. The overall technical success rate was 99%, and perioperative complication rates were 7% and 12% for IFU vs outside IFU use, respectively (p = 0.04). Type I early endoleak and early intervention rates were 7% and 10% for IFU vs 18% and 24% for outside IFU (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001). At a mean follow-up of 30 months, freedom from late type I endoleak and late reintervention at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 99.5%, 99.5%, and 98.4%, and 99.4%, 98%, and 96.8%; vs 98.9%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, and 97.5%, 96.2%, and 95.2% for outside IFU (p = 0.049 and 0.799), respectively. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years for IFU were 97%, 93.5%, and 89.8%; vs 93.7%, 88.8%, and 86.3% for outside IFU (p = 0.035). Multivariate analysis showed that a neck angle > 60 degrees had odds ratios for death, sac expansion, and early intervention of 6, 2.6, and 3.3, respectively; neck length < 10 mm had odds ratios of 2.8 for deaths, 3.4 for early intervention, 4.6 for late reintervention, and 4.3 for late type I endoleak.

Conclusions: Patients with neck features outside IFU can be treated with EVAR; however, they have higher rates of early and late type I endoleak, early intervention, and late death.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.12.037DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966526PMC
April 2016
144 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

early intervention
16
ifu p =
16
features ifu
12
neck features
12
ifu
12
late type
12
odds ratios
8
endovascular repair
8
patients neck
8
intervention late
8
aortic neck
8
years ifu
8
endoleak early
8
aortic aneurysms
8
type endoleak
8
late reintervention
8
features predictors
8
late
6
early
6
features
6

Similar Publications