Advertisement

Endovascular Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: the Year in Review

  • John E. O’Mara
  • Robert M. Bersin
Vascular Disease (I Weinberg, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Vascular Disease

Opinion statement

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant method of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The use of conscious sedation with local anesthesia and percutaneous femoral access has further decreased the morbidity of the procedure. Current devices can more effectively manage increasingly “hostile” aneurysm necks, while chimney grafts or dedicated fenestrated stent-grafts can be used for juxta-renal disease with favorable results. However, endovascular repair does present a new set of challenges, and endoleaks remain an area of concern. While there is general consensus that type I and type III endoleaks require treatment, type II endoleaks are the topic of ongoing research and debate. Development of devices and techniques to prevent and treat endoleak continues to progress. Advances in contrast-enhanced ultrasound are reducing reliance on computed tomography for post-operative monitoring. This is an important step in this population at high risk for the development of kidney failure. Despite these many innovations, further research is needed to optimize the care of patients with AAA.

Keywords

Abdominal aortic aneurysm Endovascular procedures Endoleak 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

John E. O’Mara has no potential conflict of interest. Robert M. Bersin is a consultant to Cook, Endologix, Gore, and Medtronic.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Khashram M, Williman JA, Hider PN, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors influencing survival following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grant SW, Hickey GL, Wisely NA, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and survival after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:430–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arya S, Kim SI, Duwayri Y, et al. Frailty increases the risk of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and failure to rescue after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair independent of age and comorbidities. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:324–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broos PP, Stokmans RA, Cuypers PW, et al. Effects of anesthesia type on perioperative outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:770–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ioannou CV, Kontopodis N, Kehagias E, et al. Endovascular aneurysm repair with the Ovation TriVascular Stent Graft System utilizing a predominantly percutaneous approach under local anaesthesia. Br J Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howard AQ, Bennett PC, Ahmad I, et al. Introduction of laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2015;102:368–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kauvar DS, Martin ED, Givens MD. 30-day outcomes following elective percutaneous or open endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kontopodis N, Tsetis D, Kehagias E, et al. Totally percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair using the preclosing technique: towards the least invasive therapeutic alternative. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25:354–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buck DB, Karthaus EG, Soden PA, et al. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:16–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pratesi G, Barbante M, Pulli R, et al. Italian Percutaneous EVAR (IPER) Registry: outcomes of 2381 percutaneous femoral access sites’ closure for aortic stent-graft. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;56:889–98.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rijkée MP, Statius van Eps RG, Wever JJ, et al. Predictors of failure of closure in percutaneous EVAR using the prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:45–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel R, Juszczak MT, Bratby MJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of augmenting the preclose technique with a collagen-based closure device for percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:821–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walker J, Tucker LY, Goodney P, et al. Adherence to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair device instructions for use guidelines has no impact on outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1151–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bangeas P, Voulalas G, Ktenidis K. Rapid prototyping in aortic surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(4):513–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leotta DF, Starnes BW. Custom fenestration templates for endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1637–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gindre J, Bel-Brunon A, Kaladji A, et al. Finite element simulation of the insertion of guidewires during an EVAR procedure: example of a complex patient case, a first step toward patient-specific parameterized models. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. Epub April 28, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zerwes S, Nurzai Z, Leissner G, et al. Early experience with the new endovascular aneurysm sealing system Nellix: first clinical results after 50 implantations. Vascular. 2015.Google Scholar
  18. 18.•
    Brownrigg JR, de Bruin JL, Rossi L, et al. Endovascular aneurysm sealing for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: 30-day outcomes of 105 patients in a single centre. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:157–64. Description of 30-day results, learning curve, and potential complications with the Nellix device at a single center.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savlovskis J, Krievins D, de Vries JP, et al. Aortic neck enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding endografts. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:541–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Donato G, Setacci F, Bresadola L, et al. Aortic neck evolution after endovascular repair with TriVascular Ovation stent graft. J Vasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Millen AM, Osman K, Antoniou GA, et al. Outcomes of persistent intraoperative type Ia endoleak after standard endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1185–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malas MB, Jordan WD, Cooper MA, et al. Performance of the Aorfix endograft in severely angulated proximal necks in the PYTHAGORAS United States clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1108–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Le TB, Moon MH, Jeon YS, et al. Evaluation of aneurysm neck angle change after endovascular aneurysm repair clinical investigations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Melas N, Stavridis K, Saratzis A, et al. Active proximal sealing in the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: early results with a new stent-graft. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:174–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karkos CD, Kapetanios DM, Anastasiadis PT, et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with the anaconda™ stent graft: mid-term results from a single center. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:1416–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sobocinski J, Briffa F, Holt PJ, et al. Evaluation of the Zenith low-profile abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:841–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Donas KP, Torsello GB, Piccoli G, et al. The PROTAGORAS study to evaluate the performance of the Endurant stent graft for patients with pararenal pathologic processes treated by the chimney/snorkel endovascular technique. J Vasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindblad B, Bin Jabr A, Holst J, et al. Chimney grafts in aortic stent grafting: hazardous or useful technique? Systematic review of current data. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  29. 29.•
    Donas KP, Lee JT, Lachat M, et al. Collected world experience about the performance of the snorkel/chimney endovascular technique in the treatment of complex aortic pathologies: the PERICLES registry. Ann Surg. 2015;262:546–53. A large registry analysis from multiple centers evaluating the outcomes with chimney-EVAR.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michel M, Becquemin JP, Clément MC, et al. Thirty day outcomes and costs of fenestrated and branched stent grafts versus open repair for complex aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:189–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, et al. The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(4S):S2–S49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gnus J, Ferenc S, Dziewiszek M, et al. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in our own material in years 2002–2011. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015;24:475–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.•
    Desgranges P, Kobeiter H, Katsahian S, et al. ECAR (Endovasculaire ou Chirurgie dans les Anévrysmes aorto-iliaques Rompus): a french randomized controlled trial of endovascular versus open surgical repair of ruptured aorto-iliac aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:303–10. An important randomized trial that adds to the literature regarding the use of EVAR in ruptured aortic aneurysms.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scali ST, Neal D, Sollanek V, et al. Outcomes of surgeon-modified fenestrated-branched endograft repair for acute aortic pathology. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1148–1159.e2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang S, Feng J, Li H, et al. Open surgery (OS) versus endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for hemodynamically stable and unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Heart Vessels. Epub Sep 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brahmbhatt R, Gander J, Duwayri Y, et al. Improved trends in patient survival and decreased major complications after emergency ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker J, Tucker LY, Goodney P, et al. Type II endoleak with or without intervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair does not change aneurysm-related outcomes despite sac growth. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:551–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lal BK, Zhou W, Li Z, et al. Predictors and outcomes of endoleaks in the Veterans Affairs Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) trial of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1394–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kray J, Kirk S, Franko J, et al. Role of type II endoleak in sac regression after endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:869–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Phan DD, Meyer F, Pech M, et al. Length of abdominal aortic aneurysm and incidence of endoleaks type II after endovascular repair. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2015;127:851–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Couchet G, Pereira B, Carrieres C, et al. Predictive factors for type II endoleaks after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm by conventional endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:1673–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gallitto E, Gargiulo M, Mascoli C, et al. Persistent type II endoleak after EVAR: the predictive value of the AAA thrombus volume. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nakai M, Ikoma A, Sato H, et al. Risk factors associated with late aneurysmal sac expansion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015;21:195–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McGarry JG, Alenezi AO, McGrath FP, et al. How safe is internal iliac artery embolisation prior to EVAR? A 10-year retrospective review. Ir J Med Sci. 2015.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ameli-Renani S, Pavlidis V, Mailli L, et al. transiliac paraendograft embolisation of type 2 endoleak: an alternative approach for endoleak management. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Torres-Blanco Á, Schmidt A, Gómez-Palonés F, et al. The roadside technique for type ii endoleak embolization 4 years after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:837.e13-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Park YS, Do YS, Park HS, et al. Experience of direct percutaneous sac injection in type II endoleak using cone beam computed tomography. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015;88:232–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.•
    Piazza M, Squizzato F, Zavatta M, et al. Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair with contemporary volume-dependent sac embolization in patients at risk for endoleak type II. J Vasc Surg. 2015. A randomized trial of volume-based aneurysm sac thrombosis at the time of EVAR demonstrating a potential benefit in patients at ‘high risk’ for type II endoleak.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fabre D, Fadel E, Brenot P, et al. Type II endoleak prevention with coil embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair in high-risk patients. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ikoma A, Nakai M, Sato M, et al. Systolic sac pressure index for the prediction of persistent type ii endoleak for 12 months after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sirignano P, Menna D, Capoccia L, et al. Preoperative intrasac thrombus load predicts worse outcome after elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:1431–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hiraoka A, Chikazawa G, Ishida A, et al. Impact of age and intraluminal thrombus volume on abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:1440–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dattani N, Wild J, Sidloff D, et al. Outcomes following limb crossing in endovascular aneurysm repairs. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:52–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jordan Jr WD, Ouriel K, Mehta M, et al. Outcome-based anatomic criteria for defining the hostile aortic neck. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1383–90.e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oliveira NF, Bastos Gonçalves FM, de Vries JP, et al. Mid-term results of EVAR in severe proximal aneurysm neck angulation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:19–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jordan WD Jr, Mehta M, Ouriel K, et al. One-year results of the ANCHOR trial of EndoAnchors for the prevention and treatment of aortic neck complications after endovascular aneurysm repair. Vascular. 2015.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saratzis A, Harrison S, Barratt J, et al. Intervention associated acute kidney injury and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Am J Nephrol. 2015;42:285–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Saratzis A, Nduwayo S, Sarafidis P, et al. Pre-operative renal function is the main predictor of acute kidney injury (AKI) after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Ann Vasc Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Saratzis A, Melas N, Mahmood A, et al. Incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and impact on outcome. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:534–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Saratzis A, Bath MF, Harrison S, et al. Long-term renal function after endovascular aneurysm repair. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10:1930–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Miller LE, Razavi MK, Lal BK. Suprarenal versus infrarenal stent graft fixation on renal complications after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1340–9.e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Furuyama T, Onohara T, Mikasa K, et al. Is endovascular aneurysm repair a relative contraindication for patients with preoperative renal dysfunction? Ann Vasc Dis. 2015;8:187–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sailer AM, Nelemans PJ, van Berlo C, et al. Endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms: prevalence of acute kidney injury and effect on long-term renal function. Eur Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Formosa A, Santos DM, Marcuzzi D, et al. Low contrast dose Catheter-directed CT Angiography (CCTA). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Haga M, Hoshina K, Shigematsu K, et al. A perioperative strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Surg Today. 2015.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Arnaoutoglou E, Kouvelos G, Papa N, et al. Prospective evaluation of post-implantation inflammatory response after EVAR for AAA: influence on patients’ 30 day outcome. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:175–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sartipy F, Lindström D, Gillgren P, et al. The impact of stent graft material on the inflammatory response after EVAR. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kawajiri H, Mizuno T, Moriwaki T, et al. Development of tissue-engineered self-expandable aortic stent grafts (Bio stent grafts) using in-body tissue architecture technology in beagles. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015;103:381–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Majd P, Ahmad W, Luebke T, et al. Impairment of erectile function after elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Vascular. 2015.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Antoniou GA, Georgiadis GS, Antoniou SA, et al. Late rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm after previous endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:734–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Partovi S, Kaspar M, Aschwanden M, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound after endovascular aortic repair-current status and future perspectives. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2015;5:454–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yang X, Chen YX, Zhang B, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in detecting endoleaks with failed computed tomography angiography diagnosis after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Chin Med J. 2015;128:2491–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chung J, Kordzadeh A, Prionidis I, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound. 2015;18:91–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hertault A, Maurel B, Pontana F, et al. Benefits of completion 3D angiography associated with contrast enhanced ultrasound to assess technical success after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:541–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Törnqvist P, Dias N, Sonesson B, et al. Intra-operative cone beam computed tomography can help avoid reinterventions and reduce CT follow up after infrarenal EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:390–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Habets J, Zandvoort HJ, Moll FL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging with a weak albumin binding contrast agent can reveal additional endoleaks in patients with an enlarging aneurysm after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:331–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pini R, Faggioli G, Mascoli C, et al. Influence of statin therapy on type 2 endoleak evolution. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:1167–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    De Haro J, Bleda S, Acin F. C-reactive protein predicts aortic aneurysmal disease progression after endovascular repair. Int J Cardiol. 2016;202:701–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bahia SS, Holt PJ, Jackson D, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term survival after elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair 1969–2011: 5 year survival remains poor despite advances in medical care and treatment strategies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:320–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish Medical CenterHeart and Vascular InstituteSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations