Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Abstract

Objective:

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR.

Methods:

The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion.

Results:

The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045–2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418–3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343–5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055–3.388).

Conclusions:

Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention.

Clinical Impact

Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

Keywords

abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair endoleak reintervention aneurysm neck

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Parodi

Palmaz

Barone

HD.

Transfemoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5(6):491–499. doi:10.1007/bf02015271.

Banzic

Zhang

, et al. Morphological differences in the aorto-iliac segment in AAA patients of Caucasian and Asian origin. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(6):783–789. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.12.017.

Tanious

Karunathilake

Toro

, et al. Racial disparities in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;56:46–51. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2018.11.002.

Vervoort

Canner

Haut

, et al. Racial disparities associated with reinterventions after elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Surg Res. 2021;268:381–388. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.07.010.

Kwon

Lee

Choi

, et al. Anatomical features and early outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm from a Korean multicenter registry. Vasc Specialist Int. 2015;31(3):87–94. doi:10.5758/vsi.2015.31.3.87.

Eslami

Rybin

Doros

, et al. External validation of Vascular Study Group of New England risk predictive model of mortality after elective abdominal aorta aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative and comparison against established models. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(1):143–150. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.087.

Beckerman

Tadros

Faries

, et al. No major difference in outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair stent grafts placed outside of instructions for use. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64(1):63–74.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2016.01.034.

Barry

Barns

Verhoeven

, et al. Excluder stent graft-related outcomes in patients with aortic neck anatomy outside of instructions for use (IFU) within the global registry for endovascular aortic treatment (GREAT): mid-term follow-up results. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;76:222–231. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2021.04.032.

AbuRahma

Campbell

Stone

, et al. The correlation of aortic neck length to early and late outcomes in endovascular aneurysm repair patients. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(4):738–748. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.04.061.

10.

Antoniou

Juszczak

Nasr

, et al. Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(4):1415–1431.e15. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.08.247.

11.

Benveniste

Tjahjono

Chen

, et al. Long-term results of 180 consecutive patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with the endurant stent graft system. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;67:265–273. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2020.02.020.

12.

Schanzer

Greenberg

Hevelone

, et al. Predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular repair. Circulation. 2011;123(24):2848–2855.

13.

Walker

Tucker

Goodney

, et al. Adherence to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair device instructions for use guidelines has no impact on outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(5):1151–1159. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.12.053.

14.

Lee

Ullery

Zarins

, et al. EVAR deployment in anatomically challenging necks outside the IFU. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46(1):65–73. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.03.027.

15.

Hahl

Protto

Järvenpää

, et al. Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(3):699–706.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.010.

16.

Hoshina

Hashimoto

Kato

, et al. Feasibility of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair outside of the instructions for use and morphological changes at 3 years after the procedure. Ann Vasc Dis. 2014;7(1):34–39. doi:10.3400/avd.oa.13-00073.

17.

Herman

Charbonneau

Hongku

, et al. Any nonadherence to instructions for use predicts graft-related adverse events in patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(1):126–133. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.095.

18.

Bernardini

Litterscheid

Torsello

, et al. A meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair in aneurysm patients with severe angulated infrarenal neck. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0264327. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264327.

19.

AbuRahma

Yacoub

Mousa

, et al. Aortic neck anatomic features and predictors of outcomes in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms following vs not following instructions for use. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(4):579–589.

20.

Hoshina

Ishimaru

Sasabuchi

, et al. Outcomes of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a nationwide survey in Japan. Ann Surg. 2019;269(3):564–573. doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002508.

21.

Lopez-Espada

Linares-Palomino

Guerra Requena

, et al. Multicenter comparative analysis of late open conversion in patients with adherence and nonadherence to instructions for use endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2023;30(6):867–876. doi:10.1177/15266028221102658.

22.

Marone

Freyrie

Ruotolo

, et al. Expert opinion on hostile neck definition in endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (a Delphi consensus). Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;62:173–182. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2019.05.049.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB