Endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair and impact of systematic preoperative embolization of collateral arteries: endoleak analysis and long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: To report our results of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over a 10-year period using systematic preoperative collateral artery embolization. METHODS: From 1999 until 2009, 124 patients (117 men; mean age 70.8 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) underwent embolization of patent lumbar and/or inferior mesenteric arteries prior to elective EVAR procedures. Embolization was systematically attempted and, whenever possible, performed using microcoils and a coaxial technique. Follow-up included computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging and abdominal radiography. RESULTS: The technical success for EVAR was 96% (119/124), with 4 patients dying within 30 days (3.2% perioperative mortality) and 1 type III endoleak accounting for the failures. Collateral arteries were occluded spontaneously or by embolization in 60 (48%) of 124 patients. The endoleak rate was 50.9% (74 in 61 patients), most of which were type II (19%). Over a mean clinical follow-up of 60.5±34.1 months (range 1-144), aneurysm sac dimensions decreased in 66 patients, increased in 19 patients, and were stable in 35. The endoleak rate was significantly higher in the patients with increasing sac diameter (p<0.001). Among the patients with patent collateral arteries, 38/64 (59.3%) developed 46 leaks, while 28 leaks appeared in 23 (41%) of 56 patients with collateral artery occlusion (p=0.069). The type II endoleak rate significantly differed between these two groups (47.8% vs. 3.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative collateral embolization seems to be a valid method of reducing the incidence of type II endoleak, improving the long-term outcome.

Routine use of intravascular ultrasound for endovascular aneurysm repair: angiography is not necessary.

INTRODUCTION: to assess the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) without angiography. MATERIALS/METHODS: eighty consecutive patients (median age 69 years (range 25-90): male 72 (90%), female 8 (10%)) underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (AAA 68 (85%), TAA 12 (15%)) using either angiography in 31/80 patients (39%) or IVUS in 49/80 patients (61%) in accordance to the surgeons preference. RESULTS: hospital mortality was 2/80 (3%), 1/68 for AAA (2%), 1/12 for TAA (8%), 2/31 for angiography (7%), and 0/49 for IVUS (0.0%: NS). Median quantity of contrast medium was 190 ml (range: 20-350) for angiography versus 0 ml for IVUS (p<0.01). Median X-ray exposure time 24 min (range 9-65 min) versus 8 min (range 0-60 min) for IVUS (p<0.05). No coverage of renal or suprarenal artery orifices occurred in either group. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 4/80 patients (5%), 1/31 for angiography (3%) and 3/49 patients for IVUS (6%: NS). Early endoleaks were observed in 13/80 patients (16%): 8/31 patients for angiography (26%) versus 5/49 for IVUS (10%: p<0.05): 5/13 endoleaks resolved spontaneously (39%) whereas 8/13 (61%) required additional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS is a reliable tool for EVAR. In most cases, perprocedural angiography is not necessary.

Gefäßchirurgische Ausbildung in endovaskulärer Technik in Lausanne

Between 1995 and 2005, the number of aortic aneurysms treated annually using endovascular techniques (EVAR) increased from 0 to 50, including all aortic stages. Our organization includes a large team of surgeons, a stock of three complete families of endoprostheses (straight, conical and bifurcated), a mobile trolley with accessories (arterial introducer/introducer sheath, guide wire, catheters, balloons, etc.) and an appliance on wheels for intravascular ultrasound examination (IVUS). This appliance, together with a mobile fluoroscopy device (c-arm), allows endovascular aneurysms analysis of every operating room in our institution, usually without angiography or the use of contrast medium. In general, we are therefore not depending on substantial preoperative imaging in order to identify candidates for endovascular aneurysms repair and can treat abdominal and thoracic aortic ruptures without delay. For endovascular aortic aneurysms repair we distinguish between process steps on the one hand (determining indications, imaging of the access vessels, measurement using IVUS and road mapping via fluoroscopy, selection of implant, implant insertion, positioning, setting the implant, determining success, reconstruction of the access vessel and follow-up) and the level of competence on the other (assistant, senior and directing physicians). Our ultrasound supported technique for endovascular aneurysms repair has been successfully brought to other hospitals using an IVUS transporter and telementoring.

Telementoring during endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: To explore the use of telementoring for distant teaching and training in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: According to a prospectively designed study protocol, 48 patients underwent EVAR: the first 12 patients (group A) were treated at a secondary care center by an experienced interventionist, who was training the local team; a further 12 patients (group B) were operated by the local team at their secondary center with telementoring by the experienced operator from an adjacent suite; and the last 24 patients (group C) were operated by the local team with remote telementoring support from the experienced interventionist at a tertiary care center. Telementoring was performed using 3 video sources; images were transmitted using 4 ISDN lines. EVAR was performed using intravascular ultrasound and simultaneous fluoroscopy to obtain road mapping of the abdominal aorta and its branches, as well as for identifying the origins of the renal arteries, assessing the aortic neck, and monitoring the attachment of the stent-graft proximally and distally. RESULTS: Average duration of telementoring was 2.1 hours during the first 12 patients (group B) and 1.2 hours for the remaining 24 patients (group C). There was no difference in procedural duration (127+/-59 minutes in group A, 120+/-4 minutes in group B, and 119+/-39 minutes in group C; p=0.94) or the mean time spent in the ICU (26+/-15 hours in group A, 22+/-2 hours in group B, and 22+/-11 hours for group C; p=0.95). The length of hospital stay (11+/-4 days in group A, 9+/-4 days in group B, and 7+/-1 days in group C; p=0.002) was significantly different only for group C versus A (p=0.002). Only 1 (8.3%) patient (in group A: EVAR performed by the experienced operator) required conversion to open surgery because of iliac artery rupture. This was the only conversion (and the only death) in the entire study group (1/12 in group A versus 0/36 in groups B + C, p=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Telementoring for EVAR is feasible and shows promising results. It may serve as a model for development of similar projects for teaching other invasive procedures in cardiovascular medicine.