Mechanical simulation of the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Ce travail de thèse porte sur la simulation du déploiement des prothèses vasculaires de type stent-graft (SG) lors de la réparation endovasculaire (EVAR) des anévrismes de l’aorte abdominale (AAA). Cette étude se présente en trois parties: (i) tests mécaniques en flexion et compression de SG couramment utilisés (corps et jambage de marque Cook) ainsi que la simulation numérique desdits tests, (ii) développement d’un modèle numérique d’anévrisme, (iii) stratégie de simulation du déploiement des SG. La méthode numérique employée est celle des éléments finis. Dans un premier temps, une vérification du modèle éléments finis (MEF) des SG est realisée par comparaison des différents cas de charge avec leur pendant expérimental. Ensuite, le MEF vasculaire (AAA) est lui aussi vérifié lors d’une comparaison des niveaux de contraintes maximales principales dans la paroi avec des valeurs de la littérature. Enfin, le déploiement est abordé tout en intégrant les cathéters. Les tests mécaniques menés sur les SG ont été simulés avec une différence maximale de 5,93%, tout en tenant compte de la pré-charge des stents. Le MEF de la structure vasculaire a montré des contraintes maximales principales éloignées de 4,41% par rapport à un modèle similaire précédemment publié. Quant à la simulation du déploiement, un jeu complet de SG a pu être déployé avec un bon contrôle de la position relative et globale, dans un AAA spécifique pré-déformé, sans toutefois inclure de thrombus intra-luminal (TIL). La paroi du AAA a été modélisée avec une loi de comportement isotropique hyperélastique. Étant donné que la différence maximale tolérée en milieu clinique entre réalité et simulation est de 5%, notre approche semble acceptable et pourrait donner suite à de futurs développements. Cela dit, le petit nombre de SG testés justifie pleinement une vaste campagne de tests mécaniques et simulations supplémentaires à des fins de validation.

[Aortic aneurysms and aortic dissection : Epidemiology, pathophysiology and diagnostics.]

Aortic aneurysms and aortic dissection represent a significant health risk due to the demographic developments and current life styles. The mortality of ruptured aortic aneurysms is up to 80 % and the prevalence of aneurysms varies depending on the localization (thoracic or abdominal). Most commonly affected is the infrarenal abdominal aorta; however, there is evidence that the prevalence is diminishing but in contrast the incidence of thoracic aortic aneurysms is increasing. Aortic dissection is often fatal and is the most common acute aortic disease but the incidence is presumed to be underestimated. The pathogenesis of aortic aneurysms is manifold and is based on an interplay between degenerative, proteolytic and inflammatory processes. An aortic dissection arises from a tear in the intima which results in a separation of the aortic wall layers with infiltration of bleeding and the danger of aortic rupture. Various genetic disorders of connective tissue promote degeneration of the aortic media, most notably Marfan syndrome. Risk factors for aortic aneurysms and aortic dissection are nicotine abuse, arterial hypertension, age and male gender. Aortic aneurysms initially have an uneventful course and as a consequence are mostly discovered incidentally. The clinical course and symptoms of aortic dissection are very much dependent on the section of the aorta affected and the manifestations are manifold. Acute aortic dissection is in 80 % of cases first manifested as sudden extremely severe pain. The diagnostics and subsequent course control can be achieved by a variety of imaging procedures but the modality of choice is computed tomography.

The management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and incidence of rupture

Twenty-five years have passed since the first randomised controlled trial began its recruitment for screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men aged 65 and above. Since this and other randomised trials, all launched in the late 80s and 90s of the last century, the epidemiologic profile of abdominal aortic aneurysm may have changed. The trials reported an AAA prevalence in the range of 4-7% for men aged 65 years or more. AAA-related mortality was significantly improved by screening, and after 13 years, the largest trial showed a benefit for all-cause mortality. Screening also was shown to be cost-effective. Today, there are studies showing a substantial decrease of AAA prevalence to sometimes less than 2% in men aged ≥ 65 years and there is evidence that the incidence of ruptured aneurysm and mortality from AAA is also declining. This decline preceded the implementation of screening programmes but may be due to a change in risk factor management. The prevalence of smoking has decreased and there has been improvement in the control of hypertension and a rising use of statins for cardiovascular risk prevention. Additionally, there is a shift of the burden to the older age group of ≥ 75 years. Such radical changes may influence screening policy and it is worth reflecting on the optimum age of screening - it might be better to screen at ages >65 years - or rescreening 5 to 10 years after the first screen.

Management of aortic aneurysms in patients with connective tissue disease

Acute dissection and rupture of aortic aneurysms comprise for 1-2% of all deaths in developed countries. Dilation of the aorta is caused by several different mechanisms including inherited disorders of connective tissue. Recent reports estimate that 20% of patients presenting with thoracic aortic disease do have an underlying genetic basis of disease.

Influence of pulmonary status and diabetes mellitus on aortic neck dilatation following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a EUROSTAR report

PURPOSE: To elucidate the association of impaired pulmonary status (IPS) and diabetes mellitus (DM) with clinical outcome and the incidences of aortic neck dilatation and type I endoleak after elective endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: In 164 European institutions participating in the EUROSTAR registry, 6383 patients (5985 men; mean age 72.4+/-7.6 years) underwent EVAR. Patients were divided into patients without versus with IPS or with/without DM. Clinical assessment and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) were performed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and annually thereafter. Cumulative endpoint analysis comprised death, aortic rupture, type I endoleak, endovascular reintervention, and surgical conversion. RESULTS: Prevalence of IPS was 2733/6383 (43%) and prevalence of DM was 810/6383 (13%). Mean follow-up was 21.1+/-18.4 months. Thirty-day mortality, AAA rupture, and conversion rates did not differ between patients with versus without IPS and between patients with versus without DM. All-cause and AAA-related mortality, respectively, were significantly higher in patients with IPS compared to patients with normal pulmonary status (31.0% versus 19.0%, p<0.0001 and 6.8% versus 3.3%, p = 0.0057) throughout follow-up. In multivariate analysis adjusted for smoking, age, gender, comorbidities, fitness for open repair, co-existing common iliac aneurysm, neck and aneurysm size, arterial angulations, aneurysm classification, endograft oversizing >or=15%, and type of stent-graft, the presence of IPS was not associated with significantly higher rates of aortic neck dilatation (30.6% versus 38.0%, p>0.05) and did not influence cumulative rates of type I endoleak, endovascular reintervention, or conversion to open surgery (p>0.05). Similarly, the presence of DM did not influence the above-mentioned study endpoints. CONCLUSION: In contrast to observations regarding the natural course of AAAs, impaired pulmonary status does not negatively influence aortic neck dilatation, while the presence of diabetes does not protect from these dismal events after EVAR.

Matched-pair analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in young patients at low risk

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes of endovascular and open aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in young patients at low risk. It was hypothesized that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compares favorably with open aneurysm repair (OAR) in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients aged 65 years or younger with a low perioperative surgical risk profile underwent EVAR at a single institution between April 1994 and May 2007 (23 men; mean age, 62 years+/-2.8). A sex- and risk-matched control group of 25 consecutive patients aged 65 years or younger who underwent OAR was used as a control group (23 men; mean age, 59 years+/-3.9). Patient outcomes and complications were classified according to Society of Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery reporting standards. RESULTS: Mean follow-up times were 7.1 years+/-3.2 after EVAR and 5.9 years+/-1.8 after OAR (P=.1020). Total complication rates were 20% after EVAR and 52% after OAR (P=.0378), and all complications were mild or moderate. Mean intensive care unit times were 0.2 days+/-0.4 after EVAR and 1.1 days+/-0.4 after OAR (P<.0001) and mean lengths of hospital stay were 2.3 days+/-1.0 after EVAR and 5.0 days+/-2.1 after OAR (P<.0001). Cumulative rates of long-term patient survival did not differ between EVAR and OAR (P=.144). No AAA-related deaths or aortoiliac ruptures occurred during follow-up for EVAR and OAR. In addition, no surgical conversions were necessary in EVAR recipients. Cumulative rates of freedom from secondary procedures were not significantly different between the EVAR and OAR groups (P=.418). Within a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis adjusted for patient age, maximum AAA diameter, and cardiac risk score, all-cause mortality rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.125; 95% CI, 0.010-1.493; P=.100) and need for secondary procedures (OR, 5.014; 95% CI, 0.325-77.410; P=.537) were not different between EVAR and OAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this observational study indicate that EVAR offers a favorable alternative to OAR in young patients at low risk.

Prospective, intraindividual comparison of MRI versus MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

This study compares MRI and MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Forty-three patients with previous EVAR underwent both MRI (2D T1-FFE unenhanced and contrast-enhanced; 3D triphasic contrast-enhanced) and 16-slice MDCT (unenhanced and biphasic contrast-enhanced) within 1 week of each other for endoleak detection. MRI was performed by using a high-relaxivity contrast medium (gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance). Two blinded, independent observers evaluated MRI and MDCT separately. Consensus reading of MRI and MDCT studies was defined as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and Cohen's k statistics were used to estimate agreement between readers. Twenty endoleaks were detected in 18 patients at consensus reading (12 type II and 8 indeterminate endoleaks). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for endoleak detection were 100%, 92%, and 96%, respectively, for reader 1 (95%, 81%, 87% for reader 2) for MRI and 55%, 100%, and 80% for reader 1 (60%, 100%, 82% for reader 2) for MDCT. Interobserver agreement was excellent for MDCT (k = 0.96) and good for MRI (k = 0.81). MRI with the use of a high-relaxivity contrast agent is significantly superior in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with MDCT. MRI may therefore become the preferred technique for patient follow-up after EVAR.