1,721,120 research outputs found
Commentary on 'AAA with a challenging neck: early outcomes using the Endurant stent-graft system'.
No full textINVITED COMMENT: The efficacy and safety of endovascular aneurysm repair is disputable in aneurysms with
a short, angulated, wide, conical, or thrombus-lined neck making a reliable seal difficult to achieve. The
influence of a challenging neck on early results using the Endurant stent-graft system in high risk
patients was investigated
Endoleak after endovascular aortic repair: classification, diagnosis and management following endovascular thoracic and abdominal aortic repair.
No full textEndoleak is a common and unique complication of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and its persistence represents a failure of the endovascular treatment. Accurate detection and classification is essential for the proper management since the method of endoleak treatment is determined by the different source. In general, high-pressure leaks (type I and type III) require urgent management because of the relatively high short-term risk of sac rupture. Although precise differentiation between type I and type III endoleaks may not be possible at cross-sectional imaging, differentiation is often unnecessary because both lesions are considered high-risk and require angiographic evaluation and subsequent treatment. Low-pressure lesions (types II and V or emlotension) are considered less urgent but may warrant continued endovascular evaluation if there is impending growth of the aneurysm sac or if the patient presents with symptoms. Once detected, endoleaks warranting correction (all type I and III; persistent endotension and type II associated with aneurysm enlargement) are usually treated by endovascular route. A variety of techniques including extension endografts or cuff, balloon angioplasty, bare stents and a combination of transvascular and direct sac puncture embolization techniques has allowed to treat the vast majority of these endoleaks without conversion to open surgical repair. Type II endoleak continues to be the most common but also the most controversial in terms of evaluation, the need of treatment, and methods of treatment. Careful and rigorous postoperative lifelong follow-up with computed tomography (CT) and high quality imaging continue to be essential for all patients after EVAR
Are intrasac pressure measurements useful after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms?
No full textObjective: To evaluate and compare changes over time in health-related quality of life reported by patients with small (4.1-5.4 cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or surveillance.
Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either early EVAR or surveillance within a multicentre, randomised clinical trial on small AAA (Comparison of surveillance vs. Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair, CAESAR). Patient-reported health-related quality of life was assessed before randomisation, at 6 months and yearly thereafter using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey.
Results: Between 2004 and 2008, 360 patients (345 males, mean age 68.9 years) were randomised, 182 to early EVAR and 178 to surveillance. There was one perioperative death. Mean follow-up was 31.8 months. No significant difference in survival was found. At baseline, comparable quality of life scores were recorded in both treatment groups: Total SF-36: 73.0 versus 75.5 (p = 0.18), Physical domain: 71.4 versus 73.3 (p = 0.33); Mental health domain: 70.9 versus 72.7 (p = 0.33), in the EVAR arm versus the surveillance arm, respectively. Six months after randomisation, Total SF-36 and Physical and Mental domain scores were all significantly higher with respect to baseline in the EVAR group, while patients of the surveillance group scored lower. The differences between EVAR and surveillance arms in score changes at 6 months were significant and in favour of EVAR: Total score: difference 5.4; p = 0.0017; Physical: difference 3.8; p = 0.02; and Mental: difference 6.0; p = 0.0005. Differences between EVAR and surveillance diminished over time. At the last assessment, patients in both groups had decreased scores with a significant drop with respect to the baseline (-3.9 in EVAR, -6.3 in surveillance). There were no significant differences between the EVAR and surveillance arms: Total score: p = 0.25; Physical: p = 0.47; and Mental: p = 0.38.
Conclusions: Patients with small AAA under surveillance compared with early EVAR had significant impaired functional health at 6 months after assignment. After a mean of 31.8 months, SF-36 health-related quality of life in patients allocated to early EVAR and surveillance was similar
Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in High-risk Patients: a Single Centre Experience
No full textAbstractObjectives to evaluate the role of endovascular repair (ER) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in American Society for Anaesthesiology [ASA] class IV patients. Patients and Methods between April 1997 and March 2000, 266 consecutive patients underwent ER for AAA. There were 26 patients (10%) with ASA grade IV. The remaining 240 patients, ASA grade between I and III (ASA<IV group), were compared with the ASA IV group. Mean follow-up was 11.6 months (range 1–32 months). Increase in AAA diameter after ER or persisting graft-related endoleak were defined as failure of AAA exclusion. Regression analysis was performed to test the effect of five confounding variables on failure of AAA exclusion and perioperative mortality. Results patients in the ASA IV group were significantly older than patients in ASA <IV group (mean age: 74 years vs 70 years p=0.005). AAA were larger (mean diameter: 56 mm vs 50 mm p =0.002) and more extensive (class E of EUROSTAR classification: 27% vs 5.8% p =0.002). There were two perioperative deaths in the ASA IV group and one in the ASA<IV group (8% vs 0.4%; RR 19; 95% CI 1.8–202 p=0.01). Major perioperative morbidity occurred in 8% of patients in the ASA IV group and in 3.3% in the ASA<IV group (n.s.). There were no conversions to open repair in the ASA IV group while six were performed in the ASA<IV group (n.s.). Length of hospitalisation was significantly longer for patients in the ASA IV group: 7.8 days vs 3.2 days (p =0.001). Operative times and blood loss were similar. Failure of AAA exclusion occurred in two patients (8%) in the ASA IV group and in four patients (1.6%) in the ASA<IV group (n.s.). On life table analysis, survival rates at 26 months were 76% in the ASA IV group and 89% in the ASA<IV group (p =0.004). Five variables were examined by regression analysis and no independent predictors of failure of AAA exclusion and operative mortality were found.Conclusions ER in ASA IV patients is feasible and effective with acceptable actuarial survival rates. However, the endovascular procedure in these patients is associated with higher major systemic morbidity, mortality, and prolonged hospitalisation rates
- …
