Long-term outcomes of standard endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with severe neck angulation

Nelson F.G. Oliveira*, Frederico Bastos Gonçalves, Sanne E. Hoeks, Marie Josee van Rijn, Klaas Ultee, José Pedro Pinto, Sander Ten Raa, Joost A. van Herwaarden, Jean Paul P.M. de Vries, Hence J.M. Verhagen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Severe neck angulation is associated with complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Newer endografts may overcome this limitation, but the literature lacks long-term results. We studied the long-term outcomes of EVAR in patients with severe neck angulation. Methods: A retrospective case-control study of a prospective multicenter database was performed. All measurements were made with dedicated software with center lumen line reconstruction. A study group including patients with neck length >15 mm, infrarenal angle (β) >75 degrees or suprarenal angle (α) >60 degrees, and neck length 10 to 15 mm with β >60 degrees or α >45 degrees was compared with a control group matched for demographics and other morphologic neck features. The primary end point was type IA endoleak (EL1A). Secondary end points were freedom from neck-related secondary interventions, primary clinical success, and overall survival. Results: Forty-five patients were included in the angulated neck group and compared with 65 matched patients. Median follow-up was 7.4 years (interquartile range, 4.8-8.5 years). In the angulated neck group, mean α was 51.4 degrees (±21.1 degrees) and the mean β was 80.8 degrees (±15.6 degrees); in the nonangulated group, these were 17.9 degrees (±17.0 degrees) and 35.4 degrees (±20.0 degrees), respectively. At 7 years, five patients in the angulated neck group and two nonangulated patients developed EL1A, yielding a freedom from EL1A of 86.1% (n = 14; standard error [SE], 0.069) and 96.6% (n = 34; SE, 0.023), respectively (P =.056). After exclusion of a patient who developed an EL1A secondary to an endograft infection, this difference was significant: 86.1% (n = 14; SE, 0.069) in the angulated neck group and 98.2% (n = 34; SE, 0.018) in the nonangulated group (P =.016). At 7 years, freedom from neck-related secondary interventions was 91.7% (n = 14; SE, 0.059) and 91.6% (n = 29; SE, 0.029), respectively. The 7-year primary clinical success estimates were 41.2% (n = 11; SE, 0.085) and 56.6% (n = 20; SE, 0.072) for the angulated neck and nonangulated groups, respectively (P =.12). The 7-year survival rates were 44.3% (n = 18; SE, 0.076) vs 66.7% (n = 42; SE, 0.059) for the angulated neck and nonangulated groups, respectively (P =.25). Device integrity failure was not observed. Conclusions: Despite satisfactory results early and in the midterm, a higher rate of EL1A was identified among patients with severely angulated necks in the long term. However, mortality was not affected by this difference. These findings suggest that EVAR should be used judiciously in patients with extreme angulation of the proximal neck and highlight the need for close follow-up of EVAR, especially in the long term and in patients treated outside instructions for use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1725-1735
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume68
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018

Keywords

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging
  • Aortography/methods
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects
  • Computed Tomography Angiography
  • Databases, Factual
  • Endoleak/etiology
  • Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Netherlands
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Stents
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Long-term outcomes of standard endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with severe neck angulation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this