Browsing by Author "Josee van Rijn, M"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Iliac Seal Zone Dynamics and Clinical Consequences After Endovascular Aneurysm RepairPublication . Bastos Gonçalves, F; Oliveira, NF; Josee van Rijn, M; Ultee, KH; Hoeks, SE; Ten Raa, S; Stolker, RJ; Verhagen, HJOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dynamics of the iliac attachment zone after EVAR, and the association with clinical events. METHODS: A tertiary institution's prospective EVAR database was searched to identify common iliac arteries at risk. Internally validated measurements were made, using centre lumen line reconstructions. Iliac dilatation and endograft limb retraction were the main endpoints. Associations between dilatation, retraction, oversizing, and distal seal length were investigated. Association with clinical events (sealing or occlusion) was also explored. RESULTS: Of 452 primary EVAR patients treated from 2004 to 2012, 341 were included (mean age 72 years, 12% female, 597 common iliac arteries). Median follow-up was 4.7 years. At 30 days, the mean iliac diameter increased from 14 mm to 15 mm (p < .001). Over follow-up, it increased to 18 mm (p < .001). Iliac dilatation ≥20% occurred in 295 cases (49.4%) and exceeded the implanted endograft diameter in 170 (28.7%). Limb retraction ≥5 mm was identified in 54 patients (9.1%) and was associated with iliac seal complications (p < 0.001). Iliac endograft extension diameter ≥24 mm (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.7-6.4) and iliac artery dilatation beyond the endograft (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.8) were independent risk factors. Overall, there were 34 (5.7%) iliac seal complications. Retraction of the iliac endograft (OR 1.17 per mm, 95% CI 1.10-1.24) and baseline AAA diameter (1.04 per mm, 95% CI 1.01-1.07) were independent risk factors for seal related complications. Greater initial post-operative iliac seal length was protective (OR 0.94 per mm, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Iliac dilatation and endograft retraction are common findings during follow-up, potentially leading to adverse clinical events. Optimisation of the iliac seal zone providing a long distal seal length and added attention to patients with large aneurysms or receiving ≥24 mm diameter iliac extensions are recommended. Also, long-term surveillance including CTA is advised to reveal and correct loss of seal at the iliac attachments before adverse clinical events occur.
- Long-Term Outcomes of Standard Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With Severe Neck AngulationPublication . Oliveira, N; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Hoeks, S; Josee van Rijn, M; Ultee, K; Pinto, JP; Raa, S; van Herwaarden, J; de Vries, JP; Verhagen, HObjective: 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.