Browsing by Author "Oliveira-Pinto, J"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Alterações Morfológicas e Consequências Clínicas do Tratamento de Colos Proximais Largos Requerendo Endopróteses com 34-36mm de DiâmetroPublication . Oliveira-Pinto, J; Soares Ferreira, R; Oliveira, N; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Hoeks, S; Rijn, MJ; Raa, S; Mansilha, A; Verhagen, HIntrodução: O tratamento endovascular representa o método de eleição para o tratamento de Aneurismas da Aorta Abdominal (AAA). Existem endopróteses disponíveis com diâmetros do colo proximal até 36mm, que permitem o tratamento de colos proximais até 32 mm. Contudo, a existência de colos largos representa um conhecido preditor de complicações. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar os resultados a médio-prazo de doentes que requereram endopróteses de 34-36mm. Métodos: Foi realizada uma análise retrospetiva de uma base de dados prospetiva, incluindo todos os pacientes submetidos a EVAR por AAA degenerativo numa instituição terciária na Holanda. Todas as medições foram realizadas em reconstruções center-lumen line em software dedicado. Os pacientes foram classificados como “diâmetro largo” (LD), se a endoprótese implantada tivesse diâmetro superior a 32 mm.. Os restantes pacientes foram classificados como diâmetro normal (ND). O endpoint primário foi complicações relacionadas com o colo (combinação de endoleak tipo IA, migração>5mm ou qualquer intervenção no colo proximal). Alterações morfológicas no colo e sobrevida foram também analisadas. Diferenças entre grupos foram ajustadas por regressão multivariável. Resultados: O estudo incluiu 502 pacientes (90 no grupo LD e 412 no grupo ND). O follow-up mediano foi de 3.5 anos IQR (1.5–6.2) e 4.5 anos IQR (2.1–7.3) para os grupos LD e ND, respetivamente, P=.008. Relativamente às características basais, os doentes no grupo LD, apresentavam maior incidência de hipertensão arterial (83% vs 69.7%, P=.012) e tabagismo (86% vs 84.1%, P=.018). Além de colos mais largos (colo Proximal Ø > 28 mm: 75% vs 3.3%, P<.001), os indivíduos do grupo LD apresentavam também colos mais angulados (ângulo-α >45º: 21% vs 9%, P=.002), cónicos (39.8% vs 20.3%, P<.001) e com maior proporção de trombo circunferencial (Trombo no colo >25%: 42% vs 32.3%, P<.089). O oversizing foi maior entre o grupo LD (20% [12.5–28.8] vs 16.7% [12–21.7], P=.008). Todas os restantes detalhes anatómicos eram semelhantes entre grupos. A ausência de complicações relacionadas com o colo aos 5 anos foi de 73% no grupo LD e de 85% no grupo ND, P=.001. Endoleak tipo 1A foi mais comum no grupo LD (12.2% vs 5.1%, P=.003). Migração>5 mm ocorreu similarmente entre grupos (7.8% vs 5.1%, P=.32). Reintervenções relacionadas com colo o foram também mais frequentes no grupo LD (13.3% vs 8.7%, P=.027).
- Aneurysm Volumes After Endovascular Repair of Ruptured vs Intact Aortic Aneurysms: a Retrospective Observational StudyPublication . Oliveira-Pinto, J; Soares Ferreira, R; Oliveira, N; Bouwens, E; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Hoeks, S; Van Rijn, MJ; Ten Raa, S; Mansilha, A; Verhagen, HPurpose: To compare changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac volume between endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) performed for ruptured (rEVAR) vs intact (iEVAR) AAAs and to determine the impact of early volume shrinkage on future complications. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing standard infrarenal EVAR from 2002 to 2016 at a tertiary referral institution. Only patients with degenerative AAAs and with 30-day and 1-year computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging were included. Early sac shrinkage was defined as a volume sac reduction >10% between the first (<30-day) and the 1-year CTA. The primary endpoint was to compare AAA sac volume changes between patients undergoing rEVAR (n=51; mean age 71.0±8.5 years; 46 men) vs iEVAR (n=393; mean age 72.3±7.5 years; 350 men). Results are reported as the mean difference with the interquartile range (IQR Q1, Q3). The secondary endpoint was freedom from aneurysm-related complications after 1 year as determined by regression analysis; the results are presented as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: At baseline, the rEVAR group had larger aneurysms (p<0.001) and shorter (p<0.001) and more angulated (p=0.028) necks. Aneurysm sac volume decreased more in the rEVAR group during the first year [-26.3% (IQR -38.8%, -12.5%)] vs the iEVAR group [-11.9% (IQR -27.5%, 0); p<0.001]. However, after the first year, the change in sac volume was similar between the groups [-3.8% (IQR -32.9%, 31.9%) for rEVAR and -1.5% (IQR -20.9%, 13.6%) for iEVAR, p=0.74]. Endoleak occurrence during follow-up was similar between the groups. In the overall population, patients with early sac shrinkage had a lower incidence of complications after the 1-year examination (adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, p=0.01). Conclusion: EVAR patients treated for rupture have more pronounced aneurysm sac shrinkage compared with iEVAR patients during the first year after EVAR. Patients presenting with early shrinkage are less likely to encounter late complications. These parameters may be considered when tailoring surveillance protocols.
- Comparison of Midterm Results of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured and Elective Abdominal Aortic AneurysmsPublication . Oliveira-Pinto, J; Soares Ferreira, R; Oliveira, N; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Hoeks, S; Rijn, MJ; Raa, S; Mansilha, A; Verhagen, JMObjective: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed. Results: The study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P = .16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P = .001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P < .001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P = .21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P = .81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P = .345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P = .004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P < .001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P = .16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P = .30). Conclusions: Durable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated outside the IFU are at greater risk for late complications. Surveillance protocols may be tailored according to individual anatomy and IFU compliance rather than timing of repair.
- Long-Term Results After Standard Endovascular Aneurysm Repair With the Endurant and Excluder Stent GraftsPublication . Oliveira-Pinto, J; Oliveira, N; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Hoeks, S; Rijn, MJ; Raa, S; Mansilha, A; Verhagen, HObjective: Many endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts. Methods: Patients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points. Results: The study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (β-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39). Conclusions: This study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.
- Risk Factors, Dynamics, and Clinical Consequences of Aortic Neck Dilatation after Standard Endovascular Aneurysm RepairPublication . Oliveira, N; Oliveira-Pinto, J; Rijn, M; Baart, S; Raa, S; Hoeks, S; Bastos Gonçalves, F; Verhagen, HObjective: Aortic neck dilatation (AND) occurs after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with self expanding stent grafts (SESs). Whether it continues, ultimately exceeding the endograft diameter leading to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, remains uncertain. Dynamics, risk factors, and clinical relevance of AND were investigated after EVAR with standard SESs. Methods: All intact EVAR patients treated from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution were included. Demographic, anatomical, and device related characteristics were investigated as risk factors for AND. Outer to outer diameters were measured at a single standardised aortic level on reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images. Results: A total of 460 patients were included (median follow up 5.2 years, interquartile range [IQR] 3.0, 7.7 years; CT imaging follow up 3.3 years, IQR 1.3, 5.4). Baseline neck diameter was 24 mm (IQR 22, 26) and increased 11.1% (IQR 1.5%, 21.9%) at last CT imaging. Endograft oversizing was 20.0% (IQR 13.6, 28.0). AND was greater during the first year (5.2% [IQR 0, 11.7]) decreasing subsequently (two to four years to 1.4%/year [IQR 0.0, 4.5%], p ≤ .001) and was associated with suprarenal fixation endografts (t value = 7.9, p < .001) and oversizing (t value = 4.4, p < .001). AND exceeding the endograft was 3.5% (95% CI 2.2% - 4.8%) and 14.4% (95% CI 11.0% - 17.8%) at five and eight years, respectively. Excessive AND was associated with baseline neck diameter (OR 1.2/mm, 95% CI 1.05 - 1.41) while the Excluder endograft had a protective effect (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.58). Excessive AND was associated with type 1A endoleak (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.1 - 9.7) and endograft migration > 5 mm (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.4 - 6.9). Conclusion: AND after EVAR with SES is associated with endograft oversizing and radial force but decelerates after the first post-operative year. Baseline aortic neck diameter and suprarenal stent bearing endografts were associated with an increased risk of AND beyond nominal stent graft diameter. However, it remains unclear whether patient selection, differences in endograft radial force or the suprarenal stent are accountable for this difference.
- Total Luminal Volume Predicts Risk after Endovascular Aneurysm RepairPublication . Oliveira-Pinto, J; Soares Ferreira, R; Oliveira, N; Hoeks, S; Van Rijn, MJ; Raa, ST; Mansilha, A; Verhagen, HJ; Bastos Gonçalves, FObjective: Large aneurysm diameter represents a well known predictor of late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, the role of the thrombus free lumen inside the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac is not clear. It was hypothesised that greater luminal volume represents a relevant risk factor for late complications after EVAR. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all patients undergoing EVAR from 2005 to 2016 at a tertiary referral institution. Pre-operative AAA lumen volume was measured in centre lumen line reconstructions and patients were stratified into quartiles according to luminal volume. The primary endpoint was freedom from AAA related complications. Secondary endpoints were freedom from neck events (type 1A endoleak, migration >5 mm or any pre-emptive neck related intervention), iliac related events (type 1B endoleak or pre-emptive iliac related intervention), and overall survival. Results: Four hundred and four patients were included: 101 in the first quartile (Q1; <61 cm3). Patients with higher luminal volumes had wider, shorter, and more angulated proximal necks. There were more ruptured AAAs, more aorto-uni-iliac implanted devices and patients outside neck instructions for use in the 4th quartile. Five year freedom from AAA related complications was 79%, 66%, 58% and 56%, respectively (p = .007). At five years, freedom from neck related events was 86%, 84%, 73%, and 71%, respectively, for the four groups (p = .009), and freedom from iliac related events was 96%, 91%, 88%, and 88%, respectively (p = .335). On multivariable analysis, luminal volume was an independent predictor of late complications (Q4 vs. Q1 - hazard ratio: 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.01-3.6, p = .046). Overall survival at five years was not affected by lumen volume (p = .75). Conclusion: AAA luminal volume represents an important risk factor for AAA related complications. This information may be considered when deciding tailoring surveillance protocols after EVAR. However, larger studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.