-
Something wrong with this record ?
Use of EndoAnchors during index endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy
Jozef Sivak, Martin Suchac, Maros Daxner, Katarina Kmetkova, Jan Sykora, Jana Zapletalova, Kamil Zelenak, Iveta Simkova
Status minimal Language English Country Slovakia
PURPOSE: Standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is sometimes the only treatment option for patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, but it carries an increased risk of both early and late procedure-related complications. The aim of this study was to report on single-center experience with the Heli-FX EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) as an adjunctive procedure to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for prevention and perioperative treatment of proximal neck complications in patients with hostile neck anatomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating 24 consecutive patients treated with EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure between November 2018 and August 2021. EndoAnchor implantation was indicated for cases with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy characterised by the presence of at least one of the following parameters: length of 28 mm, angle of >60°, circumferential thrombus/calcification involving ≥50%, and reverse taper. RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 22.5 months (IQR 2–31.5 months) with no aneurysm-related death, rupture, or conversion to open surgical repair during the follow-up. The procedural success rate was 100%, with no type Ia endoleak at the completion angiography. A mean of 7 EndoAnchors was used per patient (range 4–12). There were no EndoAnchor fractures and dislocations or stent graft fabric damage due to anchor implants. Twenty-three patients (95.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and migration on follow-up imaging. Aneurysm sac regression was observed in 13 patients (54.1%), while in 8 patients (33.3%) the sac remained stable. Sac enlargement was present in 1 patient (4.2%) due to late type Ia endoleak. Two patients were lost to the follow-up immediately after the procedure. Between two groups of patients (sac regression versus failure to regress), the larger initial diameter of the proximal neck was the only significant independent factor associated with a lower possibility of sac regression (p= 0,021). CONCLUSIONS: The use of EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure in cases with challenging aortic neck anatomy with or without perioperative type Ia endoleak was associated with good midterm results and led to sac regression in most of the patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 3, Ref. 31).
References provided by Crossref.org
Literatura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25012621
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250523164814.0
- 007
- cr|cn|
- 008
- 250523s2024 xo a fs 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 0_
- $a 10.4149/BLL_2024_52 $2 doi
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xo
- 100 1_
- $a Sivák, Jozef $7 xx0332240 $u Department of Radiology, Middle-Slovakia Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
- 245 10
- $a Use of EndoAnchors during index endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy / $c Jozef Sivak, Martin Suchac, Maros Daxner, Katarina Kmetkova, Jan Sykora, Jana Zapletalova, Kamil Zelenak, Iveta Simkova
- 504 __
- $a Literatura
- 520 3_
- $a PURPOSE: Standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is sometimes the only treatment option for patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, but it carries an increased risk of both early and late procedure-related complications. The aim of this study was to report on single-center experience with the Heli-FX EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) as an adjunctive procedure to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for prevention and perioperative treatment of proximal neck complications in patients with hostile neck anatomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating 24 consecutive patients treated with EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure between November 2018 and August 2021. EndoAnchor implantation was indicated for cases with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy characterised by the presence of at least one of the following parameters: length of 28 mm, angle of >60°, circumferential thrombus/calcification involving ≥50%, and reverse taper. RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 22.5 months (IQR 2–31.5 months) with no aneurysm-related death, rupture, or conversion to open surgical repair during the follow-up. The procedural success rate was 100%, with no type Ia endoleak at the completion angiography. A mean of 7 EndoAnchors was used per patient (range 4–12). There were no EndoAnchor fractures and dislocations or stent graft fabric damage due to anchor implants. Twenty-three patients (95.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and migration on follow-up imaging. Aneurysm sac regression was observed in 13 patients (54.1%), while in 8 patients (33.3%) the sac remained stable. Sac enlargement was present in 1 patient (4.2%) due to late type Ia endoleak. Two patients were lost to the follow-up immediately after the procedure. Between two groups of patients (sac regression versus failure to regress), the larger initial diameter of the proximal neck was the only significant independent factor associated with a lower possibility of sac regression (p= 0,021). CONCLUSIONS: The use of EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure in cases with challenging aortic neck anatomy with or without perioperative type Ia endoleak was associated with good midterm results and led to sac regression in most of the patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 3, Ref. 31).
- 700 1_
- $a Suchac, Martin $u Department of Radiology, Middle-Slovakia Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
- 700 1_
- $a Daxner, Maros $u Department of Radiology, Middle-Slovakia Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
- 700 1_
- $a Kmeťková, Katarína $7 xx0268917 $u Cardiology and Angiology Clinic II, Medical Faculty of Slovak Medical University and Middle-Slovakia Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Angiology, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
- 700 1_
- $a Sýkora, Ján $7 xx0255831 $u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Martin, Slovakia
- 700 1_
- $a Zapletalová, Jana, $d 1962- $7 xx0111614 $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Zeleňák, Kamil $7 xx0231390 $u Clinic of Radiology, Comenius University's Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Martin, Slovakia
- 700 1_
- $a Šimková, Iveta $7 jx20120222045 $u Cardiology and Angiology Clinic, Medical Faculty of Slovak Medical University and National Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Bratislava, Slovakia
- 773 0_
- $t Bratislavské lekárske listy $x 0006-9248 $g Roč. 125, č. 6 (2024), s. 347-353 $w MED00000845
- 856 41
- $u https://www.elis.sk/download_file.php?product_id=8270&session_id=j7f72aa2f52eag91f55b81k442 $y plný text volně přístupný
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b online $c 1067 $y 0 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250523113445 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250523164813 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a min $b bmc $g 2326208 $s 1249728
- BAS __
- $a 3 $a 4
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 125 $c 6 $d 347-353 $i 0006-9248 $m Bratislavské lekárske listy $n Bratisl Lek Listy $x MED00000845
- LZP __
- $a NLK 2025-11/kv