Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • 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

. 2024 ; 125 (6) : 347-353.

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

Bibliography, etc.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...