Next Article in Journal
Factors Associated with Traumatic Diaphragmatic Rupture among Patients with Chest or Abdominal Injury: A Nationwide Study from Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Right Ventricular Function and Myocardial Microstructure in Fetal Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 15
10.3390/jcm11154460
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

by
Pasqualino Sirignano
1,*,†,
Silvia Ceruti
2,†,
Francesco Aloisi
3,
Ascanio Sirignano
4,
Mario Picozzi
2 and
Maurizio Taurino
3
1
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Unit, Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Department of Surgery “Paride Stefanini”, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00189 Rome, Italy
2
Center for Clinical Ethics, Department of Biotechnologies and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
3
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Unit, Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00189 Rome, Italy
4
School of Civil Law, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(15), 4460; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154460
Submission received: 24 May 2022 / Revised: 12 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Vascular Medicine)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

1. Introduction

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), with >75% of AAA repairs performed endovascularly [1]. Undoubtedly, EVAR is associated with lower 30-day mortality and morbidity, faster discharge, and fewer complications than OR [2], but some concerns remain about durability, need for long-term follow-up, and reinterventions [1,2,3].
Based on preclinical engineering assessments and clinical study results, particular anatomical characteristics, specifically aortic neck diameter, length, angle, and shape, are recommended to guide patient selection for EVAR [4]. Indeed, unfavorable anatomy, documented in 40–60% of treated AAAs, seems to be the factor most related to negative outcomes [5,6,7]. Despite this, in “real-world” clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR cases are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU) due to the presence of a ”hostile” aortic neck anatomy, with acceptable short- and mid-term outcomes [8,9,10]. In order to overcome this problem, several different technical solutions, such as parallel grafts and fenestrated or branched devices, have been developed as an alternative to standard EVAR grafts in patients with a “challenging neck”. However, all those solutions present a relevant risk of reintervention due to gutter-related endoleaks and target vessel instability, and higher cost compared to standard EVAR; lastly, custom-made devices are not suitable for urgent/emergent cases [7].
Nevertheless, because EVAR durability is related to the maintenance of a seal between the stent graft and the aortic neck, some authors suggested that challenging the neck could affect long-term outcomes, increasing the risk of type Ia endoleak, reintervention, and aneurysm-related mortality rates [11,12,13,14,15]. As a result of these long-term results, current guidelines suggest limiting or even refraining from adopting EVAR in patients with challenging aortic necks [16,17,18,19].
Moving from this inconsistency between “real world practice” and “best practice” suggested by current guidelines [20], the purpose of this contribution is to report technical and clinical results of the use of EVARs in challenging anatomies and to analyze and discuss the ethical implications of implementing these procedures, to identify criteria by which the patient’s “best interest” should be defined in these specific circumstances.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted by three investigators (F.A., S.C., P.S.), and an eligibility assessment of studies for inclusion in this review was performed in a non-blinded standardized manner by the same investigators. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.
Medline using the PubMed interface and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021 using the search strategies {“EVAR”[All Fields] AND “AAA”[All Fields] AND (“neck”[MeSH Terms] OR “neck”[All Fields]) AND (“hostile”[All Fields] OR “hostiles”[All Fields] OR “hostility”[MeSH Terms] OR “hostility”[All Fields] OR “hostilities”[All Fields] OR (“challenge”[All Fields] OR “challenged”[All Fields] OR “challenges”[All Fields] OR “challenging”[All Fields]) OR (“short”[All Fields] OR “shorts”[All Fields]) OR (“angulate”[All Fields] OR “angulated”[All Fields] OR “angulates”[All Fields] OR “angulating”[All Fields] OR “angulation”[All Fields] OR “angulational”[All Fields] OR “angulations”[All Fields]) OR (“conic”[All Fields] OR “conical”[All Fields] OR “conically”[All Fields] OR “conics”[All Fields]) OR “wide”[All Fields] OR (“large”[All Fields] OR “largely”[All Fields] OR “larges”[All Fields])}.
A further search was undertaken including a manual screen of the reference lists of selected articles identified through the electronic search; only English papers were considered for the present review.

2.2. Study Selection: Study Design and Data Extraction

Studies included in the analysis met the following criteria: (a) randomized controlled studies, non-randomized studies, and observational studies; (b) published as original research from 2000 to 2021; (c) clearly reported the results of the patient treated in the presence of “hostile” neck anatomy; (d) described the results of standard EVAR procedures in the immediate postoperative period, and/or at 30 days, and/or at mid- or long-term follow-up.
According to ESVS and SVS guidelines for EVAR and the majority of manufacturers’ IFU currently available, the proximal aortic neck was defined as “hostile” in presence of one of more of the following criteria: (1) short, proximal suitable landing zone length <15 mm (or <10 mm); (2) wide, aortic neck diameter greater than >26 mm (or >28, >30 mm, >31 mm, >32 mm); (3) noncylindrical shape, tapered, reverse tapered, hourglass, barrel, bulged, and conical neck (neck dilated over 2 mm within 10 mm below the most caudal renal artery); (4) angulated, >60° between the long axis of the aneurysm sac and juxta-renal aorta (infrarenal angulation); (5) thrombosed, the widest part of thrombus (≥2 mm thick) covering at least 50% of the circumference of the proximal neck; (6) calcified, calcification accounting for more than or equal to 50% of the proximal neck [16,17,21].
Papers regarding endovascular abdominal sealing (EVAS) procedures were excluded due to the completely peculiar sealing mechanism of the graft and the unsatisfactory results leading to market withdrawal [22]. Case reports, letters to the editor, and conference abstracts papers were all excluded from the present analysis.
The methodological quality of studies was evaluated independently by the same three Investigators with the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, which was used to assess the quality of non-randomized studies [23].
Data were extracted into a standard Microsoft Excel file by three independent authors (F.A., S.C., P.S.) as follows: first author, year of publication, country, study design, data source/institution, duration of the study, age, number of patients, criteria, and outcomes.

2.3. Outcomes

Outcomes considered for the present analysis were EVAR technical success, need for unplanned adjunctive procedures, conversion to open repair reintervention, stent graft migration, type I endoleak occurrence at 30 days, and at mid/long-term follow-up were recorded, as well as AAA-related mortality at same time intervals.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data are reported as mean and standard deviation (SD) or as absolute frequencies and percentages (%). All analyses were calculated using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Cumulatively, a total of 172 publications were identified and their titles and abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review before the face-to-face panel meeting and selected for the current report (Figure 1).

3.1. Study Characteristics

All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. The study population ranged from 12 to 1189 patients, and the period during which selected studies were published extended from 2003 to 2021 (Table 1).
Fourteen different endograft systems were used in selected studies (Table 1): Ancure (Guidant Cardiac and Vascular Division, Menlo Park, CA, USA), AneuRx, Talent, and Endurant (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA), Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, IN, USA), Endofit (EndoMed, Phoenix, AZ, USA), Excluder (W.L. Gore and Ass, Flagstaff, AZ, USA), Fortron (Cordis, Hialeah, FL, USA), Jotec Tube (Jotec GmbH, Hechingen, Germany), Lifepath (Edwards Life Sciences, Irvine, CA, USA), Powerlink, AFX, Ovation (Endologix, Irvine, CA, USA), and Vanguard (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA).
Almost all the patients included in this review underwent a surveillance imaging protocol consisting of computed tomographic angiography (CTA). The great majority of the selected studies referred to guidelines suggested criteria to define a challenging neck anatomy [16,17,18,19].

3.2. Technical Success and Adjunctive Procedures

Forty-five studies reported the technical success rate, defined as the successful introduction and deployment of the stent grafts in the absence of surgical conversion, type I or III, or renal artery coverage. Technical success rates ranged from 89.2% to 100%; in two studies failure was due to unintentional renal artery coverage and no- to high-flow endoleak [53,55].
Forty-two studies reported the need for adjunctive procedure rate during EVAR procedures to achieve proximal seal: those procedures were either represented by needs for repeated proximal fixation site ballooning, aortic cuff or endoanchor implantation, and rescue chimney procedures. The necessity for adjunctive procedures ranged between 0 and 51%, with a mean value of 9.04%.

3.3. Thirty-Day Results

Regarding 30-day results, the type Ia endoleak incidence rate was reported by thirty-seven studies and ranged between 0 and 27.3% (mean value 2.65%); 23 studies reported an incidence <2%, and all but one an occurrence lower than 9% [10]. No endograft migration was reported, according to data available in 31 studies out of the 52 included (Table 2).
Reintervention due to type Ia endoleak occurred in 0–15.2% of cases (mean value 1.66%) with 30 out 37 studies recording an incidence <2%. Regarding conversion to open repair, data are reported by thirty-four studies: in 32 published experiences, no conversions were performed at a 30-day follow-up interval, while two studies [53,59] reported approximately a 2% rate (Table 2).
Lastly, data about AAA-related death rate were reported by thirty-five studies: in the great majority of them, the incidence was null, while 4 studies reported an AAA-related death rate ranging between 0.5 and 1.3%, in absence of aneurysm sac rupture after EVAR [24,32,37,44]. It is noteworthy that in the experience of Troisi et al. [32], mortality was observed only in patients initially treated for ruptured AAA (Table 2).

3.4. Mid-Term Follow-Up Results

All but three studies [43,60,70] reported a follow-up period longer than 30 days. Follow-up duration was evaluated by polling the data of the considered study: mean follow-up was 27.38 months (range 1–120, SD ± 23,12; Figure 2).
The type Ia endoleak incidence rate was reported by forty-eight studies and ranged between 0 and 14.8% (mean value 6.65%); half of the studies reported an incidence <2%, and seven an occurrence greater than 10% [10,25,33,40,51,58,69]. Endograft migration rate was reported with a mean value of 1.86% by 44 studies, 30 of them not reporting cases of migration. However, three studies observed an incidence >10% [25,47,69] (Table 2).
Reintervention due to type Ia endoleak occurred in 0–24.1% of cases (mean value 4.38%) with 25 studies recording an incidence <2%. Regarding conversion to open repair, data are reported by forty-one studies: in 33 published experiences, no conversions were performed at the last follow-up visits, while two studies [58,68] reported a conversion rate greater than 5% (Table 2).
Lastly, data about AAA-related death rates were reported by forty-five studies: in 28 of them, the incidence was null, while 17 studies reported an AAA-related death rate ranging between 0.6 and 11% with only Abbruzzese and coworkers reporting an incidence >10% [29] (Table 2).

4. Discussion

After a careful and extensive analysis of the existing scientific literature, the main result of the present contribution is that despite the above-mentioned inconsistency between “real world practice” and “best practice” suggested by current guidelines, standard EVAR in patients presenting a so-called hostile or challenging proximal aortic neck anatomy could be safely performed. Consistent with those findings, a recently published systematic review confirmed a significant reduction in perioperative mortality for EVAR compared to open repair without showing differences in AAA-related mortality at mid-term follow-up [71]. However, the risk of reinterventions still represents a major issue in those kinds of procedures and should be properly assessed in the decision-making process [71].
Of course, not all patients could be a candidate for this type of treatment, and open repair still could be considered the standard of care in patients fit for surgery [16,17,18,19]. However, from a technical point of view, standard EVAR could be safely and effectively performed (and consequently proposed) to those patients judged unfit for open surgery.
Nevertheless, a word of caution is needed regarding patients with the concurrence of multiple anatomical characteristics affecting the EVAR feasibility [7], and those presenting a wide aortic neck diameter (<30 mm) [10,51,69].

4.1. Ethical Considerations

The technical feasibility of standard EVAR by itself is not sufficient to exclude all ethical implications related to performing an elective procedure outside the IFU, even in fragile patients unfit for open surgery. Indeed, even if the present review shows various scientific evidence confirming that standard EVAR can be proposed even outside the IFU to patients ineligible for open surgery, identifying the most appropriate therapeutic procedure for every single patient remains a challenging issue requiring careful case-by-case evaluation for patient’s best interests.
Although this type of evaluation should always be considered an essential part of good clinical practice, both close attention to ethical requirements and acquiring a patient’s proper informed consent play a crucial role in approaching a so fragile subgroup of patients, due to the aforementioned “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines [72]. In this scenario, correctly informing the patient, in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act, allows integration in the decision-making process those results that are important for the patient, beyond the theoretical advantages of each proposed procedure and guideline statement [73].
As is known, the traditional “paternalistic” approach, in which the doctor was considered autonomously capable to decide for the patient’s best interest, has given way to a more holistic approach in which the patient’s autonomy and self-determination are completely integrated into the decision-making process. This need to develop more patient-centered healthcare has led to a redefinition of the concept of patient’s best interest, in which physician and patient are both equally involved as decision-makers. This shared decision-making approach requires integrating the best available medical evidence with the patient’s values, beliefs, and preferences, in an ongoing dialogic process, that promotes high-quality health care decisions from both an objective (physician), and a subjective (patient) perspective [74]. Moreover, preliminarily identifying patient priorities is essential to ensure that these aspects could be evaluated in clinical practice [75].
However, recognizing the value of patient preferences and their relevance to medical decision-making can be difficult, especially when they differ from classical clinical outcomes. In other words, faster discharge times, or the absence of postoperative discomfort could be considered extremely important by the patient (and therefore have a greater value in the decision-making process) than the crude mortality rate [76]. Notably, even studies specifically designed to address the patient’s perspective (usually based on “quality of life” as a quantitative equivalent) are essentially based on items defined by health professionals, which may not reflect the patient’s perspective. For example, these studies may not capture the patient’s “concerns about symptoms”, “the impact of possible outcomes/complications”, as well as issues related to “self-control and decision-making” [73].
Consequently, to enable patients to make decisions that are fully consistent with their individual preferences, physicians should strive to properly inform about the different treatment options, and the risks and benefits associated with each alternative [77], not forgetting the patients’ perspective [74].
All the above is necessary and, at the same time, particularly complex to obtain in fragile AAA patients unfit for open surgery and presenting with hostile aortic anatomies. Approaching such a patient, vascular surgeons are requested to discuss all treatment options (F/B-EVAR, Ch-EVAR, off-label use of EVAR, and even non-intervention), and their relative risks and benefits, personalizing information for every single patient [78,79].
Moreover, the informed consent process requires not only that the physician inform the patient, but also that the patient fully understands the information provided. Therefore, the information must be presented consistently with the understanding of each individual patient, based on her/his education level, age, and psychological and emotional status [20]. Physicians should not rush the patient’s decision: the patient’s informed consent process is, in fact, a “process” and not a simple “act”. The physician–patient relationship must be established and strengthened through a dialogue that requires commitment and time. Physicians should encourage the patient to reflect on her/his preferences, values, and goals, ask for more information, express her/his doubts, discuss with relatives, and seek a second opinion in case of uncertainty [74].
Lastly, any deficiency in the informed consent acquiring process undermines the legitimacy of the consent itself, breaks the relationship of trust between patient and physician, and potentially leads to litigations [80]. On the contrary, the more detailed the information is, the more actively the patients are involved, and the more likely they are satisfied with their decisions and their expectations are met [74,81].
Despite all these considerations, patients’ information needs are not always satisfied in everyday clinical practice: patients, especially those presenting AAA, complain about a lack of information on the treatment option and relative risks and benefits [82].
With the aim of overcoming this vulnus in the patient–physician relationship, several interventions were implemented to improve the quality of informed consent and to foster patient understanding of treatment options and outcomes [83,84,85,86].
Physicians should consider what patients really want to know, and what information is truly useful for them to make a decision. It is not always necessary to report everything, especially when it comes to complex clinical or statistical data. However, the physician must recognize that some patients want to be thoroughly informed about treatment—different options, and risks and benefits associated with each available option—some others prefer to receive less information, and others choose to receive no information, exercising their “right not to be informed” [72,87].

4.2. Study Limitations

First of all, the present study is a narrative review and not a systematic review, consequently, the statistical power of here presented data should be carefully evaluated. Moreover, not all included studies reported results on standard EVAR performed in standard anatomies, therefore, a proper comparison was not made between patients presenting with standard and hostile anatomies treated by the same operators, in the same centuries, during the same period.

4.3. Conclusions

In conclusion, it is not possible to establish a priori what is in the best interest of the patient; it is not possible when there is reliable scientific evidence, and it is even less so in case of inconsistency between “real world practice” and “best practice” suggested by current guidelines such as in the reported clinical scenario. In those complex cases, physician experience, available data from reviews, guidelines’ recommendations, and patients’ preferences should all be considered and carefully evaluated to reach a joint decision and to choose the right tailored approach for every single case.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Wang, S.; Hicks, C.W.; Malas, M.B. Neck diameter and inner curve seal zone predict endograft-related complications in highly angulated necks after endovascular aneurysm repair using the Aorfix endograft. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 67, 760–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Kansagra, K.; Kang, J.; Taon, M.; Ganguli, S.; Gandhi, R.; Vatakencherry, G.; Lam, C. Advanced endografting techniques: Snorkels, chimneys, periscopes, fenestrations, and branched endografts. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 2018, 8 (Suppl. 1), 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Kouvelos, G.N.; Oikonomou, K.; Antoniou, G.A.; Verhoeven, E.L.; Katsargyris, A. A systematic review of proximal neck dilatation after endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2017, 24, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Igari, K.; Kudo, T.; Toyofuku, T.; Jibiki, M.; Inoue, Y. Outcomes following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair both within and outside of the instructions for use. Ann. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014, 20, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Giménez-Gaibar, A.; González-Cañas, E.; Solanich-Valldaura, T.; Herranz-Pinilla, C.; Rioja-Artal, S.; Ferraz-Huguet, E. Could Preoperative Neck Anatomy Influence Follow-up of EVAR? Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 43, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Caradu, C.; Berard, X.; Midy, D.; Ducasse, E. Influence of anatomic angulations in chimney and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 43, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Speziale, F.; Sirignano, P.; Setacci, F.; Menna, D.; Capoccia, L.; Mansour, W.; Galzerano, G.; Satacci, C. Immediate and two year outcomes after EVAR in ‘‘on-label’’ and ‘‘off-label’’ neck anatomies using different commercially available devices. Analysis of the experience of two Italian vascular centers. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 28, 1892–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Muhs, B.E.; Jordan, W.; Ouriel, K.; Rajaee, S.; de Vries, J.P. Matched cohort comparison of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with and without EndoAnchors. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 67, 1699–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Troisi, N.; Torsello, G. New-generation devices and adjunctive procedures are the key elements to expanding the indications for endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2015, 22, 179–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aburahma, A.F.; Derderian, T.; Aburahma, Z.T.; Hass, S.M.; Yacoub, M.; Dean, L.S.; Abu-Halimah, S.; Mousa, A.Y. Comparative study of clinical outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysms repair in large diameter aortic necks (>31 mm) versus smaller necks. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 68, 1345–1353.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schuurmann, R.C.L.; Van Noort, K.; Overeem, S.P.; Ouriel, K.; Jordan, J.W.D.; Muhs, B.E.; Mannetje, Y.; Reijnen, M.; Fioole, B.; Ünlü, C.; et al. Aortic curvature is a predictor of late type Ia endoleak and migration after endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2017, 24, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Antoniou, G.A.; Georgiadis, G.S.; Antoniou, S.A.; Kuhan, G.; Murray, D. A metaanalysis of outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile and friendly neck anatomy. J. Vasc. Surg. 2013, 57, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Brownrigg, J.R.W.; De Bruin, J.L.; Rossi, L.; Karthikesalingam, A.; Patterson, B.; Holt, P.; Hinchliffe, R.; Morgan, R.; Loftus, I.; Thompson, M. Endovascular aneurysm sealing for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: 30-day outcomes of 105 patients in a single centre. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2015, 50, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Schoretsanitis, N.; Argyriou, C.; Georgiadis, G.S.; Lazaridis, M.K.; Georgakarakos, E. Hostile neck in abdominal aortic aneurysms: Does it still exist? Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2016, 50, 208–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Oliveira, N.F.G.; Goncalves, F.B.; Ultee, K.; Pinto, J.P.; van Rijn, M.J.; Raa, S.T.; Mwipatayi, B.P.; Böckler, D.; Hoeks, S.E.; Verhagen, H.J. Patients with large neck diameter have a higher risk of type IA endoleaks and aneurysm rupture after standard endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 69, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wanhainen, A.; Verzini, F.; Van Herzeele, I.; Allaire, E.; Bown, M.; Cohnert, T.; Dick, F.; van Herwaarden, J.; Karkos, C.; Koelemay, M.; et al. Editor’s Choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2019, 57, 8–93, Erratum in Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2020, 59, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chaikof, E.L.; Dalman, R.L.; Eskandari, M.K.; Jackson, B.M.; Lee, W.A.; Mansour, M.A.; Mastracci, T.M.; Mell, M.; Murad, M.H.; Nguyen, L.L.; et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 67, 2–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Diagnosis and Management [Nice Guideline 156]. Published 19 March 2020. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng156 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  19. Pratesi, C.; Esposito, D.; Apostolou, D.; Attisani, L.; Bellosta, R.; Benedetto, F.; Blangetti, I.; Bonardelli, S.; Casini, A.; Fargion, A.T.; et al. Italian Guidelines for Vascular Surgery Collaborators—AAA Group. Guidelines on the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE). J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 63, 328–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Setacci, C.; Sirignano, P.; Fineschi, V.; Frati, P.; Ricci, G.; Speziale, F. Clinical and ethical review on late results and benefits after EVAR. Ann. Med. Surg. 2017, 16, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Albertini, J.N.; Kalliafas, S.; Travis, S.; Yusuf, S.W.; Macierewicz, J.A.; Whitaker, S.C.; Elmarasy, N.M.; Hopkinson, B.R. Anatomical risk factors for proximal perigraft endoleak and graft migration following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2000, 19, 308–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Singh, A.A.; Benaragama, K.S.; Pope, T.; Coughlin, P.A.; Winterbottom, A.P.; Harrison, S.C.; Boyle, J.R. Progressive Device Failure at Long Term Follow Up of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2021, 61, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Pereson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 6 May 2021).
  24. Dillavou, E.D.; Muluk, S.C.; Rhee, R.Y.; Tzeng, E.; Woody, J.D.; Gupta, N.; Makaroun, M.S. Does hostile neck anatomy preclude successful endovascular aortic aneurysm repair? J. Vasc. Surg. 2003, 38, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Fairman, R.M.; Velazquez, O.C.; Carpenter, J.P.; Woo, E.; Baum, R.A.; Golden, M.A.; Kritpracha, B.; Criado, F. Midterm pivotal trial results of the Talent Low Profile System for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: Analysis of complicated versus uncomplicated aortic necks. J. Vasc. Surg. 2004, 40, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Choke, E.; Munneke, G.; Morgan, R.; Belli, A.-M.; Loftus, I.; McFarland, R.; Loosemore, T.; Thompson, M.M. Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile neck anatomy. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2006, 29, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cox, D.E.; Jacobs, D.L.; Motaganahalli, R.L.; Wittgen, C.M.; Peterson, G.J. Outcomes of endovascular AAA repair in patients with hostile neck anatomy using adjunctive balloon-expandable stents. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2006, 40, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McDonnell, C.O.; Halak, M.; Bartlett, A.; Baker, S.R. Abdominal aortic aneurysm neck morphology: Proposed classification system. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2006, 175, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abbruzzese, T.A.; Kwolek, C.J.; Brewster, D.C.; Chung, T.K.; Kang, J.; Conrad, M.F.; LaMuraglia, G.M.; Cambria, R.P. Outcomes following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR): An anatomic and device-specific analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 2008, 48, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Chisci, E.; Kristmundsson, T.; de Donato, G.; Resch, T.; Setacci, F.; Sonesson, B.; Setacci, C.; Malina, M. The AAA with a challenging neck: Outcome of open versus endovascular repair with standard and fenestrated stent-grafts. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2009, 16, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jim, J.; Rubin, B.G.; Geraghty, P.J.; Criado, F.J.; Fajardo, A.; Sanchez, L.A. A 5-year comparison of EVAR for large and small aortic necks. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2010, 17, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Troisi, N.; Torsello, G.; Donas, K.P.; Austermann, M. Endurant stent-graft: A 2-year, single-center experience with a new commercially available device for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2010, 17, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. AbuRahma, A.F.; Campbell, J.E.; Mousa, A.Y.; Hass, S.M.; Stone, P.A.; Jain, A.; Nanjundappa, A.; Dean, L.S.; Keiffer, T.; Habib, J. Clinical outcomes for hostile versus favorable aortic neck anatomy in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using modular devices. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 54, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Georgiadis, G.S.; Trellopoulos, G.; Antoniou, G.A.; Gallis, K.; Nikolopoulos, E.S.; Kapoulas, K.C.; Pitta, X.; Lazarides, M.K. Early results of the Endurant endograft system in patients with friendly and hostile infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm anatomy. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 54, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Hoshina, K.; Kato, M.; Hosaka, A.; Miyahara, T.; Mikuriya, A.; Ohkubo, N.; Miyata, T. Middle-term results of endovascular aneurysm repair in Japan: Does intraoperative endovascular management against the hostile aneurysmal neck prevent the proximal type I endoleak? Int. Angiol. 2011, 30, 467–473. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hyhlik-Durr, A.; Weber, T.F.; Kotelis, D.; Rengier, F.; Gahlen, J.; Bock, S.; Köhler, J.; Ratusinski, C.-M.; Böckler, D. The Endurant stent graft system: 15-month follow-up report in patients with challenging abdominal aortic anatomies. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2011, 396, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rouwet, E.V.; Torsello, G.; de Vries, J.P.P.M.; Cuypers, P.; van Herwaarden, J.; Eckstein, H.-H.; Beuk, R.; Florek, H.-J.; Jentjens, R.; Verhagen, H. Final results of the prospective European trial of the Endurant Stent Graft for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2011, 42, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Torsello, G.; Troisi, N.; Donas, K.; Austermann, M. Evaluation of the Endurant stent graft under instructions for use vs off-label conditions for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 54, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Van Keulen, J.W.; de Vries, J.P.; Dekker, H.; Gonçalves, F.B.; Moll, F.L.; Verhagen, H.J.; van Herwaarden, J.A. One-year multicenter results of 100 abdominal aortic aneurysm patients treated with the Endurant stent graft. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 54, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Lee, M.; Lee, D.Y.; Kim, M.D.; Lee, K.-H.; Lee, M.S.; Park, S.I.; Won, J.Y.; Choi, D.; Ko, Y.-G. Coupling bifurcated stent-grafts to overcome anatomic limitations of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012, 23, 1065–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hager, E.S.; Cho, J.S.; Makaroun, M.S.; Park, S.C.; Chaer, R.; Marone, L.; Rhee, R.Y. Endografts with suprarenal fixation do not perform better than those with infrarenal fixation in the treatment of patients with short straight proximal aortic necks. J. Vasc. Surg. 2012, 55, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kvinlaug, K.E.; Lawlor, D.K.; Forbes, T.L.; Willoughby, R.; MacKenzie, K.S.; DeRose, G.; Corriveau, M.M.; Steinmetz, O.K. Early results from a Canadian multicenter prospective registry of the Endurant stent graft for endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2012, 19, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Setacci, F.; Sirignano, P.; de Donato, G.; Chisci, E.; Iacoponi, F.; Galzerano, G.; Palasciano, G.; Cappelli, A. AAA with a challenging neck: Early outcomes using the Endurant stent-graft system. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2012, 44, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Stather, P.W.; Sayers, R.D.; Cheah, A.; Wild, J.; Bown, M.; Choke, E. Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with hostile neck anatomy. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2012, 44, 556–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Antoniou, G.A.; Georgiadis, G.S.; Glancz, L.; Delbridge, M.; Murray, D.; Smyth, J.V.; Lazarides, M.K.; Serracino-Inglott, F. Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair with 2 different endograft systems with suprarenal fixation in patients with hostile infrarenal aortic anatomy. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2013, 47, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mwipatayi, B.P.; Picardo, A.; Wong, J.; Thomas, S.D.; Vijayan, V. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with reverse taper neck anatomy using the Endurant stent-graft: Analysis of stent-graft oversizing. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2013, 20, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Shintani, T.; Mitsuoka, H.; Atsuta, K.; Saitou, T.; Higashi, S. Thromboembolic complications after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic an-eurysm with neck thrombus. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2013, 47, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ierardi, A.M.; Tsetis, D.; Ioannou, C.; Laganà, D.; Floridi, C.; Petrillo, M.; Pinto, A.; Re, G.L.; Carrafiello, G. Ultra-low profile polymer-filled stent graft for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment: A two-year follow-up. Radiol. Med. 2015, 120, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Iwakoshi, S.; Ichihashi, S.; Higashiura, W.; Itoh, H.; Sakaguchi, S.; Tabayashi, N.; Uchida, H.; Kichikawa, K. A decade of outcomes and predictors of sac enlargement after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using zenith endografts in a Japanese population. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2014, 25, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Setacci, F.; Sirignano, P.; de Donato, G.; Galzerano, G.; Messina, G.; Guerrini, S.; A Mazzei, M.; Setacci, C. Two-year-results of Endurant stent-graft in challenging aortic neck morphologies versus standard anatomies. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014, 55, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaladji, A.; Steintmetz, E.; Gouëffic, Y.; Bartoli, M.; Cardon, A. Academic Association for Surgical Research (AURC). Long-Term Results of Large Stent Grafts to Treat Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2015, 29, 1416–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saha, P.; Hughes, J.; Patel, A.S.; Donati, T.; Sallam, M.; Patel, S.D.; Bell, R.E.; Katsanos, K.; Modarai, B.; Zayed, H.A. Medium-term outcomes following endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic an-eurysms with an infavourable proximal neck. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2015, 38, 840–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cerini, P.; Guzzardi, G.; Divenuto, I.; Parziale, G.; Brustia, P.; Carriero, A.; Fossaceca, R. Are abdominal aortic aneurysms with hostile neck really unsuitable for EVAR? Our experience. Radiol. Med. 2016, 121, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. De Donato, G.; Setacci, F.; Bresadola, L.; Castelli, P.; Chiesa, R.; Mangialardi, N.; Nano, G.; Setacci, C.; Ricci, C.; Gasparini, D.; et al. TriVascular Ovation Italian Study. Aortic neck evolution after endovascular repair with TriVascular Ovation stent graft. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 63, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Gallitto, E.; Gargiulo, M.; Freyrie, A.; Massoni, C.B.; Pini, R.; Mascoli, C.; Faggioli, G.; Stella, A. Results of standard suprarenal fixation endografts for abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≤10 mm in high-risk patients unfit for open repair and fenestrated endograft. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 64, 563–570.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Sirignano, P.; Capoccia, L.; Menna, D.; Mansour, W.; Speziale, F. Pushing forward the limits of EVAR: New therapeutic solutions for extremely chal-lenging AAAs using the Ovation® stent-graft. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2016, 57, 839–845. [Google Scholar]
  57. De Donato, G.; Setacci, F.; Bresadola, L.; Castelli, P.; Chiesa, R.; Mangialardi, N.; Nano, G.; Setacci, C. Midterm Results of Proximal Aneurysm Sealing with the Ovation Stent-Graft Ac-cording to On- vs Off-Label Use. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2017, 24, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Gargiulo, M.; Gallitto, E.; Wattez, H.; Wattez, H.; Verzini, F.; Massoni, C.B.; Loschi, D.; Freyrie, A.; Haulon, S. Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair performed in abdominal aortic aneurysms with large infrarenal necks. J. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 66, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Kontopodis, N.; Papadopoulos, G.; Galanakis, N.; Tsetis, D.; Ioannou, C.V. Improvement of patient eligibility with the use of new generation endo-grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A comparison study among currently used endografts and literature review. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2017, 14, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lee, J.H.; Park, K.H. Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Conical Neck Anatomy. Vasc. Spec. Int. 2017, 33, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Pitoulias, G.A.; Valdivia, A.R.; Hahtapornsawan, S.; Torsello, G.; Pitoulias, A.G.; Austermann, M.; Gandarias, C.; Donas, K.P. Conical neck is strongly associated with proximal failure in standard endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 66, 1686–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Sirignano, P.; Mansour, W.; Pranteda, C.; Siani, A.; Accrocca, F.; D’Adamo, A.; Capoccia, L.; Speziale, F. Real-Life Experience with Ovation Stent Graft:Lesson Learned from the First One Hundred Fifty Treated Patients. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 45, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Reyes Valdivia, A.; Pitoulias, G.; Criado, F.J.; Torsello, G.; Gandarias, C.; Austermann, M.; Pitoulias, A.G.; Donas, K. Multicenter European Registry for Patients with AAA Undergoing EVAR Evaluating the Performance of the 36-mm-Diameter Endurant Stent-Graft. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2017, 40, 1514–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bryce, Y.; Kim, W.; Katzen, B.; Benenati, J.; Samuels, S. Outcomes over Time in Patients with Hostile Neck Anatomy Undergoing Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 29, 1011–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Greaves, N.S.; Moore, A.; Seriki, D.; Ghosh, J. Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair using the Ovation Stent Graft System in Adverse Anatomy. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2018, 55, 512–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Howard, D.P.J.; Marron, C.D.; Sideso, E.; Puckridge, P.J.; Verhoeven EL, G.; Spark, J.I. Editor’s choice—Influence of proximal aortic neck diameter on durability of an-eurysm sealing and overall survival in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair. Real world data from the Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2018, 56, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Zhou, M.; Wang, Y.; Ding, Y.; Cai, L.; Lin, C.; Shi, Z.; Fu, W. Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Hostile Neck Anatomy after Endovascular Ab-dominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 56, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kouvelos, G.N.; Spanos, K.; Nana, P.; Koutsias, S.; Rousas, N.; Giannoukas, A.; Matsagkas, M. Large Diameter (≥29 mm) Proximal Aortic Necks Are Associated with Increased Complication Rates after Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 60, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. McFarland, G.; Tran, K.; Virgin-Downey, W.; Sgroi, M.D.; Chandra, V.; Mell, M.W.; Harris, E.J.; Dalman, R.L.; Lee, J.T. Infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair with large device (34- to 36-mm) diameters is associated with higher risk of proximal fixation failure. J. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 69, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Sirignano, P.; Mansour, W.; Capoccia, L.; Cuozzo, S.; Camparini, S.; de Donato, G.; Mangialardi, N.; Ronchey, S.; Talarico, F.; Setacci, C.; et al. Endovascular aortic repair in patients with challenging anatomies: The EXTREME study. EuroIntervention 2021, 16, e1544–e1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Patel, S.R.; Ormesher, D.C.; Griffin, R.; Jackson, R.J.; Lip, G.Y.; Vallabhaneni, S.R. UK-COMPASS Trial. Editor’s Choice—Comparison of Open, Standard, and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair Treatments for Juxtarenal/Short Neck Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2022, 63, 696–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Berman, L.; Curry, L.; Gusberg, R.; Dardik, A.; Fraenkel, L. Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient’s perspective. J. Vasc. Surg. 2008, 48, 296–302.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Bulder, R.M.A.; Hamming, J.F.; van Schaik, J.; Lindeman, J.H. Towards Patient Centred Outcomes for Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Scoping Review of Quality of Life Scales. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2021, 62, 630–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Spatz, E.S.; Krumholz, H.M.; Moulton, B.W. The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable-Patient Standard Through Shared Decision Making. JAMA 2016, 315, 2063–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Powell, J.T.; Ambler, G.K.; Svensjö, S.; Wanhainen, A.; Bown, M.J. Beyond the AAA Guidelines: Core Outcome Sets to Make Life Better for Patients. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2019, 57, 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Braithwaite, B.; Greenhalgh, R.M.; Grieve, R.; Hassan, T.B.; Hinchliffe, R.; Howell, S.; Moore, F.; Nicholson, A.A.; Soong, C.V.; Thompson, M.M.; et al. Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: One-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 2061–2069. [Google Scholar]
  77. Beauchamp, T.; Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  78. Marone, E.M.; Freyrie, A.; Ruotolo, C.; Michelagnoli, S.; Antonello, M.; Speziale, F.; Veroux, P.; Gargiulo, M.; Gaggiano, A. Expert Opinion on Hostile Neck Definition in Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (a Delphi Consensus). Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 62, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Miller, M.E.; Siegler, M.; Angelos, P. Ethical issues in surgical innovation. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 1638–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Convie, L.J.; Carson, E.; McCusker, D.; McCain, R.S.; McKinley, N.; Campbell, W.J.; Kirk, S.J.; Clarke, M. The patient and clinician experience of informed consent for surgery: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. BMC Med. Ethics 2020, 21, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Whitney, S.N.; McGuire, A.L.; McCullough, L.B. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann. Intern. Med. 2004, 140, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tunzi, M.; Satin, D.J.; Day, P.G. The Consent Continuum: A New Model of Consent, Assent, and Nondissent for Primary Care. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2021, 51, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Berman, L.; Curry, L.; Goldberg, C.; Gusberg, R.; Fraenkel, L. Pilot testing of a decision support tool for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 53, 285–292.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Knops, A.M.; Goossens, A.; Ubbink, D.T.; Balm, R.; Koelemay, M.; Vahl, A.; de Nie, A.; Akker, P.V.D.; Willems, M.; Koedam, N.; et al. A decision aid regarding treatment options for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm: A randomised clinical trial. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2014, 48, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Bowers, N.; Eisenberg, E.; Montbriand, J.; Jaskolka, J.; Roche-Nagle, G. Using a multimedia presentation to improve patient understanding and sat-isfaction with informed consent for minimally invasive vascular procedures. Surgeon 2017, 15, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kinnersley, P.; Phillips, K.; Savage, K.; Kelly, M.J.; Farrell, E.; Morgan, B.; Whistance, R.; Lewis, V.; Mann, M.K.; Stephens, B. Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 2013, CD009445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient; World Medical Association: Ferney-Voltaire, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Jcm 11 04460 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart reporting studies evaluation and selection process.
Figure 1. Flow chart reporting studies evaluation and selection process.
Jcm 11 04460 g001
Jcm 11 04460 g002 550
Figure 2. Pool of all follow-up duration data for all studies considered in the present analysis.
Figure 2. Pool of all follow-up duration data for all studies considered in the present analysis.
Jcm 11 04460 g002
Table
Table 1. Authors, years of publication, countries of origin, study period, number of patients, follow-up duration, type of endograft implanted, mean age, technical success, and need for adjunctive procedure rates of the 52 studies selected for the review.
Table 1. Authors, years of publication, countries of origin, study period, number of patients, follow-up duration, type of endograft implanted, mean age, technical success, and need for adjunctive procedure rates of the 52 studies selected for the review.
First AuthorYear of
Publication		CountryStudy PeriodNumber of PatientsMean
Follow-Up (Month)		Hostile Neck Anatomy DefinitionImplanted EndograftsMean Age (Years)Technical Success (%)Need for Adjunctive Procedures (%)
Dillavou ED [24]2003United States of America1999–20029118short neck <10 mm;
bulge: focal enlargement of the aneurysm neck;
reverse taper: dilation >2 mm within the first 10 mm; angulated neck >60 degrees;
significant neck thrombus covering > 50% of the circumference		Ancure75.795.614.39
Fairman RM [25]2004United States of AmericaNA15321short neck: <15 mm; very short neck: <10 mm, dilated neck >28 mm,
angulated neck > 45 degrees; calcified, and thrombus-lined,
with or without ulceration		TalentNANANA
Choke E [26]2006United Kingdom1997–20056021.7short neck:< 10 mm; wide neck: >28 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; significant neck thrombus
covering > 50% of the circumference		AneuRX, Excluder, Zenith, Talent, Fortron, Endofit, Vanguard, Lifepath74.49818
Cox DE [27]2006United States of America2000–20041912short neck: <15 mm; wide neck: >26 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; circumferential neck thrombus; neck bulge; reverse taper neck: dilated >2 mm within 10 mmZenith, Aneurx7210015.78
Mc Donnell CO [28]2006Australia2001–20044620.2Flared neck; Barrel neck; cone neck; irregular neck; hourglass neckTalent, ZenithNANANA
Abbruzzese TA [29]2008United States of America1999–200522229.6any deviation from single-device IFUZenith, Excluder, AneuRXNANANA
Chisci E [30]2009Italy, Sweden2005–20077419neck diameter >28 mm; neck length <15 mm, neck angulation >60 degrees; reverse, tapered or bulging neck, circumferential neck thrombus >50%Talent, Zenith77.595.941.9
Jim J [31]2010United States of America2002–20035360wide neck:
diameter >28 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees;
short neck: length <15 mm; significant thrombus: >50% of neck circumference; reverse tapered neck: neck dilated >2 mm within 10 mm; neck bulge: focal neck enlargement >3 mm within 15 mm		Talent76.596.20
Troisi N [32]2010Germany2007–20091069short neck: <10 mm; neck bulge: focal dilatation >3 mm within 15 mm; tapered neck: enlargement >2 mm within 10 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; neck thrombus: >50% of neck circumferenceEndurant73.61009
Aburahma AF [33]2011USA2004–201014922short neck: <10 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; wide diameter: >28 mm; calcified neck: >50% of neck circumference; neck thrombus: >2 mm thick; reverse tapered neck: neck dilatation >2 mm within the first 10 mmAneuRX, Excluder, Zenith, Talent74.39922
Georgiadis GS [34]2011Greece2009–20103412.44neck length between 5 and 12 mm; neck angulation between 60 and 90 degreesEndurant72.81008.8
Hoshina K [35]2011Japan2006–20084926short neck: <15 mm; angulated neck: >60 degreesZenith, ExcluderNANA51
Hyhlik-Dürr A [36]2011Germany2008–20095015short neck: <15 mmEndurant75964
Rouwet EV [37]2011International2007–20088012infrarenal angulation >60 degreesEndurant761000
Torsello G [38]2011Germany2007–20105612short neck: <10 mm; angulated neck: >60 degreesEndurant75.31001.8
Van Keulen JW [39]2011The Netherlands2007–20091912any deviation from single-device IFUEndurant731000
Lee M [40]2012Republic of Korea2007–20101918.7angulated neck: >60 degrees; conical neck:
diameter at 15 mm below the lowest renal artery >10% larger than the diameter at the lowest renal artery		Zenith, Talent73.3100NA
Hager ES [41]2012United States of America2002–20098418.5short neck: <15 mmExcluder, Zenith75.510016.6
Kvinlaug KE [42]2012Canada2008–2010376short neck: <15 mm; wide neck: >28 mm; angulated neck: >60 degreesEndurant75.3100NA
Setacci F [43]2012Italy2010721hourglass neck; angulated neck: >60 degrees; short neck: <15 mm; thrombosed neck: >50% of the neck circumference; reverse conical neck: dilatation > 2 mm within 10 mm; barrel neck: focal enlargement >3 mm within 15 mmEndurant7710011.11
Stather PW [44]2012United Kingdom1999–201019948angulated neck:  >60 degrees; short neck: <15 mm; wide neck: >28 mm; thrombosed neck; flared neckZenith, Talent, Excluder, Endurant, Jotec Tube73.998NA
Antoniou GA [45]2013InternationalNA6018short neck: <15 mm; angulated neck:  >60 degreesEndurant, Zenith741008
Mwipatayi BP [46]2013Australia2008–20113120short neck: <10 mm; angulated neck:  >60 degrees; reverse tapered neck: diameter >2 mm for every 5 mm distal from the most caudal
renal artery		Endurant7510012.9
Shintan T [47]2013Japan2007–20112025.7short neck: <10 mm; angulated neck:
>60 degrees; reverse tapered neck: dilation >2 mm within the first 10 mm; thrombosed neck: thrombus in the first
10 mm of the neck, with thickness >2 mm and covering >25% of the
circumference		Excluder, Zenith75.610010
Ierardi AM [48]2014Italy2009–20113627.7short neck: between 7 and 10 mmOvation73.61000
Igari K [4]2014Japan2008–20101225short neck: <15 mm; angulated neck: >60 degreesExcluder, Zenith, Powerlink77.5NA0
Iwakoshi S [49]2014Japan2009–201144120short neck: <15 mm; angulated neck:
>60 degrees;
reverse tapered neck: dilation >2 mm within the first 10 mm		Zenith7792.116
Setacci F [50]2014Italy20107224hourglass neck; angulated neck:  >60 degrees; short neck: <15 mm; thrombosed neck: >50% of the neck circumference; reverse conical neck: dilatation > 2 mm within 10 mm; barrel neck: focal enlargement >3 mm within 15 mmEndurant77NANA
Speziale F [7]2014Italy2010–201113324noncylindrical neck: hourglass, reverse conical neck (dilation > 2 mm
within 10 mm), or barrel neck (focal enlargement >3 mm within 15 mm); angulated neck: >65 degrees; short neck <15 mm, wide neck: >28 mm		Endurant, Excluder, ZenithNA10012
Kaladji A [51]2015France1998–201217038wide neck: need for a stent graft >32 mm in diameterTalent, Zenith, Excluder, Anaconda, Endurant, Vanguard, AFX, AneuRx, Zenith, Lifepath751000
Saha P [52]2015United Kingdom2006–20082772wide neck: need for a stent graft >36 mm in diameterZenith76930
Cerini P [53]2016Italy2005–20139037any deviation from single-device IFUZenith, Endurant, Evita75.895.3 *1.1
de Donato G [54]2016Italy2010–201216132short neck: >7 mm; thrombosed neck: >50% of the neck circumference; calcified neck: >50% of the neck circumferenceOvation75.299.30.6
Gallitto E [55]2016Italy2005–20106051.4short neck: <10 mmZenith, Endurant74.995 *7
Gimenez-Gaibar A [5]2016Spain2006–20135224short neck: 15 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees thrombosed neck: >50% of the neck circumference; calcified neck: >50% of the neck circumferenceExcluder, Talent, Anaconda, Zenith, Endurant75.910013.4
Sirignano P [56]2016Italy2012–2014219noncylindrical neck: hourglass, reverse conical (dilated >2 mm within 10 mm, barrel (focal enlargement >3 mm within 15 mm); angulated neck: >65 degrees; short neck: <10 mm; enlarged neck: diameter >30 mm; thrombosed neck: mural thrombosis >3 mmOvation75.61000
de Donato G [57]2017Italy2010–20128932short neck: <7 mmOvation76.497.72.2
Gargiulo M [58]2017International2009–201211837.9wide neck: >28 mmZenith, Endurant, Excluder, Ovation, Anaconda73.9985
Kontopodis N [59]2017GreeceNA10618short neck: >7 mmOvationNA97.20
Lee JH [60]2017Republic of Korea2010–2013381conical neck: neck coefficient calculated using the following formula (diameter, D): Arctangent ([D3-D1]/[neck length]) × 180/π,
if the absolute value of the neck coefficient was >10, it was defined as conical or inverted conical		Zenith, Endurant73.810023.7
Pitoulias GA [61]2017International2007–201515641.1short neck: <15 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; wide neck: <32 mm; circumferential thrombus with >2-mm thickness; circumferential calcification >50%; reverse tapered neck: neck dilation >2 mm within 10 mm; neck bulgeEndurant73.41002.5
Sirignano P [62]2017Italy2012–201515620.4short neck: <10 mm; noncylindrical aortic neckOvation74.8310010.25
Reyes Valdiva A [63]2017International2007–20157330need for a stent graft >36 mm in
diameter; any deviation from single-device IFU 		Endurant74.498.66.8
Aburahma AF [10]2018United States of America2003–20153331.8wide neck: >31 mmExcluder, Zenith, AneuRX74.7100NA
Bryce Y [64]2018United States of America2004–201312547.3short neck: <10 mm; angulated neck: >60 degrees; reverse conical neck (neck dilated > 2 mm within 10 mm, barrel neck (focal enlargement > 3 mm within 15 mm); thrombosed neck: >50% of the neck circumference; calcified neck: >50% of the neck circumferenceEndurant, Excluder, Zenith, Ovation, AFX75.410020
Greaves NS [65]2018United Kingdom2012–20175221.5short neck: between 7 and 10 mmOvation75.71001.9
Howard DPJ [66]2018International2011–2017118960wide neck: >25 mmExcluder73.999.910.4
Oliveira NFG [15]2018International2009–20119748wide neck: >30 mmEndurant73.3100NA
Zhou M [67]2018China2010–201532336short neck: <15 mm; very short neck: <10 mm; wide neck: >28 mm; conical neck: neck dilated over 2 mm within 10 mm below; angulated neck: >60 degrees thrombosed neck: the widest part of thrombus (≥2 mm thick) covering at least 50% of the circumference; calcified neck: calcification accounting for more than or equal to 50% of proximal neckEndurant, Excluder, Zenith7389.210.2
Kouvelos GN [68]2019Greece2009–20166424wide neck: 29–32 mmEndurant72.71001.5
McFarland G [69]2019United States of America2000–201610834.1wide neck: >28 mmExcluder, Zenith, Talent, Endurant, Ovation, AFX76.5NANA
Sirignano P [70]2021International2017–20181221Anatomy outside IFU for any commercially
available endografts, while inside the IFU for
the Ovation stent graft		Ovation78.651000
* Failure due to unintentional renal artery coverage and occlusion.
Table
Table 2. Thirty-day, and mean follow-up complications rates of the 52 studies selected for the review.
Table 2. Thirty-day, and mean follow-up complications rates of the 52 studies selected for the review.
First Author30 DaysMean Follow-Up
Conversion to Open Repair (%)Reintervention (%)Migration (%)Type Ia Endoleak (%)AAA-Related Mortality (%)Conversion to Open Repair (%)Reintervention (%)Migration (%)Type Ia Endoleak (%)AAA-Related Mortality (%)
Dillavou ED [24]01.09NA2.181.0908.802.181.09
Fairman RM [25]NANANANANA3.1NA1310.5NA
Choke E [26]0303001.5030
Cox DE [27]NA0NA0NANA10.55.265.26NA
Mc Donnell CO [28]02.1702.170NA02.1700
Abbruzzese TA [29]NANANANANA1.4241.40.911
Chisci E [30]0004.102.720.32.75.44.1
Jim J [31]00000002.72.72.7
Troisi N [32]NA1.3NA1.31.30000.650.65
Aburahma AF [33]01010071.3111
Georgiadis GS [34]NANANANANA00000
Hoshina K [35]NANANANANANANANANA0
Hyhlik-Dürr A [36]0206000000
Rouwet EV [37]00001.2500001.25
Torsello G [38]01.803.6001.803.61.8
Van Keulen JW [39]00000NA0NA00
Lee M [40]NANANANANA010.5010.50
Hager ES [41]01.207.1400002.40
Kvinlaug KE [42]0000000000
Setacci F [43]00000NANANANANA
Stather PW [44]NA5NA2.50.5NA2.539.52
Antoniou GA [45]NANANANANA0001.70
Mwipatayi BP [46]0000000000
Shintan T [47]NANANANANA002500
Ierardi AM [48]0000000000
Igari K [4]0008000000
Iwakoshi S [49]0000003.1403.142.36
Setacci F [50]NANANANANA05.505.50
Speziale F [7]0000007.74.630
Kaladji A [51]08.304.10024.10133.5
Saha P [52]0003.7007.407.47.4
Cerini P [53]2.211.1NA8.8000000
de Donato G [54]0000.6001.801.80
Gallitto E [55]NA1.5NA3NANA3NA1.53
Gimenez-Gaibar A [5]01.901.9004.502.20
Sirignano P [56]0000000000
de Donato G [57]0000002.202.20
Gargiulo M [58]NANANANANA673123.4
Kontopodis N [59]1.9NANANANA0000NA
Lee JH [60]NANANANANANANANANANA
Pitoulias GA [61]01.201.9001.201.20
Sirignano P [62]00.701.3000000
Reyes Valdiva A [63]0000000001.3
Aburahma AF [10]015.2027.30017.2013.80
Bryce Y [64]01.601.600.81.601.60
Greaves NS [65]0000000000
Howard DPJ [66]NANANANANA0.230.10.30
Oliveira NFG [15]NANANANANANA3.1NA7.61
Zhou M [67]NANANANANANA5.6NA7.1NA
Kouvelos GN [68]0001.507.210.142.94.31.5
McFarland G [69]NANANANANA1.8511.114.814.80
Sirignano P [70]01.601.60NANANANANA
NA: not available.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sirignano, P.; Ceruti, S.; Aloisi, F.; Sirignano, A.; Picozzi, M.; Taurino, M. Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154460

AMA Style

Sirignano P, Ceruti S, Aloisi F, Sirignano A, Picozzi M, Taurino M. Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(15):4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154460

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sirignano, Pasqualino, Silvia Ceruti, Francesco Aloisi, Ascanio Sirignano, Mario Picozzi, and Maurizio Taurino. 2022. "Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 15: 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154460

APA Style

Sirignano, P., Ceruti, S., Aloisi, F., Sirignano, A., Picozzi, M., & Taurino, M. (2022). Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(15), 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154460

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop