Outcome-based anatomic criteria for defining the hostile aortic neck.

OBJECTIVE There is abundant evidence linking hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy to poor outcome after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), yet the definition of hostile anatomy varies from study to study. This current analysis was undertaken to identify anatomic criteria that are most predictive of success or failure at the aortic neck after EVAR. METHODS The study group comprised 221 patients in the Aneurysm Treatment using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) clinical trial, a population enriched with patients with challenging aortic neck anatomy and failure of sealing. Imaging protocols were not protocol specified but were performed according to the institution's standard of care. Core laboratory analysis assessed the three-dimensional centerline-reformatted computed tomography scans. Failure at the aortic neck was defined by type Ia endoleak occurring at the time of the initial endograft implantation or during follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the value of each anatomic measure in the classification of aortic neck success and failure and to identify optimal thresholds of discrimination. Binary logistic regression was performed after excluding highly intercorrelated variables, creating a final model with significant predictors of outcome after EVAR. RESULTS Among the 221 patients, 121 (54.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and 100 (45.2%) did not. Type Ia endoleaks presented immediately after endograft deployment in 58 (58.0%) or during follow-up in 42 (42.0%). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified 12 variables where the classification of patients with type Ia endoleak was significantly more accurate than chance alone. Increased aortic neck diameter at the lowest renal artery (P = .013) and at 5 mm (P = .008), 10 mm (P = .008), and 15 mm (P = .010) distally; aneurysm sac diameter (P = .001), common iliac artery diameters (right, P = .012; left, P = .032), and a conical (P = .049) neck configuration were predictive of endoleak. By contrast, increased aortic neck length (P = .050), a funnel-shaped aortic neck (P = .036), and neck mural thrombus content, as measured by average thickness (P = .044) or degrees of circumferential coverage (P = .029), were protective against endoleak. Binary logistic regression identified three variables independently predictive of type Ia endoleak. Neck diameter at the lowest renal artery (P = .002, cutpoint 26 mm) and neck length (P = .017, cutpoint 17 mm) were associated with endoleak, whereas some mural neck thrombus content was protective (P = .001, cutpoint 11° of circumferential coverage). CONCLUSIONS A limited number of independent anatomic variables are predictive of type Ia endoleak after EVAR, including aortic neck diameter and aortic neck length, whereas mural thrombus in the neck is protective. This study suggests that anatomic measures with identifiable threshold cutpoints should be considered when defining the hostile aortic neck and assessing the risk of complications after EVAR.

[1]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[2]  M. Davies,et al.  Disease-specific guidelines for reporting adverse events for peripheral vascular medical devices. , 2014, Journal of vascular surgery.

[3]  C. Zarins,et al.  Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[4]  A. AbuRahma,et al.  Clinical outcomes for hostile versus favorable aortic neck anatomy in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using modular devices. , 2010, Journal of vascular surgery.

[5]  S. Rose,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: written by the Standards of Practice Committee for the Society of Interventional Radiology and endorsed by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Canadian Interventional Radiology As , 2010, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[6]  A. Moskowitz,et al.  A statewide experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: rapid diffusion with excellent early results. , 2004, Journal of vascular surgery.

[7]  D. Böckler,et al.  Early results from the ENGAGE registry: real-world performance of the Endurant Stent Graft for endovascular AAA repair in 1262 patients. , 2012, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[8]  Matthew J. Bown,et al.  Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Hostile Neck Anatomy , 2013, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[9]  David Murray,et al.  A meta-analysis of outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile and friendly neck anatomy. , 2013, Journal of vascular surgery.

[10]  F. Moll,et al.  The influence of neck thrombus on clinical outcome and aneurysm morphology after endovascular aneurysm repair. , 2012, Journal of vascular surgery.

[11]  K. Ouriel,et al.  Clinical outcome of an extended proximal seal zone with the AFX endovascular aortic aneurysm system. , 2014, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  M. Davies,et al.  Reporting standards for adverse events after medical device use in the peripheral vascular system. , 2013, Journal of vascular surgery.

[13]  M. Horrocks,et al.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysms with measurements obtained by other imaging techniques and intraoperative measurements: possible implications for endovascular grafting. , 1996, Journal of vascular surgery.

[14]  J. Parodi.  Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and other arterial lesions. , 1995, Journal of vascular surgery.

[15]  K. Ouriel,et al.  Results of the ANCHOR prospective, multicenter registry of EndoAnchors for type Ia endoleaks and endograft migration in patients with challenging anatomy. , 2014, Journal of vascular surgery.

[16]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[17]  A. James O'Malley,et al.  Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population , 2008 .

[18]  W S Moore,et al.  Repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm by transfemoral endovascular graft placement. , 1994, Annals of surgery.

[19]  F. Verzini,et al.  Durability of abdominal aortic endograft with the Talent Unidoc stent graft in common practice: Core lab reanalysis from the TAURIS multicenter study. , 2009, Journal of vascular surgery.

[20]  Hiroyuki Ishibashi,et al.  Remodeling of proximal neck angulation after endovascular aneurysm repair. , 2012, Journal of vascular surgery.

[21]  C. Rockman,et al.  Aneurysm Morphology as a Predictor of Endoleak following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Do Smaller Aneurysm Have Better Outcomes? , 2002, Annals of vascular surgery.

[22]  J. D. de Vries,et al.  Rationale of EndoAnchors in abdominal aortic aneurysms with short or angulated necks. , 2014, Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery.

[23]  William Dale,et al.  Age-related trends in utilization and outcome of open and endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001-2006. , 2009, Journal of vascular surgery.

[24]  Christopher K Zarins,et al.  Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[25]  S. Muluk,et al.  Does hostile neck anatomy preclude successful endovascular aortic aneurysm repair? , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

[26]  F. Verzini,et al.  Predictive factors and clinical consequences of proximal aortic neck dilatation in 230 patients undergoing abdominal aorta aneurysm repair with self-expandable stent-grafts. , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.