Early experience with bridging stent graft deployment without sheath support in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair
Standard
Early experience with bridging stent graft deployment without sheath support in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. / Sotir, Anna; Klopf, Johannes; Wolf, Florian; Funovics, Martin A; Loewe, Christian; Kölbel, Tilo; Neumayer, Christoph; Eilenberg, Wolf.
in: J VASC SURG, Jahrgang 78, Nr. 6, 12.2023, S. 1383-1391.e5.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Early experience with bridging stent graft deployment without sheath support in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair
AU - Sotir, Anna
AU - Klopf, Johannes
AU - Wolf, Florian
AU - Funovics, Martin A
AU - Loewe, Christian
AU - Kölbel, Tilo
AU - Neumayer, Christoph
AU - Eilenberg, Wolf
N1 - Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the early experience with modified version of simplified bare-wire target vessel (SMART) technique, implying delivery of bridging stent grafts without historically established sheath support, and to compare its outcome to standard endovascular aortic repair procedures with fenestrated/branched devices.METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients treated with fenestrated/branched devices from January 2020 to December 2022 was undertaken. The study population was divided into three groups-a sheath group (SG), SMART group, and nonsheath group (NSG). Primary end points were radiation exposure (dose-area product), fluoroscopy time, dose of contrast agent, operation time, and incidence of intraoperative target vessel (TV) complications and additional procedures. Freedom from secondary TV related reinterventions at the three follow-up phases were defined as secondary end points.RESULTS: A total of 183 TVs (38.8% visceral arteries [VA]; 56.3% renal arteries [RA]) in the SG, 36 TVs (44.4% VA, 55.6% RA) in the SMART group, and 168 TVs (47.6% VA; 50% RA) in the NSG were accessed. The mean number of fenestrations and bridging stent grafts was equally distributed in all three groups. The SMART group only included cases treated with fenestrated devices. The dose-area product was significantly lower in the SMART (median, 203 Gy × cm2; interquartile range [IQR], 179-365 Gy × cm2) and NSG (median, 340 Gy × cm2; IQR, 220-651 Gy × cm2) groups vs the SG (median, 464 Gy × cm2; IQR, 267-871 Gy × cm2; P = .007). Operation time was also significantly lower in the NSG (median, 265 minutes; IQR, 221-337 minutes) and SMART (median, 292 minutes; IQR, 234-351 minutes) groups vs the SG (median, 326 minutes; IQR, 277-375 minutes; P = .004), respectively. Intraoperative TV-related complications were most frequently observed in the SG (9/183 TVs; P = .008).CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the outcomes of three currently available TV stenting approaches. Previously reported SMART technique, and its modified version (NSG) proved to be a safe alternative to historically established TV stenting technique with sheath support (SG).
AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the early experience with modified version of simplified bare-wire target vessel (SMART) technique, implying delivery of bridging stent grafts without historically established sheath support, and to compare its outcome to standard endovascular aortic repair procedures with fenestrated/branched devices.METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients treated with fenestrated/branched devices from January 2020 to December 2022 was undertaken. The study population was divided into three groups-a sheath group (SG), SMART group, and nonsheath group (NSG). Primary end points were radiation exposure (dose-area product), fluoroscopy time, dose of contrast agent, operation time, and incidence of intraoperative target vessel (TV) complications and additional procedures. Freedom from secondary TV related reinterventions at the three follow-up phases were defined as secondary end points.RESULTS: A total of 183 TVs (38.8% visceral arteries [VA]; 56.3% renal arteries [RA]) in the SG, 36 TVs (44.4% VA, 55.6% RA) in the SMART group, and 168 TVs (47.6% VA; 50% RA) in the NSG were accessed. The mean number of fenestrations and bridging stent grafts was equally distributed in all three groups. The SMART group only included cases treated with fenestrated devices. The dose-area product was significantly lower in the SMART (median, 203 Gy × cm2; interquartile range [IQR], 179-365 Gy × cm2) and NSG (median, 340 Gy × cm2; IQR, 220-651 Gy × cm2) groups vs the SG (median, 464 Gy × cm2; IQR, 267-871 Gy × cm2; P = .007). Operation time was also significantly lower in the NSG (median, 265 minutes; IQR, 221-337 minutes) and SMART (median, 292 minutes; IQR, 234-351 minutes) groups vs the SG (median, 326 minutes; IQR, 277-375 minutes; P = .004), respectively. Intraoperative TV-related complications were most frequently observed in the SG (9/183 TVs; P = .008).CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the outcomes of three currently available TV stenting approaches. Previously reported SMART technique, and its modified version (NSG) proved to be a safe alternative to historically established TV stenting technique with sheath support (SG).
KW - Humans
KW - Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
KW - Retrospective Studies
KW - Stents
KW - Contrast Media
KW - Fluoroscopy
KW - Intraoperative Complications
U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.05.054
DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.05.054
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 37330151
VL - 78
SP - 1383-1391.e5
JO - J VASC SURG
JF - J VASC SURG
SN - 0741-5214
IS - 6
ER -
