Mid-term outcomes of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm using the cuff-first technique to prevent type II endoleaks.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initial and mid-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using the cuff-first technique (CFT) to prevent type II endoleak (T2EL).

METHODS: CFT involves deploying an aortic cuff inside the AAA to cover the ostium of the aortic side branch vessels before deploying the main body. We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing EVAR with CFT or side branch embolization (SBE) for AAAs at The Jikei University Hospital between 2016 and 2022. Primary endpoint was the rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, radiation exposure, technical and clinical success rates, occurrence of T2EL, and freedom from reintervention or aneurysm-related death (ARD).

RESULTS: Out of 406 patients who underwent EVAR for AAAs, CFT was utilized in 56 (CFT group) and SBE in 35 (SBE group); all 91 patients were included in this study. There were no differences in patient demographics between groups but there were differences in patency rate of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and absent intraluminal thrombus. The technical success rate per target vessel in the CFT and SBE group was 97.8% and 91.8%, and the clinical success rate was 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The procedure time was shorter for CFT than for SBE (median [IQR, interquartile range]; CFT: 10 [6-14] min vs. SBE: 25 [18.5-45] min; P < 0.05), and radiation exposure was lower for CFT than for SBE (median [IQR]; CFT: 1455 [840-2634] mGy vs. SBE: 2353 [1552-3586] mGy, P < 0.05). During the median follow-up of 25 (12.5-47) months, sac shrinkage occurred at similar rates in both groups (CFT: 37.5% vs. SBE: 40.0%; P = 0.812), and there were no differences in freedom from reintervention (CFT: 96.2% and 91.4% at 12 and 36 months vs. SBE: 100% and 89.5% at 12 and 36 months; log-rank, P = 0.761) and freedom from ARD (100% at 36 months in both groups; log-rank, P = 0.440). The odds ratio (OR) of CFT vs. SBE for sac regression was calculated by adjusting for IMA patency and absent intraluminal thrombus, resulting in no statistical significance (OR, 1.231, 95% confidence interval, 0.486-3.122).

CONCLUSIONS: CFT is feasible with a shorter procedure time and lower radiation exposure than SBE and comparable mid-term outcomes, including sac shrinkage rate, compared with SBE. We believe that CFT, if anatomically suitable, is an alternative to SBT for the prevention of T2EL during EVAR.