Results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair after failed infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is.

METHODS

We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends.

RESULTS

A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

One-hundred Consecutive Physician-modified Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms using the Terumo TREO Stent-Graft

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been widely applied for the treatment of pararenal (PAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). If custom-made devices or off-the-shelf devices are not available, physician-modified endografts (PMEG) are an alternative device option. Several different endograft platforms have been used for PMEG; however, minimal data exists on utilizing the Terumo TREO Abdominal stent-graft system in this setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our single-center experience treating PAA and TAAA with a physician-modified FEVAR using the TREO platform.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive patients with PAA and TAAA treated at a single-center with a FEVAR utilizing a PMEG device between March 2021 and September 2023 was queried for those having a Terumo TREO device implanted. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Rates of technical success, type I or III endoleak, branch vessel status, reintervention, and 2-year survival were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 153 patients who underwent FEVAR with a PMEG device during the study period, 100 had repair using a Terumo TREO stent-graft. The mean age of the cohort was 73.7±7.0years with the majority suffering from hypertension (n=94, 94%), coronary artery disease (n=51, 51%), and COPD (n=40, 40%). Thirty-four patients (34%) had a prior failed EVAR device in place. Mean aneurysm size was 66.0±13.7mm, with 58 (50%) patients classified as PAA and 30 (30%) patients as an extent IV TAAA. Six (6%) patients presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8±0.6. Overall technical success was 99%, procedure time was 218±116 minutes, contrast volume was 82±21mL, and cumulative air kerma was 3,054±1,560mGy. Postoperative complications were present in 20 patients (20%) and 2 patients (2%) died within 30-days. Rates of type I or III endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 7%, respectively. Two-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of pararenal and extent IV TAAA using a physician-modified fenestrated Terumo TREO endograft is safe and effective. This large, early experience using the Terumo TREO platform supports preferential use of this device in this setting due to the device design and low likelihood of type I or III endoleak.

Report of a semi-branched stent-graft to treat a type 1a endoleak after failed EVAR

BACKGROUND

Endovascular techniques are advancing with the change of treatment paradigm for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) and branched EVAR (bEVAR) are used for complex aortic aneurysm repair. Both fEVAR and bEVAR have their own advantages and disadvantages. Semi-branches are a new feature that attempt to combine the advantages of both fEVAR and bEVAR.

TECHNIQUE

We describe the use of a 4-vessel semi-branched EVAR in a failed EVAR case with a type 1a endoleak.

CONCLUSION

The novel feature of semi-branches in custom-made EVAR devices in endovascular aortic treatment following failed EVAR appear to be a feasible option.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

Salvage of an Incomplete Sandwich With a Covered Celiac Trunk and a "Floating" Superior Mesenteric Artery Stent in a Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm

PURPOSE

To report a case of a patient with a large thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) extent V treated with a custom-made fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) after a failed and incomplete attempt of a Sandwich repair technique.

REPORT

An 83-year-old patient was referred to our department after a failed attempt at endovascular repair of type V TAAA with a sandwich technique. The celiac trunk was inadvertently covered with the first endograft and a covered long superior mesenteric artery stent was placed and left facing upward inside the aorta. We performed a staged repair, by first catheterizing and stenting the celiac trunk and bringing it under and inside the main aortic endograft. In interval, a F/B-EVAR was performed using a bimodular custom-made device (CMD) with a proximal 2 branch module for the celiac trunk and superior mesenteric artery and distal module with fenestrations for both renal arteries. The intervention was successful, and the follow-up was uneventful at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-intervention after failed endovascular attempts of TAAA repair are technically challenging and require advanced endovascular techniques. The ability to construct CMDs allowed to extend repair to our patient which had severe anatomical constraints for other techniques.

Redo Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair (F-BEVAR) for Failed F-BEVAR

Failed fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) requiring a redo F-BEVAR is a rare event. In this study, we report 2 cases of a failed F-BEVAR secondary to a type IIIb endoleak from tears on the fabric graft successfully treated with redo F-BEVAR. This is a technically challenging procedure that requires meticulous planning, advanced imaging technologies and experienced operators. Redo F-BEVAR appears to be a feasible and safe treatment option. However, larger series and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm effectiveness and durability.

Techniques and Limitations of Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) for Type 1A Endoleak After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repairs

PURPOSE

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality over open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, a higher rate of reinterventions remains the Achilles heel of EVAR. Although type 1A endoleak from proximal seal zone failure of EVAR remains one of the leading causes for reintervention, fenestrated branched devices suitable for proximal extension of failed EVAR are not widely available in the United States. Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) is an off-the-shelf investigational device that provides supraceliac seal by incorporating 4 visceral and renal arteries via preloaded inner branches.

CASE REPORT

In this article, we describe 2 cases of type 1A endoleak from previous EVAR devices repaired using TAMBE. Both cases were performed under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compassionate use exemption. Considerations on the case planning and implantation techniques of TAMBE specific to previous EVAR devices are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Gore TAMBE can be utilized to repair a type 1A endoleak of a previous infrarenal EVAR device. Greater supraceliac coverage necessary for TAMBE relative to the minimal seal zone should be considered when applying this device for a type 1A endoleak.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This report demonstrates the feasibility of applying off-the-shelf TAMBE device to treat one of the most common failure modes of EVAR, type1A endoleak.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Editor's Choice - The VASCUNExplanT Project: An International Study Assessing Open Surgical Conversion of Failed Non-Infected Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The need for open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) persists, despite expanding endovascular options for secondary intervention. The VASCUNExplanT project collected international data to identify risk factors for failed EVAR, as well as OSC outcomes. This retrospective cross sectional study analysed data after OSC for failed EVAR from the VASCUNET international collaboration.

METHODS

VASCUNET queried registries from its 28 member countries, and 17 collaborated with data from patients who underwent OSC (2005 - 2020). Any OSC for infection was excluded. Data included demographics, EVAR, and OSC procedural details, as well as post-operative mortality and complication rates.

RESULTS

There were 348 OSC patients from 17 centres, of whom 33 (9.4%) were women. There were 130 (37.4%) devices originally deployed outside of instructions for use. The most common indication for OSC was endoleak (n = 143, 41.1%); ruptures accounted for 17.2% of cases. The median time from EVAR to OSC was 48.6 months [IQR 29.7, 71.6]; median abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter at OSC was 70.5 mm [IQR 61, 82]. A total of 160 (45.6%) patients underwent one or more re-interventions prior to OSC, while 63 patients (18.1%) underwent more than one re-intervention (range 1 - 5). Overall, the 30 day mortality rate post-OSC was 11.8% (n = 41), 11.1% for men and 18.2% for women (p = .23). The 30 day mortality rate was 6.1% for elective cases, and 28.3% for ruptures (p < .0001). The predicted 90 day survival for the entire cohort was 88.3% (95% CI 84.3 - 91.3). Multivariable analysis revealed rupture (OR 4.23; 95% CI 2.05 - 8.75; p < .0001) and total graft explantation (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.02 - 4.34; p = .04) as the only statistically significant predictive factors for 30 day death.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis of patients who underwent OSC shows that, despite varying case mix and operative techniques, OSC is feasible but associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates, particularly when performed for rupture.

Renovisceral artery alterations due to branched endovascular aortic repair and respiratory-induced deformations

OBJECTIVE

This study quantified respiratory-induced dynamics of branch vessels before and after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) branched endovascular aneurysm repair (bEVAR).

METHODS

Patients with TAAA were recruited prospectively and treated with bEVAR, predominantly with Zenith t-Branch and BeGraft Peripheral PLUS bridging stents. Using SimVascular software, three-dimensional geometric models of the vessels and implants were constructed from computed tomography angiograms during both inspiratory and expiratory breath-holds, preoperatively and postoperatively. From these models, branch take-off angles, end-stent angles (transition from distal end of stent to native artery), and curvatures were computed. Paired, two-tailed t tests were performed to compare inspiratory vs expiratory geometry and pre- vs postoperative deformations.

RESULTS

We evaluated 52 (12 celiac arteries [CA], 15 superior mesenteric arteries [SMA], and 25 renal arteries [RA]) branched renovisceral vessels with bridging stents in 15 patients. Implantation of bridging stents caused branch take-off angle to shift inferiorly in the SMA (P = .015) and RA (P = .014) and decreased the respiratory-induced branch angle motion in the CA and SMA by approximately 50%. End-stent angle increased from before to after bEVAR for the CA (P = .005), SMA (P = .020), and RA (P < .001); however, respiratory-induced deformation was unchanged. Bridging stents did not experience significant bending owing to respiration.

CONCLUSIONS

The decrease in respiratory-induced deformation of branch take-off angle from before to after bEVAR should decrease the risk of device disengagement and endoleak. The unchanging respiratory-induced end-stent bending, from before to after bEVAR, means that bEVAR maintains native vessel dynamics distal to the bridging stents. This factor minimizes the risk of tissue irritation owing to respiratory cycles, boding well for branch vessel patency. The longer bridging stent paths associated with bEVAR may enable smoother paths subject to less dynamic bending, and potentially lower fatigue risk, compared with fenestrated EVAR.

Outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in patients with or without prior history of abdominal endovascular or open surgical repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

METHODS

The clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis.

RESULTS

There were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis.

Increased Aortic Exclusion in Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

Perioperative risk assessments for complex aneurysms are based on the anatomical extent of the aneurysm and do not take the length of the aortic exclusion into account, as it was developed for open repair. Nevertheless, in the endovascular repair (ER) of complex aortic aneurysms, additional segments of healthy aorta are excluded compared with open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to assess differences in aortic exclusion between the ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms, to subsequently assess the current classification for complex aneurysm repair.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients that underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair by means of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR), fenestrated and branched EVAR (FBEVAR), or branched EVAR (BEVAR). The length of aortic exclusion and the number of patent segmental arteries were determined and compared per case in ER and hypothetical OR, using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were included, who were treated with FEVAR (n = 44), FBEVAR (n = 8), or BEVAR (n = 19) for Crawford types I (n = 5), II (n = 7), III (n = 6), IV (n = 7), and V (n = 2) thoracoabdominal or juxtarenal (n = 44) aneurysms. There was a significant increase in the median exclusion of types I, II, III, IV, and juxtarenal aneurysms (p < 0.05) in ER, compared with hypothetical OR. The number of patent segmental arteries in the ER of type I-IV and juxtarenal aneurysms was significantly lower than in hypothetical OR (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in the length of aortic exclusion between ER and hypothetical OR, with the increased exclusion in ER resulting in a lower number of patent segmental arteries. The ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms should be regarded as distinct modalities, and as each approach deserves a particular risk assessment, future efforts should focus on reporting on the extent of exclusion per treatment modality, to allow for appropriate comparison.

The Effect of Age on Peri-Operative Outcomes after FEVAR

INTRODUCTION

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) has become a popular custom-made treatment option for juxtarenal and pararenal aneurysms. It has been previously investigated whether octogenarians as a distinct subgroup are at increased risk for adverse outcomes after FEVAR. With diverging results and an inconclusive understanding of age as a risk factor in general, an analysis of the historical data of a single center was conducted to add to the available body of evidence and further investigate the effect of age as a continuous risk factor.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of a prospectively maintained single-center database of all patients who underwent FEVAR at a single department of vascular surgery was performed. The main endpoint was post-operative survival. In addition to association analyses, potential confounders such as co-morbidities, complication rates, or aneurysm diameter were examined. In terms of sensitivity analyses, logistic regression models were created for the dependent variables of interest.

RESULTS

During the observation period from April 2013 to November 2020, 40 patients over the age of 80 and 191 patients under the age of 80 were treated by FEVAR. The 30-day survival showed no significant difference between the groups (95.1% in octogenarians and 94.3% in patients under 80 years of age). The sensitivity analyses conducted also showed no difference between the two groups, and complication and technical success rates were comparable. The aneurysm diameter was 67 ± 13 mm in the study group and 61 ± 15 mm in those under 80 years of age. Additionally, the sensitivity analyses showed that age as a continuous variable exhibits no effect on the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, age was not associated with adverse peri-operative outcomes after FEVAR, including mortality, lower technical success rates, complications, or length of hospital stay. Essentially, the most highly associated factor with hospital and ICU length of stay was time spent in surgery. However, octogenarians had a significantly larger aortic diameter at the time of treatment, which might indicate the potential introduction of bias by pre-interventional patient selection. Nevertheless, the usefulness of research on octogenarians as a distinct subgroup might be questionable regarding the scalability of results, and future studies might focus on age as a continuous risk factor instead.

Systematic review of reintervention with fenestrated or branched devices after failed previous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

A proximal seal extension, after previously failed standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been described using various endovascular techniques. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up for patients managed with endovascular methods after failed endovascular repair.

METHODS

The present systematic review followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement and was preregistered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42022350436). A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until June 15, 2022, was performed. Observational studies (2000-2022) and case series with at least five patients who had undergone fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) after failed EVAR were considered eligible. Technical success and mortality at 30 days and the mortality and reintervention rates during available follow-up had to have been reported. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was technical success and mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 2558 reports. Ten studies were considered eligible, two of which were prospective. A total of 423 patients had undergone F/BEVAR after failed EVAR. The indication for reintervention was the presence of a type Ia endoleak in 44.9%. Technical success was reported in seven studies, and 319 of 336 interventions were considered successful (94.9%), according to each study's criteria. Of the 423 patients, 10 had died within 30 days (2.4%). Seven patients had presented with spinal cord ischemia (2.4%). Twenty-three acute kidney injury events were reported (6.8%). The mean follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-77 months). During follow-up, 47 deaths were reported (14.8%). Finally, 50 reinterventions of 303 procedures (16.5%) had been performed.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after failed EVAR can be performed with high technical success and low mortality during the perioperative period. The midterm mortality and reintervention rates were acceptable. However, further data are needed to provide firm conclusions regarding the safety and durability of F/BEVAR after failed EVAR.

Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) is technically more challenging when performed after a failing EVAR procedure (FEVAR after EVAR). This study aims to assess the technical outcome of FEVAR after EVAR and to identify factors that may influence complication rates.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single department of vascular and endovascular surgery. The rate of FEVAR after EVAR compared to primary FEVAR is reported. Complication and primary unconnected fenestration (PUF) rates as well as survival were assessed for the FEVAR after EVAR cohort. PUF rates and operating time were also compared to all primary FEVAR patients. Patient characteristics and technical factors such as number of fenestrations or use of a steerable sheath were assessed as possible influencers on technical success when performing FEVAR after EVAR.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine fenestrated devices were implanted during the study period (2013 to April 2020). Thirty-five patients (16.7% of all FEVAR patients) had undergone FEVAR after EVAR and were included in the study. Overall survival at last follow-up (20.2±19.1 months) was 82.9% in FEVAR after EVAR patients. Rates of technical failure dropped significantly after 14 procedures (42.9% vs. 9.5%; p=0.03). Primary unconnected fenestrations were seen in 3 cases of FEVAR after EVAR (8.6%) and 14 of 174 primary FEVAR cases (8.0%; p>0.99). Operating time for FEVAR after EVAR was significantly higher than for primary FEVAR (301.1±110.5 minutes vs. 253.9±103.4 minutes; p=0.02). The availability of a steerable sheath was a significant predictor of reduced risk of PUFs, whereas age and gender, number of fenestrations or suprarenal fixation of the failed EVAR did not significantly influence PUF rates.

CONCLUSION

Fewer technical complications were seen over the study period in FEVAR after EVAR patients. While rates of PUFs were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR can be a valuable and safe tool to treat patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR but may be more complex to achieve than primary FEVAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This retrospective study assesses the technical outcome of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fenestrated EVAR; FEVAR) after prior EVAR. While rates of primary unconnected fenestrations were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR after prior EVAR may be technically more challenging than primary FEVAR procedures, but could be performed with equally good results in this patient cohort. FEVAR offers a feasible treatment option for patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR.

Predictors and Outcomes of Spinal Cord Injury following Complex Branched/Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair in the US Aortic Research Consortium

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a well-known complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair and is associated with profound morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe predictors for the development of SCI, as well as outcomes for patients who develop SCI, after branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in a large cohort of centers with adjudicated physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies.

METHODS

We utilized a pooled dataset from 9 United States Aortic Research Consortium (US ARC) centers involved in investigational device exemption (IDE) trials for treatment of suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. SCI was defined as new transient weakness (paraparesis) or permanent paraplegia after repair without other potential neurologic etiologies. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of SCI, and life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier methodology were used to evaluate survival differences.

RESULTS

A total of 1,681 patients underwent FB-EVAR over the period 2005-2020. The overall rate of SCI was 7.1% (3% transient and 4.1% permanent). Predictors of SCI on multivariable analysis were Crawford Extent I, II, and III distribution of aortic disease (OR 4.79 95% CI 4.77- 4.81, P<.001), age ≥70 (OR 1.64, 95% CI, 1.63-1.64, P=.029), packed red blood cell transfusion (OR 2.00, 95% CI, 1.99-2.00, P=.001), and history of PVD (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.64-1.65, P=.034). Median survival was significantly worse for patients with any degree of SCI compared to those without SCI (any SCI - 40.4 vs no SCI - 60.3 months, Log Rank <.001), and also worse in those with a permanent deficit (24.1 months) vs. those with a transient deficit (62.4 months) (Log Rank <0.001). One year survival for patients who developed no SCI was 90.8%, compared to 73.9% in patients who developed any SCI. When stratified by degree of deficit, survival was 84.8% at one year for those who developed paraparesis, and 66.2% for those who developed permanent deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rates of any SCI at 7.1% and permanent deficit at 4.1% observed in this study compare favorably to those reported in contemporary literature. Our findings confirm that increased length of aortic disease is associated with SCI and those with Crawford Extent I-III TAAAs are at highest risk. The long-term impact on patient mortality underscores the importance of preventive measures and rapid implementation of rescue protocols if and when deficits develop.

Endovascular repair of intercostal and visceral aortic patch aneurysms following open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

Reoperative open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) for the treatment of intercostal or visceral aortic patch aneurysms after OSR of TAAAs.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients treated at 8 academic centers by F-BEVAR for visceral and intercostal aortic patch aneurysms after OSR of TAAAs (2011-2019). All patients had involvement of at least one target vessel requiring incorporation by a fenestration or directional branch. End points were technical success, 30-day and/in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, patient survival, target vessel patency/instability, and freedom from reintervention.

RESULTS

There were 29 patients with a median age of 70 (interquartile range, 63-74) years. Seven patients (24%) had connective tissue disorders. Technical success was 100%. There were no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. Major adverse events occurred in 5 patients (17%), including estimated blood loss >1 L in 3 patients (10%), acute kidney injury and respiratory failure in 2 patients (7%) each, and transient paraparesis in 1 patient (3%). Median follow-up was 14 (interquartile range, 7-37) months. At 2 years, primary and secondary patency, freedom from target artery instability, freedom from reintervention, and patient survival were 95%, 100%, 83%, 61%, and 96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR could be considered as an alternative to reoperative OSR in patients with visceral or intercostal aortic patch aneurysms. This series showed no mortality and a low rate of major adverse events, but a significant need for reintervention.

Clinical presentation, operative management, and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II).

RESULTS

Of 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

LAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.

Open Repair of a Complicated Late Endoleak Induced by Another Endoleak

A 66-year-old man had an enlarging aortic aneurysm sac after an endovascular aortic replacement procedure that had been performed at another institution 4 years previously; it was without any endoleak but was complicated by the occlusion of the left limb, requiring cross-femoral bypass. Current computed tomography revealed dilatation of the proximal neck and the right common iliac artery. A type Ib endoleak was found from the distal end of the right limb of the endograft, possibly secondary to the dilatation of the artery around it; it then pressurized and caused the dilatation of the juxtarenal aorta around the proximal landing zone and induced a concomitant type Ia endoleak. The patient was operated on owing to the risk of rupture. Pelvic ischemia was a concern during decision-making. The patient underwent removal of the endograft and replacement of a bifurcated aortoiliac and femoral graft with good outcome. Midline laparotomy and a supraceliac clamping approach enable the removal of endografts with suprarenal fixation and revascularization of internal iliac arteries. Open repair offers a definitive solution for complicated endoleaks when endovascular options could be risky and ineffective.

Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair After a Migrated EVAR Bypassing a Severely Kinked Previous Endograft

PURPOSE

To describe a novel technique to repair a juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with severely kinked anatomy.

TECHNIQUE

We present a patient who underwent an EVAR with a Medtronic Talent device 15 years ago and a proximal cuff extension 3 years earlier for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Computed tomography (CT) done for a known gastritis showed a 12 cm JAAA, with a migrated endograft and a type Ia endoleak (EL). Endovascular repair was performed, accessing and navigating the aneurysmal sac outside the previous graft. The type I EL was reached and the suprarenal aorta catheterized. A 4-vessel inner-branched EVAR device was deployed in the distal thoracic aorta and their target vessels bridged through femoral access. A distal bifurcated component was deployed and both iliac limbs were extended to the native distal iliac arteries. Completion angiogram as well as early and 12-month CT showed a fully patent straight course branched EVAR with no ELs.

CONCLUSION

Complex aortic reinterventions in the presence of previous EVAR can be performed by choosing a straighter course along and parallel to the previous endograft. Several technical aspects must be considered to successfully perform this type of reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

We present a technique of a complex endovascular aortic repair in a failed EVAR with kinked anatomy, navigating through the thrombosed aneurysmal sac, outside the previously placed endograft and thus obtaining a straighter path for a new branched endograft. The novelty lies in a different approach to repair a failed EVAR with a branched graft through an uncommon access on the side of the previous endograft, avoiding repeated displacement or occlusion of the new endograft. We exemplify the feasibility of such a complex procedure and highlight important steps to perform it, whether in the abdominal or even thoracic Aorta.

A Single Center Review of a Total Transfemoral Approach to Upper Extremity Access in Branched and Fenestrated Physician Modified Endografts

BACKGROUND

Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.

Peri-Operative Management of Patients Undergoing Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Juxtarenal, Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Preventing, Recognizing and Treating Complications to Improve Clinical Outcomes

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient's quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Rescue of Failed Aortic Repair with Fenestrated Endovascular Device

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of failed endovascular (EVAR) and open repair (OR) is increasing. Redo aortic repair is required in 10% of patients. Extension of the proximal sealing zone above the visceral arteries to adequate, healthier thoracic aorta using a fenestrated graft (FEVAR) can rescue a failing repair. A custom-made device can treat proximal type 1A endoleaks or proximal dilatation post endovascular or open repair, respectively. The aim of this investigation was to present a single-centre experience with FEVAR for patients with a failing aortic repair.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of FEVAR patients treated with a Zenithࣨ Fenestrated endovascular (ZFEN) device (Cook Medical LLC, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) was interrogated for individuals who had the device implanted as a rescue therapy after prior endovascular (EVAR) or open repair (OR). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v 25 software.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2019, 17 ZFEN devices were implanted. Ten patients had a type 1A endoleak from a prior EVAR and seven patients had proximal disease progression after prior OR. There were 12 males and 5 females, median age of 75 (interquartile range, IQR 7). 76.4% (n=13) of patients had an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade of 3. Primary technical success was 70.5% (n=12). Of the remainder, four cases (24%) had a type III endoleak at completion angiogram; of which, two patients (12%) required re-intervention within 30 days. One further case (6%) had primary assisted technical success as stenting of a flow limiting dissection flap in an iliac vessel was required. Peri-operative rate of deployment related complications and systemic complications were 5.8% (n=1) and 35% (n=6), respectively. Median length of hospital stay was 11 days (IQR 11). There was no mortality within the study follow up. Overall thirty-day re-intervention rate was 23.5%. Overall survival was 92% at one year.

CONCLUSION

FEVAR is a safe but technically challenging option for rescue of failing aortic repairs. These are a high risk group of patients and this is reflected in the high post-operative morbidity rate. Technical success was high and 30-day mortality was low.

Comparison of Early and Mid-Term Outcomes After Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With or Without Prior Infrarenal Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (F-BEVAR) of pararenal (PRAA)/thoracoabdominal (TAAA) aortic aneurysms in patients with or without prior endovascular/open (EVAR/OAR) infrarenal aortic repair.

METHODS

Data from consecutive F-BEVAR (2010-2019) at two high-volume aortic centers were retrospectively reviewed. Primary endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, and overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 30-day major adverse events (MAE), freedom from type I/III endoleaks, reinterventions, sac expansion, and target vessel (TV) primary patency.

RESULTS

A total of 222 consecutive patients were included for analysis; of these 58 (26.1%) had prior infrarenal repair (EVAR=33, OAR=25) and 164 (73.9%) had native PRAA/TAAA. At baseline, patients with prior infrarenal repair were older (mean age=75.1 vs 71.6 years, p=.005) and the proportion of females was lower (8.6% vs 29.3%, p=.002). Technical success was 97.8% (n=217) in the entire cohort, without any significant differences between study groups (94.8% vs 98.8%, p=.08). At 30 days, there were no significant differences between patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those without in rate of MAE (44.8% vs 54.9%, p=.59). The 5-year estimate of survival for those who underwent native aortic repair was 61.6%, versus 61.3% for those who had a previous repair (p=.67). The 5-year freedom from endoleaks I/III estimates were significantly lower in patients who had prior infrarenal repair as compared with patients undergoing treatment of native aneurysms (57.1% vs 66.1%, p=.03), mainly owing to TV-related endoleaks (ie, type IC and/or IIIC endoleaks). No significant differences were found between study groups in rates of reinterventions and TV primary patency. Five-year estimates of freedom from sac increase >5mm were significantly lower in patients who received F-BEVAR after previous infrarenal repair as compared with those who underwent treatment of native aneurysms (48.6% vs 77.5%, p=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR is equally safe and feasible for treatment of patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those undergoing treatment for native aneurysms. Increased rates of TV-related endoleaks were observed which could lead to lower freedom from aneurysm sac shrinkage during follow-up. Nevertheless, the 5-year rates of reinterventions and TV patency were similar, thereby indicating that overall effectiveness of treatment remained satisfactory at mid-term.

Multi-staged endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms by fenestrated and branched endografts

AIM

To report outcomes of a multi-staged approach for endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) by fenestrated/branched endografting (F/B-EVAR).

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2020 (June), patients undergoing F/B-EVAR for TAAAs were collected. Data of cases managed by a multi-staged approach, to reduce the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI), were retrospectively analyzed and reported in a cohort study. Thirty-day mortality and SCI were assessed as study's outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients underwent TAAAs repair by F/B-EVAR. A multi-staged approach was applied in 73(53%) cases, more frequently for Crawford's extent I-III (60/78) compared with IV (13/59) (P: <.0001). A complete TAAAs exclusion was achieved in 2, 3 or 4 steps in 64(88%), 8(11%) and 1(1%) cases, respectively, within the same hospitalization in 68(93%) cases. The mean time between first and last step was 16±8days, with a mean hospital stay of 21±12days. In 3(4%) cases the complete TAAA repair was not achieved due to inter-steps mortality (2) or permanent paraplegia (1). There were no cases of aortic rupture or target visceral vessels occlusions between the different steps. Seven (10%) patients suffered postoperative SCI with 2(4%) cases of permanent paraplegia. In 5/7 cases SCI occurred after the first stage; in 3/5 cases TAAAs exclusion was successfully completed with total SCI recovery. The 30-day mortality was 4% (3/73).

CONCLUSION

A multi-staged endovascular repair with F/B-EVAR can be safely performed for TAAAs repair. The majority of cases can be treated within a single, long hospitalization. The cost/effectiveness of the prolonged in-hospital time should be evaluated.

Impact of proximal neck anatomy on short-term and mid-term outcomes after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with new-generation low-profile endografts. Results from the multicentric "ITAlian north-east registry of ENDOvascular aortic repair with the BOltOn Treo endograft (ITA-ENDOBOOT)"

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate the short-term and mid-term technical and clinical outcomes of the Bolton Treo endograft in subjects with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) requiring endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and assess if presence of hostile proximal neck would represent a risk factor for increased failure rates.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients who had undergone elective or non-elective EVAR with the Bolton Treo endograft at five institutions located in the North-East of Italy (January 2016-December 2020) was performed. The main exposure variable for this study was presence of hostile (HAN) or friendly (FAN) aortic neck.

RESULTS

A total of 137 consecutive patients were treated with the Bolton Treo endograft at participating institutions; of these 63 (46%) presented HAN while 74 (54%) had FAN. At baseline, no significant differences were observed in the distribution of demographics and comorbidities between study groups. Two type Ia endoleaks (EL) were detected at completion angiography, all in patients with HAN but none in patients with FAN (3% vs 0%, p=.04), but no type III EL were identified in the whole cohort. The median duration of follow-up in the study cohort was 30 months (IQR 22-34 months) and was similar between study groups (p=.87). At three-years, survival estimates were 89% and 91% (p=.82) in patients with HAN and FAN, respectively. At three years, patients with HAN had significantly lower freedom from type IA endoleak as compared with patients with FAN (87% vs 94%, p=.02). No significant differences were found between study groups in the three-year estimates of freedom from reinterventions (80% vs 86%, p=.28). Using cox proportional hazards, presence of type II EL (HR 3.15, 95%CI 1.18-8.5, p=.02) and presence of type IA EL (HR 4.22, 95%CI 1.39-12.85, p=.01) were found as independent predictors for reinterventions in univariate analysis, although they were no longer significant in the multivariate model. Freedom from sac increase >5mm at three years were not significantly different between study groups (92% vs 91%, p=.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a contemporary multicentric real-world experience, EVAR with the Bolton Treo endograft shows a satisfactory safety profile in the immediate postoperative phase and acceptable outcomes during mid-term follow-up. Presence of HAN is correlated with development of type Ia EL (either early following stent-graft implantation or late after EVAR) which, in turn, may represent a significant factor leading to reinterventions.

Fenestrated-Branch Endovascular Repair After Prior Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcome of fenestrated and branch endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR-BEVAR) for asymptomatic and acute symptomatic proximal aortic pathology in patients with prior open (OSR) or endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

This was a single centre retrospective study of consecutive patients with non-ruptured (asymptomatic and acute symptomatic) proximal aortic pathology after prior OSR or EVAR treated between December 2007 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30 day/in hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were technical success, primary clinical success, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The effect of covariates on medium term survival was estimated using multivariable (Cox proportional hazards model) analysis. A p value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients (83 men; median age 75 years [IQR 71 - 80 years]; median diameter 73 mm [IQR 64 - 89 mm]; 82 elective, 10 acute) underwent FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR (n = 47) or EVAR (n = 45). Indications for intervention were aneurysmal degeneration with or without type 1a endoleak (n = 57; four juxtarenal [JR] AAA, 21 extent II/III, 32 extent IV thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms); type 1a endoleak alone (n = 27) and to create a more durable repair after acute infrarenal EVAR (n = 8; JRAAA). In total, 348 renovisceral vessels were targeted for preservation and 324 were stent grafted. Twenty-four unstented vessels comprised one bypass, 11 scallops and six fenestrations intentionally not stent grafted, two vessels occluded before graft implantation, and four vessels occluded intra-operatively. Primary technical success was 95.6%. The thirty day mortality rate was 1.1% and one patient each (1.1%) required permanent dialysis or developed temporary spinal cord ischaemia. Early primary clinical success was 94.6%. Median follow up was 36 months (IQR 23 - 64 months). Estimated overall survival (± standard error) at one, two, and three years was 86% ± 4%, 85% ± 4%, and 70% ± 5%, respectively. Multivariable analysis did not demonstrate any independent predictors of survival. Four target vessels occluded during follow up. Nineteen patients underwent 28 late re-interventions, with almost half performed for issues arising distal to the FEVAR-BEVAR. Patients treated with a cuff were statistically significantly more likely to require distal re-intervention compared with those treated by relining (9/49 vs. 1/43, p = .018 [odds ratio 9.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2 - 423]). In patients with prior EVAR alone, this did not reach statistical significance (cuff 7/25 vs. relining 1/20, p = .059 [odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8 - 350]). Estimated freedom from re-intervention at one, two, and three years was 88% ± 3%, 81% ± 4%, and 81% ± 4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR or EVAR is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and mortality, and acceptable medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Treatment with a FEVAR-BEVAR cuff is associated with a higher requirement for distal re-intervention than relining of the original repair.

Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts After Failed Endovascular Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Type Ia Endoleak

OBJECTIVE

Failed endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to development of late type Ia endoleak exposes patients to the risk of rupture and should be treated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for treatment of failed EVAR with type Ia endoleak.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, a prospective multicentre study was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04532450) that included 85 consecutive patients who had undergone F/BEVAR to treat a type Ia endoleak following EVAR. The primary outcome was overall freedom from any re-intervention or death related to the F/BEVAR procedure.

RESULTS

In 30 cases (35%) EVAR was associated with a short < 10 mm or angulated (> 60°) infrarenal aortic neck, poor placement of the initial stent graft (n = 3, 4%), sizing error (n = 2, 2%), and/or stent graft migration (n = 7, 8%). Type Ia endoleak was observed after a period of 59 ± 25 months following EVAR. The authors performed 82 FEVAR (96%) and three BEVAR (4%) procedures with revascularisation of 305 target arteries. Overall technical success was 94%, with three failures including one persistent Type Ia endoleak and two unsuccessful stent graft implantations. Intra-operative target artery revascularisation was successful in 303 of 305 attempts. The in hospital mortality rate was 5%. Cardiac, renal and pulmonary complications occurred in 6%, 14%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Post-operative spinal cord ischaemia occurred in four patients (4.7%). At three years, the survival rate was 64% with overall freedom from any re-intervention or aneurysm related death of 40%, and freedom from specific F/BEVAR re-intervention of 73%. At three years, the secondary patency rate of the target visceral arteries was 96%. During follow up, 27 patients (33%) required a revision procedure of the fenestrated (n = 11) or index EVAR stent graft (n = 16), including six open conversions.

CONCLUSION

While manufactured F/BEVAR was effective in treating type Ia endoleak in patients with failed EVAR, it was at the cost of a number of secondary endovascular and open surgical procedures.

Early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair from the "Italian North-easT RegIstry of surgical Conversion AfTer Evar" (INTRICATE)

OBJECTIVE

To report the early and mid-term outcomes following open surgical conversion (OSC) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using data from a multicentric registry.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on consecutive patients undergoing OSC after failed EVAR at eight tertiary vascular units from the same geographic area in the North-East of Italy, from April 2005 to November 2019. Study endpoints included early and follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

144 consecutive patients were included in the study. Endoleaks were the most common indication for OSC (50.7%), with endograft infection (24.6%) and occlusion (21.9%) being the second most prevalent causes. The overall rate of 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.9% (n=20); 32 patients (22.2%) experienced at least one major complication. Mean length of stay (LoS) was 13 ± 12.7 days. On multivariate logistic regression, age (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1-19, p= .02), renal clamping time (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p= .01), and suprarenal/celiac clamping (OR 6.66, 95% CI 1.81-27.1, p= .005) were identified as independent predictors of peri-operative major complications. Age was the only factor associated with peri-operative mortality at 30 days. Renal clamping time > 25 minutes had sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 70% in predicting the occurring of major adverse events (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.82). At 5 years, estimated survival was significantly lower for patients treated due to aortic rupture/dissection (28%, 95% CI 13-61), compared to patients in whom the indication for treatment was endoleak (54%, 95% CI 40-73), infection (53%, 95% CI 30-94), or thrombosis (82%, 95% CI 62-100; p= .0019). 5-year survival rates were significantly lower in patients who received emergent treatment (28%, 95% CI 14-55) as compared with those who were treated in urgent (67%, 95% CI 48-93) or elective setting (57%, 95% CI 43-76; p= .00026). Subjects who received suprarenal/celiac (54%, 95% CI 36-82) or suprarenal (46%, 95% CI 34-62) aortic cross-clamping had lower survival rates at 5 years than those whose aortic-cross clamp site was infrarenal (76%, 95% CI 59-97; p= .041). Using multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard, older age and emergency setting were independently associate with higher risk for overall 5 years mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

OSC after failed EVAR was associated with relatively high rates of early morbidity and mortality, particularly for emergency setting surgery. Endoleaks with secondary sac expansion were the main indication for OSC and suprarenal aortic cross-clamping was frequently required. Endograft infection and emergent treatment remained associated with poorer short-term and long-term survival.

A Novel Solution to Concomitant Type Ia/Type IIIa Endoleak Using the Cook Zenith Fenestrated Device and Endologix AFX®2

Failing EVAR is typically treated with open explant or conversion to fenestrated endovascular repair. Novel solutions for EVAR salvage may be required in patients unable to tolerate explant or travel to centers with custom-fenestrated capabilities. However, strategies utilizing commercially available devices are often limited by anatomic constraints such as short renal artery to endograft bifurcation length. We present a case of progressive sac expansion due to late, concomitant type Ia and type IIIa endoleaks. The patient was successfully treated by proximal extension into the visceral segment using a Cook Zenith Fenestrated device and graft relining using the Endologix AFX^®2.

Repair of a late endoleak following complete proximal endograft fixation strut separation

Introduced as an alternative endograft for those with unfavorable anatomy, bare metal suprarenal fixation barbs have been widely used for endovascular abdominal aortic repair. Type I endoleaks result in continued perfusion of the aneurysm sac and warrant prompt reintervention. We describe an unusual presentation and endovascular management of a late type IA endoleak secondary to complete separation of the suprarenal fixation struts in a Cook endograft after an uncomplicated, emergent infrarenal endovascular abdominal aortic repair 5 years earlier.

Sex-related outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the U.S. Fenestrated and Branched Aortic Research Consortium

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FBEVAR) has expanded the treatment of patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Previous studies have demonstrated that women are less likely to be treated with standard infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair because of anatomic ineligibility and experience greater mortality after both infrarenal and thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. The purpose of the present study was to describe the sex-related outcomes after FBEVAR for treatment of TAAAs.

METHODS

The data from 886 patients with extent I to IV TAAAs (excluding pararenal or juxtarenal aneurysms), enrolled in eight prospective, physician-sponsored, investigational device exemption studies from 2013 to 2019, were analyzed. All data were collected prospectively, audited and adjudicated by clinical events committees and/or data safety monitoring boards, and subject to Food and Drug Administration oversight. All the patients had been treated with Cook-manufactured patient-specific FBEVAR devices or the Cook t-Branch off-the-shelf device (Cook Medical, Brisbane, Australia).

RESULTS

Of the 886 patients who underwent FBEVAR, 288 (33%) were women. The women had more extensive aneurysms and a greater prevalence of diabetes (33% vs 26%; P = .043) but a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (33% vs 52%; P < .0001) and previous infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (7.6% vs 16%; P < .001). The women had required a longer operative time from incision to surgery end (5.0 ± 1.8 hours vs 4.6 ± 1.7 hours; P < .001), experienced lower technical success (93% vs 98%; P = .002), and were less likely to be discharged to home (72% vs 83%; P = .009). Despite the smaller access vessels, the women did not have an increased incidence of access site complications. Also, the 30-day outcomes were broadly similar between the sexes. At 1 year, no differences were found between the women and men in freedom from type I or III endoleak (91.4% vs 92.0%; P = .64), freedom from reintervention (81.7% vs 85.3%; P = .10), target vessel instability (87.5% vs 89.2%; P = .31), and survival (89.6% vs 91.7%; P = .26). The women had a greater incidence of postoperative sac expansion (12% vs 6.5%; P = .006). Multivariable modeling adjusted for age, aneurysm extent, aneurysm size, urgent procedure, and renal function showed that patient sex was not an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.37; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing FBEVAR demonstrated metrics of increased complexity and had a lower level of technical success, especially those with extensive aneurysms. Compared with the men, the women had similar 30-day mortality and 1-year outcomes, with the exception of an increased incidence of sac expansion. These data have demonstrated that FBEVAR is safe and effective for women and men but that further efforts to improve outcome parity are indicated.

Respiratory-induced changes in renovisceral branch vessel morphology after fenestrated thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair with the BeGraft balloon-expandable covered stent

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the respiratory-induced changes in branch vessel geometry after thoracoabdominal fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) with the Bentley BeGraft graft (Innomed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany) as the covered bridging stent.

METHODS

Patients treated with fEVAR for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with a custom-made Zenith fenestrated endograft (Cook Medical Europe Ltd, Limerick, Ireland) and Bentley BeGraft peripheral stents were prospectively recruited. Using SimVascular software (Open-Source Medical Software Corp, San Diego, CA), the pre- and postoperative aortic and branch contours were segmented from computed tomography angiograms performed during inspiratory and expiratory breath-holds. The centerlines were extracted from the lumen contours, from which the branch take-off angles, distal stent angles, and peak branch curvature changes were computed. Paired, two-tailed t tests were performed to compare the pre- and postoperative deformations.

RESULTS

Renovisceral vessel geometry was evaluated in 12 patients undergoing fEVAR with a total of 46 target vessels (10 celiac arteries, 12 superior mesenteric arteries [SMAs], 24 renal arteries). Implantation of BeGraft bridging stents was associated with a significant reduction in respiration-induced changes in vessel branch angulation (Δ5.3° ± 3.9° vs Δ12.0° ± 8.3° [postoperative vs preoperative]; P = .001) and mean curvature (0.72 ± 0.22 cm^-1 vs 0.53 ± 0.18 cm^-1) in the renal arteries, without significant changes in the celiac arteries or SMAs. No significant difference was found in end-stent angle motion in the renal arteries (P = .77), celiac arteries (P = .34), or SMAs (P = .55). The maximum local vessel curvature change decreased after fEVAR in the SMAs (Δ0.28 cm^-1 vs Δ0.47 cm^-1; P = .04) but was unchanged in the celiac (P = .61) and renal (P = .51) arteries.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the BeGraft as a bridging stent in fEVAR was associated with decreased respiratory-induced deformation in the renal branch take-off angulation and mean renal artery curvature, with reduced maximum curvature bending in the SMA compared with the preoperative anatomy. However, the BeGraft allowed for celiac and renal artery bending similar to that in the native preoperative state. These findings suggest that the use of BeGraft peripheral stents with fEVAR will closely mimic the native arterial branch geometry and vessel conformability caused by relatively aggressive respiratory motion.

Effect of obesity on radiation exposure, quality of life scores, and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of obesity on procedural metrics, radiation exposure, quality of life (QOL), and clinical outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from 334 patients (236 men; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2019. The patients were classified using the body mass index (BMI) as obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) or nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m²). QOL questionnaires (short-form 36-item questionnaire) and imaging studies were obtained preoperatively and at 2 months and 6 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. The procedures were performed using two different fixed imaging systems. The end points included procedural metrics (ie, total operative time, fluoroscopic time, contrast volume), radiation exposure, technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events, QOL changes, freedom from target vessel instability, freedom from reintervention, and patient survival.

RESULTS

The aneurysm extent was a pararenal aortic aneurysm in 117 patients (35%) and a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in 217 patients (65%). Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia and diabetes among the obese patients (P < .05). No significant differences were found in the procedural metrics or intraprocedural complications between the groups, except that the obese patients had greater radiation exposure than the nonobese patients (mean, 2.5 vs 1.6 Gy; P < .001), with the highest radiation exposure in those obese patients who had undergone the procedure using system 1 (fusion alone) instead of system 2 (fusion and digital zoom; mean, 4.1 vs 1.5 Gy; P < .001). Three patients had died within 30 days (0.8%), with no difference in mortality or major adverse events between the groups. The mental QOL scores had improved in the obese group at 2 and 12 months compared with the nonobese patients, with persistently higher scores up to 3 years. At 3 years, the obese and nonobese patients had a similar incidence of freedom from target vessel instability (74% ± 6% vs 80% ± 3%; P = .99, log-rank test), freedom from reintervention (66% ± 6% vs 73% ± 4%; P = .77, log-rank test), and patient survival (83% ± 5% vs 75% ± 4%; P = .16, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity, with no significant differences between the obese and nonobese patients. The procedural metrics and outcomes were similar, with the exception of greater radiation exposure among obese patients, especially for the procedures performed using system 1 with fusion alone compared with system 2 (fusion and digital zoom). Obese patients had higher QOL mental scores at 2 and 12 months, with a similar reintervention rate, target vessel outcomes, and survival compared with nonobese patients.