Incidence, predictive factors, and outcomes of intraprocedure adverse events during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Prospective evaluation of upper extremity access and total transfemoral approach during fenestrated and branched endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE

Total transfemoral (TF) access has been increasingly used during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR). However, it is unclear whether the potential decrease in the risk of cerebrovascular events is offset by increased procedural difficulties and other complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of FB-EVAR using a TF vs upper extremity (UE) approach for target artery incorporation.

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial in two centers to investigate the use of FB-EVAR for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) between 2013 and 2022. Patients were classified into TF or UE access group with a subset analysis of patients treated using designs with directional branches. End points were technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day cerebrovascular events defined as stroke or transient ischemic attack, and any major adverse events (MAEs).

RESULTS

There were 541 patients (70% males; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 2107 renal-mesenteric TAs incorporated. TF was used in175 patients (32%) and UE in 366 patients (68%) including 146 (83%) TF and 314 (86%) UE access patients who had four or more TAs incorporated. The use of a TF approach increased from 8% between 2013 and 2017 to 31% between 2018 and 2020 and 96% between 2021 and 2022. Compared with UE access patients, TF access patients were more likely to have CAAAs (37% vs 24%; P = .002) as opposed to TAAAs. Technical success rate was 96% in both groups (P = .96). The use of the TF approach was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time and procedural time (each P < .05). The 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% for TF and 1.4% for UE (P = .67). There was no early cerebrovascular event in the TF group, but the incidence was 2.7% for UE patients (P = .035). The incidence of MAEs was also lower in the TF group (9% vs 18%; P = .006). Among 237 patients treated using devices with directional branches, there were no significant differences in outcomes except for a reduced procedural time for TF compared with UE access patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

TF access was associated with a decreased incidence of early cerebrovascular events and MAEs compared with UE access for target artery incorporation. Procedural time was decreased in TF access patients irrespective of the type of stent graft design.

Brazilian Society for Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, through the Guidelines Project, presents new Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines, on the subject of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Its development prioritized descriptive guidelines, using the EMBASE, LILACS, and PubMed databases. References include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated by a pair of coordinators, aided by the RoB 2 Cochrane tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale forms. The subjects include juxtarenal aneurysms, infected aneurysms, and new therapeutic techniques, especially endovascular procedures. The current version of the guidelines include important recommendations for the primary topics involving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients, providing an objective guide for medical practice, based on scientific evidence and widely available throughout Brazil.

Outcome Analysis Comparing Asymptomatic Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms Treated with Custom-Manufactured Fenestrated-Branched Devices and the "Off-The-Shelf" Zenith p-Branch Device

BACKGROUND

Numerous endovascular options have been used for the repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JRAAs) over the last 15 years. This study aims to compare the performance between the Zenith p-branch device and custom-manufactured fenestrated-branched devices (CMD) for the treatment of asymptomatic JRAA.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Patients with a diagnosis of JRAA submitted to endovascular repair between July 2012 and November 2021 were included in the study, being divided into 2 groups: CMD and Zenith p-branch. The following variables were analyzed: preoperative information: demographics, comorbidities, and maximum aneurysm diameter; procedural data: contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, estimated blood loss, and technical success; and postoperative data: 30-day mortality, duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay, major adverse events, secondary interventions, target vessel instability, and long-term survival.

RESULTS

From a total of 373 physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (Cook Medical devices) cases performed at our institution, 102 patients presented the diagnosis of JRAA. Of these, 14 patients were treated with the p-branch device (13.7%) and 88 (86.3%) with a CMD. Both groups presented similar demographic composition and maximum aneurysm diameter. All devices were successfully deployed, with no type I or III endoleaks observed at procedure completion. The contrast volume (P = 0.023) and radiation dose (P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the p-branch group. No significant difference was observed between the groups for the remaining intraoperative data. No paraplegia or ischemic colitis has been observed during the first 30 days after the surgical procedures. There was no 30-day mortality in either group. One major cardiac adverse event was registered in the CMD group. Early outcomes were similar in both groups. No significant difference was found between the groups with respect to the presence of type I or III endoleaks during the follow-up. From a total of 313 target vessels stented in the CMD group (mean of 3.55 per patient) and 56 in the p-branch group (mean of 4 per patient), 4.79% and 5.35% presented instability, respectively, with no difference observed between the groups (P = 0.743). Secondary interventions were required in 36.4% of the CMD cases and 50% of the p-branch group, but this was not statistically different (P = 0.382). In the p-branch cohort, 2 of 7 reinterventions (28.5%) were target vessel-related and in the CMD group, 10 of 32 secondary interventions (31.2%) were target vessel-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable perioperative outcomes were obtained when appropriately selected patients were treated with either the off-the-shelf p-branch or CMD for JRAA. The long-term target vessel instability does not appear impacted by the presence of pivot fenestrations in comparison to other target vessel configurations. Given these outcomes, delay in CMD production time should be considered when treating patients with large juxtarenal aneurysms.

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.

Intraoperative complications during standard and complex endovascular aortic repair

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques.

Emergent endovascular treatment options for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

For a long time, parallel grafting, physician-modified endografts, and, more recently, in situ fenestration were the only go-to endovascular options for ruptured thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, offered mixed results, and depended mainly on the operator's and center's experience. As custom-made devices have become an established endovascular treatment option for elective thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, they are not a viable option in the emergency setting, as endograft production can take up to 4 months. The development of off-the-shelf (OTS) multibranched devices with a standardized configuration has allowed the treatment of ruptured thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm with emergent branched endovascular procedures. The Zenith t-Branch device (Cook Medical) was the first readily available graft outside the United States to receive the CE mark (in 2012) and is currently the most studied device for those indications. A new device, the E-nside thoracoabdominal branch endoprosthesis OTS multibranched endograft (Artivion), has been made commercially available, and the GORE EXCLUDER thoracoabdominal branch endoprosthesis OTS multibranched endograft (W. L. Gore and Associates) is expected to be released in 2023. Due to the lack of guidelines on ruptured thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, this review summarizes the available treatment options (ie, parallel grafts, physician-modified endografts, in situ fenestrations, and OTS multibranched devices), compares the indications and contraindications, and points out the evidence gaps that should be filled in the next decade.

Five-year outcomes of physician-modified endografts for repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

There is paucity of data on the durability of physician modified endografts (PMEGs) for complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) despite widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early and long-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for CAAAs and TAAAs using PMEGs.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data and outcomes of patients treated by FB-EVAR using PMEGs for CAAAs (defined as short-neck infrarenal, juxtarenal, and pararenal AAAs) and TAAAs between 2007 and 2019. All patients were treated by a dedicated team with extensive manufactured device experience. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events, patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from secondary intervention, target artery (TA) patency, and freedom from TA endoleak and TA instability.

RESULTS

Of 645 patients undergoing FB-EVAR, 156 patients (24%) treated with PMEG (121 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) were included. There were 89 CAAAs, 33 extent IV TAAAs and 34 extent I to III TAAAs. A total of 452 renal-mesenteric targets (3.1 ± 1.0 vessels/patient) were incorporated. Patients with TAAAs had significantly (P < .05) larger aneurysms (73 ± 11 vs 68 ± 14 mm), more TAs incorporated (3.4 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 1.0), and more often had previous aortic repair (54% vs 27%). Technical success was higher in patients treated for CAAAs (99% vs 91%; P = .04). Thirty-day and/or in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and was significantly lower for CAAAs compared with TAAAs (2% vs 10%; P = .04), with three of nine early mortalities (33%) among patients treated emergently. After a mean follow-up of 49 ± 38 months, there were 12 aortic-related deaths (7.6%), including nine early deaths (5.7%) from perioperative complications and three late deaths (1.9%) from rupture. At 5 years, patient survival was 41%. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher 5-year freedom from ARM (P = .016), TA instability (P = .05), TA endoleak (P = .01), and TA secondary interventions (P = .05) with a higher, but non-significant, freedom from sac enlargement ≥5 mm (P = .11). Primary and secondary TA patency was 91% ± 2% and 99% ± 1%, respectively. Sac regression ≥5 mm occurred in 67 patients (43%) and was associated with increased survival (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80) compared with those without sac regression.

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR using PMEGs was performed with acceptable long-term outcomes. Overall patient survival was low due to significant underlying comorbidities. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher freedom from ARM, TA instability, TA endoleak, TA secondary interventions, and a trend towards higher freedom from sac enlargement compared with patients treated for TAAAs. Sac regression was associated with improved patient survival.

Association Between Type of Anaesthesia and Clinical Outcome in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Repair of Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Fenestrated and Branched Endografts

OBJECTIVE

Although endovascular repair of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) is the treatment of choice in the high risk population that is ineligible for an open surgical approach, little is known about the association between the type of anaesthesia and complications. This study compared the short term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing the visceral step of TAAA with fenestrated endograft aortic repair (FEVAR) and branched endograft aortic repair (BEVAR) under general anaesthesia (GA) with sedation with monitored care anaesthesia (MAC).

METHODS

This single centre, retrospective, observational study recruited 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective F/BEVAR from 2014 - 2021. The primary endpoint was the short term complication rate according to the type of anaesthesia. Secondary endpoints included: need for inotropes or vasopressors for hypotension, time spent in the operating room, and admission to the intensive care unit. Propensity score matching was generated to account for the between group imbalance in the pre-operative covariables.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 42 patients under GA were matched with 42 under MAC. The two groups showed no difference in cardiac and non-cardiac complications. Among the secondary outcomes, a higher number of patients in the GA group required inotropes or vasopressors compared with MAC (33% vs. 9%; p = .031). Although GA and MAC showed the same 30 day technical success (81% vs. 83%; p = .078), non-significant lower rates of major adverse events (10% vs. 12%; p = .72), one year re-intervention (14% vs. 21%; p = .39), and one year target vessel instability (10% vs. 21%; p = .39) were observed in the GA group. Overall, the in hospital mortality rate was 4%, with no difference between GA and MAC (2% vs. 5%; p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

The type of anaesthesia seemed to have no effect on procedure success, peri-operative morbidity, or mortality in patients undergoing F/BEVAR.

Postoperative management in patients with complex aortic aneurysms

Patients with complex aortic aneurysms (CAA) are often high risk due to advanced age and widespread atherosclerosis affecting numerous vascular territories. Therefore, a thorough perioperative evaluation is needed prior to performing in any type of aortic repair, regardless of whether an endovascular or open surgical approach is selected. Because these operations are technically demanding and often result in end organ ischemia, it is not surprising that complex aortic repair carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Disabling complications such as dialysis, major stroke and paraplegia constitute the main limitation of complex aortic repair. The aim of this article was to review postoperative management to mitigate complications after CAA repair.

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.

Effect of patient frailty status on outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we assessed the effects of patient frailty status on the early outcomes and late survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients who had undergone elective FB-EVAR from 2007 to 2019 in a single institution. A previously validated 11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11) was derived from the comorbidity and preoperative functional status data. An mFI-11 <0.3 was defined as low risk, 0.3 to 0.5 as medium risk, and >0.5 as high risk. The studied outcomes were 90-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE), and long-term survival. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent predictors of these outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 592 patients (155 women, mean age, 75 ± 8 years) had undergone FB-EVAR. Using the mFI-11, 310 patients (52%) were included in the low-risk, 199 (34%) in the medium-risk, and 83 (14%) in the high-risk group. The 90-day mortality was significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the medium- and low-risk groups (13%, 4%, and 3%, respectively; P < .01). The corresponding MAE rates were 27%, 18%, and 19% (P = .23). As a subgroup, 44 patients in the high-risk group had had chronic kidney disease (CKD). The 90-day mortality for these patients was as high as 23%, and 32% had experienced MAE. On multivariable analysis, the independent risk factors for 90-day mortality were CKD, respiratory disease, and a high mFI-11. The independent risk factors for MAE were female sex, CKD, larger aneurysm diameter, and the high-risk subgroup with CKD. The independent risk factors for long-term mortality were age, a low body mass index, CKD, larger aneurysm diameter, extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, respiratory disease, congestive heart failure, a history of cerebrovascular problems, and higher mFI-11. The estimated survival at 1 year was 91% ± 2% in the low-risk, 88% ± 2% in the medium-risk, and 78% ± 5% in the high-risk group (P < .001). The corresponding 5-year survival estimates were 60% ± 4%, 52% ± 5%, and 32% ± 6%. The mean follow-up time was 2.9 ± 2.3 years. The patients treated during the first quartile of the study period were significantly more frail than were those in the later quartiles. Also, the outcomes of FB-EVAR had improved over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater frailty was significantly associated with early mortality. Together with CKD, frailty was also associated with MAE and lower patient survival after FB-EVAR. The mFI-11 represents the accumulation of comorbidities and can be used to assist in better patient selection for FB-EVAR.