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

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.

An In-Vitro Comparison of Steady State Leakage Rates through Introducer Sheaths Used for Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (fEVAR) involves deploying a covered stent into the aorta followed by multiple visceral stents through fenestrations in the main body of graft. The most commonly used large sheaths for cannulation of visceral vessels are the Gore DrySeal Flex, Cook Performer Check-Flo, and Medtronic Sentrant. None of these sheaths were designed for the insertion of multiple sheaths, and so a slow but steady leakage of blood occurs during the procedure. The aim of this paper is to assess in an in vitro setting which large bore sheath has the best valve for use when multiple smaller sheaths are inserted through it.

METHODS

Three large bore introducer sheaths (LBISs) were used for this study, The Gore DrySeal Flex LBIS, Medtronic Sentrant LBIS and Cook Performer Check-Flo LBIS. A test rig was constructed, made of an 18-liter fluid reservoir mounted vertically and receiving a constant supply of water from a domestic water supply which flowed into the reservoir and out of an overflow. The reservoir was connected to the LBIS by a vertical plastic pipe with an internal diameter of 40 mm and an isolation valve. The LBIS was connected to the isolation valve by inserting the LBIS up a flexible silicone tube connected to the isolation valve. The LBIS was subject to a constant column/pressure of water and fluid leakage from the LBIS was collected in a plastic pot/tray placed underneath the LBIS. The leakage rates through each LBIS were determined for the following smaller diameter sheath combinations inserted through the valve, one 6 French Sheath, two 6 French Sheaths, two 6 French Sheaths and one 7 French Sheath. This was done to closely mimic a fEVAR procedure in vitro. The procedure was to insert different sheath combinations through the nonreturn valves in the LBIS and measure the volume of fluid that leaked through the valves. The leaked fluid was weighed, and the weight was converted to volume using the density of water (1 g/ml).

RESULTS

The average (mean) leakage rates for each LBIS and each sheath combination showed that leakage rates when only one sheath was inserted were very low. For all 3 LBIS's tested, the leakage rates increased dramatically when multiple sheaths were inserted. The Medtronic LBIS leaked the most, followed by Cook, followed by Gore. For the Cook LBIS, the leakage rates exhibited with 2 × 6 French sheaths were approx. 106 times greater than those for the Gore LBIS and 5 times greater for the 2 × 6 French +1 × 7 French sheath combination. A similar comparison for the Medtronic LBIS versus the Gore LBIS yields factors of 132 and 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage rates increase significantly when multiple sheaths are inserted and the Gore LBIS demonstrates significantly lower leakage than both the Cook and Medtronic during procedures that require simultaneous, multiple insertions of smaller sheaths. Although the Gore Dryseal has by far the lowest leakage rate when 3 small diameter sheaths are inserted (just under 1 ml/s), depending on the duration of the procedure this could still result in significant blood loss.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after semi-conversion with graft preservation for failed endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after semi-conversion (open conversion with graft preservation) after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and semi-conversion failure. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major systemic complications, endoleak recurrence, reinterventions, and overall survival.

METHODS

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023421153). All studies reporting the outcomes of semi-conversions for failed EVAR were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. A random effects meta-regression of proportions was conducted using the double arcsine-Tukey transformation, given the frequent zero event rate in the primary outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the review after full text screening. A total of 196 patients underwent semi-conversion at a mean time from EVAR of 47.4 months, 68.9% in an elective setting. Mean age at conversion was 78.1 years, and the main indication was isolated endoleak type II (70.1% of cases). Aortic clamping was not necessary in 92.3% of semi-conversions; the aortic sac was opened in 96.1% of cases; in 93.3% of cases, ligation/suture of one or more culprit arteries were performed; and aortic neck banding was executed in 29.2%. At 30 days from surgery, the pooled mortality and the major systemic complications rates were 5.3% (I2 = 24.9%) and 13.4% (I2 = 54.3%), respectively. At follow-up, endoleak recurred after 12.6% semi-conversions (I2 = 83.2%), and the rate of reinterventions was 7% (I2 = 50.1%); the semi-conversion failure rate was 5.5% (I2 = 54.1%), and the overall survival was 84.6% (I2 = 33.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Semi-conversions have acceptable 30-day mortality rates, but the early and mid-term risks of complications, reinterventions, ruptures, and infections are not negligible. This procedure might be an alternative to complete or partial graft explant in patients whom aortic cross-clamping is not ideal.