Concomitant Parallel Endografting and Fenestrated Experience in a Regional Aortic Center

Physician-modified versus chimney endografting for pararenal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the existing published evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of the endovascular aortic repair with chimney technique (ch-EVAR) and physician-modified stent-grafts (PMSGs) for the treatment of pararenal aortic aneurysm repair.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search of all relevant studies reported until October 2023 according to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines was performed. The pooled 30-day mortality, peri- and postoperative complication rates were estimated using fixed or random effect methods.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 679 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 16 were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 1094 patients (ch-EVAR N.=861 and PMSG N.=233) (90% male) were identified. The pooled 30-day mortality rate was 3.4% for ch-EVAR and 2.6% for PMSG. The major adverse events (MAE) in the early period was 14.7% for ch-EVAR and 18.5% PMSG, respectively. Higher occlusion rate was observed of the chimney stents grafts (8.2%) than the bridging stents (1.4%) during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ch-EVAR and physician-modified technology are safe with low 30-day mortality in elective settings for pararenal aortic aneurysms repair. No significant differences were seen between the two surgical methods regarding the early major adverse events rate. However, higher occlusion rate for the chimneys can be expected over time.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Fenestrated and Chimney/Snorkel Techniques for Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs) remains unclear. Our objective was to identify and analyze the current body of evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques for JAA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, for randomized and non-randomized studies assessing outcomes of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of evidence were performed in duplicate. Data were pooled statistically where possible.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of FEVAR and ChEVAR for juxtarenal aneurysm were included for meta-analysis. The FEVAR and ChEVAR arms of the meta-analysis consisted of 726 participants and 518 participants, respectively. There were 598 (86.8%) and 332 (81.6%) men in each arm. The mean diameter was larger in the ChEVAR arm (59 mm vs 52.5 mm). Both techniques had similar rates of postoperative 30-day mortality, 3.38% (8/237) versus 3.52% (8/227), acute kidney injury, 16.76% (31/185) versus 17.31% (18/104), and major adverse cardiac events, 7.30% (46/630) versus 6.60% (22/333). The meta-analysis supported the use of FEVAR for most outcomes, with significant advantage for technical success (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-8.42) and avoidance of type 1 endoleak (OR: 5.76, 95% CI: 1.94-17.08), but a disadvantage for spinal cord ischemia (OR: 10.21, 95% CI: 1.21-86.11), which had a very low number of events. The quality of evidence was "moderate" for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both endovascular techniques had good safety profiles. The evidence does not support superiority of either FEVAR or ChEVAR for JAA.

CLINICAL IMPACT

While lack of equipoise has hampered the design of randomised trials of open versus endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, concern about the durability of endovascular repair highlights the need for stronger evidence of the comparative efficacy of endovascular techniques. This review performed meta-analysis and evidence appraisal of recent data from large observational studies comparing fenestrated and chimney techniques, using a comprehensive outcome set. Superiority of either intervention could not be established due to differences in participants' baseline risk in each study arm. However, data suggests that both techniques are safe and suitable for use when indicated.

Chimney Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of the Short-term Results

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the short-term results of fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR), and open surgery (OS) for patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA/PAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1 July 2022. Any comparative studies investigating the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on clinical outcomes for patients with JAAA/PAAA were included. Analysed outcomes were 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and bowel ischaemia (BI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 8853 patients were included in the analysis. FEVAR (OR = 0.58, 95%CrI 0.36-0.82) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.56, 95%CrI 0.28-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day mortality than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.54, 95%CrI 0.33-0.85) was associated with lower risk of AKI than OS. FEVAR (OR = 0.43, 95%CrI 0.20-0.89) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.34, 95%CrI 0.10-0.93) compared to OS were associated with lower rates of BI. FEVAR (OR = 0.67, 95%CrI 0.49-0.90) and ChEVAR (OR = 0.61, 95%CrI 0.35-1.02) were associated with lower 30-day MACE risk than OS. FEVAR was associated with a higher rate of SCI compared to OS (OR = 4.90, 95%CrI 1.55-19.17).

CONCLUSION

We found a clear benefit for FEVAR and ChEVAR versus OS in terms of reduced 30-day mortality, BI, and MACE, as well as AKI for FEVAR. This suggests that higher-risk patients might benefit from endovascular treatment of JAAA/PAAA; however, should be applied in clinical practice with caution, since long-term outcomes were outside of the scope of this review.

Comparative Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities for Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Network Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing multiple treatments for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs).

METHODS

Medical databases were searched on November 11, 2022. Twenty-five studies (5,149 patients) and four treatments (open surgery [OS], chimney/snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair [CEVAR], fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair [FEVAR], and branched endovascular aneurysm repair) were selected. Outcomes were branch vessel patency, mortality, and reintervention at short- and long-term followup, and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Regarding branch vessel patency, OS was the most effective treatment and had higher 24-month branch vessel patency rates than CEVAR (odds ratio [OR], 10.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-55.79). FEVAR (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) and OS (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93) were better than CEVAR regarding 30-day mortality and 24-month mortality, respectively. Regarding 24-month reintervention, OS was better than CEVAR (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.15-8.18) and FEVAR (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.08-5.73). Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR had lower acute renal failure rates than OS (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66) and CEVAR (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and lower myocardial infarction rates than OS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.97) and was the most effective treatment in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, while OS was the most effective treatment in preventing spinal cord ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

OS might have advantages regarding branch vessel patency, 24-month mortality, and reintervention and is similar to FEVAR regarding 30-day mortality. Regarding perioperative complications, FEVAR might confer advantages in preventing acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, bowel ischemia, and stroke, and OS in preventing spinal cord ischemia.

Chimney vs. Fenestrated Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Juxta/Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Medium-Term Results

Introduction: This systematic review with network meta-analysis aimed at comparing the medium-term results of open surgery (OS), fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), and chimney endovascular repair (ChEVAR) in patients with juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAAs/PAAAs). Materials and methods: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception date to 1st July 2022. Any studies comparing the results of two or three treatment strategies (ChEVAR, FEVAR, or OS) on medium-term outcomes in patients with JAAAs/PAAAs were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aortic-related reintervention, and aortic-related mortality, while secondary outcomes were visceral stent/bypass occlusion/occlusion, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), new onset renal replacement therapy (RRT), total endoleaks, and type I/III endoleak. Results: FEVAR (OR = 1.53, 95%CrI 1.03-2.11) was associated with higher medium-term all-cause mortality than OS. Sensitivity analysis including only studies that analysed JAAA showed that FEVAR (OR = 1.65, 95%CrI 1.08-2.33) persisted to be associated with higher medium-term mortality than OS. Both FEVAR (OR = 8.32, 95%CrI 3.80-27.16) and ChEVAR (OR = 5.95, 95%CrI 2.23-20.18) were associated with a higher aortic-related reintervention rate than OS. No difference between different treatment options was found in terms of aortic-related mortality. FEVAR (OR = 13.13, 95%CrI 2.70-105.2) and ChEVAR (OR = 16.82, 95%CrI 2.79-176.7) were associated with a higher rate of medium-term visceral branch occlusion/stenosis compared to OS; however, there was no difference found between FEVAR and ChEVAR. Conclusions: An advantage of OS compared to FEVAR and ChEVAR after mid-term follow-up aortic-related intervention and vessel branch/bypass stenosis/occlusion was found. This suggests that younger, low-surgical-risk patients might benefit from open surgery of JAAA/PAAA as a first approach.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of Open, Standard, and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair Treatments for Juxtarenal/Short Neck Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with adverse morphology of the aneurysm neck are "complex". Techniques employed to repair complex aneurysms include open surgical repair (OSR) and a number of on label endovascular techniques such as fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with adjuncts (including chimneys and endo-anchors), as well as off label use of standard EVAR. The aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published comparative outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These databases were interrogated using the PubMed interface and the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) interface developed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Online databases were interrogated up to April 2020. Studies were included if they compared outcomes between at least two methods of repair for complex aneurysms (those with at least one adverse neck feature: absent/short neck, conicality, angulation, calcification, large diameter, and thrombus). The primary outcome measure was peri-operative death. Pre-registration was done in PROSPERO (CRD42020177482).

RESULTS

The search identified 24 observational studies and 7854 patients who underwent OSR, FEVAR, off label EVAR, or chimney EVAR. No comparative studies included EVAR with endo-anchors. NMA was performed on 23 studies that reported outcomes of aneurysms with short/absent infrarenal neck. Compared with OSR, off label EVAR (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 - 0.41) and FEVAR (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32-0.94) were associated with lower peri-operative mortality. This difference was not seen at the midterm follow up (30 months). Compared with OSR, FEVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative myocardial infarction (MI) rate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 - 0.62) but a higher midterm re-intervention rate (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 - 2.66). All studies had a "moderate" or "high" risk of bias. Confidence in the network findings (GRADE) was generally "low".

CONCLUSION

This NMA demonstrated a peri-operative survival benefit for off label EVAR and FEVAR compared with OSR, potentially due to reduced risk of MI. FEVAR carries a greater midterm re-intervention risk than OSR, with potential implications for cost effectiveness. There is paucity of comparative data for cases with adverse neck features other than short length.

Parallel Grafting Should Be Considered as a Viable Alternative to Open Repair in High-Risk Patients With Paravisceral Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Parallel grafting presents a viable method for treating patients with complex aortic aneurysms. The current literature is limited to mostly pararenal configurations. We examined our results in patients with SMA and/or Celiac artery involvement.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients undergoing parallel grafting during the period of 2014 to 2018 at a single institution. All patients had at least SMA with and/or without Celiac artery parallel grafting.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients (65% male, median age 74) were treated with 208 parallel grafts. Median ASA score is 4. Forty-nine cases were elective, 22 urgent, and 8 emergent. Mean pre-operative aneurysm diameter was 7.1 cm (4.6-15 cm). Self-expanding covered stents were used for the renal arteries (mean 6.3mm), and balloon-expandable covered stents were used for the SMA and Celiac (mean SMA 8.6 mm, mean celiac 8.3 mm). Axillary exposure was the choice of access in 68 patients (86%). Technical success was achieved in all cases. We defined this as aneurysm sac exclusion with patent visceral stent grafts, and absent to mild gutter leaks. Mean aortic graft proximal seal achieved was 48mm. Coverage extended above the celiac artery in 75% (10% stented and 65% covered). Median contrast volume was 145ml, operative duration was 4 hours, fluoroscopy time was 56 min, and EBL was 250 ml. Perioperative mortality was 6.1%. 4.5%, and 25%, for the elective, urgent, and emergent groups, respectively. There was no incidence of spinal cord ischemia. Axillary access was complicated in 4 patients, requiring patch closure of the axillary artery. One patient developed postprocedural ESRD from a rupture and ATN despite patent renal stents. Of those patients with a patent GDA and celiac coverage, 2 required a cholecystectomy. Nine patients had a persistent gutter leak at the conclusion of the procedure. Median follow-up was 12 months. On follow-up imaging, all SMA and Celiac stents were patent. Six renal stents were occluded and 2 patients progressed to ESRD, both solitary renal periscope configurations at the index procedure. Only 4 patients had persistent gutter leaks with 2 requiring reintervention. Ninety-five percent of patients demonstrated sac regression or stabilization with a mean sac size of 6.5 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Parallel grafting presents a safe, efficacious and off the shelf alternative to conventional repair of complex aortic aneurysms involving the visceral aorta.

The role of fEVAR, chEVAR and open repair in treatment of juxtarenal aneurysms: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Open repair (OR), fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) and endovascular exclusion using parallel graft (chEVAR) are complementary procedures used for treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (jrAAA). The aim of our study was to assess available literature and analyze dispersion of OR, fEVAR and chEVAR procedures among reported papers related to treatment of jrAAA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed database was systematically searched using predefined strategy and key words related to treatment of jrAAA on September 28th, 2019. Studies were assessed for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria with at least five patients treated with at least one of the procedures while systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reviews, comments, editorials and letters were excluded as well as studies without clear classification of the location of the aneurysm, studies not specifying the number of patients treated with each of the techniques or not discriminated between aortic pathologies (juxtarenal, paravisceral and thoracoabdominal), hybrid procedures, endoanchors or with branched stent-graft.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 1533 papers were identified while papers that met inclusion criteria were either representing experience of single institution (87 papers) or from multicenter studies (6 papers), national or international registries (18 papers). In the period between January 1977 and December 2017, treatment of 5664 patients with jrAAA was reported in 87 papers as a single institution report. Out of them 2531 (45%) were treated with OR, 2592 (46%) with fEVAR and 541 (9%) with chEVAR. Out of 29 institutions reporting OR, there were 11 (37.9%) with more than 100 treated patients while 21 (41.1%) out of 51 institutions that reported more than 50 jrAAA treated with fEVAR. Only four institutions reported results of all three treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results reported in the literature, regardless of its complexity and costs, fEVAR for jrAAA has been accepted in substantial number of hospitals worldwide, while number of reported procedures is reaching OR.

Meta-analysis of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms over the last 10 years

Background

Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms 'juxta/para/suprarenal' were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case-control study and a single prospective non-randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

No significant difference was noted in 30-day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long-term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR.

A Novel Off-the-Shelf Technique for Endovascular Repair of Type III and IV Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using the Gore Excluder and Viabahn Branches

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to describe the use of a novel off-the-shelf technique to repair type III and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in the absence of available prefabricated branched devices.

METHODS

All patients undergoing endovascular repair of type III and IV TAAAs using this technique were included from a prospectively maintained registry at a regional aortic referral center. The proximal bifurcated Gore C3 Excluder device is positioned in the descending thoracic aorta with the contralateral gate 2-3 cm above the celiac artery. From an axillary approach, the contralateral gate renovisceral branches are sequentially cannulated and simultaneously stented using Viabahn covered stents. In cases were the celiac artery could not be excluded, a parallel stent (snorkel) was added adjacent to the proximal endograft. All branches are simultaneously balloon dilated to ensure proximal gutter seal in the contralateral gate. Via the ipsilateral limb, the device can then be extended with a flared iliac extension and/or additional bifurcated device to obtain seal in the distal aorta (previous open repair) or common iliac arteries.

RESULTS

Eight patients (male = 6, mean 78 years of age) were treated in this manner since January 2015. All patients underwent repair using Gore C3 device with 3 (n = 5) or 4 (n = 3) renovisceral branches. The celiac artery was sacrificed in 4 patients and 1 renal artery in 1 patient. Mean fluoroscopy time was 88.7 min with a mean of 92.3 cc contrast utilized. Median length of stay was 7 days with 3 days spent in the intensive care unit. No major cardiac, respiratory, renal, neurologic, or wound complications occurred. Three patients had early endoleaks treated with additional endovascular techniques (n = 2) or open surgical ligation (n = 1) during the index hospitalization. Two late endoleaks were identified; 1 type II with stable sac size and 1 type III requiring iliac limb relining. All limbs and branches remain patent at the time of the last imaging study (mean 6.8 months).

CONCLUSIONS

We present an endovascular technique for repair of type III and IV TAAAs which appears to be both feasible and safe with good short-term outcomes.