Renal Outcome After Open Surgery and Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Juxta-renal Aneurysms

Early Renal Function Alterations in Renal Branches vs. Renal Fenestrations - A Dynamic Scintigraphy Based Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this prospective single centre study was to assess whether branches and fenestrations have different outcomes on renal function in the early phase.

METHODS

From March 2018 to June 2019, 67 patients who underwent elective fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) procedures were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the renal bridging component configuration (fenestration vs. branch). All of them underwent dynamic renal scintigraphy with ^99mTc diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), two weeks pre-operatively, and three months and one year post-operatively. The primary end points were peri-procedural technical success, 30 day major adverse events, differences in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between the branch and fenestration configurations, and variations between the pre-operative and the post-operative dynamic renal scintigraphy.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 kidneys were analysed: 63 in the 32 patients treated with fenestrations, and 72 in the 35 patients treated with branches; the mean GFR on baseline scintigraphy was 58.4 ± 30.9 mL/min in the fenestration group, and 65.1 ± 29.2 mL/min in the branch group. Only kidneys associated with a patent fenestration/branch were included in the split GFR final analysis. The mean total GFR at three month scintigraphy decreased by 6.0 ± 2.9 mL/min in the fenestration group and by 23.4 ± 6.4 mL/min in the branch group. The split GFR decreased by 3.5 ± 0.6 mL/min in the fenestration group, and by 15.4 ± 5.4 mL/min in the branch group. The GFR decrease remained stable at one year.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the use of branches for renal arteries during F/BEVAR resulted in a greater decrease in the GFR than in those patients who were treated with fenestrations alone. The scintigraphic alterations were evident at an early phase.

Short- and Midterm Outcomes of Open Repair and Fenestrated Endografting of Pararenal Aortic Aneurysms in a Concurrent Propensity-Adjusted Comparison

Purpose: To compare outcomes of patients treated for pararenal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) vs open surgical repair (OSR) in 3 high-volume centers. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis was conducted of 200 pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm patients electively treated with OSR (n=108) or fEVAR (n=92) from 1998 to 2015 at 3 tertiary institutions. Endpoints were 30-day morbidity and mortality, late reinterventions, visceral artery occlusion, and mortality. Analysis was conducted on the entire population and on a propensity score–matched population constructed on age, gender, coronary artery disease (CAD), and chronic renal failure. Results: In the total cohort, fEVAR patients were significantly (p<0.001) older and had higher frequencies of CAD (p<0.001) and previous stroke (p=0.003). OSR patients had higher risk of perioperative morbidity (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.71, p=0.033), specifically respiratory failure (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.72, p=0.034). These findings were confirmed in the propensity-adjusted analysis, where cardiac complications were also higher after OSR (OR 12.8, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.21, p=0.02). No difference in perioperative mortality (2.2% in fEVAR vs 1.9% in OSR) was identified. Mean follow-up was 50 months (range 0–119). Four-year results showed higher survival (91.2% vs 69.3%, p=0.02) and freedom from reintervention (95.6% vs 77.8%, p=0.01) after OSR in the unmatched population, with a small but significant (p=0.021) difference in the risk of late visceral artery occlusion/stenosis after fEVAR. On propensity analysis, no differences in late survival were found between groups. Conclusion: fEVAR and OSR may afford similar early and midterm survival rates. Higher risks of perioperative systemic complications after OSR are counterbalanced by higher risks of late visceral vessel patency issues and need for reintervention after fEVAR. Both procedures are safe and effective in the long term in experienced centers, where patient evaluation should drive the treatment strategy.