Rescue of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the fenestrated Anaconda device

Aneurysm Sac Dynamics and its Prognostic Significance Following Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess aneurysm sac dynamics and its prognostic significance following fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing F/BEVAR for degenerative complex aortic aneurysm from 2008 to 2020 at two large vascular centres with two imaging examinations (30 day and one year) were included. Patients were categorised as regression and non-regression, determined by the proportional volume change (> 5%) at one year compared with 30 days. All cause mortality and freedom from graft related events were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Factors associated with non-regression at one year and aneurysm sac volume over time were examined for FEVAR and BEVAR independently using multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed effects modelling.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five patients were included: 122 FEVAR, of whom 34% did not regress at one year imaging (20% stable, 14% expansion); and 43 BEVAR, of whom 53% failed to regress (26% stable, 28% expansion). Following F/BEVAR, after risk adjusted analysis, non-regression was associated with higher risk of all cause mortality within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 - 5.37; p = .032) and higher risk of graft related events within five years (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10 - 5.26; p = .029). Following multivariable logistic regression, previous aortic repair (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% CI 1.11 - 5.96; p = .029) and larger baseline aneurysm diameter (OR/mm 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.09; p = .037) were associated with non-regression at one year, whereas smoking history was inversely associated with non-regression (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.96; p = .045). Overall following FEVAR, aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly up to two years (baseline vs. two year, 267 [95% CI 250 - 285] cm3vs. 223 [95% CI 197 - 248] cm3), remaining unchanged thereafter. Overall following BEVAR, aneurysm sac volume remained stable over time.

CONCLUSION

Like infrarenal EVAR, non-regression at one year imaging is associated with higher five year all cause mortality and graft related events risks after F/BEVAR. Following FEVAR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs generally displayed regression (66% at one year), whereas after BEVAR for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm, aneurysm sacs displayed a concerning proportion of growth at one year (28%), potentially suggesting a persistent risk of rupture and consequently requiring intensified surveillance following BEVAR. Future studies will have to elucidate how to improve sac regression following complex EVAR, and whether the high expansion risk after BEVAR is due to advanced disease extent.

Early Institutional Experience with One-Piece Bifurcated-Fenestrated Stentgraft in the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To review the early experience of the use of a bifurcated-fenestrated endograft (Bif-FEVAR) to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in a high-volume aortic center.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was conducted between March 2019 and April 2021 including consecutive patients that underwent Bif-FEVAR. Only patients without a proper infrarenal neck and a distance <70 mm between the lowest target artery and the native or prosthetic aortic bifurcation were considered. All Bif-FEVAR custom-made devices were manufactured by Cook Medical (Inc., Bloomington, Indiana). Demographics, anatomical features, technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and survival according to Kaplan-Meier were analyzed according to Society for Vascular Surgery standards.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 patients (100% male with median age 78) were included. The median preoperative maximal aneurysm diameter was 68 mm [51-84]. Eight patients were treated for a proximal type I endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair. A total of 36 fenestrations were planned. The median operative time was 144 min [127-168], with a median fluoro time of 40.5 min [34-54] and a median dose area product of 73 Gy cm2 [61-89]. Technical success rate was 100%. No patients experienced a major postoperative adverse event. Median follow-up time was 8 months [6-13].

CONCLUSION

Bif-FEVAR is technically feasible when there is a short distance below the lowest target artery and the aortic bifurcation, with favorable short-term results.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study assessed the use of an innovative one-piece bifurcated fenestrated stent-graft as a primary procedure or in the treatment of proximal endoleak after standard infrarenal EVAR. We demonstrated these custom-made devices can be used safely with favorable short-term results. One-piece bifurcated fenestrated stent-grafts extend the indications of FEVAR for patients with an unusually short distance between the lowest renal artery and the aorto-iliac bifurcation or the diverter flow of a preexisting bifurcated infrarenal stent-graft.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elective Open Conversion versus Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair for Previous Non-Infected Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of patients electively undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F/B-EVAR) or open conversion for failed previous non-infected endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHOD

The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023404091). The review followed the PRISMA guidelines; certainty was assessed through the GRADE and quality through MINORS tools. Outcomes data were pooled separately for F/B-EVAR and open conversion. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted; heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Thirty eight studies were included, for a total of 1 645 patients of whom 1 001 (60.9%) underwent an open conversion and 644 (39.1%) a F/B-EVAR. The quality of evidence was generally limited. GRADE certainty was judged low for 30 day death (in both groups) and F/B-EVAR technical success, and very low for the other outcomes. Pooled 30 day death was 2.3% (I2 33%) in the open conversion group and 2.4% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR conversion group (p = .36). Technical success for F/B-EVAR was 94.1% (I2 23%). The pooled 30 day major systemic complications rate was higher in the open conversion (21.3%; I2 74%) than in the F/B-EVAR (15.7%; I2 78%) group (p = .52). At 18 months follow up, the pooled re-intervention rate was 4.5% (I2 58%) in the open conversion and 26% (I2 0%) in the F/B-EVAR group (p < .001), and overall survival was 92.5% (I2 59%) and 81.6% (I2 68%), respectively (p = .005).

CONCLUSION

In the elective setting, and excluding infections, the early results of both open conversion and F/B-EVAR after failed EVAR appear satisfactory. Although open conversion presented with higher complication rates in the first 30 days after surgery, at follow up it seemed to be associated with fewer re-interventions and better survival compared with F/B-EVAR.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Renal and Visceral Artery Configuration During the First Year of Follow-Up After Fenestrated Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using the Anaconda Stent-graft: A Prospective Longitudinal Multicenter Study With ECG-Gated CTA Scans

OBJECTIVE

The performance of fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) may be compromised by complications related to the dynamic vascular environment. The aim of this study was to analyze the behavior of FEVAR bridging stent configurations during the cardiac cycle and during follow-up to improve our understanding on treatment durability.

DESIGN

Twenty-one patients presenting with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs; 9 juxtarenal/6 pararenal/3 paravisceral/1 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm type IV), treated with a fenestrated Anaconda (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, Scotland, UK) with Advanta V12 bridging stents (Getinge, Merrimack, NH, USA), were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter observational cohort study and underwent electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated computed tomographic angiography (CTA) preoperatively, at discharge, 7-week, and 12-month follow-ups.

METHODS

Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair stability was assessed considering the following variables: branch angle as the angle between the aorta and the target artery, end-stent angle as the angle between the end of the bridging stent and the native artery downstream from it, curvature and tortuosity index (TI) to describe the bending of the target artery. Body-bridging stent stability was assessed considering bridging stent flare lengths, the distances between the proximal sealing stent-ring and fenestrations and the distance between the fenestration and first apposition in the target artery.

RESULTS

Renal branch angles significantly increased after FEVAR toward a perpendicular position (right renal artery from median 60.9°, inter quartile range [IQR]=44.2-84.9° preoperatively to 94.4°, IQR=72.6-99.8°, p=0.001 at 12-month follow-up; left renal artery [LRA], from 63.7°, IQR=55.0-73.0° to 94.3°, IQR=68.2-105.6°, p<0.001), while visceral branch angles did not. The mean dynamic curvature only decreased for the LRA from preoperative (3.0, IQR=2.2-3.8 m-1) to 12-month follow-up (1.9, IQR=1.4-2.6 m-1, p=0.027). The remaining investigated variables did not seem to show any changes over time in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for complex AAAs using the Anaconda fenestrated stent-graft and balloon-expandable Advanta V12 bridging stents demonstrated stable configurations up to 12-month follow-up, except for increasing renal branch angles toward perpendicular orientation to the aorta, yet without apparent clinical consequences in this cohort.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study provides detailed information on the cardiac-pulsatility-induced (dynamic) and longitudinal geometry deformations of the target arteries and bridging stents after fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) up to 12-month follow-up. The configuration demonstrated limited dynamic and longitudinal deformations in terms of branch angle, end-stent angle, curvature, and tortuosity index (TI), except for the increasing renal branch angles that go toward a perpendicular orientation to the aorta. Overall, the results suggest that the investigated FEVAR configurations are stable and durable, though careful consideration of increasing renal branch angles and significant geometry alterations is advised.

Can the Fenestrated Anaconda™ salvage failed competitor endografts? An international frame of reference

INTRODUCTION

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta that can be repaired either endovascularly or with open surgery. However, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the main treatment modality for AAA due to its more optimal results. EVAR devices can either be standard, fenestrated, or branched, with fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) seemingly achieving superior prospects. Although EVAR is associated with excellent outcomes, it still carries a risk of certain complications requiring reintervention or 'rescue'. Several commercial EVAR devices are available on the global market, nevertheless, the Fenestrated Anaconda developed by Terumo Aortic can be considered the superior device due to the wide range of endovascular solutions that it offers along with its unique custom-made approach, excellent results and its highly promising potential to be used as a 'rescue' device for failed competitor endografts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study represents a 9-year cross-sectional international analysis of a custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson Chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Out of 5058 EVARs performed using the Fenestrated Anaconda, 2987 (59%) were 'rescue' procedures for migrated Gore (n = 252) and Medtronic (n = 2735) devices. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ was indicated as the reintervention device either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for the competitor (n = 2411) or based on surgeon preference (n = 576). Overall, the Fenestrated Anaconda was utilised to rescue 3466 (68.5%) failed previous EVARs using competitor devices. Yet, the primary endovascular solution offered by the Fenestrated Anaconda was FEVAR (91.3%), with 112 (2.2%) devices using custom-made iliac stents.

DISCUSSION

The use of the Fenestrated Anaconda endograft as a 'rescue' device to salvage failed competitor devices is well-established in the literature with excellent clinical outcomes achieved. The evidence in the literature also highlights the distinctive custom-made approach that the Fenestrated Anaconda offers which enables it to treat extremely complex aortic anatomy.

Endovascular solutions for abdominal aortic aneurysms: A comparative review of clinical outcomes with custom-made endografts

BACKGROUND

The introduction of endovascular aortic repair has revolutionised the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, replacing open surgical repair for the majority of elective cases due to its optimal morbidity and mortality. Several endovascular aortic repair stent grafts exist commercially, one of which is the Fenestrated Anaconda™ by Terumo Aortic which benefits from a very innovative design, unique custom-made approach and highly favourable results.

AIMS

The main scope of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of endovascular aortic repair clinical outcomes using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ stent-graft and comparing these with its market competitor, Zenith. This review will also examine the evidence in the literature on the Anaconda™'s custom-made approach.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature was conducted on several search engines including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase to collate the evidence in the literature on clinical outcomes achieved with the Fenestrated Anaconda™ and Zenith including, but not limited to, survival, technical success, target vessel patency, endoleak, reintervention and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

The Fenestrated Anaconda™ is associated with excellent results, including highly favourable survival, technical and clinical success and target vessel patency rates, very low need for reintervention or conversion, and minimal incidence of complications such as endoleak and endograft migration. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ also drives significant sac regression and aortic remodelling. In addition, its unique custom-made approach enables it to treat highly complex aortic anatomy as well as to 'rescue' failed competitor grafts.

CONCLUSION

The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has proven that it is a very safe, highly applicable and extremely effective device used for complex aortic and/or iliac pathology based on its novel design and outstanding track record of clinical outcomes.

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.

Precision Medicine in Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Personalized medicine and precision medicine are terms often used to refer to treatment strategies tailored specifically to individual characteristics of patients, as opposed to a one-size fits all approach [...].

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.

Perioperative Outcome of Fenestrated and Branched Stent Grafting after Previous Open or Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

To compare the perioperative outcome of patients treated with elective or urgent fenestrated and branched stent grafting (fbEVAR) for pararenal (pAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) after previous open with previous endovascular abdominal aortic repair.

METHODS

Single center retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing fbEVAR after previous open (post-open fbEVAR group) or endovascular abdominal aortic repair (post-endo fbEVAR group) between January 2015 and December 2017. Primary outcomes were technical success and in-hospital all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 42 patients undergoing fbEVAR after previous open or endovascular abdominal aortic repair during this period. Twenty-one patients (post-open fbEVAR group) had previous open abdominal aortic repair, 13 with a bifurcated and 8 with a tube graft. Of these, 2 patients presented with pAAA and 19 with TAAA. Twenty-one patients (post-endo fbEVAR group) had previous EVAR. Thirteen patients presented with pAAA, 3 of them with additional type Ia endoleak, 2 with stent-graft migration and 2 with previously failed fEVAR. Eight presented with TAAA. Median interval between previous repair and fbEVAR was 84 months (IQR 60-156) for the post-open fbEVAR group and 72 months (IQR 36-96) for the post-endo fbEVAR group (P = 0.746). Eighteen patients (86%) had branched stent grafting in the post-open versus 11 (52%) in the post-endo group (P < 0.01). In 2 patients in the post-open group, 3 renal arteries were not catheterized due to severe ostial stenosis, resulting in technical success of 91% in the post-open and 100% in the post-endo fbEVAR group. Four patients (19%) in the post-open fbEVAR group died in hospital, 2 due to cerebral hemorrhage and 2 due to pneumonia, and none in the post-endo fbEVAR group (P = 0.101). There were 5 nonstent-graft-related reinterventions, 2 (10%) in the post-open fbEVAR group and 3 (14%) in the post-endo fbEVAR group (P = 0.844). After 12 months there were 4 events in the post-endo fbEVAR group: one renal artery stent occluded, one renal artery stent required relining because of disconnection and 2 type II endoleaks were embolized with coils. There were no reinterventions in the post-open fbEVAR group during 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenestrated and branched repair after previous open or endovascular abdominal aortic repair appears safe with high technical success rate. There is no difference in the technical success and in-hospital all-cause mortality rates between fbEVAR after previous open or endovascular abdominal aortic repair.

Management of Type IA Endoleak After EVAR by Explantation or Custom Made Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Proximal type 1 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) remains challenging to solve with no existing consensus. This work aims to compare two different surgical strategies to remedy type IA endoleak: endograft explantation (EXP) and aortic reconstruction or relining by custom made fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective single centre analysis between 2009 and 2018 was conducted including patients treated for type IA endoleak after EVAR with either EXP or F-EVAR. The choice of surgical technique was based on morphological factors (F-EVAR eligibility), sac growth rate, emergency presentation and/or patient symptoms. Technical success, morbidity, secondary interventions, 30 day mortality, and long term survival according to Kaplan-Meier were determined for each group and compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (91% male, mean age 79 years) underwent either EXP (n = 26) or F-EVAR (n = 33) during the study period. The two groups were equivalent in terms of comorbidity and age at the time of procedure. The median time from initial EVAR was 60.4 months (34-85 months), with no difference between groups. The maximum aneurysm diameter was greater in the EXP group compared with the F-EVAR group, 86 mm (65-100) and 70 mm (60-80), respectively (p = .008). Thirty day secondary intervention (EXP: 11.5% vs. F-EVAR: 9.1%) and mortality (EXP: 3.8% vs. F-EVAR: 3.3%) rates did not differ between groups, while major adverse events at 30 days, defined by the current SVS guidelines, were lower in the F-EVAR group (2.4% vs. 13.6%; p = .016). One year survival rates were similar between the groups (EXP: 84.0% vs. F-EVAR: 86.6%).

CONCLUSION

Open explantation and endovascular management with a fenestrated device for type IA endoleak after EVAR can be achieved in high volume centres with satisfactory results. F-EVAR is associated with decreased early morbidity. Open explantation is a relevant option because of acceptable outcomes and the limited applicability of F-EVAR.

The Italian Multicentre Registry of Fenestrated Anaconda™ Endografts for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe the outcomes of the Anaconda™ Fenestrated endograft Italian Registry for complex aortic aneurysms (AAAs), unsuitable for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2018 patients with a proximal neck unsuitable for standard EVAR, treated with the fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft, were prospectively enrolled in a dedicated database. Endpoints were peri-operative technical success (TS) and evaluation of type Ia/b or 3 endoleaks (T1/3 EL), target visceral vessel (TVV) occlusion, re-interventions, and AAA related mortality at 30 days, six months, and later follow up.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty seven patients (74 ± 7 years, American Society Anesthesiology (ASA) II/III/IV: 12/85/30) were included in the study in 49 Italian Vascular Surgery Units (83 juxta/para-renal AAA, 13 type IV thoraco-abdominal AAA, 16 T1aEL post EVAR, and 15 short neck AAA). Configurations with one, two, three, and four fenestrations were used in 5, 56, 39, and 27 cases, respectively, for a total of 342 visceral vessels. One hundred and eight (85%) bifurcated and 19 (15%) tube endografts were implanted. In 35% (44/127) of cases the endograft was repositioned during the procedure, and 37% (128/342) of TVV were cannulated from brachial access. TS was 87% (111/127): five T1EL, six T3EL (between fenestration and vessel stent), and six loss of visceral vessels (one patient with a Type Ia EL had also a TVV loss) occurred. Thirty day mortality was 4% (5/127). Two of the five T1EL resolved spontaneously at 30 days. The overall median follow up was 21 ± 16 months; one T1EL (5%) occurred at six months and one T3EL (4%) at the three year follow up. Another two (3%) TVV occlusions occurred at six months and five (3%) at three years. The re-intervention rate at the 30 days, six months, and three year follow up was 5%, 7%, and 18 ± 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft is effective in the treatment of complex AAA. Some structure properties, such as the re-positionability and the possibility of cannulation from above, are specific characteristics helpful for the treatment of some complex anatomies.

Short-term outcomes of the t-Branch off-the-shelf multibranched stent graft for reintervention after previous infrarenal aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) stent graft for the treatment of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms in patients who had previous infrarenal aortic repair.

METHODS

A retrospective two-center study was undertaken. All consecutive patients who underwent endovascular repair using t-Branch stent graft after previous infrarenal aortic repair between January 2010 and August 2018 were included. Demographics, past medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, and intraoperative and perioperative details were recorded. Technical success and early (30-day) mortality, morbidity, target vessel patency, and presence of endoleak were analyzed. During the first year of follow-up, survival, freedom from reintervention, and patency rates were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 32 patients (mean age, 74 ± 7 years; 81% male) included in the study; 24 (75%) patients had prior open surgical repair, and 8 (25%) patients had undergone standard endovascular aneurysm repair. The index operation was performed 9 ± 5 years earlier, including 10 ± 5 years for open surgical repair and 8 ± 6 years for endovascular aortic repair. The indication was progression of the disease in 26 patients (81%) and type IA endoleak in 6 patients (19%). The total number of target vessels incorporated was 117 arteries (3.8 ± 0.6 target vessels per patient). Eleven patients had only three vessels incorporated; celiac trunk was occluded in three patients, and eight patients had one functioning kidney. Technical success rate was 97% (31/32). There was a single technical failure in one patient who had a type IA endoleak after endovascular repair with suprarenal fixation. The stenotic right renal artery was not catheterized at the initial procedure, and retrograde access was achieved through a right subcostal incision 3 days later with successful completion of the repair. Early mortality rate was 13%, and spinal cord ischemia rate was 22% (7/32); four patients had permanent and three had transient neurologic deficits. Early target vessel patency was 100%, and the rate of any endoleak was 9% (3/32); two patients had type II endoleaks and one patient had type III endoleak. The mean follow-up was 5.4 ± 5.9 months. The cumulative survival rate was 82% and 73% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The freedom from aorta-related mortality was 92% at 6 and 12 months. The cumulative freedom from reintervention during follow-up was 90% at 6 and 12 months. The overall target vessel patency rate was 100% and 97.5% at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of t-Branch off-the-shelf stent graft for the treatment of aortic disease in patients who had previous infrarenal aortic repair appears to be feasible, with acceptable early outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality.

Assessment of Pull-out Forces in TEVAR and ANACONDA FEVAR Combination and Early Clinical Results: Creation of a Proximal Landing Zone for FEVAR in Patients with Extent I and Extent IV TAAAs

BACKGROUND

Although recent data on the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are promising, in some cases, the paravisceral segment of the aorta may not be suitable for a branched endograft due to space restrictions. A combination of a fenestrated aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with a thoracic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) may represent a feasible treatment option. The current investigation was performed to assess the stability of a fenestrated Anaconda device implanted into a set of thoracic endografts from different manufacturers. We then assessed our clinical results with the FEVAR/TEVAR combination.

METHODS

Pull-out forces were measured in vitro after docking a fenestrated Anaconda graft within the distal end of different TEVAR devices. Anaconda devices were implanted in 28- or 30-mm thoracic tube grafts (oversizing of at least 2 mm: 13.3-21.4; minimum overlap of 15 mm). Continuously increasing longitudinal pull forces of up to 100 N were applied on an Instron Tensile Tester. Initial break point and damage to the endografts were documented. Clinical results of patients treated with such an FEVAR/TEVAR combination at our institution are presented as a second part of this study.

RESULTS

Median pull-out forces ranged from 2.38 N to 55.0 N. The highest stability was achieved with 34-mm Anaconda devices in 28-mm thoracic tube grafts. Grafts with either thinner Dacron material or those featuring a polytetrafluorethylene membrane seemed especially vulnerable to punctures and tears caused by the downward-looking hooks of the Anaconda device. Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018, in 28 of 172 patients treated with a fenestrated Anaconda device, prior implantation of a thoracic tube graft was necessary to create a sufficient proximal landing zone. In 25 cases (89.3%), the aneurysm was successfully treated. Although the 30-day reintervention rate in this subgroup was relatively high at 28.6%, none of these was due to a failure of the FEVAR/TEVAR combination. Upon an average follow-up of 15 months, no failure of the graft connection and no type III endoleak due to membrane damage were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a thoracic tube graft and a fenestrated Anaconda device is a viable option for the treatment of patients with Extent I or IV TAAAs with no adequate landing zone above the celiac trunk. Although pull-out testing has shown good stability with most assessed grafts, the thoracic devices with thicker Dacron membranes seemed to be especially suitable.

Outcomes after treatment of complex aortic abdominal aneurysms with the fenestrated Anaconda endograft

OBJECTIVE

To date, information on the fenestrated Anaconda endograft is limited to case series with a small sample size. This study was performed to assess the technical and clinical outcome of this device in a large international case series.

METHODS

All worldwide centers having treated more than 15 complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm patients with the fenestrated Anaconda endograft were approached. Main outcome parameters were procedural technical success, postoperative and follow-up clinical outcome for endoleaks, target vessel patency, reintervention rate, and patient survival.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-five consecutive cases treated between June 2010 and May 2018 in 11 sites were included. Patients were treated for a short neck infrarenal (n = 98), juxtarenal (n = 191), suprarenal AAA (n = 27), or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 19). Mean age was 73.6 ± 4.6 years (292 male). Endografts contained a total of 920 fenestrations, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.8 fenestrations per case. Technical success was 88.4% (primary, 82.7%; assisted primary 5.7%). In 6.9% of cases, a procedural type IA endoleak was observed, spontaneously disappearing in 82.6% during early follow-up. The development of a type IA endoleak was associated with greater neck angulation (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; P = .01), three fenestrations (OR, 42.7; P = .01) and the presence of augmented proximal rings (OR, 0.17; P = .03). Median follow-up was 1.2 years (interquartile range, 0.4-2.6). The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate deteriorated from 67.6 ± 19.3 mL/min/1.73 m² preoperatively to 59.3 ± 22.7 mL/min/1.73 m² at latest follow-up (P = .00). The freedom from AAA growth were 97.9 ± 0.9% (n = 190) and 86.4 ± 3.0% (n = 68), with a freedom from AAA rupture of 99.7 ± 0.3% (n = 191) and 99.1 ± 0.7% (n = 68), at 1 and 3 years, respectively. The endoleak-free survival, excluding spontaneously resolved procedural endoleaks, at 1 and 3 years was 73.4 ± 2.6 (n = 143) and 65.6 ± 3.4% (n = 45), respectively. The target vessel patency at one and three years were 96.4 ± 0.7% (n = 493) and 92.7 ± 1.4% (n = 156), respectively. A total of 75 reinterventions were done in 64 cases (19.1%), of which 25 cases for an endoleak. The reintervention-free survival at 1 and 3 years were 83.6 ± 2.2% (n = 190) and 71.0 ± 3.7% (n = 68), respectively. No deaths during procedure, extending within 24 hours postoperatively, were observed. Within 30 days 14 patients (4.2%) died and during follow-up another 39 patients (11.6%) died. Three deaths were considered AAA related (one rupture, one endograft infection, and one bilateral renal artery occlusion). The estimated cumulative survival at 1 and 3 years were 89.8 ± 1.8% (n = 191) and 79.2 ± 3.0% (n = 68), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The custom-made fenestrated Anaconda endograft is a valuable option for the treatment of a complex AAA. A procedural type IA endoleak is seen relatively frequently, but spontaneously resolves in most cases.

Technical approach and outcomes of failed infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repairs rescued with fenestrated and branched endografts

Background

Endovascular rescue of failed infrarenal repair (EVAR) has emerged as an attractive option to stent graft explantation. The procedure, however, is underutilized due to limited devices accessibility and the challenges associated with their implantation in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report our outcomes and discuss our approach to rescuing previously failed infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with fenestrated/branched endografts (f/b-EVAR).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients with failed EVAR rescued with f/b-EVAR at our institution from November 2013 to March 2019 was conducted. The study primary end point was technical success; defined as the implantation of the device with no type I a/b or type III endoleak or conversion to open repair. Secondary endpoints included major adverse events (MAEs), graft patency and reintervention rates.

Results

During this time, 202 patients with complex aortic aneurysms were treated with f/b-EVAR. Of these, 19 patients (Male: 17, mean age 79 ± 7 years) underwent repair for failed EVAR. The median time from failed repair to f/b-EVAR was 48 (30, 60) months. Treatment failure was attributed to stent graft migration in 9 (47.4%) patients, disease progression in 5 (26.3%), short initial neck in 3 (15.8%) and unable to be determined in 2 (10.5%). Three patients were treated urgently with surgeon modified stent graft. Technical success was achieved in 18 patients (95%), including two who had undergone emergent repair for rupture. Seventy-two targeted vessels (97.3%) were successfully incorporated. Sixteen (84.2%) patients required a thoracoabdominal repair to achieve a durable seal. Major adverse events (MAEs) occurred in 3 patients (15.7%) including paralysis and death in one (5.3%), compartment syndrome and temporary dialysis in another and laparotomy with snorkeling of one renal and bypass of the other in the third patient. Median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 3 (2, 4) days. Late reintervention, primary target vessel patency and primary assisted patency rates were 5.3%, 98.6% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusion

Implantation of f/b-EVAR in patients with failed previous EVAR is a challenging undertaking that can be performed safely with a high technical success and low reintervention rates.

Quantitative Stent Graft Motion in ECG Gated CT by Image Registration and Segmentation: In Vitro Validation and Preliminary Clinical Results

OBJECTIVES

The dynamic endovascular environment of stent grafts may influence long term outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The sealing and fixation of a stent graft to the aortic wall is challenged at every heartbeat, yet knowledge of the cardiac induced dynamics of stent grafts is sparse. Understanding the stent-artery interaction is crucial for device development and may aid the prediction of failure in the individual patient. The aim of this work was to establish quantitative stent graft motion in multiphasic electrocardiogram (ECG) gated computed tomography (CT) by image registration and segmentation techniques.

METHODS

Experimental validation was performed by evaluating a series of ECG gated CT scans of a stent graft moving at different amplitudes of displacement at different virtual heart rates using a motion generating device with synchronised ECG triggering. The methodology was further tested on clinical data of patients treated with EVAR devices with different stent graft designs. Displacement during the cardiac cycle was analysed for points on the fixating stent rings, the branches or fenestrations, and the spine.

RESULTS

Errors for the amplitude of displacement measured in vitro at individual points on the wire frame were at most 0.3 mm. In situ cardiac induced displacement of the devices was found to differ per location and also depended on the type of stent graft. Displacement during the cardiac cycle was greatest in a fenestrated device and smallest in a chimney graft sac anchoring endosystem, with maximum displacement varying from 0.0 to 1.4 mm. There was no substantial displacement measurable in the spine.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel methodology to quantify and visualise stent graft motion in multiphasic ECG gated CT has been validated in vitro and tested in vivo. This methodology enables further exploration of in situ motion of different stent grafts and branch stents and their interaction with native vessels.

Short-term and Midterm Results of Fenestrated Anaconda Endograft in Patients with Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To review short-term and midterm results of the fenestrated Anaconda stent graft in management of patients with pre-existing endovascular aortic stent graft and persistent type 1a endoleak.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study assessed all consecutive patients with type 1a endoleak and pre-existing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) treated with fenestrated Anaconda stent grafts. Ten patients (9 males; mean age 78 y) with mean follow-up of 22.4 months ± 13 were included. Average aneurysm size was 80.1 mm (range, 62-101 mm). Mean time for conversion to fenestrated EVAR following original EVAR was 53.7 months (range, 22-101 months; median 54 months). Technical and clinical success; anatomic features, including aortic tortuosity, side vessel angulation, and stenosis; complications; and reinterventions were recorded.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 90%. There was no open conversion and no 30-day mortality, leading to a clinical success rate of 100%. Five of 10 patients demonstrated an aortic tortuosity index of grade 2 or 3. Additional hostile anatomy that made side vessel catheterization challenging was observed in 15 vessels (45%) with a stenosis of ≥ 50% (related to atherosclerotic disease or struts of indwelling prosthesis) and 21 vessels (66%) with ≤ 70° angulation. Two reinterventions, renal artery stent angioplasty and renal artery covered stent extension, were observed at 2 and 13 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the fenestrated Anaconda endograft in patients with type 1a endoleaks following previous EVAR is safe, feasible, and offers some technical features that facilitate overcoming certain anatomic difficulties.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Complicated with Type Ia Endoleak and Presumable Infection Treated with a Fenestrated Endograft

An 81-year-old patient presented to the emergency room 5 years after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair, with a Type Ia endoleak and a presumable infection of the graft material with Listeria monocytogenes . He was treated with a custom-made fenestrated endograft to seal the endoleak and lifelong antibiotic therapy to suppress the infection. Full explantation of graft material is not always preferable, and endovascular treatment combined with antibiotic suppressive therapy is in some cases an appropriate alternative.

Rescue of proximal failure of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with standard and fenestrated grafts

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the outcomes of standard and fenestrated grafts to treat proximal failure of previous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective implantation of a standard or fenestrated graft after proximal failure of a previous EVAR between April 2010-November 2018 were included. Data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty procedures were performed in 49 patients (45 male; mean age 74.6±7 years). A fenestrated proximal cuff was used in 24 (48%) cases, a composite bifurcated configuration in 21 (42%) cases, and EVAR in 5 (10%) cases. Technical success was achieved in all 5 EVAR cases and 41 of 45 FEVAR cases (91.1%). Iliac artery access problems due to the presence of the previous graft were encountered in eight (16%) procedures and renal artery catheterization difficulties in grafts with suprarenal fixation in seven (15.6%) procedures. There was one (2%) early death due to retroperitoneal bleeding. Early major complications occurred in three (6%) patients. Median follow-up was 26 months (range 1-77). Late occlusion occurred in two (1.3%) of the 151 targeted vessels. One patient needed permanent dialysis. Nine patients died during follow-up, one (2%) of them aneurysm-related. Ten (20.4%) patients presented with major complications during follow-up of which nine (18.4%) needed reintervention. Estimated freedom from reintervention at 1 and 3 years was 89.3±5.1% and 78.8±7.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Repair with fenestrated grafts represents a safe and effective treatment option. Increased technical challenges are to be expected due to the previous graft.

Outcomes of endovascular treatment of endoleak type Ia after EVAR: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of infra-renal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has become treatment of choice. However, individuals undergoing EVAR have a high re-intervention rate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current endovascular treatment modalities of endoleak type Ia (ET Ia) treatment after EVAR and their outcome.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched with PRISMA methodology for studies reporting on endovascular treatment of ET Ia after EVAR. Studies presenting treatment of intra-operative ET Ia were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Two international registries, fourteen non-randomized retrospective and twelve case-report studies were included reporting on 356 patients. Reported endovascular techniques included fenestrated-, branched-, chimney EVAR, endovascular sealing (EVAS), endoanchors, embolization techniques, cuff and/or "giant" Palmaz stents. Technical success rate ranged from 90% to 100%, with intra-operative mortality rate of 0%. During early period, persistence of ET Ia was 3.4% (9/262) and the re-intervention rate was 3.5% (8/227). The 30-day mortality rate was 2% (7/356). Mean follow-up was 22.4 months±18. Presence of ET Ia was 5.9% (21/356), and the reintervention rate was 5.1% (18/349). The mortality rate was 13% (26/203), while the primary patency rate of TVs ranged from 94.3% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of techniques for endovascular repair for ET Ia exists. No strong evidence supports one specific technique. The early and mid-term outcomes are encouraging in terms of ET Ia resolution, mortality and morbidity rates.

Early results with the custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda aortic cuff in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a specific custom-made fenestrated aortic cuff in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2016, a total of 57 custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda (Vascutek, Inchinnan, Scotland, UK) aortic cuffs were placed in 38 centers worldwide. All centers were invited to participate in this retrospective analysis. Postoperative and follow-up data included the presence of adverse events, necessity for reintervention, and renal function.

RESULTS

Fifteen clinics participated, leading to 29 cases. Median age at operation was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR], 71-78 years); five patients were female. Two patients were treated for a para-anastomotic AAA after open AAA repair, 19 patients were treated because of a complicated course after primary endovascular AAA repair, and 8 cases were primary procedures for AAA. A total of 76 fenestrations (mean, 2.6 per case) were used. Four patients needed seven adjunctive procedures. Two patients underwent conversion, one because of a dissection of the superior mesenteric artery and one because of perforation of a renal artery. Median operation time was 225 minutes (IQR, 150-260 minutes); median blood loss, 200 mL (IQR, 100-500 mL); and median contrast volume, 150 mL (IQR, 92-260 mL). Primary technical success was achieved in 86% and secondary technical success in 93%. The 30-day morbidity was 7 of 29 with a mortality rate of 4 of 29. Estimated glomerular filtration rate remained unchanged before and after surgery (76 to 77 mL/min/m²). Between preoperative and median follow-up of 11 months, estimated glomerular filtration rate was reduced statistically significantly (76 to 63 mL/min/m²). During follow-up, 9 cases had an increase in aneurysm sac diameter (5 cases >5 mm); 14 cases had a stable or decreased aneurysm sac diameter; and in 2 cases, no aneurysm size was reported. No type I endoleak was reported, and two cases with a type III endoleak were treated by endovascular means during follow-up. Survival, reintervention-free survival, and target vessel patency at 1 year were 81% ± 8%, 75% ± 9%, and 99% ± 1%, respectively. After 2 years, these numbers were 81% ± 8%, 67% ± 11%, and 88% ± 6%, respectively. During follow-up, the two patients with a type III endoleak needed endograft-related reinterventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with this specific custom-made fenestrated aortic cuff is feasible after complicated previous (endovascular) aortic repair or in complex AAAs. The complexity of certain AAA cases is underlined in this study, and the Fenestrated Anaconda aortic cuff is a valid option in selected cases in which few treatment options are left.

Collected Transatlantic Experience From the PERICLES Registry: Use of Chimney Grafts to Treat Post-EVAR Type Ia Endoleaks Shows Good Midterm Results

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the performance of the chimney (ch) technique in the treatment of type Ia endoleaks after standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2014, 517 chEVAR procedures were performed in 13 US and European vascular centers (PERICLES registry). Thirty-nine patients (mean age 76.9±7.1 years; 33 men) were treated for persistent type Ia endoleak and had computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography follow-up at >1 month. Endurant abdominal stent-grafts were used in the 20 cases. Single chimney graft placement was performed in 18 (46%) patients and multiple in 21 (54%). Overall, 70 visceral vessels were targeted for revascularization. Results: Technical success was achieved in 35 (89.7%) cases; 3 persistent type Ia endoleaks and 1 chimney graft occlusion were detected within the first 30 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6%. Two other deaths (not aneurysm related) occurred during a mean follow-up of 21.9 months (0.23–71.3). Primary patency of the chimney grafts was 94.3% at 36 months. In a subgroup analysis comparing Endurant to other stent-grafts, no significant differences were observed regarding persistent endoleak [1/20 (5%) vs 2/19 (11%), p=0.6] or reintervention [1/20 (5%) vs 0/19 (0%)]. Conclusion: The present series demonstrates that chEVAR in the treatment of post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks has satisfactory results independent of the abdominal and chimney graft combinations. Midterm results show that chEVAR is an effective method for treating type Ia endoleaks.

Technique for Fenestrated Stent-Graft Implantation as a Proximal Extension to a Previous Fenestrated Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Purpose: To describe planning and a technique for fenestrated endovascular repair of a large Crawford type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm after previous 2-fenestration endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR). Technique: The first FEVAR procedure performed at another center implanted a standard Zenith device with 2 fenestrations and 1 scallop for a juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. The diameter of the Crawford type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm had progressed from 68 to 75 mm within a year after the FEVAR. Since the celiac trunk was already occluded, a 3-fenestration 22-×172-mm stent-graft was chosen to extend the existing stent-graft further proximally. A tapered 38/22-×179-mm Zenith custom-made device was designed for the thoracic component. The technique addresses several issues that arise during a FEVAR-in-FEVAR case, such as the orientation of the new stent-graft and its fenestrations, the absence of space between the 2 devices for maneuvers, and the difficulty in catheterizing target vessels with existing bridging stents, for which a bailout “snare-ride” maneuver is described. Conclusion: FEVAR after previous FEVAR is a feasible and efficient treatment option. The modified “snare-ride” technique can be used to catheterize target vessels in the absence of an Indy snare.