Management of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with explantation or fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Nationwide analysis of EVAR explantation outcomes in Korea: A comprehensive dataset study

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the primary treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms, constituting 70%-80% of interventions. Despite initial benefits, long-term studies show increased mortality. Using nationwide data, this study assesses outcomes of EVAR, open aortic repair (OAR), and EVAR explantation (EE) in Korea, while exploring characteristics of late open conversion, including the rising EE incidence.

METHODS

Employing the National Health Insurance Service database, covering health-related data for nearly 50 million Koreans, the study spanned from 2002 to 2020. Patients with AAA diagnoses (I71.3 or I71.4) were categorized into OAR, EVAR, and EE groups based on procedural codes. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, Cox proportional hazard models, and multivariate Cox regression, assessed baseline characteristics, mortality risks, and factors within the EE group.

RESULTS

The analysis encompassed 26,195 patients, with 66.19% in the EVAR group, 31.87% in the OAR group, and 1.94% in the EE group. EVAR cases steadily increased from 2002 to 2018. Survival rates favored EVAR, followed by OAR and EE. 30-day survival was lower in EE than EVAR. Multivariate analysis for EE revealed no risk factors for 30-days survival but identified age, chronic kidney disease, high Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and less than 6 months since EVAR as risk factors for overall mortality.

CONCLUSION

Rising EE trends with increased EVAR adoption, particularly evident in the Korean dataset, underscore inferior outcomes. This highlights the critical need for strategic initial treatment decisions and timely interventions to enhance overall results and mitigate the unfavorable EE incidence.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of the Inverted Limb Configuration Below Fenestrated and Branched Endografts: Experience from Two European Centers

PURPOSE

To report a European experience on the use of the Inverted Limb (IL) below fenestrated and branched endografts (FB-EVAR) for the treatment of juxta/pararenal (JP-AAAs), thoracoabdominal (TAAAs), and para-anastomotic aortic aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2016 and 2020, all FB-EVAR with distal IL due to previous open (OSR) or endovascular repair (EVAR) or infrarenal aortic length <76 mm at two European university centers were retrospectively analyzed. Technical success, early and mid-term iliac complications (occlusion; type Ib endoleak [EL]), IL-related complications (type III EL), and reinterventions were assessed as primary endpoints; 30-day mortality, survival and freedom from (FF) overall complications/reinterventions were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one high-risk patients (male 30%-73%; mean age 71±10 years; ASA 3-4, 41%-100%) underwent FB-EVAR with distal IL for 8 (19.5%) J/P-AAAs and 33 (80.5%) TAAAs. Sixteen (39%) patients with previous aortic treatment (8 OR, 8 EVAR) were included. Preoperative computed tomographic angiography showed infrarenal aortic length <76 mm in all cases. Custom-made endografts were configured as 31 (75.6%) fenestrated-only, 6 (14.6%) branched-only, and 4 (9.8%) fenestrated+branched for an overall of 158 target visceral vessels (TVVs; 3.8±0.7 TVVs/case). The IL main body was planned with 1-stent, 2-stents, and 3-stents in 6 (14.6%), 23 (56.1%), and 12 (29.3%) cases, respectively. Technical success and 30-day mortality were 97.6% (40/41) and 0%. Thirty-day complications occurred in 2 (4.9%) patients: 1 limb occlusion, requiring reintervention, 1 type III EL, spontaneously resolved. Mean follow-up was 21±16 months. Three After 30-day, 3 (7.3%) iliac complications (2 occlusions; 1 type Ib EL) were successfully managed by endovascular reinterventions; no IL-related complications were observed. The patency of TVVs was 96.8%. No correlation between anatomical characteristics, endograft configuration, and primary outcomes was observed, except for 1-stent IL and type III EL (log rank p=0.01). At 1- and 2-year follow-up survival, FF overall iliac/IL-related complications and FF reinterventions were 90% and 80%, 90% and 84%, and 92% and 87%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The IL configuration allows a safe endovascular treatment of challenging aortic lesions in high-risk patients although needing a number of adjunctive procedures. A short main body of IL could be associated with intraoperative and perioperative type III EL.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Bifurcated endograft with inverted limb configuration increases the feasibility of a total endovascular approach in patients with challenging anatomy. The use of inverted limb overcomes the anatomical limitations of short-body initial grafts and short distance between lowest target artery and the aortic bifurcation, leading the fixation inside the endograft. Although technically demanding, this advanced technology could avoid surgical reinterventions in previous open or endovascular repair that are burdened with higher rates of morbidities and complications.

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.

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.

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.

A Novel Solution to Concomitant Type Ia/Type IIIa Endoleak Using the Cook Zenith Fenestrated Device and Endologix AFX®2

Failing EVAR is typically treated with open explant or conversion to fenestrated endovascular repair. Novel solutions for EVAR salvage may be required in patients unable to tolerate explant or travel to centers with custom-fenestrated capabilities. However, strategies utilizing commercially available devices are often limited by anatomic constraints such as short renal artery to endograft bifurcation length. We present a case of progressive sac expansion due to late, concomitant type Ia and type IIIa endoleaks. The patient was successfully treated by proximal extension into the visceral segment using a Cook Zenith Fenestrated device and graft relining using the Endologix AFX^®2.

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.

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.