Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and open surgical repair for the treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms

Adoption and clinical outcomes of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair in a regional, multistate community hospital system

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair techniques have evolved over the last decade, yet patterns of physician and hospital system adoption of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) remain poorly defined. We investigated clinical outcomes, use trends, and surgeon and hospital experience for FEVAR in a large community hospital system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all FEVAR procedures within our 5-state hospital system between April 2012 and June 2021. AAA repair volumes (open, EVAR, and FEVAR) were captured at the hospital and surgeon levels using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. Clinical and outcomes data were collected for FEVAR patients. To consider if surgeon or hospital experience influenced outcomes, sequential case number was used to divide patients into surgeon experience and hospital experience groups. Inverse probability weighted and generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, were built to examine risk-adjusted outcomes for surgeon and hospital experience groups.

RESULTS

Of 3850 patients treated with AAA procedures of any kind between 2012 and 2021, 160 (4.2%) underwent FEVAR. FEVAR procedures were performed by 34 different surgeons at 12 hospitals, with intraoperative complications and unplanned adjunctive procedures occurring in 18.8% (n = 30) and 19.4% (n = 31) of patients, respectively. Among FEVAR patients, in-hospital mortality was 1.3% (n = 2) and postoperative morbidity was 16.9% (n = 27). Renal function decline occurred postoperatively in 5.1% of patients. Early (<30 day) postoperative endoleaks occurred in 15.3% of patients (n = 21). Target vessel patency was 95.6% on initial postoperative imaging. Surgeon and hospital experience had a small positive impact on outcomes after the first one to three cases. Significant decreases in operative time, fluoroscopy time, and estimated blood loss were observed with increased surgeon experience, relative to a surgeon's first case (P < .05). There were lower odds of intraoperative complications after a surgeon's first case (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.77, for cases 2-3) or after a hospital's first one to three cases (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.89, for cases 4-8; OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.55 for cases 9-49).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes of FEVAR across our hospital system compare favorably with previously published reports. Although system-wide FEVAR adoption increased 3-fold over the last decade, FEVAR continued to be performed by a minority of hospitals in our system. The results from this cohort demonstrate low rates of adverse events, high rates of technical efficiency, and a small impact of surgeon and hospital experience, thereby supporting this advanced endovascular technology as a safe, efficacious, and generalizable treatment alternative to open repair for patients with complex aortic anatomy.

Outcomes of advanced EVAR versus open surgery in the management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open surgery is still acknowledged as the gold standard for complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (c-AAA). Recently, advanced-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for c-AAA has been developed, but its effectiveness compared to open surgery is still unclear.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed on the MEDLINE through PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The search was aimed to investigate outcomes of both fenestrated- and chimney-EVAR (consider as advanced EVAR) compared to open surgery in c-AAA. Outcomes included postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, long-term mortality, and reintervention rate. Data were collected using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model with relative risk (RR) as the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (n = 12,845 patients) were included in our study. The results demonstrated that advanced-EVAR correlated with diminished postoperative complications (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.49-0.57; p < 0.001) compared to open surgery. Advanced-EVAR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared to open surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53-0.82; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that fenestrated-EVAR resulted in superior outcomes (p < 0.001), whereas the chimney-EVAR subgroup did not show significant differences (p = 0.79), compared to open surgery in terms of 30-day mortality. Unfortunately, advanced-EVAR was associated with a higher long-term mortality rate (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78; p < 0.001) and a higher reintervention rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.01-1.59; p = 0.04) compared to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Advanced EVAR, especially fenestrated-EVAR, presented better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery; however, it failed to demonstrate superiority over open surgery in improving long-term outcomes.

Long Term Outcomes and Durability of Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis of Time to Event Data

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread use, long term outcomes for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) are uncertain. This meta-analysis reports long term survival, freedom from re-intervention, target vessel patency, and one year sac regression after FEVAR.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and meta-analysis to pool time to event data according to PRISMA guidelines. The study was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023401468).

REVIEW METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1992 - 2023; articles were independently screened by two authors. Publication of complete time to event data for any outcome of interest was an inclusion criterion. Raw Kaplan-Meier probabilities were directly extracted from published curves and pooled by random effects. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS I and certainty with GRADE.

RESULTS

A total of 3 569 records were retrieved, 2 869 screened after duplicate removal, yielding 37 included studies (n = 4 371). The pooled mean age was 73.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 72.2, 73.7) and 87.4% were male (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.8 - 88.9). Pooled Kaplan-Meier estimated probabilities of survival (n = 34 studies, n = 4 192 patients) at one, three, and five years were 91.6% (95% CI 90.2 - 92.9), 80.8% (95% CI 78.0 - 83.2), and 65.1% (95% CI 60.9 - 69.1). For freedom from re-intervention (n = 24, n = 3 211 patients) at one, three, and five years these were 90.2% (95% CI 87.3 - 92.7), 80.9% (95% CI 76.5 - 84.9), and 73.8% (95% CI 67.1 - 79.6). For target vessel patency (n = 13, n = 5805 target vessels) at one, three, and five years, these were 96.6% (95% CI 94.9 - 98.0), 94.5% (95% CI 91.7 - 96.7), and 93.1% (95% CI 89.3 - 96.0). Pooled estimate of sac regression (n = 8, n = 560) at one year was 40.2% (95% CI 28.9 - 52.7). Risk of bias was judged as moderate in 11 studies and low for the remaining 26.

CONCLUSION

There are moderate to low certainty data supporting reasonable long term outcome estimates following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. Beyond five years there is a lack of data in the literature.

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.

Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair (ER) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs), using propensity-matched and non-propensity-matched methods.

METHODS

PubMed, OVID, Embase, ELSEVIER and Cochrane library were searched for the studies that compared ER versus OSR for CAAAs from January 1999 to December 2020. CAAAs were defined as short neck, juxtarenal, pararenal and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reintervention, medium and long-term survival. We pooled outcomes of original studies and also performed subgroup analyses using RevMan. The analysis of statistical heterogeneity was performed with STATA 16.0.

RESULTS

21 studies with 12049 patients (3847 ERs, 8202 OSRs) were included in this meta-analysis. In general, the patients undergoing ER were significantly older and likely to be man; more common with diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, renal failure, but smaller aortic aneurysms. In the non-propensity-matched subgroup analysis of ER versus OSR, ER was associated with significantly decreased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.74; P＜.001; I²=4%) and 30-day reintervention (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40-0.87; P = .007; I²=56%); lower rate of long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.21-2.47; P = .002; I²=0%); less perioperative comorbidities including myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, permanent dialysis, wound complications, bowel ischemia; and shorter hospital length of stay. In the propensity-matched subgroup, ER was associated with poorer long-term survival (HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.06-3.06; P = .03; I²=0%), higher incidences of lower extremity ischemia (OR: 12.25; 95% CI: 1.54-97.48; P = .02; I²=16%) and renal artery restenosis (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 1.35-43.24; P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.65-2.66; P = .45; I²=0%), 30-day reintervention (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.62-4.03; P = .34; I²=26%), mid-term survival (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.30-3.56; P = .96; I²=0%) between ER and OSR groups.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses suggest that OSR of CAAAs, compared with ER, is associated with improved long-term survival without increasing of perioperative deaths. ER may be considered in the patients who are high-risk for open repair.

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.

Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Affords Fewer Renal Complications than Open Surgical Repair for Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Patients with Chronic Renal Insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

Although fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been associated with lower morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR) in juxtarenal aneurysms (JAAA), there is a paucity of data in the literature comparing outcomes of the approaches specifically in patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI). We hypothesized that benefits of FEVAR over OSR observed in the general patient population may be diminished in CRI patients due to their heightened vulnerability to renal dysfunction stemming from contrast-induced nephropathy. This study compares 30-day outcomes between FEVAR and OSR for JAAA in patients with non-dialysis dependent CRI.

METHODS

All adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min (but not requiring dialysis) undergoing elective, non-ruptured JAAA repairs were identified in the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement (ACS-NSQIP) Targeted EVAR and AAA databases from 2012-2018. JAAA were identified by recorded proximal aneurysm extent. FEVAR patients were identified in the Targeted EVAR database as those receiving the "Cook Zenith Fenestrated" endograft. OSR cases were defined as those that required proximal clamp positions "above one renal" or "between SMA & renals." Infra-renal or supra-celiac proximal clamp placement, or cases involving concomitant renal/visceral revascularization were excluded. Thirty-day outcomes including mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), pulmonary, and renal complications were compared between FEVAR and OSR groups.

RESULTS

There were 284 patients with CRI who underwent elective repair of JAAA (FEVAR: 89; OSR: 195). FEVAR patients were significantly older than those undergoing OSR (77.3±7.2 vs. 74.2±7.7, P=0.001) and less likely to be smokers (25.8% vs 42.1%; P = 0.009). Other baseline demographic and pre-operative parameters were comparable between the two groups.Multivariable analysis revealed no significant difference between FEVAR and OSR in 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 4.6%; OR=1.22; 95% CI=0.35 - 4.22; P=0.753) or unplanned re-operation (4.5% vs 5.1%; OR=0.78; 95% CI=0.22 - 2.70; P=0.693). Patients undergoing FEVAR had significantly fewer pulmonary complications (3.4% vs 18.5%; OR=0.12; 95% CI=0.03 - 0.42; P<0.001) and renal dysfunction (3.4% vs 11.8%; OR 0.24 95% CI=0.07 - 0.86; P=0.029) compared to OSR. FEVAR was also associated with significantly shorter ICU and hospital lengths of stay (ICU stay: 0 days vs 3 days, P<0.0001; hospital stay: 3 days vs 8 days, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with chronic renal insufficiency, FEVAR offered improved perioperative renal morbidity compared to OSR without a corresponding mortality benefit. Future studies will be required to determine long term outcomes of this procedure in this vulnerable population.

Contemporary Experience with Paravisceral Aortic Aneurysm (PVAAA) Repair in a Tertiary Center

OBJECTIVES

To describe contemporary outcomes from a single center capable of both complex open and endovascular aortic repair for paravisceral aortic aneurysms (PVAAA).

METHODS

Data on all patients receiving open or endovascular (endo) treatment for aortic aneurysms with proximal extent at or above the renal arteries and distal to the inferior pulmonary ligament (IPL) were reviewed. Coarsened exact matching (CEM) on age, aneurysm type, gender, coronary artery disease (CAD), previous aortic surgery and symptomatic status created balanced cohorts for outcomes comparisons.

RESULTS

Between October, 2006 and February, 2018, 194 patients were treated for juxtarenal (40%), pararenal (21%), paravisceral (6%) and Type 4 thoracoabdominal (34%) aortic aneurysms with open (81, 42%) or endo (113, 58%) at a single tertiary center. Endo repairs included renal coverage with a bifurcated graft (2%), unilateral (13%) or bilateral (4%) renal snorkels, Z-fen (15%), multi-branched graft (IDE protocol; 62%) and unique complex configurations (4%). On multivariable analysis, patients selected for open surgery were more likely to be symptomatic, whereas older patients, female patients and those with Type 4 TAAA extent were more often selected for endovascular treatment. Matching based on the significant independent covariates reduced the open and endovascular groups by one-third. Survival at 30 days was 97% for endo and 94% for open repair, 98% for both subgroups when excluding symptomatic cases, and was not different between the matched groups (98% vs 89%; P=0.23). Hospital and ICU stays were longer in open patients (8 vs. 10 days, 2 vs. 4, both P≤0.001). Post-op CVA, MI, lower extremity ischemia, surgical site infections and reoperation were not different between matched groups (all p>0.05), while pulmonary and intestinal complications, as well as grade 1/2 renal dysfunction by RIFLE criteria, were more common after open repair (all P<0.05). Spinal cord ischemia was significantly more frequent in the unmatched Endo group (11% vs. 1%, P=0.02), but this difference was not significant after matching. Composite major aortic complications was no different between treatment groups (unmatched P=0.91, matched P=0.87). Endo treatment resulted in patients more frequently discharged to home (84% vs. 66%, P=0.02). Reintervention after 30 days occurred more frequently in the endo group (P=0.002). Estimated survivals at 1 and 5 years for endo and open are 96% vs. 81% and 69% vs. 81% respectively (Log-rank P=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary repair of PVAAA demonstrates safe outcomes with durable survival benefit when patients are well-selected for open or complex endovascular repair. We believe these data have implications for off-label device use in the treatment of PVAAA, and that open repair remains an essential option for younger, good risk patients in experienced centers.

Preliminary results from a multicenter Italian registry on the use of a new branched device for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The study purpose was to present early outcomes of patients treated for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms or complex abdominal aortic diseases using endovascular repair with a new branched endograft.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study included all patients treated with a new branched endograft. All elective patients were treated with a staged operative strategy and spinal drainage Primary outcomes of interest were technical success, early (≤30 days) mortality, and late (≥30 days) survival, and freedom from adverse aortic events.

RESULTS

A total of 16 consecutive patients were treated for Crawford's extent type I (n = 1), type II (n = 7), type III (n = 1), and type IV (n = 5) endoleaks, with an additional two complex pararenal abdominal aortic lesions (enlarging type Ia endoleak, n = 1; anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, n = 1). There were 13 male (81%) and 3 female (19%) patients with a median age of 72.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 69-78 years). The median diameter of the aortic aneurysm was 65 mm (IQR, 58-81 mm) and the median EuroSCORE prediction for mortality was 18% (IQR, 12%-36%). Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm was secondary to a previous dissection in four patients. A total of 62 of the 64 visceral vessels (96.9%) were stented. Technical success was achieved in 14 (87.5 %) and the cumulative aorta-related mortality rate was 19%. Spinal cord ischemia did not occur. The mean follow-up was 8 ± 4 months (range, 2-15 months). No type I or type III endoleaks were detected. Primary bridging stent patency was 98% (one asymptomatic thrombotic occlusion of a celiac trunk branch). No aortic reintervention was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with this new branched endograft can be performed with high technical success and acceptable morbidity. A 19% mortality is quite high; however, it is tolerable in such a high-risk cohort. The survival rate was acceptable, and graft-related outcomes at early follow-up included an absence of threatening endoleaks and a high target visceral vessel patency.

Predictors of inadequate EndoAnchors aortic wall penetration for the Endosutured therapy in hostile neck patients

BACKGROUND

The use of EndoAnchors is increasing; however, not much about appropriate use in terms of aortic wall penetration (AWP) is described. We aim to evaluate the procedural and anatomical conditions related with borderline (b) or absence (ab) of AWP when checked on first CT-scan after the Endosutured aortic repair (ESAR) for hostile neck anatomies (HNA).

METHODS

This study with NCT04100499 is a single center prospective evaluation of patients receiving EndoAnchors for prevention or treatment of a proximal EVAR failure. AWP was evaluated on first CT-scan and findings correlated with neck anatomical features and procedural data. The sum of borderline and absence of AWP was considered as Inadequate - In-AWP (failure). Adjunctive procedures, reinterventions, all-cause mortality, absence of type Ia EL and aneurysm related mortality are also described.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were treated during the study period and 43 high-surgical risk patients were finally included in the study for analysis with at least one HNA criteria (58%) and associating two in 21% or even three in 21%. A total of 250 EndoAnchors were deployed at a median 6 (range, 4-10) per case. From those, 31 (12.5%) achieved b-AWP and 11 (4.4%) ab-AWP, meaning 42 (16.8%) EndoAnchors with In-AWP. Univariate-analysis showed being an occasional user and a therapeutic case as predictor for at least one and more failures. The only predictor on multivariate analysis for two or more EndoAnchors with In-AWP was being an occasional user. Cumulative-survival and freedom from type-Ia EL at 2-years was 84% and 95%; respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of the ESAR therapy should be validated according to their aortic wall penetration checked on first CT-scan. EndoAnchors use in HNA should not be considered an easy approach for the endovascular technique, especially for therapeutic cases. An individual and specific case analysis counterbalancing inadequate use of the device in unexperienced users should be evaluated against the increased risk of proximal failure as in standard EVAR alone during HNA treatment.

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.

Acute Kidney Injury after Complex Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Background:

Complex endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm carries higher perioperative morbidity than standard infrarenal endovascular repair.

Objective:

This study reviews the incidence and associated factors of acute kidney injury in complex aortic endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods:

A literature review was performed for all studies on the endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms that evaluated rates of acute kidney injury as an outcome. Outcomes were further analyzed by the level of anatomic complexity and method of repair.

Results:

52 studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 5454 individuals undergoing repair from 2004 to 2017. The overall rate of acute kidney injury ranged widely from 0 to 41%, with a rate of hemodialysis from 0 to 19% (temporary) and 0 to 14% (permanent). Increasing anatomic complexity was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury. Mode of endovascular repair, learning curve effect, and preoperative chronic renal insufficiency did not demonstrate any associations with the outcome.

Conclusion:

Published rates of acute kidney injury in complex aortic aneurysm repair vary widely with few definitively associated factors other than increasing anatomic complexity and operative time. Further study is needed for the identification of predictors related to postoperative acute kidney injury.