Juxtarenal endovascular therapy with fenestrated and branched stent grafts after previous infrarenal repair

Systematic review and meta-analysis of fenestrated or branched devices after previous open surgical aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Despite open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms being considered as a durable solution, disease progression and para-anastomotic aneurysms may require further repair, and fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) may be applied to address these pathologies. The aim of this systematic review was to assess technical success, mortality, and morbidity (acute kidney injury, spinal cord ischemia) at 30 days, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up, in patients managed with F/BEVAR after previous OSR.

METHODS

The PRISMA statement was followed, and the study was pre-registered to the PROSPERO (CRD42022363214). The English literature was searched, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, through November 30, 2022. Observational studies and case series with ≥5 patients (2000-2022), reporting on F/BEVAR outcomes after OSR, were considered eligible. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence. The primary outcome was technical success, mortality, and morbidity at 30 days. Data on the outcomes of interest were synthesized using proportional meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1694 articles. Eight retrospective studies (476 patients) were considered eligible. In 78.3% of cases, disease progression set the indication for reintervention. Technical success was estimated at 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-98%; I2 = 0%; 95% prediction interval [PI], 79%-99%). Thirty-day mortality was 2% (95% CI, 1%-9%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-28%). The estimated spinal cord ischemia and acute kidney injury rates were 3% (95% CI, 1%-9%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-30%) and 6% (95% CI, 2%-15%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 1%-40%), respectively. During follow-up, overall mortality was 5% (95% CI, 2%-12%; I2 = 34%; 95% PI, 0%-45%) and aorta-related mortality was 1% (95% CI, 0%-2%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-3%). The rate of reinterventions was 16% (95% CI, 9%-26%; I2 = 22%; 95% PI, 3%-50%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after OSR may be performed with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity during the perioperative period. Follow-up aortic-related mortality was 1%, whereas the reintervention rates were within the standard range following F/BEVAR.

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.

Outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in patients with or without prior history of abdominal endovascular or open surgical repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

METHODS

The clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis.

RESULTS

There were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis.

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.

Comparison of Early and Mid-Term Outcomes After Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With or Without Prior Infrarenal Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (F-BEVAR) of pararenal (PRAA)/thoracoabdominal (TAAA) aortic aneurysms in patients with or without prior endovascular/open (EVAR/OAR) infrarenal aortic repair.

METHODS

Data from consecutive F-BEVAR (2010-2019) at two high-volume aortic centers were retrospectively reviewed. Primary endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, and overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 30-day major adverse events (MAE), freedom from type I/III endoleaks, reinterventions, sac expansion, and target vessel (TV) primary patency.

RESULTS

A total of 222 consecutive patients were included for analysis; of these 58 (26.1%) had prior infrarenal repair (EVAR=33, OAR=25) and 164 (73.9%) had native PRAA/TAAA. At baseline, patients with prior infrarenal repair were older (mean age=75.1 vs 71.6 years, p=.005) and the proportion of females was lower (8.6% vs 29.3%, p=.002). Technical success was 97.8% (n=217) in the entire cohort, without any significant differences between study groups (94.8% vs 98.8%, p=.08). At 30 days, there were no significant differences between patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those without in rate of MAE (44.8% vs 54.9%, p=.59). The 5-year estimate of survival for those who underwent native aortic repair was 61.6%, versus 61.3% for those who had a previous repair (p=.67). The 5-year freedom from endoleaks I/III estimates were significantly lower in patients who had prior infrarenal repair as compared with patients undergoing treatment of native aneurysms (57.1% vs 66.1%, p=.03), mainly owing to TV-related endoleaks (ie, type IC and/or IIIC endoleaks). No significant differences were found between study groups in rates of reinterventions and TV primary patency. Five-year estimates of freedom from sac increase >5mm were significantly lower in patients who received F-BEVAR after previous infrarenal repair as compared with those who underwent treatment of native aneurysms (48.6% vs 77.5%, p=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR is equally safe and feasible for treatment of patients with prior infrarenal repair as compared with those undergoing treatment for native aneurysms. Increased rates of TV-related endoleaks were observed which could lead to lower freedom from aneurysm sac shrinkage during follow-up. Nevertheless, the 5-year rates of reinterventions and TV patency were similar, thereby indicating that overall effectiveness of treatment remained satisfactory at mid-term.

Fenestrated-Branch Endovascular Repair After Prior Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcome of fenestrated and branch endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR-BEVAR) for asymptomatic and acute symptomatic proximal aortic pathology in patients with prior open (OSR) or endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

This was a single centre retrospective study of consecutive patients with non-ruptured (asymptomatic and acute symptomatic) proximal aortic pathology after prior OSR or EVAR treated between December 2007 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30 day/in hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were technical success, primary clinical success, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The effect of covariates on medium term survival was estimated using multivariable (Cox proportional hazards model) analysis. A p value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients (83 men; median age 75 years [IQR 71 - 80 years]; median diameter 73 mm [IQR 64 - 89 mm]; 82 elective, 10 acute) underwent FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR (n = 47) or EVAR (n = 45). Indications for intervention were aneurysmal degeneration with or without type 1a endoleak (n = 57; four juxtarenal [JR] AAA, 21 extent II/III, 32 extent IV thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms); type 1a endoleak alone (n = 27) and to create a more durable repair after acute infrarenal EVAR (n = 8; JRAAA). In total, 348 renovisceral vessels were targeted for preservation and 324 were stent grafted. Twenty-four unstented vessels comprised one bypass, 11 scallops and six fenestrations intentionally not stent grafted, two vessels occluded before graft implantation, and four vessels occluded intra-operatively. Primary technical success was 95.6%. The thirty day mortality rate was 1.1% and one patient each (1.1%) required permanent dialysis or developed temporary spinal cord ischaemia. Early primary clinical success was 94.6%. Median follow up was 36 months (IQR 23 - 64 months). Estimated overall survival (± standard error) at one, two, and three years was 86% ± 4%, 85% ± 4%, and 70% ± 5%, respectively. Multivariable analysis did not demonstrate any independent predictors of survival. Four target vessels occluded during follow up. Nineteen patients underwent 28 late re-interventions, with almost half performed for issues arising distal to the FEVAR-BEVAR. Patients treated with a cuff were statistically significantly more likely to require distal re-intervention compared with those treated by relining (9/49 vs. 1/43, p = .018 [odds ratio 9.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2 - 423]). In patients with prior EVAR alone, this did not reach statistical significance (cuff 7/25 vs. relining 1/20, p = .059 [odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8 - 350]). Estimated freedom from re-intervention at one, two, and three years was 88% ± 3%, 81% ± 4%, and 81% ± 4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FEVAR-BEVAR after prior OSR or EVAR is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and mortality, and acceptable medium term survival and freedom from re-intervention. Treatment with a FEVAR-BEVAR cuff is associated with a higher requirement for distal re-intervention than relining of the original repair.

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.

Novel Application of Custom-Made Stent Grafts with Inner Branches for Secondary Treatment After Stent Graft Migration of Previous Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

We present a novel application of custom-made stent grafts (CMSGs) with inner branches to incorporate target vessels (TVs) as an alternative to fenestrations or directional branches for secondary treatment after stent graft migration of previous infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

CASE REPORT

Two consecutive patients with stent graft migration of previous EVAR were electively treated at our institution from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Stent graft migration was defined as radiologic evidence of stent graft displacement >10 mm. In both cases, a proximal type I endoleak was noted, and the residual infrarenal aorta above the previous endograft was unsuitable as the proximal landing zone for a nonfenestrated cuff. Repair was planned by means of a CMSG with 4 inner branches. The procedures were conducted in two-stage fashion to minimize the risk of spinal cord ischemia. The procedures were technically successful with a total of 8 TVs stented. Both patients did not suffer from any early (i.e., up to 30 days) major adverse events, and no access-site complications were noted. At one-year follow-up, computed tomography angiography showed regular placement of the CMSGs, widely patent TVs, absence of any type I or III endoleak, and stable sac size. No late reinterventions were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary treatment of stent graft migration after previous EVAR is safe and feasible using CSMGs with 4 inner branches. This technique is effective as showed by stable sac size and 100% freedom from TVI at mid-term imaging follow-up. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the preliminary results.