Exclusion of complex aortic aneurysm with chimney endovascular aortic repair is applicable in a minority of patients treated with fenestrated endografts

Anatomical feasibility of the current endovascular solutions for Juxtarenal aortic abdominal aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

Endovascular repair of juxta-renal aneurysms (JAAAs) can be achieved by fenestrated endografts (FEVAR), parallel-grafts (CHEVAR) and standard abdominal endografts + endoanchors (ESAR). Aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of their anatomical feasibility in JAAAs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients submitted to JAAAs treatment from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, irrelevant of the procedure performed. Juxta-renal aneurysm was defined according with the current ESVS clinical practice guidelines. Preoperative computed tomography angiographies were analyzed to evaluate the anatomical feasibility of: FEVAR (Cook Zenith-platform; CE-marked or custom-made device), CHEVAR (Medtronic Endurant + Atrium Advanta - CE marked combination) and ESAR (Medtronic Endurant + Helifix - CE marked combination) according with the manufactures' instruction for use. The anatomical feasibility of these three endovascular solutions was assessed according with the proximal neck, target visceral vessels (TVVS) and iliac access characteristics.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine cases were considered. There were no cases of frank aortic rupture and in all patients at least one arterial access from above was available. Fenestrated endograft, CHEVAR, and ESAR were anatomically feasible in 93 (94%), 37 (37%), and 27 (27%) cases, respectively (p <. 001). Fenestrated endograft requires design with <3, three and >3 fenestrations in 29 (31%), 33 (36%), and 31 (33%) cases, respectively. Parallel graft technique have required 1 or 2 parallel graft configurations in 12 (12%) and 25 (25%) cases, respectively. Among the 14 cases with aneurysm diameter >70 mm, the anatomical feasibility of FEVAR, CHEVAR, and ESAR was 13(93%), 4(29%), and 4 (29%) cases, respectively (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Fenestrated endograft is more frequently applicable than CHEVAR and ESAR as endovascular treatment of JAAAs. Since this difference is valid also in aneurysms with diameter >70 mm, the issue of a rapid availability is of paramount importance. The 6% of cases have not any endovascular solution and requires open surgery.

The Effect of Age on Peri-Operative Outcomes after FEVAR

INTRODUCTION

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) has become a popular custom-made treatment option for juxtarenal and pararenal aneurysms. It has been previously investigated whether octogenarians as a distinct subgroup are at increased risk for adverse outcomes after FEVAR. With diverging results and an inconclusive understanding of age as a risk factor in general, an analysis of the historical data of a single center was conducted to add to the available body of evidence and further investigate the effect of age as a continuous risk factor.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of a prospectively maintained single-center database of all patients who underwent FEVAR at a single department of vascular surgery was performed. The main endpoint was post-operative survival. In addition to association analyses, potential confounders such as co-morbidities, complication rates, or aneurysm diameter were examined. In terms of sensitivity analyses, logistic regression models were created for the dependent variables of interest.

RESULTS

During the observation period from April 2013 to November 2020, 40 patients over the age of 80 and 191 patients under the age of 80 were treated by FEVAR. The 30-day survival showed no significant difference between the groups (95.1% in octogenarians and 94.3% in patients under 80 years of age). The sensitivity analyses conducted also showed no difference between the two groups, and complication and technical success rates were comparable. The aneurysm diameter was 67 ± 13 mm in the study group and 61 ± 15 mm in those under 80 years of age. Additionally, the sensitivity analyses showed that age as a continuous variable exhibits no effect on the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, age was not associated with adverse peri-operative outcomes after FEVAR, including mortality, lower technical success rates, complications, or length of hospital stay. Essentially, the most highly associated factor with hospital and ICU length of stay was time spent in surgery. However, octogenarians had a significantly larger aortic diameter at the time of treatment, which might indicate the potential introduction of bias by pre-interventional patient selection. Nevertheless, the usefulness of research on octogenarians as a distinct subgroup might be questionable regarding the scalability of results, and future studies might focus on age as a continuous risk factor instead.

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.

Monocentric Evaluation of Physician-Modified Fenestrations or Parallel Endografts for Complex Aortic Diseases

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the demographic and anatomic characteristics, as well as perioperative and follow-up results of fenestration and parallel techniques for the endovascular repair of complex aortic diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 67 consecutive patients underwent endovascular treatment for complex aortic diseases including abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), thoracoabdominal aneurysm (TAAA), aortic dissection, or prior endovascular repair with either fenestrated and parallel endovascular aortic repair (f-EVAR or ch-EVAR) at a single institute from 2013 to 2021. Choices of intervention were made by the disease' emergency, patients' general condition, the anatomic characteristics, as well as following the recommendation from the devices' guidelines. Patients' clinical demographics, aortic disease characteristics, perioperative details, and disease courses were discussed. Short- and mid-term follow-up results were obtained and analyzed. Endpoints were aneurysm-related and unrelated mortality, branch instability, and renal function deterioration.

RESULTS

Totally, 34 and 27 patients received f-EVAR and ch-EVAR, while 6 patients received a combination of both. Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair was conducted mainly in AAA affecting visceral branches and TAAA, whereas ch-EVAR was normally utilized for infrarenal AAA. Regarding the average number of reconstructed arteries per patient, there was a significant difference among f-EVAR, ch-EVAR, and the combination group (mean = 2.3 ± 0.9, 1.4 ± 0.6, 3.5 ± 0.5, p<0.001). Primary technical success was achieved in 28 (82.4%), 22 (81.5%), and 3 (50.0%) patients for each group. Besides operational time (5.77 ± 2.58, 4.47 ± 1.44, p=0.033), no significant difference was observed for blood transfusion, intensive care unit (ICU) or hospital stay, blood creatinine level, 30-day complications, or follow-up complications between patients undergoing f-EVAR or ch-EVAR. Patients receiving combination of both techniques had a higher rate of blood transfusion (p=0.044), longer operational time (p=0.008) or hospital stay (p=0.017), as well as more stent occlusion (p=0.001), endoleak (p=0.004) at short-term and a higher rate of endoleak (p=0.023) at mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that f-EVAR and ch-EVAR techniques had acceptable perioperative and follow-up results and should be considered viable alternatives when encountering complex aortic diseases.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study sought to investigate the baseline and pathological characteristics, as well as perioperative and follow-up results of f-EVAR and ch-EVAR at a single Chinese institution. F-EVAR (mostly physician-modified f-EVAR) was applied in patients with a wide range of etiologies and disease types, while ch-EVAR was preferred for AAA in older patients with an average higher ASA grade. Our experience suggested acceptable safety and efficacy both for techniques, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding any short or mid-term adverse events.