Open Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Outcomes of iCAST Bridging Stents in Zenith Fenestrated Endografts - A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing placement of balloon-expandable iCAST bridging stents during fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with Zenith Fenestrated Endografts (ZFEN), and to identify pre-operative and peri-operative risk factors for stent-related complications.

METHODS

Between 2012-2020, 207 patients underwent FEVAR using unmodified ZFEN with bridging iCAST covered stents to visceral target vessels. We collected patient demographics and operative variables from the index repair. We collected long term follow up data for endoleaks, branch patency, and re-intervention. We defined branch stent complications as malalignment, kinking, occlusion or endoleak requiring intervention as determined by surveillance imaging studies. We compared variables from the index operation in those patients with stent complications to those patients without stent complications to identify significant risk factors.

RESULTS

Patients in our cohort were predominantly male (n=158, 76.3%), white (n=199, 96.1%), and demonstrated cardiovascular comorbidity. The majority of repairs were for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (n=149, 72%) with the remainder of repairs extending further cephalad. We identified 23 patients with bridging stent complications in follow up that required re-intervention. Brachial access was more frequently used in the complication group (34.8% vs 15.8%, p = 0.0251). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the complication group were treated for extent IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms (17.8% vs 5.4%, p = 0.0316). Additional patient characteristics and perioperative factors are compared between the branch complications and no branch complications groups in Table 1. An intervention-free patency Kaplan-Meier plot is presented in Figure 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present a large single institution experience with iCAST branch stents during FEVAR using unmodified ZFEN and risk factors for stent related complications. Patients with branch complications were more likely to have brachial access and more extensive aneurysm repair. Most branch complications were identified within the first two years, with half of re-interventions occurring within 7.5 months of the index operation.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes of the Advanta V12 or iCAST Bridging Stent Graft Used for Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

Half of re-interventions after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) are target vessel related. Regarding bridging stent choice, existing data are controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of Advanta V12/iCAST as the bridging stent in FB-EVAR.

DATA SOURCES

The English medical literature was searched through MEDLINE, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane databases (end date 15 April 2024).

REVIEW METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) model were followed. A predefined protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42024556603). Randomised controlled trials and observational studies (2010 - 2024) reporting on Advanta V12/iCAST related target vessel outcomes were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and evidence quality was assessed via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Primary outcomes were freedom from instability, stenosis and or occlusion, types Ic and IIIc endoleak, and re-intervention of target vessels bridged with the Advanta V12/iCAST. Prevalence and regression meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

From 1 439 articles, ten retrospective studies (7 525 target vessels; 3 890 target vessels bridged with Advanta V12/iCAST) were included. According to ROBINS-I, no study was of high quality. Mean follow up was 24.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.9 - 24.7) months. Freedom from instability, stenosis and or occlusion, and types Ic and IIIc endoleak were 94% (95% CI 91 - 96%; p < .010; I2 = 91%; GRADE certainty, very low), 97% (95% CI 96 - 98%; p =  .070, I2 = 44%; GRADE certainty, low), and 97% (95% CI 94 - 98%; p < .010; I2 = 81%; GRADE certainty, very low), respectively. Freedom from target vessel re-intervention was 95% (95% CI 92 - 97%; p < .010; I2 = 85%; GRADE certainty, very low). Four studies provided extractable data on Advanta V12/iCAST in fenestrations and four in branches. No difference was detected in freedom from instability (p = .47), stenosis and or occlusion (p = .36), and types Ic and IIIc endoleak (p = .90). Freedom from re-intervention was 93% (95% CI 87 - 96%; p < .010; I2 = 90%) in fenestrations and 95% (95% CI 91 - 97%; p = .060, I2 = 64%) in branches.

CONCLUSION

The Advanta V12/iCAST bridging stent showed high freedom from target vessel instability, stenosis and or occlusion, and endoleak. Freedom from re-intervention was 95%, being similarly high in fenestrations and branches.

Postoperative renal complications following open juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair adversely impact midterm survival

OBJECTIVE

Juxtarenal aortic aneurysms present a challenge for endovascular treatment. Although renal dysfunction after open repair has been associated with lower short-term survival, the relationship between postoperative kidney function and midterm outcomes such as rupture, reintervention, and mortality remains unclear. This study investigates the association between postoperative renal function and these outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims through the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION). Patients who underwent elective open repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms between January 2003 and December 2018 (N = 1925) were included. Patients were stratified based on postoperative renal function: stable renal function; acute kidney injury (AKI), as defined by a ≥0.5 mg/dL increase in baseline serum creatinine level; or need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, rupture, and reintervention, and secondary outcomes were immediate postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox regression modeling were used.

RESULTS

Among the 1925 patients, 74% had stable postoperative renal function, 21% developed AKI, and 4.9% required RRT. Worse renal outcomes were associated with longer renal ischemia times, higher proximal aortic clamping, and renal artery bypass. Postoperative, 30-day mortality was highest in the RRT group, along with higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, and intestinal ischemic complications (P < .001). Patients requiring RRT had higher risks of subsequent aortic aneurysm-related reintervention (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-5.1; P = .03) and midterm (1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up) mortality (aHR: 2.2; 95% CI: 2.1-5.1; P < .001) compared with those with stable renal function. Patients with AKI also had higher midterm mortality (aHR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.0; P = .01). No significant differences in aneurysm rupture were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative patients who required RRT were associated with increased midterm aortic reinterventions and mortality after open juxtarenal aneurysm repair. Patients demonstrating any degree of renal impairment were associated with higher midterm mortality risk, though rupture rates and rates of reintervention demonstrated no difference.

Comparison of open and endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and 5-year outcomes following endovascular (FEVAR) and open repair (OAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) in males and females separately, given the known sex-related differences in perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

We studied all elective cAAA repairs between 2014 and 2019 in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) registry. We stratified patients based on sex. We calculated propensity scores for assignment to either OAR or FEVAR. Covariates including age, race, diameter, baseline comorbidities, proximal extent of repair, annual center volumes, and annual surgeon volumes were introduced into the model for estimating propensity scores. Within matched cohorts, perioperative outcomes and 5-year outcomes (mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures) were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 2825 patients, of whom 29% were female. Within both the sexes, OAR was more commonly performed (OAR vs FEVAR: males: 53% vs 47%; females: 63% vs 37%). After matching, among males (n = 1326), FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality (FEVAR vs OAR: 2.3% vs 5.1%; P < .001). However, FEVAR was associated with comparable 5-year mortality (38% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.4; P = .22) and a higher hazard of 5-year reintervention (19% vs 3.7%; adjusted HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.6-7.6; P < .001). Among females (n = 456), FEVAR and OAR showed similar perioperative mortality (8.3% vs 7.0%; P = .73). At 5 years, FEVAR was associated with higher hazards of mortality (43% vs 32%; adjusted HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.03-2.2; P = .034) and reintervention (20% vs 3.0%; adjusted HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.1-11; P < .001) compared with OAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Among males, FEVAR was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with OAR, although these advantages attenuate over time. However, among females, FEVAR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes, eventually leading to higher reinterventions and possibly higher mortality within 5 years. Future efforts should focus on determining the factors associated with these sex disparities to improve outcomes following FEVAR in females. Based on current evidence, females undergoing elective cAAA repair should be selected with due caution, especially for endovascular repair.

Editor's Choice - Peri-operative Mortality and Morbidity of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Switzerland: A Swissvasc Report

OBJECTIVE

Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAA) pose a clinical challenge. The aim of this study was to assess the 30 day mortality and morbidity rates for open aneurysm repair (OAR) and fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR), and the effect of hospital volume in patients with asymptomatic cAAA in Switzerland.

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study using data from Switzerland's national registry for vascular surgery, Swissvasc, including patients treated from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022. All patients with asymptomatic, true, non-infected cAAA were identified. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality and morbidity rates reported using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes were compared between OAR and F/B-EVAR after propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Of the 461 patients identified, 333 underwent OAR and 128 underwent F/B-EVAR for cAAA. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was 3.3% after OAR and 3.1% after F/B-EVAR (p = .76). Propensity score weighted analysis indicated similar morbidity rates for both approaches: F/B-EVAR (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 - 1.05, p = .055); intestinal ischaemia (1.8% after OAR, 3.1% after F/B-EVAR, p = .47) and renal failure requiring dialysis (1.5% after OAR, 5.5% after F/B-EVAR, p = .024) were associated with highest morbidity and mortality rates. Treatment specific complications with high morbidity were abdominal compartment syndrome and lower limb compartment syndrome following F/B-EVAR. Overall treatment volume was low for most of the hospitals treating cAAA in Switzerland; outliers with increased mortality rates were identified among low volume hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Comparable 30 day mortality and morbidity rates were found between OAR and F/B-EVAR for cAAA in Switzerland; lack of centralisation was also highlighted. Organ specific complications driving death were renal failure, intestinal ischaemia, and limb ischaemia, specifically after F/B-EVAR. Treatment in specialised high volume centres, alongside efforts to reduce peri-procedural kidney injury and mesenteric ischaemia, offers potential to lower morbidity and mortality rates in elective cAAA treatment.

Ten years of physician-modified endografts

OBJECTIVES

Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have expanded the scope of endovascular abdominal aortic repair beyond the infrarenal aorta. Patients with prohibitively high surgical risk and visceral segment disease are often candidates for this intervention, which mitigates much of the morbidity and mortality associated with conventional open repair. Here we present the institutional PMEG experience of a high-volume aortic center.

METHODS

We studied all PMEGs performed at our institution from 2012 to 2023. We included cases that were submitted to the US Food sand Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption (IDE) trial, as well as those in the subsequently approved IDE trial. Over this 11-year period, we assessed the changes in operative characteristics and perioperative outcomes over time. Additionally, we compared the outcomes from PMEG cases to those of Zenith fenestrated (ZFEN) grafts (done by the surgeon with the PMEG IDE), an alternative device used for aneurysms involving the lower visceral segment. Here we assessed operative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 5-year survival and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

When assessing the change over time for PMEG operative characteristics, we found a trend toward decreased fluoroscopy time and decreased proportions of completion type I and type III endoleaks (all P < .05). Perioperative outcomes have remained stable over this period, with an overall perioperative mortality rate of 4.9% (noting that this registry also includes cases that were urgent and emergent). Despite the increased complexity of PMEGs relative to ZFENs, we found comparable perioperative outcomes with regard to mortality (4.9% vs 4.3%; P = .86), permanent spinal cord ischemia (1.1% vs 0%; P = .38), postoperative myocardial infarction (4.3% vs 2.9%; P = .60), postoperative respiratory failure (7.1% vs 4.3%; P = .43), and new dialysis use (2.2% vs 4.3%; P = .35). Additionally, 5-year survival (PMEG 54% vs ZFEN 65%; P = .15) and freedom from reintervention (63% vs 74%; P = .07) were similar between these cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout our >10-year experience with PMEGs, we have noted improvements in operative outcomes, which can likely be attributed to technological advances and increased physician experience. Additionally, we have found that PMEGs perform well when compared with ZFENs, despite being a more complicated repair that is able to treat a larger segment of the aorta. PMEGs are crucial for the comprehensive care of vascular patients with complex aortic disease. As further operative advancements are made, we only expect the use of this intervention to increase.

Long-term results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in young and fit patients

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAa) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) with fenestrated and branched devices (F/BEVAR) represents the first-line treatment in old or unfit patients. Currently, the widespread diffusion of these techniques has led to a progressive increase of complex endovascular procedures also in younger and fitter patients, but the related results have been only minimally reported, without long-term data. We investigated the long-term results of F/BEVAR for CAAA and TAAA repair in young and fit patients.

METHODS

All consecutive patients, aged ≤70 years, who underwent F/BEVAR for CAAA and TAAA over the last 13 years at two tertiary institutions were included in the study. All subjects presented a low to intermediate risk according to the Society for Vascular Surgery clinical comorbidity grading system. The primary end points were technical and clinical success and late overall and aortic-related survival. Major complications and specific target vessel-related outcomes were investigated as secondary end points.

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients (155 males [84.7%]; mean age, 64.5 ± 5.7 years; range, 33-70 years) underwent F/BEVAR during the study period, for a total of 167 degenerative (91.3%) and 16 postdissection (8.7%) aneurysms, including 44 (24%) juxtarenal, 33 (18%) pararenal, and 106 (58%) TAAAs. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 176 patients (96.2%) and 171 patients (93.4%), respectively. Four patients (2.2%) died perioperatively, of which two (1.1%) operated in emergency. Postoperatively, five patients (2.7%) presented permanent grade 3 spinal cord injury and three (1.6%) renal failure needing permanent dialysis. The mean follow-up was 65.7 ± 39.6 months (range, 1-158 months). The estimated overall and aortic-related survival at 12, 60, and 120 months was 94.0%, 85.1%, 72.2%, and 97.8%, 97.8%, 96.2%, respectively, and reintervention and branch instability-free survival at the same time points were 84.4%, 71.8%, 71.8%, and 93.2%, 86.3%, 72.2%, respectively. An aneurysm growth of >5 mm was detected in six patients (3.3%), and a sac shrinkage of >5 mm was achieved in 118 cases (64.5%). The Cox regression analysis demonstrated the need for unplanned procedure as the only risk factor for overall mortality (odds ratio, 3.331; 95% confidence interval, 1.397-7.940; P < .01].

CONCLUSIONS

F/BEVAR in young and fit patients led to low perioperative mortality and major morbidity rates and a favorable overall survival rate in the long-term, making this technique particularly appealing in such a subgroup of patients. The availability of long-term data derived from the results of young patients, may additionally provide helpful information to redefine the indications for treatment and allow future targeted device and technique improvements.

Effect of fenestration configuration on renal artery outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of fenestration configuration and fenestration gap on renal artery outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed, including patients with complex aortic aneurysms treated with F/BEVAR that incorporated at least one small fenestration to a renal artery. The renal fenestrations were divided into groups 1 (8 × 6 mm) and 2 (6 × 6 mm). Primary patency, target vessel instability (TVI), freedom from secondary interventions (SIs), occurrence of type IIIc endoleak, all related to the renal arteries, were analyzed at 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year landmarks. The fenestration gap (FG) distance was analyzed as a modifier, and clustering was addressed at the patient level.

RESULTS

A total of 796 patients were included in this study, 71.7% male, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 8.1 years. The mean follow-up was 30.0 ± 20.6 months. Of the 1474 small renal fenestrations analyzed, 47.6% were 8 × 6 mm, and 52.4% were 6 × 6 mm. At the 30-day landmark, primary patency (99.9% vs 98.0%; P value < .001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively), freedom from TVI (99.6% vs 97.1%; P value < .001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively), and freedom from SI (99.8% vs 98.4%; P value = .022 for groups 1 and 2, respectively) were higher in 8 × 6 compared with 6 × 6 fenestrations, and the incidence of acute kidney injury was similar across the groups (92.6% vs 92.7%; P value = .953 for groups 1 and 2 respectively). The primary patency at 1 and 5 years was higher in 8 × 6 fenestrations (1-year: 98.8% vs 96.9%; 5-year: 97.8% vs 95.7%, for groups 1 and 2, respectively, P values = .010 and .021 for 1 and 5 year comparisons, respectively). The freedom from SIs was significantly higher among 6 × 6 fenestrations at 5 years (93.1% vs 96.4%, for groups 1 and 2, respectively, P value = .007). The groups were equally as likely to experience a type Ic endoleak (1.3% and 1.6% for 8 × 6 and 6 × 6mm fenestrations, respectively, P = .689). The 6 × 6 fenestrations were associated with higher risk of kidney function deterioration (17.8%) when compared with 8 × 6 fenestrations (7.6%) at 5 years (P < .001). The risk of type IIIc endoleak was significantly higher among 8 × 6 fenestrations at 5 years (4.9% and 2% for 8 × 6 and 6 × 6 mm fenestrations, respectively; P = .005). A FG ≥5 mm negatively impacted the cumulative 5-year freedom from TVI (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.714, FG <5 mm = 0.857; P < .001; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.761, FG <5 mm = 0.929; P < .001) and the cumulative 5-year freedom from type IIIc endoleak (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.759, FG <5 mm = 0.921; P = .034; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.853, FG <5 mm = 0.979; P < .001) in both groups and the cumulative 5-year patency in group 2 (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.963, FG <5 mm = 0.948; P = .572; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.905, FG <5 mm = 0.938; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

Fenestration configuration for the renal arteries impacts outcomes. The 8 × 6 small fenestrations have better patency at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, whereas 6 × 6 small fenestrations are associated with lower rates of SIs, primarily due to a lower incidence of type IIIc endoleaks. FG ≥5 mm at the level of the renal arteries significantly impacts the freedom from TVI, freedom from type IIIc endoleak, and 5-year patency independently of the fenestration size or vessel diameter.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions.

RESULTS

Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Outcomes and Imaging Surveillance Adherence in Juxta-Renal Aortic Aneurysms Repairs: A VASQIP Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) has demonstrated its value in the management of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA), but data were largely derived from clinical trials and high-volume centers. Although routine imaging surveillance is recommended following endovascular interventions, little is known regarding follow-up compliance post-FEVAR. We examined the real-world treatment outcomes and adherence to the postoperative follow-up protocol after elective interventions for JAAA at Veteran Affairs (VA) health care facilities, the largest integrated health care system in the United State.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. We queried the Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database for elective FEVARs and juxtarenal open surgical repairs (j-OSR), then merged follow-up imaging and mortality information. Our primary endpoints were mortality following FEVAR and j-OSR, and adherence to surveillance guidelines. Secondary endpoints included short-term postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1110 veterans who underwent first-time JAAA repair between 2002 and 2019 (FEVAR, 26% [n=290]; j-OSR, 74% [n=820]) were included in the analysis. The number of j-OSR captured in the database gradually declined by 50%, from 62 interventions in 2002 to 28 in 2019, while FEVAR procedures quadrupled from 20 procedures in 2014 to 94 in 2019. The median follow-up was 3.99 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.73-4.87) for FEVAR patients, and 12.80 (12.31-13.70) for those that underwent jOSR. A significantly lower risk of 30-day mortality was observed following FEVAR compared to j-OSR (1% vs 5%, odds ratio [OR]: 5.03 [1.54-16.38]; p=0.003). At 5 years, FEVAR was linked with significantly higher mortality (41.5% vs 21%, p<0.001) after adjusting for confounders (aHR=2.10 [1.56-2.82], p<0.001). Of surviving patients, the follow-up imaging rate was 66.3% by 1-year post-FEVAR. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 7% post-FEVAR compared to 32% post j-OSR.

CONCLUSION

Elective FEVAR is associated with lower perioperative mortality and morbidities compared to elective j-OSR for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. However, the perioperative survival benefits of FEVAR diminish over time, with its mortality surpassing that of j-OSR at longer follow-up periods. The compliance with post-FEVAR imaging surveillance is also low. Further research is warranted to develop strategies to improve adherence to imaging surveillance protocols.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study provides real-world evidence on the outcomes and follow-up adherence following fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA) in the Veterans Affairs health care system. With FEVAR's increasing use, the findings highlight the need for improved surveillance protocols, as adherence to postoperative imaging declines significantly after the first year. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of long-term mortality despite FEVAR's short-term benefits, urging better follow-up strategies that relay a survival benefit for patients.

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 costs to Medicare associated with endovascular and open repairs of infrarenal and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The vast majority of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing repairs receive endovascular interventions (EVARs) instead of open operations (OARs). Although EVARs have better short-term outcomes, OARs have improved longer-term durability and require less radiographic follow-up and monitoring, which may have significant implications on health care economics surrounding provision of AAA care nationally. Herein, we compared costs associated with EVAR and OAR of both infrarenal and complex AAAs.

METHODS

We examined patients undergoing index elective EVARs or OARs of infrarenal and complex AAAs in the 2014-2019 Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VQI-VISION) dataset. We defined overall costs as the aggregated longitudinal costs associated with: (1) the index surgery; (2) reinterventions; and (3) imaging tests. We evaluated overall costs up to 5 years after infrarenal AAA repair and 3 years for complex AAA repair. Multivariable regressions adjusted for case-mix when evaluating cost differences between EVARs vs OARs.

RESULTS

We identified 23,746 infrarenal AAA repairs (8.7% OAR, 91% EVAR) and 2279 complex AAA repairs (69% OAR, 31% EVAR). In both cohorts, patients undergoing EVARs were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. The cost for the index procedure for EVARs relative to OARs was lower for infrarenal AAAs ($32,440 vs $37,488; P < .01) but higher among complex AAAs ($48,870 vs $44,530; P < .01). EVARs had higher annual imaging and reintervention costs during each of the 5 postoperative years for infrarenal aneurysms and the 3 postoperative years for complex aneurysms. Among patients undergoing infrarenal AAA repairs who survived 5 years, the total 5-year cost of EVARs was similar to that of OARs ($35,858 vs $34,212; -$223 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$3042 to $2596]). For complex AAA repairs, the total cost at 3 years of EVARs was greater than OARs ($64,492 vs $42,212; +$9860 [95% CI, $5835-$13,885]). For patients receiving EVARs for complex aneurysms, physician-modified endovascular grafts had higher index procedure costs ($55,835 vs $47,064; P < .01) although similar total costs on adjusted analyses (+$1856 [95% CI, -$7997 to $11,710]; P = .70) relative to Zenith fenestrated endovascular grafts among those that were alive at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-term costs associated with EVARs are lower for infrarenal AAAs but higher for complex AAAs relative to OARs, driven by reintervention and imaging costs. Further analyses to characterize the financial viability of EVARs for both infrarenal and complex AAAs should evaluate hospital margins and anticipated changes in costs of devices.

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost

INTRODUCTION

Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM).

RESULTS

Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

Preoperative proteinuria is independently associated with mortality after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has become a mainstay in treating complex aortic aneurysms, though baseline patient factors predicting long-term outcomes remain poorly understood. Proteinuria is an early marker for chronic kidney disease and associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but its utility in patients with aortic aneurysms is unknown. We aimed to determine whether preoperative proteinuria impacts long-term survival after FEVAR.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective review of all elective FEVAR was performed. Preoperative proteinuria was assessed by urinalysis: negative (0-29 mg/dL), 1+ (30-100 mg/dL), 2+ (101-299 mg/dL), and 3+ (≥300 mg/dL). The cohort was stratified by patients with proteinuria (≥30 mg/dL) vs those without (<30 mg/dL). Baseline, perioperative, and long-term outcomes were compared. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and independent predictors with Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Among 181 patients who underwent standard FEVAR from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up 33 months), any proteinuria was noted in 30 patients (16.6%). Patients with proteinuria were more likely to be Black (10.0% vs 1.3%) with a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (52.7 ± 24.7 vs 67.7 ± 20.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), higher Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score (10.9 ± 4.3 vs 8.2 ± 4.7) and calcium channel blocker therapy (50.0% vs 29.1%), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (67.2 ± 16.9 vs 59.8 ± 9.8 mm) (all P < .05). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the proteinuria group (10.0% vs 1.3%; P = .03). Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was significantly lower for those with proteinuria (71.5% vs 92.3% and 29.5% vs 68.1%; log-rank P < .001). On multivariable analysis, preoperative proteinuria was independently associated with over threefold higher hazard of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66-6.20; P < .001), whereas preoperative eGFR was not predictive (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; P = .28). Additional significant predictors included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR: 2.04), older age (HR: 1.05), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (HR: 1.03; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In our 10-year experience with FEVAR, preoperative proteinuria was observed in 17% of patients and was significantly associated with worse survival. In this cohort, proteinuria was independently associated with all-cause mortality, whereas eGFR was not, suggesting that urinalysis may provide an additional simple metric for risk-stratifying patients before FEVAR.

Staging reinterventions for remodeling of residual aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study

Objective

Inadequate remodeling of residual aortic dissection (RAD) following repair of Stanford A or B aortic dissections has been identified as a significant predictor of patient mortality. This study evaluates the short- to mid-term outcomes of staged reinterventions for RAD at a single center with prospective follow-up.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RAD who underwent staged reinterventions or received none-surgery treatment in the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of our hospital between July 2019 and December 2021. The cohort included 54 patients with residual distal aortic dissection post-primary surgery, comprising 28 who underwent open surgery and 26 who received thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent staged stent interventions for distal dissection [staged reintervention (SR) group] and those who did not undergo surgery (non-surgery group). For the SR group, second or third staged stent interventions were performed. The study assessed distal remodeling of aortic dissection between the groups, focusing on endpoints such as mortality (both general and aortic-specific), occurrences of visceral branch occlusion, necessity for further interventions, and significant adverse events. Morphological changes were analyzed to determine the therapeutic impact.

Results

The study encompassed 54 participants, with 33 in the SR group and 21 in the non-surgical control group. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were statistically comparable across both groups. During an average follow-up of 31.5 ± 7.0 months, aortic-related mortality was 0% in both groups; all-cause mortality was 3% (one case) and 5% (one case) in the SR and control groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference noted. In the SR group, a single patient experienced complications, including renal artery thrombosis, leading to diminished blood flow. An increased true lumen (TL) area and a decreased false lumen area at various aortic planes were observed in the SR group compared to the control group.

Conclusion

The staged reintervention strategy for treating RAD is safe and provides promising early results.

Impact of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease on outcomes after complex endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, there needs to be more data on complex AAA repair involving the aorta's visceral segment. This study stratifies complex AAA repair outcomes by CKD severity and dialysis dependence.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective OAR and fenestrated/branched EVAR (F-BEVAR) for complex AAA with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: normal/mild (CKD 1 and 2), moderate (CKD class 3a), moderate to severe (CKD 3b), severe (CKD class 4 and 5), and dialysis. Only patients with clamp sites above one of the renal arteries were included for complex OAR. For F-BEVAR, patients with proximal landing zones below zone 5 (above celiac artery) were included, and distal landing zones between zones 1 and 5 were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of mortality were identified by Cox multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 7849 elective complex AAA repairs: 4230 (54%) complex OARs and 3619 (46%) F-BEVARs. Most patients were White (89%) and male (74%), with an average age of 72 ± 8 years. The patients who underwent F-BEVAR were older and had more comorbidities. Elective F-BEVAR for complex AAA started in 2012 and increased from 1.4% in 2012 to 58% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications, but less 1-year mortality. The normal/mild CKD cohort had the highest 1-year survival compared with other groups after both complex OAR and F-BEVAR. On Cox regression analysis, when compared with CKD 1-2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3b: hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-3.40; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.16-3.26; P = .011; and dialysis: HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.53-7.72; P < .001) were independently associated with 1-year survival after F-BEVAR. After complex OAR, worsening CKD stage but not dialysis was associated with 1-year mortality compared with CKD 1-2 (CKD 3b: HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.13-2.35; P = .009; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.03-5.79; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CKD severity is an essential predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality after complex AAA repair, irrespective of the treatment modality, which may reflect the natural history of CKD. Consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in patients with moderate to severe CKD and end-stage renal disease, given the high 1-year mortality rate.

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.

Editor's Choice -- Age Stratified Midterm Survival Following Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Age stratified mortality was examined following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) vs. open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) METHODS: All patients undergoing first time elective F-EVAR and complex open aneurysm repair (c-OAR) for juxtarenal AAA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Open repairs were compared with commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Patients were stratified into three age groups (< 65, 65 - 75, > 75 years). Primary outcomes were peri-operative and five year mortality, and inverse probability weighted risk adjustment was performed to account for baseline differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 1 961 patients underwent F-EVAR (82% commercial F-EVAR, 18% PMEG) and 3 385 patients underwent c-OAR. Across age groups, the distribution of F-EVAR (vs. c-OAR) was: < 65 years: 23%, 65 - 75 years: 33%, > 75 years: 52%. After adjustment, among patients < 65 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with similar peri-operative mortality (0.9% vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 - 1.44], p = .22), and five year mortality (13% vs. 9.5%; HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 - 2.90, p = .31). Among patients aged 65 - 75 years, between juxtarenal AAA repair modalities, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with a significantly lower risk of peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 5.0%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.79, p = .004), and five year mortality (13% vs. 13%; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 - 1.36, p = .74). Similarly, among patients > 75 years, compared with c-OAR, F-EVAR was associated with lower peri-operative mortality (2.2% vs. 6.5%; HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.47, p < .001), but with similar five year mortality (18% vs. 21%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.20, p = .31).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with a juxtarenal AAA, F-EVAR was associated with a lower peri-operative mortality compared with c-OAR in patients ≥ 65 years, but was similar in those < 65 years. At five years, F-EVAR was associated with similar mortality in all age groups, though there was a non-significant trend for a higher mortality rate in younger patients.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Association of Baseline Chronic Kidney Disease Stage With Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a well-established treatment approach for juxtarenal and short-neck infrarenal aortic aneurysms. Recommendations and clinical outcomes are lacking for offering FEVAR in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes for patients with none-to-mild versus moderate-to-severe CKD undergoing FEVAR.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing standard FEVAR with Cook devices at a single institution. The cohort was stratified by preoperative CKD stage none-to-mild or moderate-to-severe (CKD 1-2 and CKD 3-5, respectively). The primary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative complications, 1- and 5-year rates of overall survival, dialysis, renal target artery patency, endoleak, and reintervention assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Aneurysm sac regression, number of surveillance computed tomography (CT) scans, and CKD stage progression were assessed at latest follow-up. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate the association of CKD stage 3 and stage 4-5 with all-cause mortality, controlling for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

From 2012- to 2022, 184 patients (of which 82% were male) underwent FEVAR with the Cook ZFEN device (mean follow-up 34.3 months). Group CKD 3-5 comprised 77 patients (42%), was older (75.2 vs. 73.0 years, P = 0.04), had increased preoperative creatinine (1.6 vs. 0.9 mg/dL, P < 0.01), and demonstrated increased renal artery ostial calcification (37.7% vs. 21.5%, P = 0.02) compared with Group CKD 1-2. Perioperatively, CKD 3-5 sustained higher estimated blood loss (342 vs. 228 ml, P = 0.01), longer operative times (186 vs. 162 min, P = 0.04), and longer length of stay (3 vs. 2 days, P < 0.01). Kaplan-Meier 1- and 5-year survival estimates were lower for CKD 3-5 (82.3% vs. 95.1%, P < 0.01 and 55.4% vs. 70.8%, P = 0.02). Fewer CKD 3-5 patients remained free from chronic dialysis at 1 year (94.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.015) and 5 years (84.7% vs. 100%, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in postoperative AKI rate (CKD 1-2 6.5% vs. CKD 3-5 14.3%, P = 0.13), long-term renal artery patency, reinterventions, type I or III endoleak, mean sac regression, or total follow-up CT scans between groups. CKD stage progression occurred in 47 patients (31%) at latest follow-up but did not differ between stratified groups (P = 0.17). On multivariable modeling, age (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.09, P = 0.02) and CKD stage 4-5 (hazard ratio 6.39, 95% confidence interval 2.26-18.05, P < 0.01) were independently associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CKD status did not negatively impact the durability or technical success related to aneurysm outcomes after FEVAR. Worsening CKD stage was associated with lower 1- and 5-year overall survival and freedom from dialysis after FEVAR with no statistically significant differences in 30-day or long-term technical aneurysm outcomes.

Advanced Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Pathology

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair have been shown to reduce blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, mortality, and morbidity compared with open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, there are anatomical constraints that limit the application of the endovascular approach in 30% to 40% of patients, including those with short necks, excessive angulation, or aneurysms with the involvement of aortic side branches such as supra-aortic trunks, arch aneurysms, visceral arteries, or internal iliac arteries.

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.

Short Term and Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular versus Open Repair for Juxtarenal and Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Propensity Score Matching: Results from Juxta- and pararenal aortic Aneurysm Multicentre European Study (JAMES)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the short and long term clinical outcomes of endovascular (EVAR) vs. open surgical repair (OSR) of juxtarenal (JAAAs) and pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (PAAAs) in five high volume European academic centres.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicentre cohort study of five high volume European academic centres (> 50 open or 50 endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs annually) including 834 consecutive patients who were operated on and prospectively followed. Using propensity score matching (PSM) each patient who underwent OSR was matched with one patient who underwent EVAR in a 1:1 ratio (145 patients per group). The primary endpoint was long term all cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint was freedom from aortic related re-intervention.

RESULTS

After a follow up of 87 months, no difference in overall survival between the two groups was observed (38.6% for EVAR vs. 42.1% for OSR; p = .88). Patients undergoing EVAR underwent aortic related re-interventions more frequently (24.1% vs. 6.9%; p < .001). Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurred more frequently in patients in the OSR group (40.7% vs. 24.8%; p = .006). However, most patients who suffered from AKI recovered without further progression to renal failure. In hospital (3.4% for EVAR vs. 4.1% for OSR; p = 1.0) and 30 day (4.1% for EVAR vs. 5.5% for OSR; p = .80) mortality rates did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both open and endovascular treatment can be performed in high volume aortic centres with low short term mortality and morbidity rates, and good long term outcomes. These data provide useful information to help patients choose between the two procedures when both are feasible.

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.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

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.

Reintervention Does Not Impact Long-term Survival After Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is increasingly used in the treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and short-neck infrarenal aneurysms. Reinterventions (REIs) occur frequently, contributing to patient morbidity and resource utilization. We sought to determine if REIs impact long-term survival after FEVAR.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of all Cook ZFEN repairs was performed. Patients with ≥6 months follow-up and without adjunctive branch modifications were included. REI was defined as any aneurysm, device, target branch, or access-related intervention after the index procedure. REIs were categorized by early (<30 days) or late (≥30 days), indication (branch, endoleak, limb, access-related, or other), and target branch/device component. Patients were stratified into REI vs No REI and Branch REI vs Non-Branch REI.

RESULTS

Of 219 consecutive ZFEN from 2012-2021, 158 patients met inclusion criteria. Forty-one (26%) patients underwent a total of 51 REIs (10 early, 41 late) over a mean follow-up of 33.9 months. The most common indication for REI was branch-related 61% (31/51), with the renal arteries most frequently affected 51% (26/51). The only differences found in baseline, aneurysm, or device characteristics were a higher mean SVS comorbidity score (9.6 vs 7.9, P=.04) and larger suprarenal neck angle (23.3 vs 17.1 degrees, P=.04) in No REI, while REI had larger mean proximal seal zone diameter (26.3 vs 25.1 mm, P=.03) and device diameter (31.9 vs 30.0 mm, P=.002) than No REI. Technical success and operative characteristics were similar between groups, except for longer mean fluoroscopy time (74.9 vs 60.8 min, P=.01) and longer median length of stay (2 vs 2 days, P=.006) in REI. While the rate of early major adverse events (<30 days) was higher in REI (24.4% vs 6.0%, P=.001), 30-day mortality was not statistically different (4.9% vs 0.9%, P=.10). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, freedom from REI at 1- and 5-years was 85.7% and 62.6%, respectively, in the overall cohort. There was no difference in estimated 5-year survival between REI and No REI (62.8% vs 63.5%, log-rank P=.87) and Branch REI and Non-Branch REI (71.8% vs 49.9%, log-rank P=.16). In multivariate analysis, REI did not predict mortality; age, the SVS comorbidity score, and preoperative maximum aneurysm diameter each increased the hazard of death (HR 1.07 95% CI 1.02-1.12, P=.007; HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.18, P=.02; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, P=.003 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Following ZFEN, 26% of patients required a total of 51 REIs with most occurring ≥30 days and 61% being branch-related, with no influence on 5-year survival. Age, comorbidity, and baseline aneurysm diameter independently predicted mortality. FEVAR mandates lifelong surveillance and protocols to maintain branch patency. Despite their relative frequency, REIs do not influence 5-year post-procedural survival.

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.

Incidence and predictive factors for endograft limb patency of the Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft used for complex endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence, risk factors and outcomes of treatment for limb occlusion in patients treated for complex (thoraco-)abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) with the Fenestrated Anaconda™.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and May 2018, 335 patients underwent elective fenestrated aortic aneurysm repair in 11 participating centers using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ with a median follow-up of 14.3 months (IQR 27.4). The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-limb-occlusion. Secondary outcome measures were freedom-from-limb-related-reintervention, secondary patency, and risk factors associated with limb occlusion.

RESULTS

Thirty (9.0%) patients presented with limb occlusion during follow-up with freedom-from-limb-occlusion of 98.5%, 91.2%, and 81.7% at 30-days, 1 and 5 years, respectively. In 87% of cases, no obvious cause for limb occlusion was documented. Primary occlusion occurred within 30-days in 36.7% and within 1 year in 80.0%. Twenty-three (6.9%) patients underwent an occlusion-related reintervention; seven (23.3%) patients were treated conservatively. Freedom-from-limb-occlusion-related-reintervention at 30-days, one and five years was 97.8%, 93.2% and 88.6%, respectively. Secondary patency was 91.3% after 1-month and 86.2% after 1 and 5 years, respectively. Female sex (OR 3.27 - 95% CI 1.28 to 8.34, P = .01) was a statistically significant predictor for limb occlusion. A higher percentage of thrombus in the aneurysm sac appeared to be protective for limb occlusion (0% compared to <25%: OR 0.22 - 95% CI 0.07 to 0.63, P = .01; 0% compared to 25-50%: OR 0.20 - 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57, P = .00 and 0% compared to >50%: OR 0.08 - 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38, P = .00), as did iliac angulation (OR 0.99 - 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Limb occlusion remains a significant impediment of endograft durability in patients treated with the Fenestrated Anaconda™, especially in female patients. Controversially, a high aneurysmal thrombus load and a high degree of iliac angulation appeared to be protective for limb occlusion, for which no obvious cause could be identified.

A risk-adjusted and anatomically stratified cohort comparison study of open surgery, endovascular techniques and medical management for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms-the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

In one-third of all abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the aneurysm neck is short (juxtarenal) or shows other adverse anatomical features rendering operations more complex, hazardous and expensive. Surgical options include open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques including fenestrated EVAR, EVAR with adjuncts (chimneys/endoanchors) and off-label standard EVAR. The aim of the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) is to answer the research question identified by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme: 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of strategies for the management of juxtarenal AAA, including fenestrated endovascular repair?'

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

UK-COMPASS is a cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of different strategies used to manage complex AAAs with stratification of physiological fitness and anatomical complexity, with statistical correction for baseline risk and indication biases. There are two data streams. First, a stream of routinely collected data from Hospital Episode Statistics and National Vascular Registry (NVR). Preoperative CT scans of all patients who underwent elective AAA repair in England between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019 are subjected to Corelab analysis to accurately identify and include every complex aneurysm treated. Second, a site-reported data stream regarding quality of life and treatment costs from prospectively recruited patients across England. Site recruitment also includes patients with complex aneurysms larger than 55 mm diameter in whom an operation is deferred (medical management). The primary outcome measure is perioperative all-cause mortality. Follow-up will be to a median of 5 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received full regulatory approvals from a Research Ethics Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the Health Research Authority. Data sharing agreements are in place with National Health Service Digital and the NVR. Dissemination will be via NIHR HTA reporting, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN85731188.

Long-term Outcomes after FEVAR for Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm (jAAA) disease is safe and effective with good short- and mid-term outcomes. Durability issues focus mainly on proximal and distal seal as well as target vessel (TV) instability, and long-term data is scarce. In previous publications we have reported short-term outcomes after FEVAR while comparing early- and late-experience patient groups, as well as long-term results for the early cohort. In this series we provide long-term outcome in the late experience cohort treated with FEVAR in Vascular Center Malmö.

METHODS

Consecutive patients treated in Vascular Center Malmö with FEVAR for jAAA between 2007 and 2011 were included. Data was collected retrospectively from medical- and imaging records. Follow up consisted of a clinical examination 1 month post-operatively, and computed tomography angiography combined with plain abdominal X-ray at 1 and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Primary endpoints were TV instability, reinterventions and survival. Changes in aneurysm diameter and renal function as well as endoleaks were also analyzed.

RESULTS

94 patients were treated. Median follow-up time was 89 (range 0-152) months. 280 fenestrations or scallops were employed of which 205 were stented. Technical success was 89.4%. Primary TV patency was 94% ± 1 % at 1year, 90% ± 2% at 3 years and 89% ± 2% at 5 years. 37 (39.4%) patients needed a total of 70 reinterventions and mean time to first reintervention was 21 ± 3.97 months. 5 (5.3%) patients died of aneurysm related causes and overall survival was 95.7% ± 2.1% at 1 year, 87.1% ± 3.5% at 3 years and 71.0 ± 4.7% at 5 years. A stable or decreasing aortic diameter after treatment was seen in 91% of cases. Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) fell from 59.2 ± 14.9 ml/min/1.73m² pre-operatively to 50.0 ± 18.6 ml/min/1.73 m² at end of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Long-term results after treatment of jAAA with FEVAR remain good and the treatment is safe and effective. Although the need for reintervention remains high, long-term renal function and survival support the use of FEVAR as a valid treatment option for jAAA disease.

Assessment of fenestrated Anaconda stent graft design by numerical simulation: Results of a European prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

A crucial step in designing fenestrated stent grafts for treatment of complex aortic abdominal aneurysms is the accurate positioning of the fenestrations. The deployment of a fenestrated stent graft prototype in a patient-specific rigid aortic model can be used for design verification in vitro, but is time and human resources consuming. Numerical simulation (NS) of fenestrated stent graft deployment using the finite element analysis has recently been developed; the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of fenestration positioning by NS and in vitro.

METHODS

All consecutive cases of complex aortic abdominal aneurysm treated with the Fenestrated Anaconda (Terumo Aortic) in six European centers were included in a prospective, observational study. To compare fenestration positioning, the distance from the center of the fenestration to the proximal end of the stent graft (L) and the angular distance from the 0° position (C) were measured and compared between in vitro testing (L1, C1) and NS (L2, C2). The primary hypothesis was that ΔL (|L2 - L1|) and ΔC (|C2 - C1|) would be 2.5 or less mm in more than 80% of the cases. The duration of both processes was also compared.

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and January 2019, 50 patients with complex aortic abdominal aneurysms received a fenestrated stent graft with a total of 176 fenestrations. The ΔL and ΔC was 2.5 mm or less for 173 (98%) and 174 (99%) fenestrations, respectively. The NS process duration was significantly shorter than the in vitro (2.1 days [range, 1.0-5.2 days] vs 20.6 days [range, 9-82 days]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Positioning of fenestrations using NS is as accurate as in vitro and could significantly decrease delivery time of fenestrated stent grafts.

Comparison of treatment options for aortic necks outside standard endovascular aneurysm repair instructions for use

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with worse outcomes in patients whose anatomy does not meet the device instructions for use (IFU). However, whether open surgical repair (OSR) and commercially available fenestrated EVAR (Zenith Fenestrated [ZFEN]) represent better options for these patients is unknown.

METHODS

We identified all patients without prior aortic surgery undergoing elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with neck length ≥4 mm at a single institution with EVAR, OSR, and ZFEN. We applied device-specific aneurysm neck-related IFU to EVAR patients, and a generic EVAR IFU to ZFEN and OSR patients. Long-term outcomes were studied using propensity scores with inverse probability weighting. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR by adherence to IFU and outcomes by repair types in the subset of patients not meeting IFU.

RESULTS

Of 652 patients (474 EVAR, 34 ZFEN, 143 OSR), 211 had measurements outside of standard EVAR IFU (109 EVAR [23%], 27 ZFEN [80%], and 74 OSR [52%]). Perioperative mortality was 0.5% overall. For EVAR, treatment outside the IFU was associated with significantly higher adjusted rates of long-term type IA endoleak (22% at 5 years compared to 2% within IFU, hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8 [3.1-10.9], P < .001), and lower survival (5- and 10-year survival: 56% and 34% vs 81% and 53%, HR: 2.3 [1.2-4.3], P = .01). There was no difference in reinterventions or open conversion. In patients not meeting IFU, ZFEN was associated with higher adjusted rates of reinterventions (EVAR as referent: HR: 2.6 [1.5-4.4, P < .001), whereas OSR and EVAR patients experienced similar reintervention rates (HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.1], P = .13). Patients outside the IFU experienced lower mortality with OSR compared with either EVAR (HR: 0.4 [0.2-0.9], P = .005) or ZFEN (HR: 0.3 [0.1-0.7], P = .002). When restricted to patients outside the IFU deemed fit for open repair, OSR patients remained associated with lower adjusted mortality compared with ZFEN (HR: 0.2 [0.1-0.5], P < .001), but statistical significance was lost in the comparison to EVAR (HR: 0.6 [0.3-1.1], P = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment outside device-specific IFU is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Open surgical repair is associated with higher long-term survival in patients who fall outside of the EVAR IFU and should be favored over EVAR or ZFEN in suitable patients. A three-vessel-based fenestrated strategy may not be a durable solution for difficult aortic necks, but more data are needed to evaluate the performance of newer, four-vessel devices.

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.

Association between hospital volume and failure-to-rescue for open repairs of juxtarenal aneurysms

BACKGROUND

A nationwide variation in mortality stratified by hospital volume exists after open repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). In the present study, we assessed whether the rates of postoperative complications or failure-to-rescue (defined as death after a major postoperative complication) would better explain the lower mortality rates among higher volume hospitals.

METHODS

Using the 2004 to 2018 Vascular Quality Initiative database, we identified all patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic AAAs, in which the proximal clamp sites were at least above one renal artery. We divided the patients into hospital quintiles according to the annual hospital volume and compared the risk-adjusted outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, operative factors, and hospital volume, was used to evaluate three outcomes: 30-day mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue.

RESULTS

We identified 3566 patients who had undergone open repair of elective or symptomatic complex AAAs (median age, 71 years; 29% women; 4.1% black; 48% Medicare insurance). The unadjusted rates of 30-day postoperative mortality, overall complications, and failure-to-rescue were 5.0%, 44%, and 10%, respectively. Common complications included renal dysfunction (25%), cardiac dysrhythmia (14%), and pneumonia (14%), with the specific failure-to-rescue rate ranging from 12% to 22%. On adjusted analysis, the risk-adjusted mortality rate was 2.5 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (7.4% vs 3.0%; P < .01). Although the risk-adjusted complication rates were similar between these hospital groups (30% vs 27%; P = .06), the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.3 times greater for the lower volume hospitals relative to the higher volume hospitals (6.3% vs 2.7%; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher volume hospitals had lower mortality rates after open repair of complex AAAs because they were better at the "rescue" of patients after the occurrence of postoperative complications. Both an understanding of the clinical mechanisms underlying this association and the regionalization of open repair might improve patient outcomes.

Editor's Choice - Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular versus Open Repair for Complex Aortic Aneurysms: Meta-Analysis of Time to Event Propensity Score Matched Data

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to investigate comparative outcomes of fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with open repair for juxta/para/suprarenal or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE and Embase) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared F/BEVAR with open repair for complex aortic aneurysms using propensity score or Cox regression modelling/multivariable logistic regression analysis. Pooled estimates of peri-operative outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The result of time to event analysis was reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Random effects models and the inverse variance method were applied. The quality of evidence was graded using the system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.

RESULTS

Eleven studies published between 2014 and 2019 were selected for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis reporting a total of at least 7 061 patients. The odds of peri-operative mortality after F/BEVAR were lower, although not significantly, than after open repair (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.12), whereas the hazard of overall mortality during follow up was higher following F/BEVAR, but, again, without reaching statistical significance (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93-1.67). The hazard of re-intervention was significantly higher after endovascular therapy (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39-3.18). The certainty for the body of evidence for peri-operative and overall mortality during follow up was judged to be very low and moderate, respectively, and for re-intervention it was judged to be high.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is uncertain about the effect of F/BEVAR on peri-operative mortality when compared with open repair. There is probably no difference in overall survival, but F/BEVAR results in an increased re-intervention hazard. There is a need for high level evidence to inform decision making and vascular/aortic service provision.

The bio-sonographic index. A novel modality for early detection of acute kidney injury after complex vascular surgery. A protocol for an exploratory prospective study

Objective

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of complex aortic surgery with high mortality, morbidity and health care expense. The current definition of AKI does not allow for structural characterization of the kidneys and utilizes functional indices with substantial limitations leading to delayed diagnosis and ineffective interventions. The aim of this study is to develop a method of early detection of structural renal abnormalities that can precede and predict the occurrence of AKI in this population. We propose a novel combined index of ultrasonography (shear wave elastography), biomarkers of renal stress (urinary insulin growth factor binding protein-7, IGFBP-7 and inhibitor of tissue metalloproteinase-2, TIMP-2) and renal injury markers (urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin -NGAL)- the bio-sonographic index (BSI).

Methods

A prospective observational study at a tertiary referral center will be performed enrolling 80 patients undergoing elective open and endovascular repair of the visceral aorta. The BSI will be evaluated at baseline, and at 6 and 24 hours after the procedure. The primary outcome is the occurrence of AKI according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. Each patient will be his/her own control. A reference group of 15 healthy volunteers who are not undergoing interventions will be enrolled to test the feasibility of and to refine the novel SWE protocol. The BSI will be tested for its predictability of the occurrence of AKI. Comparisons will be made between individual and combined components of the BSI and traditional markers used in the KDIGO definition; serum creatinine and urine output in terms of baseline status of the kidney. Correlations will be made between the BSI and conventional indices of AKI and exploratory analyses will be conducted to identify individual disease patterns using the BSI.

Discussion

We hypothesize that the BSI will be a sensitive index of early structural abnormalities that precede and predict the occurrence of AKI as defined by KDIGO in complex vascular surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04144894. Registered 1/6/2020.

Final 5-year results of the United States Zenith Fenestrated prospective multicenter study for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

PURPOSE

To report 5-year results of the prospective, multicenter study designed to evaluate the Zenith Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft (William A. Cook Australia, Brisbane, Australia) for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients (54 male, mean age 74 ± 8 years) were prospectively enrolled at 14 U.S. centers from 2005 to 2012. Fenestrated stent grafts were used in patients with infrarenal aortic neck lengths of 4 to 14 mm to target 178 renal-mesenteric arteries with a mean of 2.7 vessels per patient. At 5 years, 42 of the 67 patients completed the final study follow-up, with clinical examination obtained in 41 and computed tomography imaging in 39. Outcomes adjudicated by a clinical events committee included all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, major adverse events, renal stent occlusion/stenosis, renal function changes and renal infarcts, aneurysm sac enlargement (>5 mm), device migration (≥10 mm), type I/III endoleak, and secondary interventions.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 59.8 months (range, 0.1-67.5 months). There were seven deaths, including one (1.5%) within 30 days (procedure-related) and six beyond 30 days (not procedure-related in five, indeterminate in one). At 5 years, freedom from all-cause mortality was 88.8 ± 4.2% and freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 96.8 ± 2.3%. There were no aneurysm ruptures or conversions to open surgery. Of the 129 renal arteries targeted by fenestrations, five (4%) occluded and 14 (11%) developed in-stent stenosis. Treatment included redo stenting/angioplasty in 13 vessels, renal artery bypass in 2 vessels, and failed thrombectomy in 1 vessel. Primary and secondary renal target patency was 82.7 ± 4.1% and 95.7 ± 2.1% at 5 years, respectively. Dialysis was required in one patient who had pre-existing chronic kidney disease. During the 5 years, there was 1 type IA endoleak (1.5%), 1 type IB endoleak (1.5%), 2 device migrations (3%), and 4 aneurysm sac enlargements (6%). Overall, 81% of patients had sac shrinkage at 5 years. Of 20 patients who underwent secondary interventions, 12 were for renal in-stent stenosis or occlusion, 7 were for endoleak, and 1 was for both indications. Freedom from secondary intervention was 63.5 ± 7.2% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

These 5-year results confirm the safety and effectiveness of the Zenith Fenestrated AAA stent graft with no late graft- or aneurysm-related deaths. In-stent stenosis of bare metal renal stents was the most frequent indication for secondary intervention. The low rate of type IA endoleak, sac enlargement, and device migration support its use in patients with juxtarenal AAAs.

Fenestrated repair improves perioperative outcomes but lacks a hospital volume association for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have traditionally been treated with an open surgical repair (OSR). During the past decade, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a viable option. Hospital procedural volume to outcome relationship for OSR of complex AAAs has been well established, but the impact of procedural volume on FEVAR outcomes remains undefined. This study investigated the outcomes of OSR and FEVAR for the treatment of complex AAAs and examined the hospital volume-outcome relationship for these procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a statewide vascular surgery registry was queried for all patients between 2012 and 2018 who underwent elective repair of a juxtarenal/pararenal AAA with FEVAR or OSR. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, and new dialysis. Secondary end points included postoperative pneumonia, renal dysfunction (creatine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative baseline), major bleeding, early procedural complications, length of stay, and need for reintervention. To evaluate procedural volume-outcomes relationship, hospitals were stratified into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on a FEVAR annual procedural volume. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability of treatment weighting in comparing outcomes between treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients underwent FEVAR (n = 186) or OSR (n = 403) for a complex AAA. After adjustment, OSR was associated with higher rates of 30-day mortality (10.7% vs 2.9%; P < .001) and need for dialysis (11.3% vs 1.8; P < .001). Postoperative pneumonia (6.8% vs 0.3%; P < .001) and need for transfusion (39.4% vs 10.4%; P < .001) were also significantly higher in the OSR cohort. The median length of stay for OSR and FEVAR was 9 days and 3 days, respectively. For those who underwent FEVAR, endoleaks were present in 12.1% of patients at 30 days and 6.1% of patients at 1 year, with the majority being type II. With a median follow-up period of 331 days (229-378 days), 1% of FEVAR patients required a secondary procedure, and there were no FEVAR conversions to an open aortic repair. Hospitals were divided into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on their annual FEVAR volume of complex AAAs. After adjustment, hospital FEVAR procedural volume was not associated with 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with OSR for the management of complex AAAs. Procedural FEVAR volume outcome analysis suggests limited differences in 30-day morbidity, although long-term durability warrants further research.

Rare complication of esophageal necrosis and perforation after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a minimally invasive technique used to treat complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. We present the case of a 69-year-old man with a juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with FEVAR. The patient experienced postoperative dysphagia and sepsis. Investigations revealed a perforated esophagus due to esophageal ischemia and necrosis, leading to complete esophagectomy and subsequent esophageal reconstruction. This case highlights esophageal necrosis and perforation as a potential complication of FEVAR and serves as a reminder to have a low threshold for investigating and emergently managing this condition, which otherwise has a high mortality rate.

Comparison of open and endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

This study compares the perioperative outcome in elective repair of the juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), depending upon whether patients received an open (OAR) or endovascular procedure (EVAR).

METHODS

The database stems from the 2013-2017 AAA registry of the German Institute for Vascular Health Research (DIGG) of the German Society for Vascular Surgery and Vascular Medicine (DGG), with a total of 1603 juxtarenal AAAs. 786 patients (49.0%) were treated with an endovascular (EVAR) procedure, and 817 (51.0%) with an open (OAR) procedure.

RESULTS

Patients receiving EVAR had a median age of 73 years and those receiving OAR a median age of 71 years (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients over 80 years of age was 17.0% for EVAR and 9.9% for OAR (p < 0.001). The proportion of women receiving EVAR (16.9%) was slightly lower than that receiving OAR (18.6%). Aneurysm diameter differed significantly (EVAR mean 57.80 mm, OAR 59.07 mm; p = 0.038). Preoperatively impaired renal function stages 3 to 5 were not significantly different (EVAR 12.5%, OAR 14.4%, p = 0.158). Postoperative complications were significantly less with EVAR (31%) than with OAR at 45.7% (p = 0.001). In regard to MACE (major adverse cardiac events = perioperative death, stroke, or myocardial infarction), there were no significant differences between EVAR (8.8%) and OAR (10.3%) (p = 0.191). Hospital mortality was only in trend lower with EVAR than with OAR (5.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; p = 0.068). This held true for the hospital mortality in the group above 80 years of age as well. Inpatient stay was 9 (13.3) days for EVAR and 14 (18.8) days for OAR (p < 0.001). The hospital mortality for women receiving EVAR was 10.5%, and significantly higher (p = 0.008) than that for men (4.7%). The same held true for OAR (hospital mortality for women was 11.8%, for men 6.8%; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

In terms of perioperative outcome, the endovascular procedure for treating juxtarenal AAA is more favorable than that documented for OAR. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether EVAR is comparable with OAR in the long term when treating juxtarenal AAA.

Postoperatively increased bioactive adrenomedullin is related to adverse outcome after complex aortic surgery

Summary: Background: Open and endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is related to major complications and increased mortality rates. Up to now, specific biomarkers for adverse outcome are scarce, although routine usage of such biomarkers could enable an earlier and more appropriate treatment of complications during the postoperative course after complex aortic aneurysm repair. Patients and methods: In a prospective single-center study including 33 patients (48.5 % women, mean age 63.0 ± 16.2 years) undergoing elective complex open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, bioactive adrenomedullin (bio-ADM) was measured for 72 h perioperatively and an association with clinical endpoints, namely cardiogenic shock, death and the combined endpoint of the two aforementioned parameters was assessed. Furthermore, the association between bio-ADM and baseline characteristics and perioperative details including sepsis biomarkers score were assessed. Results: 51.5 % (n = 17) of patients developed postoperative acute kidney injury, 21.2 % (n = 7) pneumonia and 18.2 % (n = 6) sepsis. Cardiogenic shock was observed in 12.1 % (n = 4) patients. The in-hospital mortality rate was 18.2 % (n = 6), and 24.2 % (n = 8) of patients developed cardiogenic shock and/or died in hospital. A significant correlation of bio-ADM concentrations from all available time points was observed with leukocytes (r = 0.37, P < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (r = 0.56, P < 0.001) and serum creatinine levels (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). Increased bio-ADM at 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after admission to ICU was associated with both, in-hospital death and cardiogenic shock, with an area under the curve for the combined endpoint of 0.598, 0.720, 0.880 and 0.967. Bio-ADM concentrations at 48 h and 72 h after admission to ICU were predictive for in-hospital death and cardiogenic shock (both P < 0.01). Conclusions: Bio-ADM may serve as postoperative biomarker for cardiogenic shock and death after complex open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, potentially enabling an earlier and by that more adequate treatment of adverse outcome after major surgery.

Three-dimensional printing-guided fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using open source software and physician-modified devices

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is frequently used for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms. In urgent cases, however, the use of premanufactured patient-specific devices is not an option. Physician-modified endografts may be used to treat these patients but require experience and a steep learning curve for accurate planning to position fenestrations and to perform the graft modifications. Despite experience, a margin of error in placing fenestrations always exists, and a mismatch possibility between the fenestration and vessel ostium can lead to increased cannulation time and stent complications, including target vessel loss. Aortic three-dimensional printing has been widely described in medicine for simulation, training, and surgical planning. Commercial software is currently under investigation for planning of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair at high costs. We describe an effective and inexpensive technique using free computer-aided design software to create a real 1:1 aortic 3D model that can easily be printed and quickly sterilized. This aortic model can be used to create a physician-modified endograft and to place fenestrations in an accurate way, with potential for shorter and more precise procedures and better long-term results. Two cases are presented to illustrate the technique, demonstrating that 3D printing is a valuable tool to plan, design, and create fenestrated devices more accurately.