Huistra EWM, Tielliu IFJ, de Vries JPPM, Zeebregts CJ. Outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair with an inverted contralateral limb.
J Vasc Surg 2024:S0741-5214(24)01892-5. [PMID:
39303861 DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2024.07.110]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2024] [Revised: 07/15/2024] [Accepted: 07/22/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To report technical success and evaluate clinical outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) incorporating a contralateral inverted limb.
METHODS
Patients who underwent F/B-EVAR with a custom-made bifurcated device containing an inverted limb between January 2010 and September 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS
A total of 32 patients (26 men; mean age 77±6.2 years) were included in the analysis. Technical success was achieved in 28 patients (87.5%). Two technical failures resulted from misplaced contralateral limbs in patients with previous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), necessitating one open conversion due to a type 3b endoleak, and one femoro-femoral crossover bypass after occlusion of a misplaced contralateral limb. Additionally, two technical failures were attributed to a type 3c endoleak and a type 1c endoleak, originating from a fenestrated device at the level of the left and right renal artery, respectively. One patient (3.1%) died <30 days post-operatively due to a subdural hemorrhage. Estimated patient survival after 1 and 2 years was 92.7%±5.1%, and 74.3%±10.1%, respectively. No aneurysm-related deaths were observed. During the median follow-up of 13 months, one (3.1%) inverted limb occluded, in addition to the occlusion resulting from a misplaced contralateral limb, and was treated with a femoro-femoral crossover bypass. One target vessel (right renal artery) occluded (0.9%), resulting in a permanent, significantly reduced renal function. Freedom from overall reintervention after 1 and 2 years was 73.5%±8.0% and 68.3%±9.0%, respectively. An additional four patients (12.5%) presented with a type 3c endoleak during follow-up scans, three of which originated from fenestrations at the level of the renal stents. There were no junctional problems between the inverted limb device and the main endograft, and no significant correlation was found between the one-sealing-stent inverted limb device design and the onset of type 3 endoleak (log-rank P=.064).
CONCLUSIONS
F/B-EVAR incorporating an inverted limb can be a viable endovascular option to manage complex aneurysms with a short renal artery to bifurcation distance. However, using the inverted limb presents a notable technical challenge and could be associated with a higher need for reintervention. Carefully confirming correct cannulation of the inverted limb is warranted.
Collapse