Physician-modified fenestrated endovascular repair of type 1A endoleaks from polymer-based low-profile endografts

Three-year outcomes of off-the-shelf Gore thoracoabdominal multibranch endoprosthesis and physician-modified endografts for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has shown favorable outcomes for repair of complex aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Physician-modified endografting (PMEG) and the Gore thoracoabdominal multibranch endoprosthesis (TAMBE) provide custom and off-the-shelf devices for FB-EVAR, respectively. This study compares the outcomes of TAMBE and PMEG at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent TAMBE as part of the multicenter pivotal trial or PMEG as part of a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption at a single institution between 2020 and 2022 were completed. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative and midterm outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were included, with 12 in the TAMBE group and 56 in the PMEG group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Aneurysm type was most often thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in both groups (58% TAMBE and 52% PMEG). TAMBE had a higher rate of upper extremity access (100% vs 63%; P = .013) and longer mean procedure time (247 ± 36 minutes vs 189 ± 49 minutes; P < .001). Other intraoperative metrics were similar between groups. Technical success was 100% in TAMBE and 95% in PMEG (P = .412). There was no 30-day mortality in either group. No major adverse events occurred with TAMBE, whereas in PMEG cases, 2% had respiratory failure, 2% required dialysis, and 4% experienced spinal cord ischemia. Although the overall endoleak rates were similar (50% of TAMBE vs 41% of PMEG; P = .57), type II endoleaks accounted for all of the endoleaks in the TAMBE group, whereas type I or III endoleaks were seen in 11% of PMEG patients. At a median follow-up of 26.7 months for the TAMBE group and 21.2 months for the PMEG group, target vessel instability was seen in 10.4% of TAMBE, and 6.9% of PMEG targeted branches (P = .401). Reintervention was required in 33% of TAMBE patients and 27% of PMEG patients (P = .646). Estimated freedom from reintervention rates at 3 years were similar (56% TAMBE vs 62% PMEG, log-rank P = .910). Freedom from visceral renal target vessel instability at 3 years was 89% for both groups (log-rank P = .459). The Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimated survival was 100% for patients in the TAMBE group and 77% for patients in the PMEG group (log-rank P = .157).

CONCLUSIONS

At experienced centers, FB-EVAR can be completed with PMEG or TAMBE with comparable, excellent perioperative and midterm outcomes. Reinterventions are frequently needed for both TAMBE and PMEG.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is.

METHODS

We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends.

RESULTS

A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher.

CONCLUSIONS

PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

Techniques and Limitations of Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) for Type 1A Endoleak After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repairs

PURPOSE

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality over open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, a higher rate of reinterventions remains the Achilles heel of EVAR. Although type 1A endoleak from proximal seal zone failure of EVAR remains one of the leading causes for reintervention, fenestrated branched devices suitable for proximal extension of failed EVAR are not widely available in the United States. Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) is an off-the-shelf investigational device that provides supraceliac seal by incorporating 4 visceral and renal arteries via preloaded inner branches.

CASE REPORT

In this article, we describe 2 cases of type 1A endoleak from previous EVAR devices repaired using TAMBE. Both cases were performed under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compassionate use exemption. Considerations on the case planning and implantation techniques of TAMBE specific to previous EVAR devices are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Gore TAMBE can be utilized to repair a type 1A endoleak of a previous infrarenal EVAR device. Greater supraceliac coverage necessary for TAMBE relative to the minimal seal zone should be considered when applying this device for a type 1A endoleak.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This report demonstrates the feasibility of applying off-the-shelf TAMBE device to treat one of the most common failure modes of EVAR, type1A endoleak.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Physician-Modified Fenestrated Endovascular Repair for Iatrogenic Innominate Vein Injury

Iatrogenic innominate vein injuries are rare complications associated with internal jugular venous catheters. These complications are accompanied by high morbidity and mortality rates in patients with severe underlying medical conditions. Without proper treatment, emergency surgery may be needed due to acute cardiac tamponade or hemothorax. Endovascular repair can be advantageous for patients with significant medical comorbidities. Herein, we report the case of a 62-year-old female with an iatrogenic injury to the innominate vein at the subclavian vein and internal jugular confluence due to a malpositioned left internal jugular catheter. A customized fenestrated endograft was positioned with fenestration oriented to the internal jugular vein and a new tunneled catheter was inserted across the fenestration into the superior vena cava upon removal of the malpositioned catheter. In addition, a brachio-basilic arteriovenous fistula was created. At one month follow-up, the patient had a palpable thrill over the arteriovenous fistula and a functioning tunneled catheter.