Early Outcome Following Endovascular Repair of Pararenal Aortic Aneurysms: Triple- Versus Double- or Single-Fenestrated Stent-Grafts

Increased Aortic Exclusion in Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

Perioperative risk assessments for complex aneurysms are based on the anatomical extent of the aneurysm and do not take the length of the aortic exclusion into account, as it was developed for open repair. Nevertheless, in the endovascular repair (ER) of complex aortic aneurysms, additional segments of healthy aorta are excluded compared with open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to assess differences in aortic exclusion between the ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms, to subsequently assess the current classification for complex aneurysm repair.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients that underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair by means of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR), fenestrated and branched EVAR (FBEVAR), or branched EVAR (BEVAR). The length of aortic exclusion and the number of patent segmental arteries were determined and compared per case in ER and hypothetical OR, using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were included, who were treated with FEVAR (n = 44), FBEVAR (n = 8), or BEVAR (n = 19) for Crawford types I (n = 5), II (n = 7), III (n = 6), IV (n = 7), and V (n = 2) thoracoabdominal or juxtarenal (n = 44) aneurysms. There was a significant increase in the median exclusion of types I, II, III, IV, and juxtarenal aneurysms (p < 0.05) in ER, compared with hypothetical OR. The number of patent segmental arteries in the ER of type I-IV and juxtarenal aneurysms was significantly lower than in hypothetical OR (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in the length of aortic exclusion between ER and hypothetical OR, with the increased exclusion in ER resulting in a lower number of patent segmental arteries. The ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms should be regarded as distinct modalities, and as each approach deserves a particular risk assessment, future efforts should focus on reporting on the extent of exclusion per treatment modality, to allow for appropriate comparison.

Impact of stent-graft complexity on mid-term results in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair of juxtarenal and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The impact of stent-graft complexity on clinical outcome after fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been conflicting in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare mid-term results of stent-grafts with renal fenestrations alone with more complex stent-grafts including mesenteric fenestrations.

METHODS

A single center retrospective study was conducted on 154 patients, who underwent FEVAR from 2006 to 2020 at our institution.

RESULTS

There were 54 (35.1%) patients in the renal FEVAR group and 100 (64.9%) patients in the complex FEVAR group. Median follow-up of the total group was 25 months (IQR 7-45). There were no significant differences in technical success and perioperative mortality. Intraoperative complications (4% vs. 18%, P=0.001), operative time (145 min vs. 191 min, P=0.001), radiation dose (119372 mGy*cm² vs. 159573 mGy*cm², P=0.004) and fluoroscopy time (39 min vs. 54 min, P=0.007) were significantly lower in the renal FEVAR group. During follow-up target vessel instability, endoleaks and reinterventions were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center retrospective study, renal FEVAR was a safe and effective treatment for patients with juxtarenal AAA demonstrating fewer intraoperative complications and similar mid-term outcomes as complex FEVAR. If the anatomy is compatible for renal FEVAR, it might be unnecessary to expose patients to potentially more complications by choosing a complex FEVAR strategy.

Effects of Iliac Tortuosity Index on Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair for Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of iliac tortuosity on procedural metrics and outcomes of patients with complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) undergoing repair with fenestrated/branched endografts (f/b-EVAR [endovascular aortic aneurysm repair]).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is a single-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing aneurysm repair using f/b-EVAR between the years 2013 and 2020 at our institution. Included patients had at least 1 preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) available for analysis. Iliac artery tortuosity index (TI) was calculated using centerline of flow imaging from a 3-dimensional work station based on the formula: (centerline iliac artery length / straight-line iliac artery length). The associations between iliac artery tortuosity and procedural metrics, including total operative time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, contrast volume, and estimated blood loss (EBL), were evaluated.

RESULTS

During this period, 219 patients with cAAs underwent f/b-EVAR at our institution. Ninety-one patients (74% men; mean age = 75.2±7.7 years) met criteria for inclusion into the study. In this group, there were 72 (79%) juxtarenal or paravisceral aneurysms and 18 (20%) thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and 5 patients (5.4%) with failed previous EVAR. The average aneurysm diameter was 60.1±0.74 mm. Overall, 270 vessels were targeted, and 267 (99%) were successfully incorporated, including 25 celiac arteries, 67 superior mesenteric arteries, and 175 renal arteries. The mean total operative time was 236±83 minutes, fluoroscopy time was 87±39 minutes, contrast volume was 81±47 mL, radiation dose 3246±2207 mGy, and EBL was 290±409 mL. The average left and right TIs for all patients were 1.5±0.3 and 1.4±0.3, respectively. On multivariable analysis, the interval estimates suggest positive association between TI and procedural metrics to a certain degree.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current series, we found no definitive association between iliac artery TI and procedural metrics, including operative time, contrast used, EBL, fluoroscopy time, and dose in patients undergoing cAA repair using f/b-EVAR. However, there was a trend toward association between TI and all these metrics on multivariable analysis. This potential association needs to be evaluated in a larger series.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Iliac artery tortuosity should not exclude patients with complex aortic aneurysms from being offered fenestrated or branched stent graft repair. However, special considerations should be taken to mitigate the impact of access tortuosity on alignment of fenestrations with target vessels, including use of extra stiff wires, through and through access and delivering the fenestrated/branched device into another (larger) sheath such as a Gore DrySeal in patients with arteries large enough to accommodate such sheaths.

Anatomical characteristics associated with superior mesenteric artery stent graft placement during fenestrated para/suprarenal aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

According to instructions for use, fenestrated aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with the Cook Zenith fenestrated endograft (ZFEN) requires at least 4 mm of non-aneurysmal infra-renal neck length and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenting is optional. This study evaluates the outcomes of FEVAR with SMA stent grafting relative to SMA scallops or unstented fenestrations and anatomical differences there-in.

METHODS

Single-institution retrospective analysis of patients who underwent FEVAR with SMA scallop or large fenestration with and without SMA stent grafting from June 2012 to May 2020 following Institutional Review Board approval.

RESULTS

Of the 203 aneurysms repaired with ZFENs, 127 were included in our analysis with 55 stent grafted SMA fenestrations, 38 unstented SMA fenestrations and 34 SMA scallops. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Operative times were longer (335.5 ± 16.4 vs 265.0 ± 12.8 vs 269.0 ± 12.7 mins, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates were higher (33% vs 8% vs 18%, p = 0.01) in the SMA stent graft group but fluoroscopy time (65.4 ± 3.76 vs 58.3 ± 3.94 vs 51.4 ± 4.75 mins, p = 0.05) and contrast volume (92.2 ± 5.17 vs 87.1 ± 6.73 vs 93.1 ± 5.89 mL, p = 0.84) were not significantly different. Anatomically, patients that underwent ZFEN with SMA stent grafting had less infrarenal neck (1.73 ± 1.18 vs 4.92 ± 1.16 vs 6.28 ± 1.42 mm, p = 0.03) and shorter infra-SMA neck length (10.3 ± 1.39 vs 23.9 ± 1.24 vs 26.8 ± 1.67 mm, p < 0.001). In the SMA stent graft group, 1 had small bowel necrosis following embolization of an intra-operatively perforated jejunal branch and 2 had colonic ischemia of unclear etiology with patent SMA stent grafts on imaging. Endograft migration and SMA occlusion with bowel ischemia occurred in 1 patient in the SMA fenestration group. Overall mortality (24% vs 21% vs 18%, p = 0.82) and 30-day mortality (5% vs 3% vs 3%, p = 0.80) were comparable between the 3 groups. In addition, the incidence of type 3 endoleak (5% vs 3% vs 3%, p = 0.45) and need for re-intervention (20% vs 18% vs 12%, p = 0.60) were similar across all groups. Mean follow-up duration was longer in the SMA scallop group which can be attributed to 82% of these occurring in the first half of the study period.

CONCLUSION

Despite the added technical complexity, SMA stenting enables FEVAR in patients with pararenal and suprarenal aneurysms with high rates of technical success and no increased risk of mortality, major adverse events, type 3 endoleak, or re-intervention.

Bridging Stents in Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic REVIEW

BACKGROUND

Concern exists about durability of stent grafts used to bridge aortic grafts to visceral and renal arteries during fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR). There are no guidelines regarding the ideal technique for joining target vessels (TVs).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed data published from 2014 to 2019 using PRISMA guidelines and PICO models. Keywords were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. All articles were screened by two authors (a third author in case of discrepancies). Only original articles regarding F/B-EVAR in complex aortic aneurysm, reporting the number and type of TVs mated, the onset of bridging stent complications, and reinterventions on TVs were included. Analysis included quality assessment scoring, types of stent grafts, and complications related to bridging stents.

RESULTS

19 studies were included with 2,796 patients and 9556 TV; 4,797 renal arteries (50.2%), 4,174 visceral arteries (43.6%), and undefined TV (n = 585; 6.1%) were bridged. Balloon-expandable stent-grafts (B-EXP) were used in 40.9% and self-expandable (S-EXP) in 22.7% and undefined stents in 36.3%. The included studies had quality assessment scores ranging between 11/15 and 15/15, with high grade of accordance on reporting general results, but a low grade of accordance on reporting detailed data. Despite study heterogeneity, high-volume analysis confirmed a higher rate of complication in renal arteries than visceral arteries, 6% (95% CI 4-8) vs. 2% (95% CI 1-3), respectively. The rate of reinterventions was similar, 3% (95% CI 2-4) and 2% (95% CI 1-3). S-EXP versus B-EXP stent complication was 4% (95% CI 2-7) vs. 3% (95% CI 2-5), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review underlines the low grade of accordance in reporting detailed data of bridging stents in F/B-EVAR. Renal TVs were more prone to complications, with an equivalent reintervention rate to visceral TVs. As to B-EVAR, the choice of B-EXP over S-EXP is still uncertain.

Impact of Number of Vessels Targeted on Outcomes of Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of number of vessels targeted by fenestrations or branches on early outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs).

METHODS

The clinical data of 260 patients (209 men; mean, 74 ± 7 years) treated for cAAAs in four academic centers using fenestrated-branched stent grafts with one to five fenestrations or branches were entered into prospectively maintained databases (2010-2015). Data were analyzed in patients treated with ≤2-vessel (group 1, n = 124), 3-vessel (group 2, n = 80), or ≥4 fenestrations or directional branches (group 3, n = 56). For group definition, only vessels incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches were accounted. End points were technical success, procedural variables, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 830 vessels (mean, 3.19 ± 0.8 vessels/patient) were targeted by fenestrations (n = 672), scallops (n = 136), or branches (n = 22). Two-vessel designs were used more often in the early experience (64%), whereas ≥3-vessel design (groups 2 and 3) was preferred in the late experience (68%, P < 0.05). Patients with ≥4-vessel designs had longer operating and fluoroscopy time (+78 min, P < 0.0001 and + 27 min, P < 0.001), higher volume of contrast use (+31 mL, P = 0.03), and longer hospital stay (+3 days, P = 0.007) of those who had ≤2-vessel designs. Technical success, estimated blood loss, mortality, MAEs, and rate of spinal cord injury were similar in all three groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms was associated with high technical success and low 30-day mortality and morbidity. Increasing complexity was associated with longer operating and fluoroscopy time, more contrast use, and longer hospital stay but did not affect technical success and MAEs of the procedure.

Comparing Mobile C-Arm with a Hybrid Operating Room for Imaging in Fenestrated Stent-Graft Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the advantages of a hybrid operating room (OR) (group 2) compared with a fluoroscopic mobile C-arm (group 1) during fenestrated stent-graft endovascular aneurysm repair (f-EVAR).

METHODS

This single-center study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data of consecutive patients treated with f-EVAR for short-necked, juxtarenal, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms between January 2006 and July 2016. Primary end points were technical success and perioperative complications. Secondary end points included 30-day and 1-year mortality as well as target vessel patency.

RESULTS

About 96 patients were treated (85 men; 74.1 ± 6.3 years); 46 patients (48%) belonging to group 1 and 50 (52%) patients belonging to group 2. Technical success was achieved in 92.7% of the procedures (group 1 91.3% vs. group 2 94%, P = 0.72). Significantly more complex interventions were performed in group 2 (n = 38 of 50) compared with group 1 (n = 14 of 46; P < 0.001), in which primarily renal f-EVAR interventions were performed. In group 2, significantly less contrast was used (median 150 mL vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality in group 1 was 9% and 2% in group 2 (P = 0.14), and 1-year survival was also not significantly different between both groups. Target visceral vessel primary patency was significantly higher in group 1 (87.6% vs. 85.5% [P = 0.006] and 83.8% vs. 78.3% [P = 0.03]) at 6 and 12 months, respectively). There was no significant difference in renal artery primary patency at 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate and 1-year outcomes after f-EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm were comparable using a hybrid OR compared with a mobile C-arm, despite the use of significantly more complex stent grafts in the patients treated in the hybrid OR. The use of a hybrid OR may assist in achieving satisfying results in complex f-EVAR.

Acute Kidney Injury after Complex Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Background:

Complex endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm carries higher perioperative morbidity than standard infrarenal endovascular repair.

Objective:

This study reviews the incidence and associated factors of acute kidney injury in complex aortic endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods:

A literature review was performed for all studies on the endovascular repair of juxtarenal, pararenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms that evaluated rates of acute kidney injury as an outcome. Outcomes were further analyzed by the level of anatomic complexity and method of repair.

Results:

52 studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 5454 individuals undergoing repair from 2004 to 2017. The overall rate of acute kidney injury ranged widely from 0 to 41%, with a rate of hemodialysis from 0 to 19% (temporary) and 0 to 14% (permanent). Increasing anatomic complexity was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury. Mode of endovascular repair, learning curve effect, and preoperative chronic renal insufficiency did not demonstrate any associations with the outcome.

Conclusion:

Published rates of acute kidney injury in complex aortic aneurysm repair vary widely with few definitively associated factors other than increasing anatomic complexity and operative time. Further study is needed for the identification of predictors related to postoperative acute kidney injury.

Meta-analysis of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms over the last 10 years

Background

Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms 'juxta/para/suprarenal' were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case-control study and a single prospective non-randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

No significant difference was noted in 30-day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long-term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR.

Single-center experience with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms treated by open or endovascular repair using fenestrated/branched endografts

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) treated with open repair (OR) or fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) from a single center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with cAAAs treated electively by OR or F/B-EVAR between January 2010 and February 2017 was conducted. Demographics of the patients, cardiovascular risk factors, procedure time, number of vessels incorporated, radiation dose, estimated blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were recorded. End points included target vessel patency, aneurysm rupture, freedom from reintervention, and major adverse events (MAEs).

RESULTS

During this period, 153 patients (OR, 69; F/B-EVAR, 84) underwent repair of cAAA. The majority were male (OR, 55; F/B-EVAR, 64), with a mean age of 75.8 ± 7.6 years (F/B-EVAR) and 71.2 ± 7.9 years (OR). Patients in the F/B-EVAR group were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 and 4 (60% vs 0%; P < .001) and had a higher median Society for Vascular Surgery/American Association for Vascular Surgery comorbidity severity score (15 vs 7; P < .001). A total of 235 vessels were targeted in the F/B-EVAR group, with a technical success of 97.6%. Thirty-one patients in the OR group required concomitant renal artery revascularization. Transfusion requirements (100% vs 1.2%), MAEs (40.6% vs 13.1%), procedure length (304 minutes vs 140 minutes), estimated blood loss (2246 mL vs 165 mL), ICU LOS (3 days vs 1 day), and hospital LOS (7 days vs 2 days) were higher (P < .001) in the OR group compared with the F/B-EVAR group. The 30-day mortality was 2.9% and 2.4% (P = .84) in the OR group and F/B-EVAR group, respectively. Supraceliac clamp site was associated with increased incidence of postoperative renal insufficiency. A decrease in procedure time, contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, and fluoroscopy dose was noted in the F/B-EVAR group with increasing experience even as case complexity increased. More patients were discharged home after F/B-EVAR (97.6% vs 59.4%; P < .001). With a mean follow-up of 31 months (F/B-EVAR, 17 months; OR, 48 months), the rate of secondary intervention was 3.7% and 5.8% (P = NS) for F/B-EVAR and OR, respectively. Freedom from branch instability and reintervention was 99% (95% confidence interval, 96.2%-99.8%) and 96% (95% confidence interval, 87.1%-98.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this "real-world" experience suggest that the use of F/B-EVAR for the treatment of cAAAs in high-risk surgical patients is safe and effective and has comparable short-term results to those of low-risk patients undergoing OR. Patients treated by F/B-EVAR had shorter ICU and hospital LOS, lower MAEs, and faster convalescence. A decrease in procedure time and radiation dose was noted as experience was gained, even as complexity increased.

Graft Complexity–Related Outcomes of Fenestrated Endografting for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose: To report the outcomes of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and compare early and midterm results in relation to stent-graft complexity. Methods: Between August 2006 and December 2014, 141 consecutive patients (mean age 72±7.6 years, range 50–89; 120 men) were treated electively with FEVAR for short-neck, juxtarenal, or suprarenal aortic aneurysms. Forty-five patients treated with stent-grafts featuring renal-only fenestrations were assigned to group A, while 96 patients receiving additional fenestrations for the superior mesenteric and/or celiac arteries were assigned to group B. Technical success, operative mortality and morbidity, target vessel patency, endoleak, reintervention, and survival were compared between the groups. Survival, target vessel stent patency, and reintervention during follow-up were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis; the estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was achieved in 135 (95.7%) patients. Overall 30-day operative mortality was 3.5% (5/141). Perioperative complications occurred in 16 (12.1%) patients. Mean follow-up was 33±23 months. Overall estimated survival was 85.1% (95% CI 79.1% to 91.1%) at 1 year and 75.8% (95% CI 68.2% to 83.5%) at 3 years. Freedom from reintervention was 90.6% (95% CI 85.6% to 95.6%) at 1 year and 79.2% (95% CI 71% to 87.5%) at 3 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of perioperative mortality or morbidity, endoleak, survival, target vessel patency, or reintervention. Conclusion: The use of FEVAR for juxta- and suprarenal aneurysms is associated with low 30-day mortality/morbidity and high midterm efficacy. So far, perioperative and midterm results are not affected by the use of more complex fenestrated designs.

Prospective, nonrandomized study to evaluate endovascular repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated-branched endografts based on supraceliac sealing zones

PURPOSE

To investigate outcomes of manufactured fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) endografts based on supraceliac sealing zones to treat pararenal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

METHODS

A total of 127 patients (91 male; mean age, 75 ± 10 years old) were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study using manufactured F-BEVAR (November 2013-March 2015). Stent design was based on supraceliac sealing zone in all patients with ≥ four vessels in 111 (89%). Follow-up included clinical examination, laboratory studies, duplex ultrasound, and computed tomography imaging at discharge, 1 month, 6 months, and yearly. End points adjudicated by independent clinical event committee included mortality, major adverse events (any mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, paraplegia, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, bowel ischemia, blood loss >1 L), freedom from reintervention, and branch-related instability (occlusion, stenosis, endoleak or disconnection requiring reintervention), target vessel patency, sac aneurysm enlargement, and aneurysm rupture.

RESULTS

There were 47 pararenal, 42 type IV, and 38 type I-III TAAAs with mean diameter of 59 ± 17 mm. A total of 496 renal-mesenteric arteries were incorporated by 352 fenestrations, 125 directional branches, and 19 celiac scallops, with a mean of 3.9 ± 0.5 vessels per patient. Technical success of target vessel incorporation was 99.6% (n = 493/496). There were no 30-day or in-hospital deaths, dialysis, ruptures or conversions to open surgical repair. Major adverse events occurred in 27 patients (21%). Paraplegia occurred in two patients (one type IV, one type II TAAAs). Follow-up was >30 days in all patients, >6 months in 79, and >12 months in 34. No patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean follow-up of 9.2 ± 7 months, 23 patients (18%) had reinterventions (15 aortic, 8 nonaortic), 4 renal artery stents were occluded, five patients had type Ia or III endoleaks, and none had aneurysm sac enlargement. Primary and secondary target vessel patency was 96% ± 1% and 98% ± 0.7% at 1 year. Freedom from any branch instability and any reintervention was 93% ± 2% and 93% ± 2% at 1 year, respectively. Patient survival was 96% ± 2% at 1 year for the entire cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of pararenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs, using manufactured F-BEVAR with supraceliac sealing zones, is safe and efficacious. Long-term follow-up is needed to assess the impact of four-vessel designs on device-related complications and progression of aortic disease.

Snorkel endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair: is it a competition?

The endovascular treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can be performed by either a standard endovascular stent graft with additional snorkle grafts to aorta branches (snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair) or implantation of a fenestrated stent graft (fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair). While many vascular surgeons consider snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair to be competing techniques or alternate strategies, published procedural outcomes suggest more complementary roles. In this clinical review, the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches are debated, as much can be learned from both strategies. Because the indications and circumstances for juxtarenal AAA repair vary based on patient-specific comorbidities and anatomy, it is recommended that vascular surgeons have access to, and experience with, both treatment strategies. Based on published outcomes, patient outcomes, stent-graft patency, and re-intervention rates are generally similar and acceptable compared with open AAA repair. We conclude that there is a time and a place for both snorkel endovascular aneurysm repair and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair for the endovascular management of juxtarenal and pararenal AAA anatomy.

Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic nephropathy: the past, present, and future

Occlusion of the renal arteries can threaten the viability of the kidney when severe, in addition to accelerating hypertension and circulatory congestion. Renal artery stenting procedures have evolved from a treatment mainly for renovascular hypertension to a maneuver capable of recovering threatened renal function in patients with “ischemic nephropathy” and improving management of congestive heart failure. Improved catheter design and techniques have reduced, but not eliminated hazards associated with renovascular stenting. Expanded use of endovascular stent grafts to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms has introduced a new indication for renal artery stenting to protect the renal circulation when grafts cross the origins of the renal arteries. Although controversial, prospective randomized trials to evaluate the added benefit of revascularization to current medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis until now have failed to identify major benefits regarding either renal function or blood pressure control. These studies have been limited by selection bias and have been harshly criticized. While studies of tissue oxygenation using blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MR establish that kidneys can adapt to reduced blood flow to some degree, more severe occlusive disease leads to cortical hypoxia associated with microvascular rarefication, inflammatory injury and fibrosis. Current research is directed toward identifying pathways of irreversible kidney injury due to vascular occlusion and to increase the potential for renal repair after restoring renal artery patency. The role of nephrologists likely will focus upon recognizing the limits of renal adaptation to vascular disease and identifying kidneys truly at risk for ischemic injury at a time point when renal revascularization can still be of benefit to recovering kidney function.

Multiple multilayer stents for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm: a possible new tool for aortic endovascular surgery

Purpose

Endovascular surgery data are confirming the paramount role of modern endovascular tools for a safe and sure exclusion of thoracoabdominal lesions.

Case report

A 57-year-old female presented with severe comorbidity affected by a 58 mm thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). After patient-informed consent and local Ethical Committee and Italian Public Health Ministry authorization, three multilayer stents were implanted in the thoracoabdominal aortic tract, obtaining at a 20-month computed tomography scan follow up, a complete exclusion of the TAAA, with normal patency of visceral vessels.

Conclusion

Multilayer stents can be used in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, with positive results.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

Background

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a technically challenging operation. The duration, blood loss, and risk of limb ischaemia, contrast-induced nephropathy and reperfusion injury are likely to be higher than after standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Benefits of FEVAR over open repair may be less than those seen with standard infrarenal EVAR. This paper is a meta-analysis of observational studies of all published data for FEVAR, with the aim to highlight current issues around the evidence for the potential benefit of FEVAR.

Methods

A search was performed for studies describing FEVAR for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Small series of fewer than ten procedures and studies describing predominantly branched endografts or FEVAR for aortic dissection were excluded. Authors of included papers were contacted to eliminate patient duplication.

Results

Eleven studies were identified describing a total of 660 procedures. Definitions of aneurysm morphology were variable, and clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were not always documented. Double fenestrations were more common than triple or quadruple fenestrations. Target vessel perfusion rates ranged from 90·5 to 100 per cent. Eleven deaths occurred within 30 days, giving a 30-day proportional mortality rate of 2·0 per cent. Morbidity was poorly reported.

Conclusion

FEVAR for repair of suprarenal and juxtarenal aneurysms is a viable alternative to open repair. However, there is no level 1 evidence for FEVAR, and current evidence is weak with many unanswered questions.