Mid-Term Results of Fenestrated Endovascular Repair after Prior Open Aortic Reconstruction

This study aims to assess the mid-term results of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) for the treatment of proximal aortic pathology after previous open surgical repair (OSR). All patients with a previous history of OSR of an abdominal aortic aneurysm undergoing a FEVAR procedure between October 2010 and November 2021 were included. The endpoints of the study were technical success, mortality, target vessel patency and reinterventions during follow-up. Thirty-five patients (34 male, mean age 72.9 ± 7 years) were included. The median interval from the primary surgery to the FEVAR procedure was 136 months (range 47–261). The indication for treatment was a para-anastomotic aneurysm in 18 (51%) patients and a true aneurysm due to progression of disease in 17 (49%) patients. Technical success was achieved in 33 (94%) patients. There was one (3%) early death due to postoperative bleeding from a renal artery. Estimated survival at 12, 24 and 36 months was 89.1% ± 6%, 84.4% ± 7.3% and 84.4% ± 7.3%, respectively. There was no aneurysm-related mortality. One (3%) target vessel occluded during follow-up and three (9%) patients underwent late reinterventions. In conclusion, FEVAR is a safe and effective alternative for the endovascular treatment of para-anastomotic aneurysms/pseudoaneurysms after OSR showing high technical success, low mortality and morbidity, and good mid-term outcomes.

Insights on Bridging Stent Grafts in Fenestrated and Branched Aortic Endografting

Major branches of the aortic arch and visceral aorta pose a particular challenge for endovascular repair of aneurysms involving these regions. To preserve perfusion through these essential branches, fenestrated and branched endografts have been used. Current fenestrated and branched aortic endografts have evolved into modular devices in which the aortic main body provides appropriate access to the target branch vessel either through reinforced fenestrations or directional cuffs as the hinge point for bridging stent grafts (BSGs). BSGs are used to connect the aortic main body and target branch vessel, and must provide both unhindered flow and a seal. Appropriate selection of BSG for target vessels in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair is critical for technical success and durability. At present, there are no dedicated devices for use as BSGs, and a variety of stent grafts are currently used off-label. In this report, we review the available published series on the performance of presently available BSGs in relation to their design and selection.

Endovascular Treatment for Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Using Fenestrated and Branched Grafts

Fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is a less invasive treatment for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and complex abdominal aortic aneurysm. Fenestrated and branched (cuff) grafts facilitate safe and durable repair, and bail-out maneuvers for target vessel cannulation and stenting have been established; however, the available bridging stent grafts have differences. The present article discusses the optimal selection of fenestrated or branched grafts, the cannulation of target vessels that have difficult anatomies, and the advantages and disadvantages of various bridging stents. We review the causes and risk factors of spinal cord injury (SCI), the protocol for prevention of SCI, and the outcomes of target vessel stent grafting, including patency and endoleak.

Although conventional open surgery is the gold standard for the repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA), it is highly invasive. To reduce invasiveness, hybrid surgery that combines open surgery and endovascular therapy has been developed [1, 2], and fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is frequently performed at centers in the USA, Europe, and Japan [3-5]. Additionally, a hostile neck may be an independent factor for sac enlargement after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) [6], but a previous study reported that 41% of AAA cases presented with neck lengths outside the range prescribed by the traditional instruction for use [7]. Stark et al. showed that extending the graft above the highest renal artery would create an augmented neck length in 90% of patients with AAA [7]. F/B-EVAR is based on this principle. However, there are some technical tips for, and limitations of, fenestrated and/or branched graft. F/B-EVAR for TAAA and complex AAA will be reviewed in the present article.

Bridging stent grafts in fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair: current practice and possible complications

Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is associated with a high degree of technical and clinical success. Despite this, studies have also reported high reintervention rates, and these are often related to the bridging stent grafts. Often new devices appear on the market before they have been tested in the bridging stent graft position. This review aims to assess the current literature on bridging stent grafts and discuss complications, illustrated by case reports. Complications reported with bridging stent grafts include; endoleak, kink, fracture, migration, occlusion, stenosis and perforation. Some known risk factors for bridging stent occlusions are renal artery stent grafts vs. SMA and celiac artery stent grafts. Some device specific complications have also been reported such as type IIIc endoleak with the Lifestream stent graft (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, AZ, USA) fractures and type IIId endoleaks with the 1st generation of Begraft (BentleyInnoMed, Hechingen, Germany). In addition, this review also discusses some newer devices with possible relation to complications such as stenosis and target vessel perforation. In conclusion, bridging stent grafts in fenestrated and branched aortic repair have a good midterm patency. Despite this, remaining issues are often related to the bridging stent grafts. Thorough follow-up and attention are needed, especially when new devices are introduced. The endovascular community should work towards a common global feedback system.

A meta-analysis of outcomes of in-situ reconstruction after total or partial removal of infected abdominal aortic graft

INTRODUCTION

There is currently a lack of evidence for the relative effectiveness of partial resection (PR) and total resection (TR) before managing abdominal aortic graft infection (AGI). Most authorities agree that TR is mandatory for intracavitary AGI in patients with favorable conditions but there is an increasing number of patients with severe comorbidities for whom this approach is not suitable, resulting in a prohibitive mortality rate. The purpose of this study was to determine the most appropriate indication for TR or PR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the rates of early/late mortality, amputations and reinfection. A meta-regression was performed with eight variables: patient age, male prevalence, presence of virulent or nonvirulent organisms, urgency, omentoplasty and follow-up.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-one studies and 1052 patients were included. For TR and PR, the rates of early mortality and reinfection were 16.8% and 10.5%, 11% and 27%, respectively. For TR urgency and male gender were associated with increased rate of early mortality and male gender, PDF and virulent organisms were associated with increased risk of reinfection. For PR no statistical correlation was analyzable except for PDF with increased risk of reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

Early mortality rates are higher for TR and reinfection rates are higher for PR. For TR early mortality increases in urgent cases and it is suggested that alternative option must be discussed, reinfection decreases in the presence of nonvirulent organisms and TR seems optimal. For TR and PR reinfection increases in presence of PDF and alternative technique may be more appropriate.