Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms stratified by the aneurysm extent.

METHODS

Patients with the diagnosis of complex aortic aneurysm, who underwent F/BEVAR at a single center were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided according to the aneurysm extent, comparing group 1 (types I-III thoracoabdominal aneurysms [TAAAs]), group 2 (type IV TAAAs), and group 3 (juxtarenal [JRAAs], pararenal [PRAAs], or paravisceral [PVAAs] aortic aneurysms). The primary endpoints were 30-day and 5-year survival. The secondary endpoints were technical success, occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, primary patency of the visceral arteries, freedom from target vessel instability, and secondary interventions.

RESULTS

Of 436 patients who underwent F/BEVAR between July 2012 and May 2023, 131 presented with types I to III TAAAs, 69 with type IV TAAAs, and 236 with JRAAs, PRAAs, or PVAAs. All cases were treated under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption protocol with a patient-specific company-manufactured or off-the-shelf device. Group 1 had significantly younger patients than group 2 or 3 respectively (69.6 ± 8.7 vs 72.4 ± 7.1 vs 73.2 ± 7.3 years; P < .001) and had a higher percentage of females (50.4% vs 21.7% vs 17.8%; P < .001). Prior history of aortic dissection was significantly more common among patients in group 1 (26% vs 1.4% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and mean aneurysm diameter was larger in group 1 (64.5 vs 60.7 vs 63.2 mm; P = .033). Comorbidities were similar between groups, except for coronary artery disease (P < .001) and tobacco use (P = .003), which were less prevalent in group 1. Technical success was similar in the three groups (98.5% vs 98.6% vs 98.7%; P > .99). The 30-day mortality was 4.5%, 1.4%, and 0.4%, in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and was significantly higher in group 1 when compared with group 3 (P = .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 3 (5.3% vs 4.3% vs 0.4%; P = .004). The 5-year survival was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .01). Freedom from secondary intervention was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .003). At 5 years, there was no significant difference in freedom from target vessel instability between groups or primary patency in the 1652 target vessels examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger aneurysm extent was associated with lower 5-year survival, higher 30-day mortality, incidence of secondary interventions, and spinal cord ischemia. The prevalence of secondary interventions in all groups makes meticulous follow-up paramount in patients with complex aortic aneurysm treated with F/BEVAR.

Post-Implantation Syndrome Incidence is Higher After Complex Endovascular Aortic Procedures Than After Standard Infrarenal Repair

OBJECTIVE

Post-implantation syndrome (PIS), characterised by malaise, fever, and increased inflammatory markers, is a common occurrence after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), causing prolonged hospitalisation and increased cost. This study aimed to determine the incidence and short-term outcomes of PIS after fenestrated or branched procedures in aorto-iliac aneurysms compared with standard EVAR.

METHODS

A retrospective, comparative study from a tertiary academic institution was undertaken. All patients who underwent elective EVAR with polyester stent grafts from January 2015 to June 2021 were considered. Two groups were defined: standard EVAR (sEVAR) and complex EVAR (cEVAR). The latter included visceral fenestrated and branched or iliac branch and chimney stent grafts. The primary outcome was the incidence of PIS within three days of the index procedure. Secondary outcomes were short-term complications and risk factors for PIS. A multivariable model was constructed to correct for confounders.

RESULTS

Overall, 253 patients were included: 165 (65.2%) sEVAR and 88 (34.8%) cEVAR. Complex EVAR patients were younger, with larger aneurysms, had longer procedures, and were more likely to have intra-operative complications. The PIS incidence was 23.7% (n = 60), significantly higher in cEVAR (34.1% vs. 18.2%; p = .005) and increased with the complexity of the procedure (EVAR: 18.2% vs. EVAR + iliac branch device: 25.0% vs. fenestrated and branched EVAR: 36.2%; p = .030). On multivariable analysis, cEVAR (OR 2.833, 95% CI 1.295 - 6.198; p = .009) was associated with a significantly increased risk of PIS. No differences in short term outcomes according to PIS status were noted. Group sub-analysis for cEVAR patients did not reveal any statistically significantly different outcomes according to PIS occurrence.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort, cEVAR procedures were associated with a significantly increased risk of developing PIS compared with standard infrarenal repair. Post-implantation syndrome also appears to have a benign course with no major impact on peri-operative outcomes after cEVAR. Further research to confirm these findings is required.

Feasibility and outcome of partial open surgical fenestrated stent graft explantation, radical debridement, and in situ reconstruction for late graft infection

Aortic stent graft infection is a rare, but potentially lethal, complication of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Definitive treatment is complete stent graft explanation with in-line or extra-anatomical reconstruction. However, several factors can render such an operation unsafe, including the patient's overall fitness for surgery and partial incorporation of graft with a resulting robust inflammatory process, especially around the visceral vessels. We present the case of a 74-year-old man with a history of an infected fenestrated stent graft that was managed with partial explantation, wide debridement, and in situ reconstruction using a rifampin-soaked graft and a 360° omental wrap with good results.

Outcomes Following Urgent Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair For Pararenal And Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes following urgent or emergent fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) in patients considered high-risk for open repair.

METHODS

A retrospective, single institution evaluation of outcomes following F-BEVAR of symptomatic, rapidly enlarging, or ruptured PRA or TAAA treated with physician modified endograft (PMEG) and company manufactured devices (CMD). Outcomes were technical success, 30-day morbidity and mortality, and one year aortic related outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (23 male, mean age 74±9 years) underwent F-BEVAR using PMEG or CMD over a 12-year period. Fourteen patients underwent emergent repair for contained rupture and eighteen patients underwent urgent repair for symptomatic, mycotic or rapidly growing aneurysms. Aneurysm classification was PRA in 10 patients and TAAA in 22 (9 extent IV and 13 extent I-III). Twenty-three patients (72%) were repaired with PMEG and eight patients (26%) with CMD. Technical success was 97% with a total of 98 renal-mesenteric arteries incorporated using 67 fenestrations (68%), 29 directional branches (29%) and two double-wide scallops (2%). 30-day mortality was 6%, with one patient expiring from unclear causes after hospital discharge and the other from mesenteric ischemia. MAEs otherwise occurred in sixteen patients (50%) including minor stroke in three patients, transient paraparesis and heart failure in one patient each, and early return to the operating room in six patients. Mean follow up was 24±22 months. At 1- year, overall survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality and freedom from secondary intervention were 70%±8%, 94%±3 and 83%±7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent F-BEVAR of selected patients with PRA and TAAA is a feasible and potentially safe treatment in patients with suitable anatomy, with low rates of early mortality and spinal cord complications. Long-term follow up is needed to assess durability of repair and device-related complications.

Frequency and type of interval adverse events during the waiting period to complex aortic endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the frequency and type of adverse events that can occur during the waiting period to complex aortic endovascular repair.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of all elective patients with complex aortic aneurysms (including pararenal, suprarenal, thoracoabdominal, and aortic arch aneurysms) that had required a custom-made device (CMD) from Cook Medical (Bloomington, Ind) at a tertiary referral vascular center (November 2010 to May 2020). The waiting period was defined as the interval between the date of the stent-graft order and the date of the procedure or cancellation. Interval adverse events were defined as any event that had occurred during the waiting period and led to either mortality, aneurysm rupture, or cancellation of the planned procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 235 patients (mean age, 72 years; 25% female) had had a CMD graft ordered (201 planned as a single-stage procedure). The median waiting time until surgery was 106 days (interquartile range [IQR], 77-146 days) in the whole cohort and 101 days (IQR, 77-140 days) for the single-stage cohort. The planned procedure was performed electively in 219 patients (93%), with an overall 30-day elective mortality of 2% (n = 5). A total of 16 interval adverse events occurred during the waiting period. Of these 16 events, 10 were aneurysm ruptures and 6 were cancellations of the procedure owing to non-aneurysm-related deaths (3% of the entire cohort). A total of 10 interval deaths were registered (4.2%), 4 of which were aneurysm related. The risk of rupture during the waiting period (Kaplan-Meier) was 6.1% ± 2.3% at 180 days. The median interval from the stent-graft order to aneurysm rupture was 101 days (IQR, 54-200 days). Of the 10 aneurysm ruptures that had occurred, 6 had undergone emergent repair, with 0% mortality at 30 days (one open repair, one t-Branch, one physician-modified endograft, two cases for which the CMD was already available, one case for which a different CMD was available).

CONCLUSIONS

The median waiting time from the stent-graft order to implantation was ∼15 weeks. During this waiting period, a substantial proportion of patients could experience adverse events, either related to aneurysm rupture or underlying comorbidities. The risk of rupture during the waiting period exceeded the risk of perioperative mortality. Thus, efforts to decrease this risk could significantly improve the outcomes. A combination of different techniques might play a vital role in reducing the mortality after cases of interval rupture.

Exclusion of complex aortic aneurysm with chimney endovascular aortic repair is applicable in a minority of patients treated with fenestrated endografts

OBJECTIVES

The Medtronic Endurant II stent graft has recently received Conformité Européenne (CE) approval for the use in chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR) for the treatment for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to assess the percentage of patients treated by fenestrated endovascular repair who would have been alternatively suitable for the treatment by the CE approved Medtronic ChEVAR.

METHODS

Preoperative computed tomography scans of 100 patients who underwent fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) between April 2013 and February 2017 were retrospectively assessed for the applicability of the ChEVAR technique according to the Medtronic instructions for use. Eligibility criteria included an aortic neck diameter of 19-30 mm, a minimum infrarenal neck length of 2 mm, a total proximal sealing zone of at least 15 mm, thrombus in the aortic neck in ˂25% of the circumference, and maximum aortic angulations of 60° in the infrarenal, 45° in the suprarenal segment and ˂45° above the superior mesenteric artery.

RESULTS

According to CE-approved inclusion criteria, 19 individuals (19%) would have been eligible for ChEVAR. In 81 patients, at least 1 measure was found outside instructions for use: (i) excluding factor was detected in 26 patients, (ii) incongruous measures in 28 patients and in 27 patients, 3-5 measures were outside the instructions for use. The most frequently identified excluding factor was an insufficient infrarenal neck at ˂2 mm length (n = 63; 63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysm treated by FEVAR are in 19% of the cases alternatively suitable for the treatment by ChEVAR within CE-approved instructions for use. While ChEVAR is suitable in many emergency cases, FEVAR offers a broader applicability in an elective setting.

Systematic review with pooled data analysis reveals the need for a standardized reporting protocol including the visceral vessels during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR)

OBJECTIVES

To collect and analyse the available evidence in the outcomes of patients treated with fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (f-EVAR) technique focusing specifically on visceral vessel outcomes.

METHODS

The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the studies reporting the f-EVAR technique for the management of degenerative pararenal and/or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. The main study outcomes (technical success, type I endoleaks, fracture or occlusion of the bridging stents, overall aneurysm-related mortality, and the reintervention rate) were subsequently expressed as proportions and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 1804 patients were included in a pooled analysis. The technical success of the procedure was 95.97% (95%CI = 92.35-98.60). Intraoperatively, the pooled proportion of reported type I endoleak was 7.6% (95%CI = 2.52-14.60) while during a median follow-up of 41 months (range 11-96) follow-up period the pooled rate of fracture and occlusion of the bridging stents was 2.79% (95%CI = 0.00-8.52) and 4.46% (95%CI = 1.93-7.77), respectively. The overall aneurysm-related mortality was detected to be 0.63% (95%CI = 0.04-1.63), and the pooled estimate for re-intervention rate was 15.69%.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenestrated endovascular repair for p-AAA is an effective and safe treatment. Target vessel complications and endoleaks remain the two most important concerns for fenestrated endovascular procedures, contributing to most of the secondary interventions. The lack of computed tomography angiography follow-up evaluation does not allow us to draw robust conclusions about the complication rates for the superior mesenteric artery during f-EVAR. Due to the potential implications of SMA complications on aneurysm-related mortality, standardized reporting of short- and long-term target visceral vessel outcomes is required.

Reinterventions after fenestrated and branched endografting for degenerative aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated/branched endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is widely accepted technique to treat juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (J/P-AAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for patients at high-surgical risk. However, the follow-up results should be carefully evaluated, especially in terms of the reintervention rate. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to evaluate the early and mid-term reinterventions after FB-EVAR for J/P-AAAs and TAAAs and their effects on follow-up survival.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2019, all consecutive patients who had undergone F/B-EVAR for J/P-AAAs or TAAAs were prospectively enrolled. Cases requiring reinterventions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with aortic dissection were excluded from the present analysis. Reinterventions were classified as follows: access related, aortoiliac related, or target visceral vessel (TVV) related. Freedom from reintervention and survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 F/B-EVAR procedures were performed for 111 J/P-AAAs (50.3%) and 110 TAAAs (49.7%) in an elective (182; 82%) or urgent (39; 18%) setting. The median follow-up was 27 months (interquartile range, 13 months). Overall, 41 patients had undergone 52 reinterventions (single, 30 [14%]; multiple, 11 [5%]; access related, 17 [33%]; aortoiliac related, 6 [12%]; TVV related, 29 [55%]). Of the 52 reinterventions, 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) had occurred within and after 30 days, respectively. Eight reinterventions (15%) had been were performed in an urgent setting. Endovascular and open reinterventions were performed in 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) cases, respectively. Open reinterventions were frequently access related (access, 16; no access, 4; P ≤ .001). Technical success was 95% (39 patients); failures consisted of one splenic artery rupture and one renal artery loss. Patients undergoing reintervention had more frequently undergone a primary urgent F/B-EVAR (urgent, 12 of 39 [31%]; elective, 29 of 182 [16%]; P < .001) and had had TAAAs (TAAAs, 34 of 41 [83%]; J/P-AAAs, 7 of 41 [17%]; P < .001). The patients with TAAAs had had a greater incidence of TVV-related reintervention (TAAAs, 26 of 28 [93%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 28 [7%]; P < .001) and multiple reinterventions (TAAAs, 9 of 11 [82%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 11 [18%]; P = .03) compared with those with J/P-AAAs. Survival at 3 years was 75%. Freedom from reintervention was 81% at 3 years. Patients who had undergone reinterventions had lower 3-year survival (reintervention, 61%; no reintervention, 77%; P = .02). Preoperative chronic renal failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.6; P = .02), TAAAs (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .03), and urgent primary F/B-EVAR procedures (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P = .01) were independent predictors of late mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Reinterventions after F/B-EVAR are not uncommon and were related to TVVs in only one half of cases. Most of them can be performed in an elective setting using endovascular techniques. The technical success rate was excellent. Reinterventions were more frequent after TAAAs and urgent F/B-EVAR procedures and had a significant effect on overall survival in these situations.

Clinical application and technical details of cook zenith devices modification to treat urgent and elective complex aortic aneurysms

Purpose

To describe technical details of modifying four different Cook Zenith devices to treat complex aortic aneurysms.

Material

In the first three cases, the modification process involved complete stent graft deployment on a sterile back table. Fenestrations were created using an ophthalmologic cautery and reinforced with a radiopaque snare using a double-armed 4–0 Ethibond locking suture based on measurements obtained on centerline of flow. In each instance, a nitinol wire was withdrawn and redirected through and through the fabric and used as a constraining wire. In the fourth patient, modification involved partial stent graft deployment and creation of additional two fenestrations to accommodate renal arteries. The devices are resheathed and implanted in the standard fashion.

Results

Four patients underwent exclusion of their aneurysms, including thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 2), a contained ruptured juxtarenal aneurysm (n = 1), and a ruptured failed previous endovascular repair (n = 1). Fifteen fenestrations were successfully bridged with Atrium iCAST stent grafts. Average graft modification time, operative time, contrast volume, radiation dose, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay were 89 min, 155.25 min, 58.8 mL, 2451 mGy, 175 mL, and 4.3 days, respectively. One patient required a secondary intervention to treat a type Ib endoleak. During an average follow-up of 25 months, aneurysm sacs progressively shrank without additional intervention.

Conclusion

Physician-modified fenestrated/branched endografts are a safe alternative to custom made devices, especially in urgent cases and should be part of the armamentarium of any complex aortic program.

Evolution of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair complexity and outcomes at an organized center for the treatment of complex aortic disease

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) volume has increased rapidly, with favorable outcomes at centers of excellence. We evaluated changes over time in F/BEVAR complexity and associated outcomes at a single-center complex aortic disease program.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of all F/BEVAR (definition: requiring ≥1 fenestration/branch), procedures performed in an institutional review board-approved registry and/or physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (IDE# G130210), were reviewed (11/2010-2/2019). Patients were stratified by surgery date into thirds: early experience, mid experience, and recent experience. Patient and operative characteristics, aneurysm morphology, device types, perioperative and midterm outcomes (survival, freedom from type I or III endoleak, target artery patency, freedom from reintervention), were compared across groups.

RESULTS

For 252 consecutive F/BEVARs (early experience, n = 84, mid experience, n = 84, recent experience, n = 84), 194 (77%) company-manufactured custom-made devices, 11 (4.4%) company-manufactured off-the-shelf devices, and 47 (19%) physician-modified devices, were used to treat 5 (2.0%) common iliac, 97 (39%) juxtarenal, 31 (12%) pararenal, 116 (46%) thoracoabdominal, and 2 (0.8%) arch aneurysms. All patients had follow-up for 30-day events. The mean follow-up time for the entire cohort was 589 days (interquartile range, 149-813 days). On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 88%, freedom from type I or III endoleak was 91%, and target vessel patency was 92%. When stratified by time period, significant differences included aneurysm extent (thoracoabdominal, 33% early experience, 40% mid experience, and 64% recent experience; P < .001) and target vessels per case (four-vessel case, 31% early experience, 39% mid experience, and 67% recent experience; P < .0001). There was no difference, but a trend toward improvement, in composite 30-day events (early experience, 39%; mid experience, 23%; recent experience, 27%; P = .05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no difference in survival (P = .19) or target artery patency (P = .6). There were differences in freedom from reintervention (P < .01) and from type I or III endoleak (P = .02), with more reinterventions in the early experience, and more endoleaks in the recent period.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing repair complexity, there has been no significant change in perioperative complications, overall survival, or target artery patency, with favorable outcomes overall. Type I or III endoleaks remain a significant limitation, with increased incidence as the number of branch arteries incorporated into the repairs has increased.

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.

Preloaded Catheters and Guide-Wire Systems to Facilitate Catheterization During Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the clinical outcomes for patients treated for pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) using preloaded systems (PLS).

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data of 83 patients (64 male, mean age 75 ± 7 years) enrolled in a prospective study to investigate F-BEVAR. All patients had PLS, which included two catheters or two through-and-through guide wires with 12-Fr trans-brachial sheaths positioned in the descending thoracic aorta. Outcome measurements were technical success defined as successful deployment of the main fenestrated stent graft and cannulation of all target vessels, total endovascular time, total lower extremity ischemia time and complications, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs).

RESULTS

Aneurysm extent was PRA in 27 patients and TAAA in 56 (35 extent IV and 21 extent I-III). A total of 333 target vessels were incorporated with an average of 4 ± 0.4 vessels per patient. Technical success was 99.7%. Total endovascular time was 160 ± 51 min. Sixty-five (78%) patients had motor and somatosensory evoked potentials monitoring, and lower extremity ischemia time was 115 ± 42 min. There were no 30-day mortalities. Fifteen patients (18%) had MAEs, including three (3.6%) minor ischemic strokes. There were no upper extremity complications. All ischemic strokes occurred in female patients (3.6% vs. 0%, P = .001). One (1.2%) patient had paraplegia.

CONCLUSION

This study shows high technical success and early lower limb reperfusion using PLS with trans-brachial access. The risk of stroke, especially in female patients, should be carefully assessed by review of preoperative arch imaging.

Risk of spinal cord ischemia after fenestrated or branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to analyze the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients presenting with complex aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to identify risk factors associated with this complication.

METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken of prospectively collected data including patients presenting with complex aortic aneurysm (pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm) treated with fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR) or branched EVAR (B-EVAR). The primary end point was the incidence of SCI and the assessment of any associated factors.

RESULTS

Between January 2011 and August 2017, a total of 243 patients (mean aneurysm diameter, 65.2 ± 15.3 mm; mean age, 72.4 ± 7.5 years; 73% male) were treated with F-EVAR or B-EVAR. Asymptomatic patients were treated in 73% of the cases (177/243, in contrast to 27% urgent), and 52% (126/243) were treated for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (in contrast to 48% for pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm). F-EVAR (mean number of fenestrations, 3.3/case) and B-EVAR (mean number of branches, 3.7/case) were undertaken in 67% (164/243) and 33% (79/243), respectively. The total incidence of SCI was 17.7% [43/243; paraplegia in 4% (10/243) and paraparesis in 13.7% (33/243)]. Most of the patients with SCI presented with immediate postoperative symptoms (72% [31/43]). A spinal drain was preoperatively placed in 53% (130/243) and was associated with the prevention of SCI (SCI with spinal drainage, 12% [16/130]; SCI without spinal drainage, 24% [27/113]; P = .018). The 30-day mortality rate was 9% (21/243). After multiple logistic regression analysis, SCI was associated with preoperative renal function (SCI with preoperative glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m²: odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-4.99; P = .016) and the number of vertebral segments covered (SCI with higher position of proximal stent in terms of vertebra: OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P = .000). A similar outcome was derived when the height of the proximal end of the stent graft was replaced by the total length of aortic coverage (SCI with preoperative glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m²: OR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.11-5.00; P = .025]; SCI with longer length of aortic coverage: OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.003-1.009; P = .000]).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of SCI incidence after F-EVAR or B-EVAR of complex aortic aneurysms is manifested immediately postoperatively. The use of preoperative spinal drainage may prevent SCI. Patients with GRF <60 mL/min/1.73 m² and with longer aortic stent graft coverage are at higher risk of SCI.