Use of physician-modified inverted limb in conjunction with Zenith fenestrated stent graft to rescue failed previous endovascular and open repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes and performance of inverted limbs (ILs) when used in conjunction with Zenith fenestrated stent grafts (Zfens) to treat patients with short distance between the lowest renal artery (RA) and aortic or graft bifurcation (A/GB).

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients with complex aortic aneurysms, failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), or open surgical repair (OSR) with short distance between LRA and A/GB treated using a combination of Zfen and an IL between 2013 and 2023. Endpoints included technical success, aneurysm sac regression, long-term device integrity, and target vessel patency. We defined technical success as implantation of the device with no endoleak, conversion to an aorto-uni-iliac or OSR.

RESULTS

During this time, 52 patients underwent endovascular rescue of failed repair. Twenty (38.5%) of them required relining of the failed repairs using IL due to lowest RA to A/GB length restrictions. Two patients had undergone rescue with a fenestrated cuff alone but developed type III endoleaks. One patient with no previous implant had a short distance between the lowest RA and aortic bifurcation to accommodate the bifurcated distal device, and two patients had failed OSR or anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. The majority (94%) were men with a mean age of 76.8 ± 6.1 years. The mean aortic neck diameter and aneurysm size were 32 ± 4 cm and 7.2 ± 1.3 cm, respectively. The median time laps between initial repair and failure was 36 months (interquartile range [IQR], 24-54 months). Sixteen patients (80%) were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists class III, whereas four were class IV. Seventy-eight vessels were targeted and successfully incorporated. Technical success was 100%, and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL (IQR, 100-200 mL). Mean fluoroscopy time and dose were 61 ± 18 minutes and 2754 ± 1062 mGy, respectively. Average hospital length of stay was 2.75 ± 2.15 days. Postoperative complication occurred in one patient who required lower extremity fasciotomy for compartment syndrome. At a median follow-up of 50 months (IQR, 18-58 months), there were no device migration, components separation, aneurysmal related mortality, and type I or type III endoleak. Aneurysm sac regression (95%) or stabilization (5%) was observed in all patients, including in four patients (25%) with type II endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IL in conjunction with Zfen to treat patients with short distance between the lowest RA and A/GB is safe, effective, and has excellent long-term results. The technique expands the indication of Zfen, especially in patients with failed previous EVAR.

Late failure of a Nellix endoprosthesis treated with the t-Branch off-the-shelf multibranched stent graft

A 66-year-old man arrived at our emergency department 3 years after an endovascular aneurysm sealing procedure performed at another center. Computed tomography angiography showed distal migration of a Nellix endoprosthesis (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) and a posterior contained rupture. The left kidney was excluded by an occluded iliac-left renal bypass, which was performed at the time of the Nellix implantation because of unintended coverage. A t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) was implanted in an emergency, but the delivery caused disruption of the Nellix limb, requiring relining. Target vessels were bridged with VBX stents (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz). The postoperative course was uneventful except for renal function impairment that was restored 2 weeks later.

Analysis of the position of EndoAnchor implants in therapeutic use during endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the penetration depth, angles, distribution, and location of deployment of individual EndoAnchor (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) implants.

METHODS

Eighty-six primary and revision arm patients (procedural success, 53; persistent type IA endoleak, 33) treated for type IA endoleaks with a total of 580 EndoAnchor implants from a subset of the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) were included in this study. Procedural success was defined as the absence of a type IA endoleak on the first postprocedural computed tomography scan after the EndoAnchor implantation procedure. Endograft malapposition along the circumference was assessed at the first postoperative computed tomography scans and expressed as clock-face range and width in degrees and normalized such that the center was translated to 0 degrees. The position and penetration of each EndoAnchor implant were measured as the clock-face orientation. EndoAnchor implant penetration into the aortic wall was categorized as follows: good penetration, ≥2 mm; borderline penetration, <2 mm or ≥2-mm gap between the endograft and aortic wall; or no penetration. The orthogonal and longitudinal angles between the EndoAnchor implant and the interface plane of the aortic wall were determined. Location of deployment was investigated for each EndoAnchor implant and classified as maldeployed when it was above the fabric or in a gap >2 mm between the endograft and aortic wall due to >2-mm thrombus or positioning of the EndoAnchor implant below the aortic neck.

RESULTS

A total of 170 (29%) EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment and were therefore beyond recommended use and not useful. After EndoAnchor implantation, the procedural success and persistent type IA endoleak groups had 3 (1%) and 4 (2%) EndoAnchor implants positioned above the fabric as well as 60 (18%) and 103 (42%) placed in a gap >2 mm, respectively. The amount of EndoAnchor implants with good, borderline, and no penetration was significantly different between both groups (success vs type IA endoleak) after exclusion of maldeployed EndoAnchor implants (235 [87.4%], 14 [5.2%], and 20 [7.4%] vs 97 [68.8%], 18 [12.8%], and 26 [18.4%], respectively; P < .001). Good penetration EndoAnchor implants were more closely aligned with a 90-degree orthogonal angle than the borderline penetration and nonpenetrating EndoAnchor implants. The longitudinal angle was more distributed, which was observed through all three penetration groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subcohort of ANCHOR patients, almost 30% of the EndoAnchor implants had maldeployment, which may be prevented by careful preoperative planning and measured intraoperative deployment. If endoleaks are due to >2-mm gaps, EndoAnchor implants alone may not provide the intended sealing, and additional devices should be considered.