Impact of bridging stent design and configuration on branch vessel durability after fenestrated endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms

Abstract

ObjectiveThe ideal mating stent for target vessel revascularization in fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) of juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms remains unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes associated with use of different stent types and configurations mated with reinforced fenestrations during FEVAR. MethodsClinical data from patients undergoing FEVAR for juxtarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial were analyzed. Outcomes for two different balloon-expandable covered stents (BECSs) mated with reinforced fenestrations were assessed along with the impact of distal extension with a self-expanding stent (SES). Primary patency, branch-related endoleak, and reintervention rates were determined. Cox proportional hazards model was used for time-to-event analysis. ResultsFrom 2001 to 2016, there were 918 patients who underwent fenestrated or branched endograft repair of complex aortic aneurysms; 1604 renal arteries (RAs), 714 superior mesenteric arteries (SMAs), and 333 celiac arteries (CAs) were mated with reinforced fenestrations using JOMED (n = 2014; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) or iCAST (n = 637; Atrium Medical, Hudson, NH) BECSs. The type of BECS did not affect short-term or long-term patency, branch-related endoleaks, or reintervention rates in the RA, SMA, or CA. Twenty-five percent (402/1604) of RAs, 84% (598/714) of SMAs, and 8% (27/333) of CAs underwent distal SES extension at the index operation. RAs with a distal SES in addition to the BECS had a higher likelihood of an occlusion event (hazard ratio, 2.791; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-5.48; P = .003) and reinterventions (P = .036) compared with those without an SES. Addition of a distal SES to the BECS in the SMA or CA did not have an impact on patency or reintervention rates. ConclusionsBECS choice does not appear to have an impact on branch durability after FEVAR. Selective distal SES placement in RAs with high-risk anatomy does not appear to significantly protect against an occlusion event or to prevent secondary interventions. Routine addition of a distal SES does not improve SMA fenestration durability.