Open repair versus EVAR with parallel grafts in patients with juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm excluded from fenestrated endografting

Abstract

We compared the outcomes of open surgical repair (OSR) versus endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with parallel graft technique (PG) in patients with juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) excluded from fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) due to clinical, anatomical, technical or manufacturing time reasons. A single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent elective and urgent (within 24-48 hours) repair of JAAA from January 2010 to January 2019 was performed. Two groups were compared: patients excluded from FEVAR and respectively treated by OSR or by PG for JAAA. Perioperative clinical, anatomic and operative data were collected in a dedicated database. The endpoints were primary technical success, changes in renal function, early and long-term mortality, freedom from aortic related reinterventions (ARRs) and aortic related mortality (ARM). Overall, 118 consecutive patients were treated for JAAA, 32 of whom (27.1%) with FEVAR. Eighty-six patients were enrolled in the study (OSR group, N.=61; PG group, N.=25). The mean age was 77.4±6.5 years for PG group and 71.1±6.7 years for OSR group (P=0.0001); the average comorbidity score of the Society for Vascular Surgery was higher for patients treated by PG (10.2±4.8 vs. 5.5±0.4, P=0.0001), with no differences for hypertension and renal score. After propensity score matching, 42 patients (27 OSR, 15 PG) without differences in the preoperative risk factors were selected. Conical shape and neck mural thrombus were respectively more represented in the OSR group (95.1% vs. 56.0%; 63.9% vs. 36.0%). Aortic clamp site was supraceliac for 12 patients (19.7%), suprarenal for 21 (34.4%) and trans-renal for 28 patients (45.9%). In the PG group, 16 patients (64%) were treated with a single renal chimney. Primary technical success was similar in the two groups (100.0% vs. 92.0%, P=0.08), with a higher rate of procedure achieved by assisted technical success for the PG group after propensity score matching analysis (20.0% vs. 0%, P=0.04). Deterioration of renal function occurred for both groups of patients, with a significant creatinine increasing 12 months after surgery in the PG group compared with OSR group (1.72±0.66 vs. 1.18±0.40, P=0.006). Multiple logistic regression shows no independent predictor of peri-operative medical complication among demographics and pre-operative relevant clinical factors between the two cohorts. No difference in terms of early mortality was observed between the groups (1.6% vs. 0%, P=1.00). At 5 years, overall survival was lower for patients treated by PG (53.5% vs. 70.2%, P=0.007), such as freedom from ARRs (64.6 vs. 90.5%, P=0.03). Freedom from ARM at 5 years did not show significant differences among the two groups (100% vs. 98.4%, P=1.00). PG represents a feasible procedure for patients excluded from FEVAR due to clinical, anatomical, technical or device manufacturing time reasons, ensuring low rates of ARM. However, ARRs during the follow-up remain the Achilles heel of this technique. OSR is still the most durable procedure in the endovascular era, allowing the treatment of proximal "hostile necks" with low rates of reoperation and a similar impact on the renal function compared to PG.