Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair Research Articles

A dedicated preventive protocol sustainably avoids spinal cord ischemia after endovascular aortic repair.

To analyze the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) after the introduction of a dedicated SCI preventive protocol. Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing complex EVAR with branched (BEVAR) and/or fenestrated grafts (FEVAR) during a 6-year period starting January 1st, 2015. The preventive protocol consisted of staging extensive aortic repairs, maintaining a mean arterial pressure (MAP) >80 mm Hg, Hb level >110 g/L, early lower limb reperfusion and neurological control per hour during the post-operative stay in the intensive care unit (36-72 h). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was used selectively. Pre- intra-, and 30-day postoperative clinical data and imaging were collected. Primary end point was the development of perioperative SCI. Secondary outcome included technical and clinical success. Complex EVAR was performed in 205 patients (167 males, 72 (67-75) years, 182 (88.8%) elective) with juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA, 155 patients) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). SCI occurred after JRA repair in two patients (1.3%, both ruptures) and after TAAA repair in three (6.0%, one rupture) (p = 0.06), all within 9 h postoperatively. There was symptom regression in three cases (one partial, two complete), resulting in a persistent SCI level of 0.6% and 4.0% for JRA and TAAA, respectively. Only one patient with persistent SCI could be discharged from the hospital alive. Patients developing SCI were more commonly female (n = 3, p = .016), presented with rupture (n = 3, p < .001), had preoperative renal insufficiency (n = 5, p < .001) and had lower minimal MAP (p = .015). No regression analysis was done due to the limited number of SCI events in relation to the study population size. Primary technical success was achieved in 162 patients (83.5%) and clinical success in 153 patients (75.4%), without any differences between the groups. The incidence of persistent SCI after complex EVAR is low with the use of a dedicated SCI preventive protocol allowing the early diagnosis. Females, patients with ruptured aneurysms and preoperative renal insufficiency are at higher risk. Further studies are needed to customize the protocols particularly in those high-risk patients.

The "Pre-Rotating Dilator Technique" for Optimal Endograft Orientation in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

To describe a novel technique for optimal orientation and accurate deployment of aortic endografts during complex endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR). After establishing the femoral access in the standard fashion, a long large-bore dilator is inserted before the cEVAR delivery system. The dilator is advanced beyond the renovisceral segment noticing the degree of axial rotation. The endograft markers are verified with fluoroscopy outside the patient in the standard way. Thereafter, the cEVAR delivery system is pre-emptively rotated by the same degree in the opposite direction than the dilator showed upon insertion. The endograft is then advanced into position with the markers ending with the markers roughly in position. Minor adjustments are done before and during deployment if needed as per standard technique. The use of long, large-bore dilator before the introduction of the aortic graft allows to proactively minimize the risk of endograft misalignment and malrotation especially in cases with challenging anatomies in both the visceral and iliac segments. This can potentially be used in all cases because it minimizes the manipulation of the delivery system and potentially increases the accuracy of endograft deployment. This report describes a novel technique involving the use of a long large-bore dilator to predict the degree of rotation of the cEVAR delivery system during insertion and thereby enabling a pre-emptive compensation. This facilitates the precise orientation of the main aortic endograft with an easier alignment of any branches and/or fenestrations to their respective target arteries. This approach holds the potential to mitigate several of the difficulties commonly encountered with current cEVAR solutions, especially the challenges posed by small and tortuous access and severe angulation in the iliac and visceral aortic segment.

Single Access and X-Over Reversed Iliac Extension Technique in a PAD Patient Needing Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

To describe the X-over reversed iliac extension technique in a patient with severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) scheduled for inner branched endovascular aortic repair (iBEVAR). A multimorbid 62-year-old male patient was planned for iBEVAR due to a 58 mm suprarenal aortic aneurysm. The patient had a previous right femoropopliteal bypass and stenting of the left iliac axis. At admission, he presented with recent onset severe left limb claudication, which was attributed to left iliac stent occlusion. To avoid the postoperative compression of the right common femoral artery (CFA) and preserve the patency of the bypass, a single left CFA access, followed by left iliac artery recanalization, was decided. The right iliac axis was catheterized with a Lunderquist wire using X-over access from the left CFA. An iliac extension (ZISL, 24-59, Cook Medical, Bloomington, USA) was reversed and resheathed on back-table and implanted in the right common iliac artery using the X-over technique. The left CFA access was used to complete the remaining steps of the procedure. The predischarge computed tomography angiography confirmed bilateral iliac artery and femoropopliteal bypass patency. The X-over reversed iliac extension technique may be applied in selected PAD patients, when undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair. As the number of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is expected to increase the upcoming decades, out of the box solutions may be needed to assist complex endovascular aortic management. The X over technique, which consist of the contralateral advancement of an on-table reversed iliac limb, was successfully applied in a patient with severe PAD and numerous previous peripheral interventions, who was managed with branched endovascular aortic repair . The X Over technique may provide an additional alternative in well-selected patients with demanding vascular access undergoing complex endovascular aortic procedures.

Intraoperative cell salvage technique in patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair

Complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) requires the use of multiple small sheath cannulation inside a large sheath. Because the large sheath is not designed for multiple small sheath cannulation, large amounts of blood loss can be encountered in complex EVARs. Cell Saver can be used effectively in complex EVARs using a modified draping technique, allowing for increased cell salvage and autogenous transfusions as needed.

Carbon dioxide cone-beam computed tomography for the technical assessment of endovascular aortic intervention

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is widely used for the technical assessment of standard and complex endovascular aortic interventions. Use of iodinated contrast in CBCT imaging might provide useful additional information; however, this also increases the procedural contrast dose, which may cause renal function deterioration, and the radiation exposure. We describe the technique and feasibility of carbon-dioxide (CO2)-enhanced CBCT for the technical assessment of standard and complex endovascular aortic repair. In our experience CO2-CBCT had no related adverse events and provided satisfactory imaging quality to assess endograft integrity, vessels patency, and was safely performed in case of severe chronic renal insufficiency.

Sex Related Differences in Perioperative Outcomes after Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Prior studies suggest female sex is associated with worse outcomes after complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to anatomic differences. Therefore, we aimed to compare 30-day perioperative and long-term outcomes after complex EVAR by sex. A single-center retrospective review of consecutive elective and emergent complex EVAR with company-manufactured devices, laser fenestration, snorkel/periscope, or octopus technique was performed from 2012-2023. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of any major adverse event (MAE), new-onset dialysis, or death within 30days. Secondary 30-day technical and long-term outcomes were also assessed. 293 patients (57 females, 19%), mean age 74years, underwent complex EVAR with commercially available Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft (71%), p-Branch (2%), laser fenestration (8%), snorkel/periscope (16%), or octopus (2%) techniques. Females had significantly different aneurysm-related anatomic characteristics compared to males, including smaller aneurysm diameters (58±7.2 vs. 64±13.2mm, P<0.001), more involved aneurysm extent (21.7% vs. 9.8% thoracoabdominal, P=0.04), increased renal artery calcification (43.9% vs. 27.1%, P=0.01), and smaller iliac (7.6±1.3 vs. 8.9±1.8mm, P<0.01). Operative outcomes were similar; however, females had a greater need for adjunctive access conduits (21.1% vs. 10.6%, P=0.04), lower technical success (91.2% vs. 98.3%, P=0.02), and longer median [interquartile range] length of stay (3.0 [4.0] vs. 2.0 [2.5] days, P<0.001). The composite 30-day outcome of any MAE, new dialysis, or death was not significantly different (15.8% females vs. 11.4% males, P=0.37). Technical endpoints including 30-day rates of target artery occlusion and type 1 or 3 endoleak were also similar between groups. At mean follow-up of nearly 3years, females had significantly lower rate of renal function decline (16.0% vs. 41.9%, P<0.001), but no differences were found in long-term all-cause mortality, aneurysm sac regression, reintervention, or total follow-up imaging studies between groups. Females undergoing complex EVAR had challenging anatomy with higher intraoperative target artery occlusion, conduit use, and longer length of stay. However, 30-day and long-term outcomes were similar, suggesting females can undergo complex EVAR with high technical success and comparable perioperative outcomes to males. Females appeared to have protection from long-term renal function decline, which will be important for future study.

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic vs therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic vs therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcaval Embolization for Type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Background: Among the endovascular approaches for the management of endoleak type 2 (EL 2), transcaval embolization (TCE) has shown encouraging outcomes. However, the literature is still limited. This study aimed to present the early and mid-term outcomes of TCE for EL 2 after endovascular aortic repair. Methods: A retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients managed with TCE for EL 2 after standard or complex endovascular aortic repair, from August 2015 to March 2024, was conducted. The indication for TCE was the presence of an EL 2 related to ≥5 mm sac increase, compared to the first imaging after aneurysm exclusion or the smallest diameter during follow-up. Patients managed with TCE for other types of endoleaks were excluded. The primary outcomes were technical and clinical successes during follow-up. Results: Forty-three patients were included (mean age: 75.1 ± 6.0 years, 90.7% males). Technical success was 97.7%. Selective embolization was performed in 48.8% and non-selective in 51.2%. No death was recorded at 30 days. The estimated clinical success was 90.0% (standard error; SE: 6.7%) and the freedom from EL 2 was 89.0% (SE 6.4%) at 36 months. Cox regression analysis showed that the type of embolization (selective vs. non-selective), type of previous repair (f/bEVAR vs. EVAR), and use of anticoagulants did not affect follow-up outcomes. Reinterventions related to EL 2 were performed in 12.5%; three underwent an open conversion. Conclusions: TCE was related to high technical success and limited peri-operative morbidity, regardless of the type of initial endovascular aortic repair. Clinical success was encouraging with reinterventions for EL 2 affecting 12.5% of patients.

Early experience with patient-specific unibody bifurcated fenestrated-branched devices for complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveShort distances between the lowest visceral/renal artery and the aortic bifurcation are technically challenging during complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly after previous infrarenal repair. Traditionally, inverted limb bifurcated devices have been used in addition to fenestrated-branched (FB) endografts, but short overlap, difficult cannulation, and potential crushing of bridging stents are limitations for their use. This study reviews the early experience of patient-specific company manufactured devices (PS-CMDs) with a unibody bifurcated FB design for complex EVAR. MethodsConsecutive complex EVAR procedures over a 34-month period with unibody bifurcated FB-devices as part of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at two institutions were reviewed. Unibody bifurcated FB designs included FB bifurcated or fenestrated inverted limb devices. End points included technical success, survival, frequency of type I or III endoleaks, limb occlusion, and secondary interventions. ResultsAmong 168 patients undergoing complex EVAR, 33 patients (19.6%; 78.7% male; mean age, 77 years) received unibody bifurcated FB PS-CMDs. FB bifurcated and fenestrated inverted limb devices were used in 31 (93.9%) and 2 (6.06%) patients, respectively. The median maximum aneurysm diameter was 61 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 55-69 mm). Prior EVAR was reported by 29 patients (87.9%), of whom 2 (6.06%) had suprarenal stents. A short distance between the lowest renal artery and aortic bifurcation was demonstrated in 30 patients (90.9%), with median distance of 47 mm (IQR, 38-54 mm). Preloaded devices were used in 23 patients (69.7%). A total of 128 fenestrations were planned; 22 (17.2%) were preloaded with guidewires and 5 (3.9%) with catheters. The median operative time was 238 minutes (226-300 minutes), with a median fluoroscopy time of 65.5 minutes (IQR, 56.0-77.7 minutes) and a median dose area product of 147 mGy∗cm2 (IQR, 105-194 mGy∗cm2). Exclusive femoral access was used in 14 procedures (42.4%). Technical success was 100%. Target vessel primary patency was 100% at a median follow-up time of 11.7 months (IQR, 3.5-18.6 months). Two patients (6.06%) required reintervention for iliac occlusion; one patient required stenting and the other a femoral-femoral bypass. No aortic-related deaths occurred after the procedure. During follow-up, 11 type II endoleaks (33.3%) and 1 type Ib endoleak (3.03%) were detected; the latter was treated with leg extension. No type Ia or III endoleaks occurred. ConclusionsComplex EVAR using unibody bifurcated FB-PS-CMDs is a simple, safe, and cost-effective alternative for the treatment of patients with short distances between the renal arteries and the aortic bifurcation. Further studies are required to assess benefits and durability of unibody bifurcated FB devices.

Gastrointestinal Complications and Visceral Circulation Changes After Intentional Celiac Artery Embolization During Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Gastrointestinal Complications and Visceral Circulation Changes After Intentional Celiac Artery Embolization During Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes Following Thoracic and Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes Following Thoracic and Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Unintended Exchange of Target Vessels for Celiac Trunk and Superior Mesenteric Artery Branches in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

The treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR) is safe and effective. During deployment, the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) branch can unintentionally open into the celiac trunk (CT) ostium and switched catheterization of the SMA from the CT branch and the CT from the SMA branch can be used as an alternative technique in these cases. This study aimed to investigate the outcome of exchanging the intended target vessels (TVs) for the CT and SMA branches during BEVAR. A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with TAAAs who underwent BEVAR, using off-the-shelf or custom-made devices (CMDs), with an unintended exchange of TVs for the CT and SMA branches was performed. Between 2014 and 2023, 397 patients were treated with BEVAR for TAAA. Eighteen (4.5%) of those patients were treated with an exchange of TVs for the CT and SMA branches. T-branch was used in 9 cases (50%) and the remaining patients were treated with CMDs. Twelve patients were treated electively, 3 were symptomatic and 3 presented with rupture. Of 36 mesenteric TVs in those 18 patients, 34 (94%) were catheterized successfully, including all 18 SMAs and 16 of the 18 CTs. No branch stenosis or occlusion of the switched mesenteric TVs was detected during follow-up. During 30-day follow-up, 3 patients died and during a median follow-up of 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-15) months 3 more patients died. None of the deaths or the 2 unintended reinterventions was induced by the mesenteric TV exchange. The median hospital stay was 14 (IQR: 9-22) days with a median of 4 (IQR: 2-11) days at the intensive care unit. The exchange of the mesenteric TVs for the CT and SMA branches during BEVAR with off-the-shelf and CMD endografts is feasible with good TV patency and freedom from TV-related reinterventions. This alternative technique should be considered in selected cases when direct catheterization via the intended branch is deemed more time-consuming or not feasible. This is the first description of using an exchange of target vessels for the celiac trunk and the superior mesenteric artery branches in patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing BEVAR, using off-the-shelf or custom-made devices. The high success rate as well as the good clinical results without any branch stenosis or occlusion during follow-up highlight the feasibility of this alternative technique. It could help in challenging cases when catheterization of the intended target vessels is not possible or too time consuming, resulting in higher success rates of BEVAR and better clinical results.

Multicentre Experience with Novel Bidirectional Double Cuffed Inner Branches for Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

This study aimed to report the initial experience with a novel bidirectional double cuff inner branch design for incorporation of renal and mesenteric arteries in patients undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). A retrospective review was undertaken of the experience of F/BEVAR with grafts integrating at least one bidirectional double cuffed inner branch implanted at three tertiary aortic centres between March 2022 and June 2023. All consecutive patients were included. Baseline characteristics, operative data, and follow up data were collected. Results were presented as number or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise stated. Thirteen patients (10 male; median age 72 [68, 77] years) had F/BEVAR using a total of 15 bidirectional double cuffed inner branches (30 cuffs). Indications for bidirectional doubled cuffed inner branches included cranial vessel orientation or double renal arteries in four patients each, common coeliomesenteric trunk in three patients, and early renal artery bifurcation, renal artery origin from a false lumen requiring a flexible route for catheterisation, and surplus configuration in one patient each. Twenty three of the 30 cuffs were used, whereas the remaining seven cuffs were intentionally occluded with vascular plugs. Target vessel incorporation was successful in all bidirectional branches. There was one technical failure related to unsuccessful catheterisation of a left renal artery targeted through a unidirectional caudal inner branch. During a median follow up of seven months there were no instances of target vessel instability or re-interventions and two patients died of causes unrelated to the bidirectional branches. The results of the use of bidirectional double cuff inner branches are promising, with high technical success and no short term branch related complications in this preliminary experience. This could potentially expand the applicability of branch endografting of complex endovascular aortic repairs, but long term results are still missing.

Early and mid-term results after endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using the off-the-shelf multibranched t-Branch device: a national multi-center study

Objective: The multibranched off-the-shelf Zenith® t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) device is commonly chosen for endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to report early and mid-term outcomes in all patients treated with the t-Branch in Norway; Design and Methods: A retrospective multicenter study with Norwegian centers performing complex endovascular aortic repair was undertaken. T-Branch patients from 2014 to 2020 were included. All postoperative computed tomography angiography images were reviewed, and demographic, anatomical, perioperative and follow-up data were analyzed; Results: Seventy patients were treated in a single-step (n = 55) or staged (n = 15) procedure. Symptomatic presentation was seen in 20 patients, six of which had a contained rupture. Technical success was 87% (n = 59), with failures caused by unsuccessful bridging of target vessels (n = 4), target vessel bleeding (n = 3), persisting type 1c endoleak (n = 1) and t-Branch malrotation (n = 1). 30-day mortality was 9% (n = 6) and was associated with high BMI (p = .038). The spinal cord ischemia rate was 21% (n = 15) and was associated with type II aneurysms (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.1–26.7, p = .04), smoking (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.3–27.6, p = .02) and intraoperative blood loss (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.3, p = .01). Survival at one, two and three years was 84 ± 4%, 70 ± 6% and 67 ± 6%, respectively. Freedom from aortic-related reinterventions at one, two and three years was 80 ± 5%, 65 ± 7% and 50 ± 8%, respectively; Conclusion: The study showed low early mortality (9%) and satisfactory mid-term survival. Technical success was achieved in acceptable 87% of procedures. The rate of spinal cord ischemia was high, occurring in 21% of patients.

Age is not a sole predictor of outcomes in octogenarians undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveTo examine the perioperative, postoperative, and long-term outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) in octogenarians compared with nonoctogenarians. MethodsA multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Vascular Quality Improvement database, which prospectively captures information on patients who undergo vascular surgery across 1021 academic and community hospitals in North America. All patients who underwent F/BEVAR endovascular aortic repair from 2012 to 2022 were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: those aged <80 years and those aged ≥80 years at the time of the procedure. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included aortic-specific mortality and aortic-specific reintervention. ResultsA total of 6007 patients (aged <80 years, n = 4860; aged ≥80 years, n = 1147) who had undergone F/BEVAR procedures were included. No significant difference was found in technical success, postoperative length of stay, length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative bowel ischemia, and spinal cord ischemia. After adjustment for baseline covariates, octogenarians were more likely to suffer from a postoperative complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.16; [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.37], P < .001) and be discharged to a rehabilitation center (OR: 1.60; [95% CI: 1.27-2.00], P < .001) or nursing home (OR: 2.23; [95% CI: 1.64-3.01], P < .001). Five-year survival was lower in octogenarians (83% vs 71%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.70; [95% CI: 1.46-2.0], P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that age was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.72, [95% CI: 1.39-2.12], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 1.92, [95% CI: 1.04-3.68], P = .038). Crawford extent II aortic disease was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; [95% CI: 1.01-2.19], P < .001), aortic-specific mortality (HR: 5.05; [95% CI: 1.35-18.9], P = .016), and aortic-specific reintervention (HR: 1.91; [95% CI: 1.24-2.93], P = .003). Functional dependence was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 2.90; [95% CI: 1.87-4.51], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 4.93; [95% CI: 1.69-14.4], P = .004). ConclusionsOur findings suggest that octogenarians do have a mildly increased mortality rate and rate of adverse events after F/BEVAR procedures. Despite this, when adjusted for other risk factors, age is on par with other medical comorbidities and therefore should not be a strict exclusion criterion for F/BEVAR procedures, rather considered in the global context of patient’s aortic anatomy, health, and functional status.

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic and therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BackgroundEndovascular techniques have transformed the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a prevalent and devastating complication. Prophylactic drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is among the proposed strategies for prevention of SCI. Although prophylactic CSF drainage is widely used and conceptually attractive, prophylactic CSF drains have not been demonstrated to definitively prevent the occurrence nor mitigate the severity of SCI in endovascular TAAA repair. Whether or not outcomes of prophylactic drains are superior to therapeutic drains remains unknown. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial designed to investigate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair using branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FBEVAR). MethodsThis was a prospective multicenter randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and The University of Massachusetts. Twenty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the prophylactic drainage or therapeutic drainage groups, prior to undergoing FBEVAR for extensive TAAAs and arch aortic aneurysms. This was a pilot feasibility study that was not powered to detect statistical differences in clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was feasibility of randomization and compliance with a shared lumbar drain protocol. Secondary outcomes included rate of drain complications and SCI. ResultsTwenty patients were enrolled and successfully randomized, without any crossovers, to either the control cohort (n = 10), without prophylactic drains, or the experimental cohort (n = 10), with prophylactic drains. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, or history of prior aortic surgery across the cohorts. All patients were treated with FBEVAR. Aneurysm classifications were as follows: Extent I (10%), Extent II (50%), Extent III (35%), and Extent IV (5%). The average length of aortic coverage was 207 ± 21.6 mm. The length of aortic coverage did not vary across cohorts, nor did procedural times or blood loss volume. Compliance with the SCI prevention protocol was 100% across both groups. Within the prophylactic drain cohort, one patient experienced an adverse event related to lumbar drain placement, manifested as an epidural hematoma requiring laminectomy, without neurologic deficit (n = 1/10; 10%). There was one SCI event (n = 1/20; 5%), which occurred in the prophylactic drain cohort on postoperative day 9 following an episode of hypotension related to a gastrointestinal bleed. ConclusionsThe role of prophylactic CSF drains for the prevention of SCI following endovascular TAAA repair is a topic of ongoing research, with many current practices based on expert opinion and experience, rather than rigorous scientific data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair.

Plug-Based Embolization Techniques of Aortic Side Branches during Standard and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Vascular plugs are an evolving family of vessel occluders providing a single-device embolization system for large, high-flow arteries. Nitinol mesh plugs and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane plugs are available in different configurations and sizes to occlude arteries from 3 to 20 mm in diameter. Possible applications during complex endovascular aortic procedures are aortic branch embolization to prevent endoleak or to gain an adequate landing zone, directional branch occlusion, and false lumen embolization in aortic dissection. Plugs are delivered through catheters or introducers, and their technical and clinical results are comparable to those of coil embolization. Plugs are more accurate than coils as repositionable devices, less prone to migration, and have fewer blooming artifacts on postoperative computed tomography imaging. Their main drawback is the need for larger delivery systems. This narrative review describes up-to-date techniques and technology for plug embolization in complex aortic repair.

Center-level outcomes following elective fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database

ObjectiveHospital volume is associated with mortality after open aortic aneurysm repair. Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (B-FEVAR) has been increasingly used for repair of complex thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms, but evidence of a center-volume relationship is limited. We aimed to measure the association of center volume with in-hospital mortality, postoperative outcomes, and 1-year survival following B-FEVAR. MethodsPatients undergoing elective endovascular thoracoabdominal and complex abdominal aneurysm repair with branch intervention (2014-2021) listed within the national Vascular Quality Initiative Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair/Complex EVAR database were analyzed. Centers were grouped into quartiles by mean annual procedure volume. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the effect of center volume on in-hospital mortality adjusting for baseline and procedural characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimation, log rank test, and mixed effects Cox regression were used to evaluate 1-year survival. ResultsA total of 4302 adult elective F-BEVAR procedures were identified at a total of 163 centers. In-hospital mortality did not differ by hospital volume (quartile [Q]1 = 35/1059 [3.3%]; Q2 = 30/1063 [2.8%]; Q3 = 33/1120 [2.9%]; and Q4 = 44/1060 [4.2%]; P = .308). The high volume group had a higher rate of major complication (Q1 = 14.9%; Q2 = 12.8%; Q3 = 13.3%; and Q4 = 20.1%; adjusted P < .001). Physician-modified grafts were more frequently employed in high-volume centers (Q1 = 4.5%; Q2 = 18.7%; Q3 = 11.3%; and Q4 = 19.2%; P < .001), with a decreased incidence of any endoleak noted at the end of the procedure (Q1 = 34.9%; Q2 = 32.8%; Q3 = 30.0%; and Q4 = 29.0%; P = .003). In the multivariable analysis, in-hospital mortality was not associated with center volume, comparing very low volume to medium- and high-volume centers (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] vs Q4: Q1 = 1.1 [0.6-1.9], Q2 = 0.6 [0.4-1.1], and Q3 = 0.9 [0.5-1.5]; all P > .05). No significant difference was found in 1-year survival between center volume groups. ConclusionsIn-hospital mortality is not associated with procedure volume within centers performing complex endovascular aortic repair. However, complication rates and endoleak may be associated with procedure volume. Long-term outcomes by annualized procedure volume, specifically graft durability and sac expansion, should be investigated.

Proenkephalin A 119–159, a Possible Early Biomarker of Acute Kidney Injury in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair: a Single Centre Observational, Cross Sectional Study

Proenkephalin A 119–159, a Possible Early Biomarker of Acute Kidney Injury in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair: a Single Centre Observational, Cross Sectional Study

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using In Situ Laser Fenestration.

The aim of this study is to present single-center outcomes in patients treated with in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair (LFTEVAR) for various aortic arch pathologies and assess the impact of increasing experience. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected single aortic center data was conducted, including baseline information and peri- and post-operative outcomes of consecutive patients managed with LFTEVAR for aortic arch pathologies. Patients were enrolled from April 1, 2017 to January 31, 2023. The cohort was dichotomized to compare early (2017-2019) and late experience (2020-2023). Primary outcomes were peri-operative mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity. Thirty patients were included (63.3% males, mean age 69.8±9.6 years); 21.4% presented with aortic ruptures. Aortic aneurysm involving the aortic arch was the most frequent pathology (53.3%). Forty target vessels (TVs) were revascularized, including 19 left subclavian arteries (47.5%) and 17 left common carotid arteries (42.5%). Double fenestrations were performed in 10 patients. The proximal landing zone was Ishimaru zone 0 in 5 patients (16.7%) and zone 1 in 13 patients (43.3%). Technical success was 93%. No spinal cord ischemia was recorded, and 3 patients (10%) suffered a post-operative stroke, of which 1 was major (3.3%). The median follow-up was 12 months (range=1-48 months). Thirty-day and follow-up mortality rates were 13.5% and 15.3%, respectively. Target vessel instability was 10%, of which 3.8% required reintervention. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the early and late experience groups. Laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the aortic arch performed in experienced aortic centers is associated with low early mortality and stroke rates. It is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair. Custom-made devices for arch pathologies requiring urgent repair are not an option because of manufacturing delays. Off-the-shelf devices with single branch arch prostheses, and outside IFU techniques such as parallel-grafts and surgeon-modified endografts have been proposed in this setting. Another off-the-shelf alternative is in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular repair (LFTEVAR), which addresses many limitations of the other off-the-shelf options. Our study reports the outcomes of 30 patients treated with LFTEVAR, showing that it is a viable therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair acknowledging that sufficient experience with complex endovascular aortic repair is mandatory to achieve acceptable outcomes in these high-risk patients with challenging aortic anatomies.