Repair Of Complex Aortic Aneurysms Research Articles

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysms offers mid-term survival advantage: Presented at Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery 51st Annual Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona, March 16-20, 2024.

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysms offers mid-term survival advantage: Presented at Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery 51st Annual Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona, March 16-20, 2024.

Early Results of Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms with a Custom-made National Device Available in the Brazilian Public Health System

BackgroundMulticenter studies conducted in developed countries demonstrated that custom-made devices are safe, effective, and durable for treating complex abdominal aneurysms. However, the situation in developing countries, such as Brazil, is different. Funding and time to have the endoprosthesis delivered are the major concerns. In order to overcome these conditions, high-volume Brazilian university hospitals started gaining experience with a custom-made device produced in the country. ObjectiveThe present study aimed to describe the practice of two tertiary centers and report the early results of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with a custom-made national device available in the Brazilian public health system. MethodsRetrospective analysis of all consecutive patients that underwent F/BEVAR of complex aortic aneurysms using custom-made manufactured endoprosthesis in two tertiary centers from January 2020 to July 2022. ResultsThirteen cases were included (10 male, mean age 69 ± 9 years). 70 % were complex abdominal aneurysms, and 30% were type II, III and IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms (mean aneurysm diameter 69.2 ± 8.12 mm). F/BEVAR included 33 visceral arteries. The Apolo® device was used in all cases. Technical success was achieved in 12 out of 13 patients (92.3%). Thirty-day major adverse events included one death (7.7%), five acute renal failure (38.4%), two spinal cord ischemia (15.4%). The one-year survival rate was 92.3%. ConclusionFenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with the custom-made Apolo® device has proven safe and effective in high-volume tertiary centers in the Brazilian public health system. Considering the complexity of the cases, the early patency of vessels and low initial mortality support this device continuation and expansion to treat complex aortic aneurysms in a developing country.

Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent: Presented at the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Scottsdale, AZ, January 24-27, 2024.

Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent: Presented at the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Scottsdale, AZ, January 24-27, 2024.

A national census for the off-label treatment of complex aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveDespite regulatory challenges, device availability, and rapidly expanding techniques, off-label endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) has expanded in the past decade. Given the lack of United States Food and Drug Administration-approved endovascular technology to treat cAAs, we performed a national census to better understand volume and current practice patterns in the United States. MethodsTargeted sampling identified vascular surgeons with experience in off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. An electronic survey was distributed with institutional review board approval from the University of Rochester to 261 individuals with a response rate of 38% (n = 98). ResultsA total of 93 respondents (95%) reported off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. Mean age was 45.7 ± 8.3 years, and 84% were male. Most respondents (59%) were within the first 10 years of practice, and 69% trained at institutions with a high-volume of off-label endovascular procedures for complex aortic aneurysms with or without a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (PS-IDE). Twelve respondents from 11 institutions reported institutional PS-IDEs for physician-modified endografts (PMEGs), in-situ laser fenestration (ISLF), or parallel grafting technique (PGT), including sites with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. Eighty-nine unique institutions reported elective off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 20.2 ± 16.5 cases/year and ∼1757 total cases/year nationally. Eighty reported urgent/emergent off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 5.7 ± 5.4 cases/year and ∼499 total cases/year nationally. There was no correlation between high-volume endovascular institutions (>15 cases/year) and institutions with high volumes of open surgical repair for cAAs (>15 cases/year; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.5; P = .34). Elective techniques included PMEG (70%), ISLF (30%), hybrid PMEG/ISLF (18%), and PGT (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 63% of respondents. Techniques for emergent endovascular treatment of complex aortic disease included PMEG (52%), ISLF (40%), PGT (20%), and hybrid-PMEG/ISLF (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 41% of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of respondents always or frequently offer referrals to institutions with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. The most common barrier for referral to PS-IDE centers included geographic distance (48%), longitudinal relationship with patient (45%), and costs associated with travel (33%). Only 61% of respondents participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative for complex endovascular aneurysm repair, and only 57% maintain a prospective institutional database. Eighty-six percent reported interest in a national collaborative database for off-label endovascular repair of cAA. ConclusionsEstimates of off-label endovascular repair of cAAs are likely underrepresented in the literature based on this national census. PMEG was the most common technique for elective and emergent procedures. Under-reported off-label endovascular repair of cAA outcomes data appears to be limited by non-standardized PS-IDE reporting to the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the lack of Vascular Quality Initiative participation and prospective institutional data collection. Most participants are interested in a national collaborative database for endovascular repair of cAAs.

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysms offers mid-term survival advantage

ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of 1-year changes in aneurysm sac diameter on patient survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. MethodsWe reviewed the clinical data of patients enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study investigating FB-EVAR (2013-2022). Patients with sequential follow up computed tomography scans at baseline and 6 to 18 months after FB-EVAR were included in the analysis. Aneurysm sac diameter change was defined as the difference in maximum aortic diameter from baseline measurements obtained in centerline of flow. Patients were classified as those with sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) or failure to regress (<5 mm or expansion) according to sac diameter change. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were aortic-related mortality (ARM), aortic aneurysm rupture (AAR), and aorta-related secondary intervention. ResultsThere were 549 patients treated by FB-EVAR. Of these, 463 patients (71% male, mean age, 74 ± 8 years) with sequential computed tomography imaging were investigated. Aneurysm extent was thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in 328 patients (71%) and abdominal aortic aneurysms in 135 (29%). Sac shrinkage occurred in 270 patients (58%) and failure to regress in 193 patients (42%), including 19 patients (4%) with sac expansion at 1 year. Patients from both groups had similar cardiovascular risk factors, except for younger age among patients with sac shrinkage (73 ± 8 years vs 75 ± 8 years; P < .001). The median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range, 18-51 months). The 5-year survival estimate was 69% ± 4.1% for the sac shrinkage group and 46% ± 6.2% for the failure to regress group. Survival estimates adjusted for confounders (age, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and aneurysm extent) revealed a higher hazard of late mortality in patients with failure to regress (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.52; P = .005). The 5-year cumulative incidences of ARM (1.1% vs 3.1%; P = .30), AAR (0.6% vs 2.6%; P = .20), and aorta-related secondary intervention (17.0% ± 2.8% vs 19.0% ± 3.8%) were both comparable between the groups. ConclusionsAneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year is common after FB-EVAR and is associated with improved patient survival, whereas sac enlargement affects only a minority of patients. The low incidences of ARM and AAR indicate that failure to regress may serve as a surrogate marker for nonaortic-related death.

Multicenter Long-term Outcomes of the Off-the-Shelf P-branch Endograft in the Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Multicenter Long-term Outcomes of the Off-the-Shelf P-branch Endograft in the Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

The clinical significance of family history (FH) of aortic disease on the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR) has not been well described. This study aimed to assess how FH of aortic disease affects outcomes following FB-EVAR for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs). This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in 10 ongoing, prospective, non-randomised, physician sponsored, investigational device exemption studies to evaluate FB-EVAR (2005 - 2022) in the United States Aortic Research Consortium database. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of FH of any aortic disease in any relative. Patients with confirmed genetically triggered aortic diseases were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events (MAEs) and late survival. Secondary outcomes included late secondary interventions and aneurysm sac enlargement. During the study period, 2 901 patients underwent FB-EVAR. A total of 2 355 patients (81.2%) were included in the final analysis: 427 (18.1%) with and 1 928 (81.9%) without FH of aortic disease. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and aneurysm extent were similar between the groups. Patients with FH of aortic disease more frequently had prior open abdominal aortic repair, but less frequently had prior endovascular aneurysm repair (p < .050). There were no statistically significant differences in 30 day mortality (4% vs. 2%; p = .12) and MAEs for patients with or without FH of aortic disease (12% vs. 12%; p = .89). Three year survival estimates were 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 - 0.78%) and 71% (95% CI 0.68 - 0.74%), respectively (p = .74). Freedom from secondary intervention and aneurysm sac enlargement were also not statistically significantly different between groups. A family history of aortic disease had no impact on 30 day and midterm outcomes of FB-EVAR of CAAs. In the absence of an identified genetically triggered aortic disease, treatment selection for CAAs should be based on clinical risk and patient anatomy rather than FH of aortic disease.

Report of a semi-branched stent-graft to treat a type 1a endoleak after failed EVAR

BackgroundEndovascular techniques are advancing with the change of treatment paradigm for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) and branched EVAR (bEVAR) are used for complex aortic aneurysm repair. Both fEVAR and bEVAR have their own advantages and disadvantages. Semi-branches are a new feature that attempt to combine the advantages of both fEVAR and bEVAR.TechniqueWe describe the use of a 4-vessel semi-branched EVAR in a failed EVAR case with a type 1a endoleak.ConclusionThe novel feature of semi-branches in custom-made EVAR devices in endovascular aortic treatment following failed EVAR appear to be a feasible option.

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

ObjectiveThe 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. MethodsPatients 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. ResultsOf 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. ConclusionsLarger 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.

The Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

The Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Early outcomes of fenestrated and/or branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (F/B-EVAR); A single-center experience

Background: Open surgical repair of juxta-, para- and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) has been the gold-standard for patients fit for surgery. However, endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms using devices implementing directional branches or fenestrations for incorporation of reno-visceral target vessels (TV) has gained widespread attention, due to its lower mortality and complication rate and its more attractive profile for high-risk patients. Nonetheless, complex endovascular technologies require meticulous abidance to protocols for successful application. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a single, tertiary center was undertaken, including all patients undergoing complex aortic endovascular repair with fenestrated (F-EVAR) of branched devices (B-EVAR) from a 5-year time period (2018-2023). Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, while secondary outcomes included primary TV patency, acute kidney injury (AKI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates. Results: Of 74 patients (mean age: 69 ± 5.6 years-old, 98% males), 31 (42.6) and 43 (57.6%) were treated by F-EVAR and B-EVAR, respectively. Mean aneurysm diameter was 68 ± 1.8cm, with 15 (20.5%) juxtarenal AAA, 27 (35.6%) pararenal AAA, 16 (21.9%) type IV TAAA, 6 (8.2%) type III TAAA, and 10 (13.7%) type II TAAA treated. Sixteen (21.6%) patients were treated due to failed-EVAR. In total, 272 TV were successfully revascularized. Thirty-day mortality was 8.1%. Primary TV patency rate was 99.2% (270/272). Endoleak rate was 8.1% (6/74). No cases of AKI or MI were observed. One (1.3%) case of hemorrhagic stroke was observed. Three cases (4%) of SCI were observed, including one temporary paraparesis and two permanent paraplegia cases. Reintervention rate was 5.4%, including two cases of renal artery stent thrombosis revascularization procedures. Conclusions: Endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms is feasible, with good perioperative outcomes. Adherence to precise protocols covering every technical aspect of patient care is warranted for satisfactory outcomes.

Impact of Familial History of Aortic Disease on Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Impact of Familial History of Aortic Disease on Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Impact of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease on outcomes after complex endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveChronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease are traditionally associated with worse outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and open aneurysm repair (OAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, there needs to be more data on complex AAA repair involving the aorta's visceral segment. This study stratifies complex AAA repair outcomes by CKD severity and dialysis dependence. MethodsAll patients undergoing elective OAR and fenestrated/branched EVAR (F-BEVAR) for complex AAA with preoperative renal function data captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative between January 2003 and September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were stratified by CKD class as follows: normal/mild (CKD 1 and 2), moderate (CKD class 3a), moderate to severe (CKD 3b), severe (CKD class 4 and 5), and dialysis. Only patients with clamp sites above one of the renal arteries were included for complex OAR. For F-BEVAR, patients with proximal landing zones below zone 5 (above celiac artery) were included, and distal landing zones between zones 1 and 5 were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-year mortality. Predictors of mortality were identified by Cox multivariate regression models. ResultsWe identified 7849 elective complex AAA repairs: 4230 (54%) complex OARs and 3619 (46%) F-BEVARs. Most patients were White (89%) and male (74%), with an average age of 72 ± 8 years. The patients who underwent F-BEVAR were older and had more comorbidities. Elective F-BEVAR for complex AAA started in 2012 and increased from 1.4% in 2012 to 58% in 2020 (P < .001). The OAR cohort had more perioperative complications, but less 1-year mortality. The normal/mild CKD cohort had the highest 1-year survival compared with other groups after both complex OAR and F-BEVAR. On Cox regression analysis, when compared with CKD 1-2, worsening CKD stage (CKD 3b: hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-3.40; P < .001; CKD 4-5: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.16-3.26; P = .011; and dialysis: HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.53-7.72; P < .001) were independently associated with 1-year survival after F-BEVAR. After complex OAR, worsening CKD stage but not dialysis was associated with 1-year mortality compared with CKD 1-2 (CKD 3b: HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.13-2.35; P = .009; CKD 4-5: HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.03-5.79; P < .001). ConclusionsCKD severity is an essential predictor of perioperative and 1-year mortality after complex AAA repair, irrespective of the treatment modality, which may reflect the natural history of CKD. Consideration should be given to raising the threshold for elective AAA repair in patients with moderate to severe CKD and end-stage renal disease, given the high 1-year mortality rate.

Patient-specific computational flow simulation reveals significant differences in paravisceral aortic hemodynamics between fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair

BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm repair with four-vessel fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (bEVAR) currently represent the forefront of minimally invasive complex aortic aneurysm repair. This study sought to use patient-specific computational flow simulation (CFS) to assess differences in postoperative hemodynamic effects associated with fEVAR vs bEVAR. MethodsPatients from two institutions who underwent four-vessel fEVAR with the Cook Zenith Fenestrated platform and bEVAR with the Jotec E-xtra Design platform were retrospectively selected. Patients in both cohorts were treated for paravisceral and extent II, II, and V thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Three-dimensional finite element volume meshes were created from preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans. Boundary conditions were adjusted for body surface area, heart rate, and blood pressure. Pulsatile flow simulations were performed with equivalent boundary conditions between preoperative and postoperative states. Postoperative changes in hemodynamic parameters were compared between the fEVAR and bEVAR groups. ResultsPatient-specific CFS was performed on 20 patients (10 bEVAR, 10 fEVAR) with a total of 80 target vessels (40 renal, 20 celiac, 20 superior mesenteric artery stents). bEVAR was associated with a decrease in renal artery peak flow rate (−5.2% vs +2.0%; P < .0001) and peak pressure (−3.4 vs +0.1%; P < .0001) compared with fEVAR. Almost all renal arteries treated with bEVAR had a reduction in renal artery perfusion (n = 19 [95%]), compared with 35% (n = 7) treated with fEVAR. There were no significant differences in celiac or superior mesenteric artery perfusion metrics (P = .10-.27) between groups. Time-averaged wall shear stress in the paravisceral aorta and branches also varied significantly depending on endograft configuration, with bEVAR associated with large postoperative increases in renal artery (+47.5 vs +13.5%; P = .002) and aortic time-averaged wall shear stress (+200.1% vs −31.3%; P = .001) compared with fEVAR. Streamline analysis revealed areas of hemodynamic abnormalities associated with branched renal grafts which adopt a U-shaped geometry, which may explain the observed differences in postoperative changes in renal perfusion between bEVAR and fEVAR. ConclusionsbEVAR may be associated with subtle decreases in renal perfusion and a large increase in aortic wall shear stress compared with fEVAR. CFS is a novel tool for quantifying and visualizing the unique patient-specific hemodynamic effect of different complex EVAR strategies. Clinical RelevanceThis study used patient-specific CFS to compare postoperative hemodynamic effects of four-vessel fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (bEVAR) in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. The findings indicate that bEVAR may result in subtle reductions in renal artery perfusion and a significant increase in aortic wall shear stress compared with fEVAR. These differences are clinically relevant, providing insights for clinicians choosing between these approaches. Understanding the patient-specific hemodynamic effects of complex EVAR strategies, as revealed by CFS, can aid in future personalized treatment decisions, and potentially reduce postoperative complications in aortic aneurysm repair.

Urgent and emergent repair of complex aortic aneurysms using an off-the-shelf branched device.

Endovascular repair using off-the-shelf endografts is a viable solution in patients with ruptured or symptomatic complex aortic aneurysms. This analysis aimed to present the peri-operative and follow-up outcomes in urgent and emergent cases managed with the t-Branch multibranched thoracoabdominal endograft. Prospectively collected data from all consecutive urgent and emergent cases managed in two aortic centers between January 1st, 2014, to November 30th, 2022, using the t-Branch device (Cook Medical Inc., Bjaeverskov, Denmark) were analyzed. Patients presenting with ruptured aortic complex aneurysms were characterized as emergent and patients with aneurysms >90 mm of diameter, or symptomatic aneurysms were characterized as urgent. Technical success, 30-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rates were assessed. 225 patients (36.5% females, 72.5 ± 2.8 years) were included; 73.0% were urgent. The mean aneurysm diameter was 109 ± 3.9 mm and 44.4% were type I-III TAAAs. Females (p = .03), para-renal aneurysms (p = .02) and ASA score IV (p < .001) were more common in emergent cases. Technical success was 97.8%. Thirty-day mortality and MAE rates were 17.8% and 30.6%, respectively. SCI rate was 14.7%, (4.8% paraplegia rate) with 22.2% of patients receiving prophylactic cerebrospinal drainage. Thirty-day mortality (13.3% vs. 26.7%, p = .04) and MAE (26.0% vs. 43.0%, p = .02) were more common among emergent cases while technical success (97.6% vs. 98.3%, p = .9), and SCI (13.3% vs. 18.3%, p = .4) were similar. Survival at 12-months was 83.5% (SE 5.9%) for the urgent and 77.1% (SE 8.2%) for the emergent group (log rank, p = 0.96). T-Branch represents an effective and safe solution for the management of urgent and emergent cases with complex aortic aneurysms, with high technical success, promising early mortality and SCI rates.

Urgent Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair With Modified Off-the-shelf Endograft to Preserve Intercostal Arteries and Branch Incorporation by Transfemoral Access.

To demonstrate the feasibility of the modification to preserve intercostal arteries of the t-Branch Endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in an urgent setting, associated with a less invasive approach for branch incorporation from percutaneous femoral access with steerable sheaths. A 73-year-old female patient presented at our institution with intense abdominal pain. Angiotomography showed a 50-mm juxtarenal aortic aneurysm, with no signs of rupture. Urgent endovascular repair was indicated due to abdominal symptom with an off-the-shelf multi-branched endograft. To limit descending thoracic aortic coverage, we performed t-Branch modification to preserve intercostal arteries and minimize the risk of spinal cord injury, associated with a percutaneous transfemoral approach and branch incorporation with steerable sheaths to avoid the risks associated with a superior axillary or brachial access. Control angiotomography showed adequate aneurysm sac exclusion with patency of all four visceral vessels. t-Branch-modified endograft to limit aortic coverage is an alternative option in urgent cases to diminish the risk of spinal cord injury, and association of steerable sheaths with branch incorporation is leading complex aortic repairs to an even less invasive procedure. This paper highlights the possibility of performing complex endovascular aortic repair in an urgent setting with modification of an off-the-shelf multi branched endograft limiting intercostal arteries coverage, thereby diminishing the risk of spinal cord ischemia. This technical innovation provides an alternative for clinicians when treating large, rapidly expanding, or symptomatic juxtarenal, pararenal, paravisceral or type 4 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms that could not wait for a custom-made device and do not need extensive thoracic aortic coverage that an off-the-shelf device provides. In summary, expand the possibilities of an endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms.

Endovascular Treatment of Aneurysms with Complex Aortic Anatomy

Background: Arterial anatomy is the main limiting factor for standard endovascular aortic (EVAR) approach. We present our experience for endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study in patients with complex aneurysms (juxta/pararenal and thoracoabdominal) treated consecutively with: fenestrated (FEVAR), branched (BEVAR), EndoAnchors (ESAR), or chimney (ChEVAR) stents. The decision of the technique was determined based on the arterial anatomy. Results: The last 50 procedures were evaluated (6 women; mean age 71.3 years; diameter 69.6 mm; and 3 patients with complicated aneurysms), among whom 22 received FEVAR (2.8 fenestrated stents/patient), 11 BEVAR, 11 ESAR and 6 ChEVAR (1.8 chimney stents/patient). Technical success rate was 100% (absence of type I or III endoleak with adequate patency of the visceral vessels). Three patients died within the first 30 days (6%). During follow-up, 5 patients presented with renal artery occlusion, treated successfully in 4 cases. Four patients developed type IA endoleak (3 secondary ESAR and one ChEVAR), one patient IC endoleak and almost a quarter of cases type IIIB endoleak (22%, 3 out of 11 patients receiving ESAR, none of the industrial FEVAR group). Overall survival was 88.6% at one year, and 86.5% of cases were free from reoperation. Conclusions: This is the first publication in our setting that shows a global approach to the patient with complex aortic aneurysm, according to the anatomical characteristics. These technologies already play a primary role in the treatment of these patients.

Increased Aortic Exclusion in Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

Perioperative risk assessments for complex aneurysms are based on the anatomical extent of the aneurysm and do not take the length of the aortic exclusion into account, as it was developed for open repair. Nevertheless, in the endovascular repair (ER) of complex aortic aneurysms, additional segments of healthy aorta are excluded compared with open repair (OR). The aim of this study was to assess differences in aortic exclusion between the ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms, to subsequently assess the current classification for complex aneurysm repair. This retrospective observational study included patients that underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair by means of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR), fenestrated and branched EVAR (FBEVAR), or branched EVAR (BEVAR). The length of aortic exclusion and the number of patent segmental arteries were determined and compared per case in ER and hypothetical OR, using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A total of 71 patients were included, who were treated with FEVAR (n = 44), FBEVAR (n = 8), or BEVAR (n = 19) for Crawford types I (n = 5), II (n = 7), III (n = 6), IV (n = 7), and V (n = 2) thoracoabdominal or juxtarenal (n = 44) aneurysms. There was a significant increase in the median exclusion of types I, II, III, IV, and juxtarenal aneurysms (p < 0.05) in ER, compared with hypothetical OR. The number of patent segmental arteries in the ER of type I-IV and juxtarenal aneurysms was significantly lower than in hypothetical OR (p < 0.05). There are significant differences in the length of aortic exclusion between ER and hypothetical OR, with the increased exclusion in ER resulting in a lower number of patent segmental arteries. The ER and OR of complex aortic aneurysms should be regarded as distinct modalities, and as each approach deserves a particular risk assessment, future efforts should focus on reporting on the extent of exclusion per treatment modality, to allow for appropriate comparison.

Incidence and risk factors for interval aortic events during staged fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveStaged endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with first-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair may decrease the risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) associated with fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms or optimize the proximal landing zone in the cases requiring total aortic arch repair. However, a limitation of multistaged procedures is the risk of interval aortic events (IAEs) including mortality from a ruptured aneurysm. We aim to identify the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs during staged FB-EVAR. MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective review of patients who underwent planned staged FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2021. Clinical and procedural details were reviewed. End points were the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs (defined as rupture, symptoms, and unexplained death) and outcomes in patients with or without IAEs. ResultsOf 591 planned FB-EVAR patients, 142 underwent first-stage repairs. Twenty-two did not have a planned second stage because of frailty, preference, severe comorbidities, or complications after the first stage and were excluded. The remaining 120 patients (mean age: 73 ± 6 years, 51% female) were planned for second-stage completion FB-EVAR and comprised our cohort. The incidence of IAEs was 13% (16 of 120). This included confirmed rupture in 6 patients, possible rupture in 4, symptomatic presentation in 4, and early unexplained interval death with possible rupture in 2. The median time to IAEs was 17 days (range: 2-101 days), and the median time to uncomplicated completion repairs was 82 days (interquartile range: 30-147 days). Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no differences in familial aortic disease, genetically triggered aneurysms, aneurysm extent, or presence of chronic dissection. Patients with IAEs had significantly larger aneurysm diameters than those without IAEs (76.6 vs 66.5 mm, P ≤ .001). This difference persisted with indexing for body surface area (aortic size index: 3.9 vs 3.5 cm/m2, P = .04) and height (aortic height index: 4.5 vs 3.9 cm/m, P ≤ .001). IAE mortality was 69% (11 of 16) compared with no perioperative deaths for those with uncomplicated completion repairs. ConclusionsThe incidence of IAEs was 13% in patients planned for staged FB-EVAR. This represented a notable morbidity, including rupture, which must be balanced with SCI and landing zone optimization when planning repair. Larger aneurysms, especially when adjusted for body surface area, are associated with IAEs. Minimizing time between stages vs single-stage repairs for larger (>7 cm) complex aortic aneurysms in patients with reasonable SCI risk should be considered when planning repair.

Fate of target visceral vessels in fenestrated and branched complex endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveTo assess branch vessel outcomes after endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms analyzing possible factors influencing early and long-term results. MethodsThe Italian Multicentre Fenestrated and Branched registry enrolled 596 consecutive patients treated with fenestrated and branched endografts for complex aortic disease from January 2008 to December 2019 by four Italian academic centers. The primary end points of the study were technical success (defined as target visceral vessel [TVV] patency and absence of bridging device-related endoleak at final intraoperative control), and freedom from TVV instability (defined as the combined results of type IC/IIIC endoleaks and patency loss) during follow-up. Secondary end points were overall survival and TVV-related reinterventions. ResultsWe excluded 591 patients (3 patients with a surgical debranching and 2 patients who died before completion from the study cohort) were treated for a total of 1991 visceral vessels targeted by either a directional branch or a fenestration. The overall technical success rate was 98.4%. Failure was related to the use of an off-the-shelf (OTS) device (custom-made device vs OTS, HR, 0.220; P = .007) and a preoperative TVV stenosis of >50% (HR, 12.460; P < .001). The mean follow-up time was 25.1 months (interquartile range, 3-39 months). The overall estimated survival rates were 87%, 77.4%, and 67.8% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (standard error [SE], 0.015, 0.022, and 0.032). During follow-up, TVV branch instability was observed in 91 vessels (5%): 48 type IC/IIIC endoleaks (2.6%) and 43 stenoses-thromboses (2.4%). The extent of aneurysm disease (thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm [TAAA] types I-III vs TAAA type IV/juxtarenal aortic aneurysm/pararenal aortic aneurysm) was the only independent predictor for developing a TVV-related type IC/IIIC endoleak (HR, 3.899; 95% confidence interval [CI]:, 1.924-7.900; P < .001). Risk of patency loss was independently associated with branch configuration (HR, 8.883; P < .001; 95% CI, 3.750-21.043) and renal arteries (HR, 2.848; P = .030; 95% CI, 1.108-7.319). Estimated rates at 1, 3, and 5 years of freedom from TVV instability and freedom from TVV-related reintervention were 96.6%, 93.8%, and 90% (SE, 0.005, 0.007, and 0.014) and 97.4%, 95.0%, and 91.6% (SE, 0.004, 0.007, and 0.013), respectively. ConclusionsIntraoperative failure to bridge a TVV was associated with a preoperative TVV stenosis of >50% and the use of OTS devices. Midterm outcomes were satisfying, with an estimated 5-year freedom from TVV instability and reintervention of 90.0% and 91.6%, respectively. During follow-up, the larger extent of aneurysm disease was associated with an increased risk of TVV-related endoleaks, whereas a branch configuration and renal arteries were more prone to patency loss.