Introduction - Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for thoracic, thoracoabdominal, pararenal, juxtarenal and abdominal aortic aneurysms has been troubled by complications during follow-up, mainly related to loss of seal and graft migration causing endoleaks and sac expansion. Different techniques have been applied ranging in grade of complexity, such as branched, fenestrated, chimney/periscope or standard EVAR/TEVAR or even hybrid surgery including arch/visceral debranching. The role and safety of EndoAnchors (Aptus Heli-FX, Medtronic, Minnesota, USA) as an adjunctive technique for supplementing fixation and seal in standard and complex EVAR/TEVAR needs to be addressed. Methods - We report on a two academic vascular centre experience with high volume of endovascular procedures with the use of EndoAnchors in different aortic anatomies and sectors. The number of total EndoAnchors deployed is described. Primary outcome is description of the safety of EndoAnchor deployments. Recommendations related to secondary outcomes such as complications, limitations and inadequate use are also described Results - 109 high-risk patients (male 81.7%, female 18.3%; ages 73.92 ± 10.9 years) were treated during the study period (2013-2018) with adjunctive EndoAnchors, 79 in centre A and 30 in centre B. Sixteen were treated with TEVAR (zone 1, n=4 (3 open debranching and 1 combined open/endo-debranching; zone 3, n=3; zone 4, n=12; 3 patients across 2 zones) 3 with Ch-EVAR (1 chimney each) and 90 with EVAR. All were considered complex due to anatomical constraints. 674 EndoAnchors were placed, 87 in TEVAR, 587 for EVAR/Ch-EVAR (2 in a bell-bottom iliac endograft) and a mean of 6.18 ± 2.2 per case. Ninety-eight were prophylactic (44 conical, 31 hyper-angulated > 60°, 30 short and 14 ‘bubble’ necks) and the remaining 11 were revision/type Ia endoleaks. Issues related to endoanchoring procedure were found in 17 (15.6%) cases. Thirteen (76%) occurred during the initial half of centres’ experience. Of the 17 cases we found 4 mal-deployment (0.5%), 4 fractures (0.5%, without clinical relevance), 3 (27.3%) type Ia endoleak persistence after endostapling (1 undersized diameter of endograft, 2 ruptured AAA unsuccessfully treated with cuff plus EndoAnchors - 1 solved with aortic banding, the other died due to unstability/3 patients with delayed type Ia sealing), 3 catheter ruptures/twisting (0.4%) and 3 (0.4%) losses (2 were retrieved and one caged by a sandwich technique using an aortic cuff). Eight (7.3%) patients received less than 4 endoanchors. Six (75%) occurred during the first half of centres experience. Four received only one EndoAnchor, two of these due to rupture of the catheter, in one other case further deployments were not possible due to severe sheath twists causing inability to pass the applicator and the remaining one due only iliac by-pass access limited manoeuvrability. Two received 2 EndoAnchors, due to extreme angulation and impossibility to get correct position, and remaining 2 patients received 3 endoanchors due to a loss during procedure Conclusion - Endovascular approach of complex aortic aneurysms with adjunctive use of EndoAnchors seems to be a safe ancillary procedure. Appropriate use of the device, including choice of adequate access, proper catheter manoeuvring, anatomical patient selection and increased expertise for technically demanding cases remain the most important issues to avoid misuse of the device or failure in the endovascular technique