A Retrospective Analysis of 10-year Experience on Branched and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present the early and mid-term outcomes of fenestrated/branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f/bTEVAR) for aortic arch pathologies. BACKGROUND: f/bTEVAR represents a less invasive treatment option for aortic arch diseases. Previous published series showed decreased early mortality and morbidity compared to open repair. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed with f/bTEVAR (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) between 01.09.11and 30.06.22 was conducted. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30-day mortality and stroke. Data during follow-up and factors affecting early mortality and stroke were analyzed. RESULTS: 209 patients were included (38.3% females; mean age 69.8±3.4years; mean aortic diameter 61±4.7 mm); 14.4% were managed urgently. Fenestrations/scallop configuration was used in 39.7%, branched devices in 55.5% and branch/scallop combination in 4.8%. Landing to zone 0 was performed in 65.5% and in zone 1 in 32.1%. Non-native aortas were used for landing in 39.2%. Technical success was 97.1% and 30-day mortality 9.5%. Strokes were identified in 10%; 5.7% major. Non-native proximal aortic landing zone was an independent protective factor for stroke (P=0.002). Post-operative stroke (P<0.001) and pericardial effusion (P<0.001) were independently related to 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up was 21±8 months. The estimated survival and freedom from reintervention rates were 79.5% (standard error; SE3.1%) and 47.1% (SE 4.3%) at 24months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: f/bTEVAR presented high technical success and acceptable 30-day mortality. Non-native proximal landing zone was related to lower stroke rate. Half of patients needed a reintervention within the 24-month follow-up.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of fenestrated or branched devices after previous open surgical aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Despite open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms being considered as a durable solution, disease progression and para-anastomotic aneurysms may require further repair, and fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) may be applied to address these pathologies. The aim of this systematic review was to assess technical success, mortality, and morbidity (acute kidney injury, spinal cord ischemia) at 30 days, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up, in patients managed with F/BEVAR after previous OSR. METHODS: The PRISMA statement was followed, and the study was pre-registered to the PROSPERO (CRD42022363214). The English literature was searched, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, through November 30, 2022. Observational studies and case series with ≥5 patients (2000-2022), reporting on F/BEVAR outcomes after OSR, were considered eligible. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence. The primary outcome was technical success, mortality, and morbidity at 30 days. Data on the outcomes of interest were synthesized using proportional meta-analysis. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1694 articles. Eight retrospective studies (476 patients) were considered eligible. In 78.3% of cases, disease progression set the indication for reintervention. Technical success was estimated at 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-98%; I2 = 0%; 95% prediction interval [PI], 79%-99%). Thirty-day mortality was 2% (95% CI, 1%-9%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-28%). The estimated spinal cord ischemia and acute kidney injury rates were 3% (95% CI, 1%-9%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-30%) and 6% (95% CI, 2%-15%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 1%-40%), respectively. During follow-up, overall mortality was 5% (95% CI, 2%-12%; I2 = 34%; 95% PI, 0%-45%) and aorta-related mortality was 1% (95% CI, 0%-2%; I2 = 0%; 95% PI, 0%-3%). The rate of reinterventions was 16% (95% CI, 9%-26%; I2 = 22%; 95% PI, 3%-50%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after OSR may be performed with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity during the perioperative period. Follow-up aortic-related mortality was 1%, whereas the reintervention rates were within the standard range following F/BEVAR.

Early and midterm outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair in thoracoabdominal aneurysms types I through III.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) has shown high technical success and low early mortality rates. Aneurysm extent has been reported as a factor affecting outcomes. This study aimed to assess the early and midterm follow-up outcomes of patients managed by F/BEVAR for types I through III TAAAs. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted, including data from consecutive, elective and urgent (symptomatic and ruptured cases), patients treated for types I through III TAAAs, between October 1, 2011, and October 1, 2022, using F/BEVAR. Degenerative and postdissection TAAAs were included. Patients received prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), except those under therapeutic anticoagulation, those who were hemodynamically unstable, or those with failed CSFD application. When an initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed, as part of a staged procedure, no CSFD was used. Later stages and nonstaged procedures were performed under CSFD. Thirty-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs) were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for follow-up outcomes. RESULTS: F/BEVAR for types I through III TAAAs was performed in 209 patients (56.9% males; mean age, 69.6 ± 3.2 years; mean aneurysm diameter, 65.2 ± 6.2 mm); 29.2% type I, 57.9% type II, and 12.9% type III. Urgent repair was performed in 26.7% of patients (56 cases; 23 ruptured and 33 symptomatic cases) and 153 were treated electively. Thirty-two patients (15.3%) were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class IV. CSFD was used in 91% and staged thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed in 51.2% of patients. Technical success was 93.8% (96.7% in elective vs 94.6% in urgent cases; P = .92). Thirty-day mortality was 11.0% (4.6% in elective vs 28.5% in urgent cases; P < .001) and MAEs were recorded in 17.2% of cases (7.8% in elective vs 42.8% in urgent cases; P < .001). Spinal cord ischemia rate was 20.5% (17.6% in elective vs 28.7% in urgent cases; P = .08), whereas 2.9% of patients presented paraplegia (1.3% in elective and 7.1% in urgent cases; P = .03). The mean follow-up was 16 ± 5 months. Survival was 75.0% (standard error, 4.0%) and freedom from reintervention was 73.3% (standard error, 4.4%) at 36 months. ASA IV and urgent repair were detected as independent factors related to early mortality and MAE, whereas ruptured aneurysm status was related to spinal cord ischemia evolution. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for types I through III TAAAs provides encouraging early outcomes in terms of mortality, MAE, and paraplegia, especially in an elective setting. Setting of repair and baseline ASA score should be taken into consideration during decision-making.

A procedural step analysis of radiation exposure in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Radiation exposure during complex endovascular aortic repair may be associated with tangible adverse effects in patients and operators. This study aimed to identify the steps of highest radiation exposure during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) and to investigate potential intraoperative factors affecting radiation exposure. METHODS: Prospective data of 31 consecutive patients managed exclusively with four-fenestration endografts between March 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Leveraging the conformity of the applied technique, every FEVAR operation was considered a combination of six overall stages composed of 28 standardized steps. Intraoperative parameters, including air kerma, dose area product, fluoroscopy time, and number of digital subtraction angiographies (DSAs) and average angulations were collected and analyzed for each step. RESULTS: The mean procedure duration and fluoroscopy time was 140 minutes (standard deviation [SD], 32 minutes), and 40 minutes (SD, 9.1 minutes), respectively. The mean air kerma was 814 mGy (SD, 498 mGy), and the mean dose area product was 66.8 Gy cm2 (SD, 33 Gy cm2). The percentage of air kerma of the entire procedure was distributed throughout the following procedure stages: preparation (13.9%), main body (9.6%), target vessel cannulation (27.8%), stent deployment (29.1%), distal aortoiliac grafting (14.3%), and completion (5.3%). DSAs represented 23.0% of the total air kerma. Target vessel cannulation and stent deployment presented the highest mean lateral angulation (67 and 63 degrees, respectively). Using linear regression, each minute of continuous fluoroscopy added 18.9 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.6-20.2 mGy), and each DSA series added 21.1 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.9-24.3 mGy). Body mass index and lateral angulation were significantly associated with increased air kerma (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cannulation of target vessels and bridging stent deployment are the steps requiring the highest radiation exposure during FEVAR cases. Optimized operator protection during these steps is mandatory.

Branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic arch repair in patients with native proximal aortic landing zone.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular repair (f/bTEVAR) have been successfully applied in patients with diverse aortic arch pathologies. The aim of this study is to present the early and mid-term outcomes of patients with native proximal aortic landing (NPAL) managed with f/bTEVAR. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with NPAL, managed with f/bTEVAR, between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, was conducted. All patients were treated with custom-made devices (Cook Medical) with landing within Ishimaru zones 0 to 2. Primary outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke, and retrograde type A dissection at 30 days. Follow-up outcomes were considered secondary. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included (69.8% males; mean age, 70.8 ± 4.2 years; 18.3% urgent). The main indications (60.4%) for repair were aortic arch (29.4%) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (31.0%). Seventy-two patients (57.1%) were managed with fTEVAR. Proximal landing in zone 0 and 1 was chosen in 97.6%. Technical success was 94.4%, and 30-day mortality was 11.9%. Strokes were diagnosed in 13.5% of patients and major strokes were identified in 7.9% cases. Retrograde type A dissection rate was 3.9%. The multivariate analysis confirmed landing in Ishimaru zone 0 as an independently related factor for stroke (P = .005), whereas stroke (P < .001), pericardial effusion (P < .001), and acute kidney injury (P < .001) were independently related to 30-day mortality. Mean follow-up was 17.5 ± 9.3 months. The estimated survival rate and the freedom from reintervention rate were 72.6% (standard error, 4.4%) and 46.4% (standard error, 6.0%) at 24-month follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke rate after endovascular arch repair was alarming among patients with NPAL. Proximal landing to zone 0 was related to higher risk of stroke. Reinterventions were common within the 24-month follow-up.

A Systematic Review on Thoracic Endovascular Repair Outcomes in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries.

PURPOSE: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents a potentially life-threatening condition and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first-line treatment (Class I level of evidence C) by the current guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the perioperative and mid-term follow-up outcomes of patients with BTAI treated with TEVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the English literature published between 2000 and 2022, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until July 30, 2022. Observational studies and case series, with ≥5 patients, reporting on the perioperative and follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular morbidity. Secondary outcomes were mortality and re-interventions during the mid-term follow-up. RESULTS: From 5201 articles identified by the literature search, 35 eligible studies were included in this review. All studies had a retrospective study design. In total, 991 patients were included. The mean age was 34.5±16.5 years (range=16-89 years). Technical success was 98.0% (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98, 0.99, p<0.001, I2=0%). Mortality at 30 days was 5.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.03, 0.06, p<0.001, I2=5.56%). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and stroke rate was 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%). The available follow-up was estimated at 29 months (range=3-119 months) with mortality rate at 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and re-intervention rate at 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=10.5%). CONCLUSION: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair showed high technical success and low early cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality rates. In the mid-term follow-up, the estimated mortality and re-intervention rates were also low. Furthermore, higher quality prospective studies are needed. CLINICAL IMPACT: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first line treatement in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). This systematic review of 35 retrospective studies and 991 patients showed high technical success (98.0%) with an associated 30-day mortality at 5.0% and low spinal cord ischemia (1%) and stroke rates (2.0%). Mid-term mortality and re-intervention rates reassure the effectiveness of TEVAR in BTAI cases.

Target Vessel-Related Outcomes in Patients Managed With Branch Thoracic Aortic Endovascular Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Data on target vessel (TV)-related outcomes in patients managed with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (BTEVAR) are limited. This study aimed to present the TV-related outcomes of BTEVAR in patients managed for aortic arch pathologies at 30 days and during follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, with custom-made aortic arch endografts (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), presenting at least one branch configuration, were eligible. Primary outcomes were technical success, TV-related patency, and reinterventions at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 255 TVs were revascularized using branches: 107 innominate arteries (IAs), 108 left common carotid arteries (LCCAs), and 40 left subclavian arteries (LSAs). Covered stents were used as bridging stents of which 10.2% were balloon expandable. Relining, using bare-metal stents (BMS), was performed in 14.0% of IAs, 35.2% of LCCAs, and 22.5% of LSAs. Technical success on case basis was 99.2%; no failure was related to unsuccessful TV bridging. At 30 day follow-up, no TV occlusion was detected. In 5.6% of cases, a type Ic or III endoleak, attributed to TVs, was recorded. Two patients needed early branch-related reintervention. The mean follow-up was 18.3±9.2 months. Freedom from TV instability was 94.6% (standard error [SE] 2.5%] at 12 months. No TV stenosis or occlusion was detected up to 48 months of follow-up. Freedom from TV-related reinterventions was 95.4% [SE 2.4%] at 12 months. CONCLUSION: TV stenosis or occlusion in BTEVAR cases is rare and TV-related reinterventions and instability events are mainly attributed to type Ic and III endoleak formation. CLINICAL IMPACT: Previous studies focusing on target vessel (TV) outcomes after endovascular aortic arch repair are limited. In this study, including 255 TVs revascularized using branched arch devices, bridging was performed with covered stents, of which 90% were self-expanding. Relining was at the discretion of the operator and was 14% for the innominate, 35.2% for the left common carotid and 22.5% for the left subclavian artery branches. No 30-day occlusion was detected. The freedom from TV instability was almost 95% at 12 months. TV instability and reintervention were mainly attributed to endoleaks type Ic and IIIc.

The Electrified Wire Technique in Complex Aortic Interventions: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Electrosurgery has been long used in endovascular procedures, with only case reports in the aortic field. Our aim is to present a case series with the use of an electrified wire to perform catheter-based electrosurgery by applying external current through an electrocautery pen. METHODS: Single-center retrospective case series of all patients undergoing complex aortic surgery from October 2020 to August 2023, in whom the electrified wire technique was used: (1) Perforation of a dissection flap or left subclavian artery (LSA) in situ endograft fenestration-a 0.014" polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) insulated guidewire is detached from the insulation with a scalpel at the end and a cautery pen is here attached with a clamp. A curved tip catheter or sheath is positioned against the aortic flap or the endograft (through a left brachial access in this case) and the wire pushed, crossing the flap by activating the electrocautery pen and (2) slicing a dissection flap ("powered cheese-wire technique")-after same preparation as above, the middle section of the 0.014 guidewire is removed from the PTFE and bent into a V-shape. Once in the aorta, the guidewire crosses from the true lumen (TL) to the false lumen (FL) and a through-and-through access is obtained. Sheaths are positioned against the flap from both sides and moved up or down while the electricity is activated, slicing the flap and communicating both lumens. Technical success and technical-related complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven cases concerning aortic dissections and 1 case of aortic atresia were treated. Four patients presented urgently, whereas the rest were planned procedures. Seven cases underwent perforation of a dissection flap, 2 cases underwent the powered cheese-wire technique, in 2 cases for an LSA in situ fenestration, and in 1 case to cross an aortic atresia at the aortic isthmus. The technique was in all cases successfully applied. No complications related to the technique occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The "electrified wire" technique is a feasible and ready-available tool that can be safely used in complex aortic interventions, especially to perforate aortic tissue like dissection flaps or to perform in situ fenestrated repairs by perforation of the endograft fabric. CLINICAL IMPACT: The electrified wire technique described herein is a straightforward technique that uses readily available tools to perform electrosurgery. We present its use in complex aortic procedures. However, it could be envisioned for any vascular procedure that requires crossing of the vessel or even prosthetic material. As we have described in this series, when used along with an adequate properative planning, it can be a safe tool of great utility, as has already been demonstarted in the field of the interventional cardiology.

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

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. CLINICAL IMPACT: 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.

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

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. CLINICAL IMPACT: 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.

Post-dissection Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Managed by Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is a valuable treatment in patients with chronic post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aneurysm (PD-TAAA). This study aimed to analyse early and follow up outcomes of F/B-EVAR in these patients. METHODS: Thirty day and follow up outcomes of consecutive patients with PD-TAAA treated with F/B-EVAR in a tertiary centre over eight years were analysed retrospectively. All patients presenting with PD-TAAA and managed with F/B-EVAR were eligible. A modified Crawford's classification system was used. Thirty day mortality and major adverse event (MAE) rates were analysed. Time to event data were estimated with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Fifty five patients (80% men, mean age 63.7 ± 7.7 years) were included: 12 (22%) were managed urgently; 25 (46%) for chronic type B aortic dissection; and the remainder for residual type A aortic dissection. Of these patients, 88% had undergone previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was used in 91%. Fifteen (27%) patients were treated with F-EVAR, nine (16%) with fenestrations and branches, and 31 (56%) with B-EVAR. False lumen adjunctive procedures were used in 56%. Technical success was achieved in 96% of patients. The thirty day mortality rate was 7% and MAE rate was 20%. Spinal cord injury (SCI) grades 1 - 3 and grade 3 rates were 13% and 2%, respectively. Mean follow up was 33.0 ± 18.4 months. Survival and freedom from unscheduled re-intervention were 86% (standard error [SE] 5%) and 55% (SE 8%) at 24 months, respectively. Freedom from target vessel stenosis and occlusion was higher in F-EVAR at the 12 month follow up (p = .006) compared with B-EVAR. CONCLUSION: Fenestrated or branched endovascular repairs in patients with PD-TAAA showed high technical success, with acceptable early mortality and MAE rates. The SCI rate was > 10%, despite CSFD use and staged procedures. Almost a half of patients needed an unscheduled re-intervention within 24 months after F/B-EVAR.

Dilated Internal Iliac Artery Confers a Higher Risk of Endoleak in Iliac Branch Devices in a Single Centre Retrospective Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Iliac branch devices (IBDs) have shown good results but there is little evidence for the risk of internal iliac artery (IIA) endoleak, so there are no clear recommendations on the maximum diameter it should be. Based on limited evidence, it was hypothesised that an IIA of ≥ 11 mm in diameter presents an increased risk of type Ic endoleak. METHODS: This was a single centre, retrospective case control study. Patients undergoing an IBD with the main trunk of the IIA as the target vessel, between 2015 and 2021, were identified. Two groups were created: those with a main trunk diameter of < 11 mm; and those with a diameter of ≥ 11 mm. Technical success, freedom from type Ic endoleak, and re-intervention rates were compared. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed to show a cutoff IIA diameter value for risk of type Ic endoleak. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the risk of type Ic endoleak and the presence of calcification, stenosis, and landing zone length in the IIA. RESULTS: There were 182 IBDs identified. The dilated IIA group (54 IBDs) had significantly lower technical success (91% vs. 98.4%; p = .002), lower freedom from type Ic endoleak (77% vs. 97.1% at 24 months; p = .001), and lower freedom from re-interventions (70% vs. 92.4% at 24 months; p = .002). The ROC curve showed that 10.5 mm was the cutoff diameter for type Ic endoleak. Moderate or severe calcification as well as landing zone length < 5 mm also correlated with type Ic endoleak. CONCLUSION: IBDs have a statistically significantly higher rate of technical failure, lower freedom from type Ic endoleak, and lower freedom from re-intervention when the IIA is ≥ 11 mm in diameter.

Sex Comparative Analysis of Branched and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Female sex is a risk factor for adverse events after endovascular aortic repair. Sex comparative early and midterm outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic arch repair (F/B-Arch) are presented. METHODS: A single centre retrospective sex comparative analysis of consecutive patients managed with F/B-Arch was conducted according to STROBE. Primary outcomes were sex comparative technical success, death, and cerebrovascular morbidity at 30 days. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for follow up outcomes. RESULTS: Among 209 patients, 38.3% were women. Coronary artery disease (p < .001) and previous myocardial infarction (p = .001) were more common in women. Non-native proximal aortic landing was higher in women (women: 51.3%; men: 31.8%, p = .005) and the aortic dissection rate was lower (28.8% vs. 48.1%, p = .005). Proximal landing to Ishimaru zones showed no difference (zone 0: p = .18; zone 1: p = .47; zone 2: p = .39). Graft configurations were equally distributed. In total, 416 supra-aortic trunks were bridged. The median number of revascularisations per patient was two (interquartile range 1, 3), with no difference between sexes (p = .54). Technical success (women: 97.5%; men: 96.9%, p = .80), 30 day mortality rate (women: 10%; men: 9.3%, p = .86), and cerebrovascular morbidity (women: 11.3%; men: 17.1%, p = .25) were similar. Women presented more access related complications (women: 32.5%; men: 16.3%, p = .006), without affecting access related re-interventions (p = .55). Survival (women: 81.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 76.3 - 85.9%; men: 79.8%, 95% CI 76.0 - 83.6%) and freedom from re-intervention (women: 56.6%, 95% CI 50.4 - 62.8%; men: 55.3%, 95% CI 50.1 - 60.5%) at 12 months were similar (log rank, p = .40 and p = .41, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both sexes presented similar outcomes after F/B-Arch. Appropriate patient selection may decrease the effect of sex in F/B-Arch outcomes.

Evaluation of Hemodynamic Properties After Chimney and Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated (FEVAR) and chimney (ChEVAR) endovascular aortic repair have been applied in anatomically suitable complex aortic aneurysms. However, local hemodynamic changes may occur after repair. This study aimed to compare FEVAR's and ChEVAR's hemodynamic properties, focusing on visceral arteries. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiographies have been used to reconstruct patient-based models. Data of 3 patients, for each modality, were analyzed. Following geometric reconstruction, computational fluid dynamics simulations were used to extract near-wall and intravascular hemodynamic indicators, such as pressure drops, velocity, wall shear stress, time averaged wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index, relative residence time, and local normalized helicity. RESULTS: An overall improvement in hemodynamics was detected after repair, with either technique. Preoperatively, a disturbed prothrombotic wall shear stress profile was recorded in several zones of the sac. The local normalized helicity results showed a better organization of the helical structures at postoperative setting, decreasing thrombus formation, with both modalities. Similarly, time averaged wall shear stress increased and oscillatory shear index decreased postoperatively, signaling nondisturbed blood flow. The relative residence time was locally reduced. The flow in visceral arteries tended to be more streamlined in ChEVAR, compared to evident recirculation regions at renal and superior mesenteric artery fenestrations (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: ChEVAR and FEVAR seem to improve hemodynamics toward normal values with a reduction of recirculation zones in the main graft and aortic branches. Visceral artery flow comparison revealed that ChEVAR tended to present lower recirculation regions at parallel grafts' entries while FEVAR showed less intense flow regurgitation in visceral stents.

Systematic review of reintervention with fenestrated or branched devices after failed previous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: A proximal seal extension, after previously failed standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been described using various endovascular techniques. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality and reintervention rates during the available follow-up for patients managed with endovascular methods after failed endovascular repair. METHODS: The present systematic review followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement and was preregistered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42022350436). A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until June 15, 2022, was performed. Observational studies (2000-2022) and case series with at least five patients who had undergone fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) after failed EVAR were considered eligible. Technical success and mortality at 30 days and the mortality and reintervention rates during available follow-up had to have been reported. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was technical success and mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2558 reports. Ten studies were considered eligible, two of which were prospective. A total of 423 patients had undergone F/BEVAR after failed EVAR. The indication for reintervention was the presence of a type Ia endoleak in 44.9%. Technical success was reported in seven studies, and 319 of 336 interventions were considered successful (94.9%), according to each study's criteria. Of the 423 patients, 10 had died within 30 days (2.4%). Seven patients had presented with spinal cord ischemia (2.4%). Twenty-three acute kidney injury events were reported (6.8%). The mean follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-77 months). During follow-up, 47 deaths were reported (14.8%). Finally, 50 reinterventions of 303 procedures (16.5%) had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: According to the available literature, F/BEVAR after failed EVAR can be performed with high technical success and low mortality during the perioperative period. The midterm mortality and reintervention rates were acceptable. However, further data are needed to provide firm conclusions regarding the safety and durability of F/BEVAR after failed EVAR.

Spinal cord ischemia rates and prophylactic spinal drainage in patients treated with fenestrated/branched endovascular repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. The benefit of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (pCSFD) to prevent SCI is still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SCI rate and the impact of pCSFD following complex endovascular repair (fenestrated or branched endovascular repair [F/BEVAR]) for type I to IV TAAA. METHODS: The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A single-center retrospective study was conducted, including all consecutive patients, managed for TAAA type I to IV using F/BEVAR, between January 1, 2018, and November 1, 2022, for degenerative and post-dissection aneurysms. Patients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysms were excluded, as well as cases managed urgently for aortic rupture or acute dissection. After 2020, pCSFD in type I to III TAAAs was abandoned and replaced by therapeutic CSFD (tCSFD), performed only in patients presenting SCI. The primary outcome was the perioperative SCI rate for the entire cohort and the role of pCSFD for type I to III TAAAs. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were included (mean age, 71.1±3.4 years; 81.8% males), including 50.5% with type I to III TAAA. The primary technical success was 94.9%. The perioperative mortality was 2.5%. and the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 10.6%; 4.5% presented SCI of any type (2.5% paraplegia). When comparing the SCI group with the remaining cohort, patients with SCI presented higher MACE (66.7% vs 7.9%; P < .001) rate and longer intensive care unit stay (3.5 vs 1 day; P = .002). Following type I to III repair, similar SCI, paraplegia, and paraplegia with no recovery rates were reported in the pCSFD and tCSFD groups (7.3% vs 5.1%; P = .66; 4.8% vs 3.3%; P = .72; and 2% vs 0%; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SCI after TAAA I to IV endovascular repair was low. SCI was associated with significantly increased MACE and intensive care unit stay. The prophylactic use of CSFD in type I to III TAAAs was not associated with lower SCI rates and may not be justified routinely.

Early Outcomes on Triple-Branch Arch Device With Retrograde Left Common Carotid Branch: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular aortic arch repair using multibranch devices has been applied in patients considered at high risk for open repair. The aim of this case series was to report the early outcomes in patients managed with a new design 3 branch arch custom-made device, including a retrograde left common carotid artery (LCCA) branch. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Of CaSe Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were followed. All consecutive patients undergoing endovascular repair of an aortic arch lesion with a custom-made triple-branch device, including a retrograde LCCA branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), between October 27, 2022, and February 28, 2023, were included. The presence of an arch aneurysm (degenerative or post-dissection) with diameter ≥55 mm and high risk for a conventional open repair set the indication for treatment. The primary outcomes were technical success and mortality at 30 days. Early morbidity and reinterventions were considered as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eight elective patients (87.5% men, mean age 72.3±27.0 years) were included. Five of them (62.5%) had undergone a previous ascending aorta repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were asymptomatic, except one, with left recurrent laryngeal nerve compression. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 70.4±21.0 mm. Percutaneous femoral and axillary access was used in all cases except three in which a cut down for right carotid access was performed. Technical success was 100%. Femoral access to the LCCA and implantation of the bridging stent was performed without technical challenges. No death nor cerebrovascular event was recorded during the 30 day follow-up. Five patients (62.5%) presented major complications, 3 related to access needing reintervention and the remaining related to congestive heart failure (CHF), which were managed successfully with medical treatment. Follow-up (range 1-4 month) was uneventful, except for one patient who presented a secondary type Ia endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: According to our early experience, the presence of a retrograde branch facilitated the revascularization of the LCCA through femoral access, decreasing the risk of cerebrovascular morbidity. Further analyses with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device. CLINICAL IMPACT: Data arising mainly from the retrograde branch for the revascularization of the LSA are encouraging from a variety of devices. The premiminary experience with a triple-branched arch device, with a retrograde branche for the LSA but also for the LCCA, was associated with no 30 day mortality and 100% technical success.The device's design allowed swift catheterization and completion of the LCCA revascularization using femoral access exclusively.

In Situ Fenestrated Thoracic Endovascular Repair Using the Upstream Peripheral Go BackTM Re-Entry Catheter.

PURPOSE: The aim is to present a case of in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular repair, using a re-entry peripheral catheter, needing urgent repair due to recurrent episodes of hemoptysis because of an aorto-bronchial fistula after previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). TECHNIQUE: A 74-year-old male with a previous TEVAR presented with hemoptysis, fever, and cachexia. An aorto-bronchial fistula and type Ia endoleak were depicted on computed tomography angiography (CTA). Due to the patient's frail general condition, a proximal TEVAR extension was planned, prior to thoracotomy for debridement, and long-term antibiotics. An in situ fenestrated TEVAR was performed to provide proximal sealing and revascularize the left common carotid and subclavian arteries. For fenestration creation, an Upstream Peripheral Go Back catheter (Bentley, Hechingen, Germany) was used. The Go Back catheter has been approved as a re-entry tool for complex peripheral arterial revascularization. In this case, both fenestrations were successfully created. Proximal seal and target vessel patency were confirmed on CTA. Thoracotomy confirmed aortic exclusion. A wedge lobectomy was performed in combination with pediculated omentectomy to exclude the exposed endograft. CONCLUSION: In urgent cases, where custom-made thoracic devices are unavailable, in situ fenestrations with the Go Back catheter are an alternative to laser fenestrations. CLINICAL IMPACT: Fenestrations are often required in acute TEVAR to achieve a proximal seal in the arch. In situ fenestrations with the Go Back catheter are an alternative to laser fenestrations and PMEGs in this setting.

Systematic Review on Early and Follow-up Mortality Rate in Octogenarians Treated With a Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: Advanced age has been related to conflicting outcomes after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare 30-day mortality, technical success, and 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians who underwent F/BEVAR for complex aortic aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was pre-registered to PROSPERO (CRD42022348659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until August 30, 2022, was executed. Randomized Control Trials and observational studies (2000-2022), with ≥5 patients, reporting on 30-day mortality and 1-year and 5-year survival rates among octogenarians and non-octogenarians after F/BEVAR were eligible. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary was 1-year and 5-year survival in octogenarians and non-octogenarians. The outcomes were summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A narrative presentation was selected in case of missing outcomes. RESULTS: The initial research isolated 3263 articles; 6 retrospective studies were finally included. A total of 7410 patients were managed with F/BEVAR; 1499 patients (20.2%) were ≥80 years old (75.5% males, 259/343). The estimated 30-day mortality was 6% among octogenarians vs 2% in younger patients, with a significantly higher 30-day mortality for patients ≥80 years old (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61-1.81; p=0.0.11; Ι2=36.01%). Technical success was similar between the groups (OR -0.83; 95% CI -1.74-0.07, p<0.0.001; Ι2=95.8%). Regarding survival, a narrative approach was decided due to missing data. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in 1-year survival between groups, with higher mortality in octogenarians (82.5%-90% vs 89.5%-93%), while 3 reported a similar 1-year survival rate in both groups (87.1%-95% vs 88%-89.5%). At 5 years, 3 studies reported a statistically significant lower survival for octogenarians (26.9%-42% vs 61%-71%). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians treated with F/BEVAR presented higher 30-day mortality while a lower survival rate at 1 and 5 years was reported in the literature. Patient selection is thus mandatory among older patients. Further studies, especially on patient risk stratification, are needed to estimate the F/BEVAR outcomes on elder patients. CLINICAL IMPACT: Age may be a factor of increased early and long-term mortality within patients managed for aortic aneurysms. In this analysis, patients over 80 years old were compared to their younger counterparts when managed with fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) . The analysis showed that early mortality was acceptable for octogenrains but significantly higher when compared to patients younger than 80 years. One-year survival rates are controversial. At 5-year follow-up, octogenarians present lower survival but data to provide metanalysis are lacking. Patient selection and risk stratification are mandatory in older candidates for F/BEVAR.

Transfemoral Access to Implant Iliac Branch Devices After Previous Aortic Grafts.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the outcomes of patients undergoing an iliac branch device implantation after previous open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair, using exclusively femoral access for catheterization and delivery of the covering stent to the hypogastric artery. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study in which all patients in whom an iliac branch device was implanted after previous open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair were identified. Patients in whom the hypogastric artery catheterization and delivery of the bridging cover stent were achieved via exclusive femoral access were included. Different techniques were used based on surgeon preference. Technical success and access-related complications, as well as iliac branch device endoleak or occlusions during follow-up, were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 28 patients with a prior open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair underwent 34 iliac branch device implantations. Most (71%) had juxtarenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, 82% had common iliac artery aneurysms, and 25% had hypogastric artery aneurysms. Bilateral iliac branch device implantations were performed in 21% of the patients, and in 26% of cases, landing in the superior gluteal artery was obtained. An "up-and-over" technique from the contralateral groin was used in 65% of the cases, and a steerable sheath in 35%. Technical success was 94%, with no complications related to access or technique to catheterize and deliver the stents in the hypogastric artery. The cohort had 20% of major complications, with 3 perioperative deaths. Kaplan-Meier estimated an iliac branch device freedom from occlusion and endoleak was 92% and 83% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of an iliac branch device over previous aortic or open endografts involving the aortic bifurcation is feasible and safe. We suggest using a femoral approach as the primary access of choice. CLINICAL IMPACT: In this study we present 28 patients with previous aortoiliac grafts in which iliac branch devices were performed as a subsequent step.We demonstrated the feasibility of the technique despite the difficulty of crossing a neobifurcation, with a steep angle, without complications associated with the technique. Based on our experience, we recommend transfemoral access as the first option for bypassing the hypogastric artery stent, preserving upper extremity access and its possible complications.