Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair promotes positive infrarenal neck remodeling and greater sac shrinkage compared with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the modern era. Although numerous devices exist for standard infrarenal AAA repair, fenestrated EVAR (fEVAR) offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open repair for patients with a short infrarenal neck. Over time, aortic neck dilation can occur, leading to loss of the proximal seal, endoleaks, and AAA sac growth. In the present study, we analyzed aortic remodeling after EVAR vs fEVAR and further evaluated whether fEVAR confers a benefit in terms of sac shrinkage. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 120 patients who had undergone EVAR was performed. Of these 120 patients, 30 had been treated with fEVAR (Zenith fenestrated; Cook Medical Inc, Bloomington, IN) and 90 patients were treated with EVAR devices (30 each with Endurant [Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland], Excluder [W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ], and Zenith [Cook Medical Inc]). The demographic data were recorded. Also, anatomic measurements were performed for each patient preoperatively, at 30 days postoperatively, and at the longest follow-up point using three-dimensional reconstruction software. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in demographic data between the four groups. fEVAR had been used more often in aortas with large necks and irregular morphology (P = .004). At the longest follow-up, the suprarenal aorta encompassing 5, 10, and 15 mm above the lowest renal artery had dilated the most for the fEVAR group vs all EVAR groups. However, the infrarenal segment had tended to increase the least, or to even have regressed, for fEVAR compared with all three EVAR groups and was associated with the overall greatest proportion of sac shrinkage for the fEVAR group compared with the Medtronic, Gore, and Cook devices (-13.90% vs -5.75% vs -2.31% vs -4.68%, respectively; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EVAR, the patients treated with fEVAR had experienced greater suprarenal dilation over time, consistent with an overall greater burden of disease in the proximal native aorta. However, the infrarenal segment had dilated significantly less over time in the fEVAR group compared with all three EVAR groups, suggesting that fEVAR might stabilize the infrarenal neck, promoting positive sac remodeling, which was evidenced by the greatest degree of decrease in the largest AAA diameter in the fEVAR group.