Prospective assessment of dynamic changes in frailty and its impact on early clinical outcomes following physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty, a predictor of poor outcomes, has been widely studied as a screening tool in surgical decision-making. However, the impact of frailty on the outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FBEVARs) is less well established. In addition, the changes in frailty during recovery after FBEVAR are unknown. We aim to assess the impact of frailty on outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing physician-modified FBEVARs for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, as well as the changes in frailty during follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in a single-center prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption protocol (FDA# G200159) were evaluated. In addition to the baseline characteristics, frailty was assessed using the Hopkins Frailty Score (HFS) and frailty index (FI) measured by the Frailty Meter. Sarcopenia was measured by L3 total psoas muscle area (PMA). These measurements were repeated during follow-up. The follow-up HFS and FI were compared with baseline scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, whereas follow-up PMA measurements were compared with the baseline using the paired t test. The association between baseline frailty and morbidity was evaluated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Seventy patients were analyzed in a prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption study from February 9, 2021, to June 2, 2023. At baseline, HFS identified 54% of patients as not frail, 43% as intermediately frail, and 3% as frail. Technical success of FBEVAR was 94% with one in-hospital mortality. Early major adverse events were seen in 10 (14.3%) patients. No difference in baseline FI was seen between patients with early morbidity and those without. Patients who were not frail per HFS were less likely to experience early morbidity (P = .033), and there was a significantly lower baseline PMA in patients who experienced early morbidity (P = .016). At 1 month, patients experienced a significant increase in HFS and HFS category (P = .001 and P = .01) and a significant decrease in sarcopenia (mean PMA: -96 mm2, P = .005). At 6 months, HFS and HFS category as well as PMA returned toward baseline (P = .42, P = .38, and mean PMA: +4 mm2, P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative frailty and sarcopenia were associated with early morbidity after physician-modified FBEVAR. During follow-up, patients became more frail and sarcopenic by 1 month. Recovery from this initial decline was seen by 6 months, suggesting that frailty and sarcopenia are reversible processes rather than a unidirectional phenomenon of continued decline.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of post-dissection and degenerative complex abdominal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. METHODS: A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention. RESULTS: Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.

Comparative early results of in situ fenestrated endovascular aortic repair and other emergent complex endovascular aortic repair techniques for ruptured suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms at a regional aortic center.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent endovascular repair of suprarenal (SRAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) poses a significant challenge due to the need for branch vessel incorporation, time constraints, and lack of dedicated devices. Techniques to incorporate branch vessels have included parallel grafting, physician-modified endografts, double-barrel/reversed iliac branch device, and in situ fenestration (ISF). This study describes a single-center experience and the associated outcomes when using these techniques for ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent endovascular repair of ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs from July 2014 to March 2021 with branch vessel incorporation was performed. Clinical presentation, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of those who underwent ISF were compared with those who underwent repair using non-ISF techniques. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were major adverse events including myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, renal dysfunction, new onset dialysis, bowel ischemia, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia. RESULTS: Forty-two patients underwent endovascular repair for ruptured SRAAAs and TAAAs, 18 of whom underwent ISF repair. Seventy-two percent of ISF patients were hypotensive before surgery, compared with 46% of the patients who underwent repair using non-ISF techniques (physician-modified endografts, parallel grafting, or double-barrel/reversed iliac branch device). The total procedural and fluoroscopy times were similar between the two groups despite a greater mean number of branch vessels incorporated with the ISF technique (3.1 vs 2.2 per patient, P = .015). In-hospital mortality was 19% for all ruptures and 25% for ruptures with hypotension. Compared with the non-ISF group, in-hospital mortality trended lower in the ISF group (11% vs 25%, P = .233), reaching statistical significance when comparing patients who presented with hypotension (8% vs 45%, P = .048). The rate of major adverse events was 57% across all techniques and did not significantly differ between the ISF and non-ISF groups, with postoperative renal dysfunction being the most frequent complication (48%). Overall, ISF became the most commonly used technique later in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although emergent endovascular repair of ruptured SRAAAs/TAAAs remains a challenge, a number of techniques are available for expeditious treatment. In this series, ISF was associated improve survival, including a fivefold reduction in mortality in patients presenting with hypotension, and has now become the dominant technique at our center. Despite these advantages, postoperative complications and reinterventions are common. Further experience and longer-term follow-up are needed to validate these initial results and assess durability.