Examining the impact of median arcuate ligament-induced celiac artery compression on target vessel patency, long-term survival and device integrity in fenestrated and branched endovascular repairs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of celiac artery (CA) compression by median arcuate ligament (MAL) on technical metrics and long-term CA patency in patients with complex aortic aneurysms undergoing fenestrated/branched endograft repairs (F/B-EVARs). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs and requiring incorporation of the CA between 2013 and 2023. Patients were divided into two groups-those with (MAL+) and without (MAL-) CA compression-based on preoperative computed tomography angiography findings. MAL was classified in three grades (A, B, and C) based on the degree and length of stenosis. Patients with MAL grade A had ≤50% CA stenosis measuring ≤3 mm in length. Those with grade B had 50% to 80% CA stenosis measuring 3 to 8 mm long, whereas those with grade C had >80% stenosis measuring >8 mm in length. End points included device integrity, CA patency and technical success-defined as successful implantation of the fenestrated/branched device with perfusion of CA and no endoleak. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty patients with complex aortic aneurysms (pararenal, 128; thoracoabdominal, 52) required incorporation of the CA during fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Majority (73%) were male, with a median age of 76 years (interquartile range [IQR], 69-81 years) and aneurysm size of 62 mm (IQR, 57-69 mm). Seventy-eight patients (43%) had MAL+ anatomy, including 33 patients with MAL grade A, 32 with grade B, and 13 with grade C compression. The median length of CA stenosis was 7.0 mm (IQR, 5.0-10.0 mm). CA was incorporated using fenestrations in 177 (98%) patients. Increased complexity led to failure in CA bridging stent placement in four MAL+ patients, but completion angiography showed CA perfusion and no endoleak, accounting for a technical success of 100%. MAL+ patients were more likely to require bare metal stenting in addition to covered stents (P = .004). Estimated blood loss, median operating room time, contrast volume, fluoroscopy dose and time were higher (P < .001) in MAL+ group. Thirty-day mortality was 3.3%, higher (5.1%) in MAL+ patients compared with MAL- patients (2.0 %). At a median follow-up of 770 days (IQR, 198-1525 days), endograft integrity was observed in all patients and CA events-kinking (n = 7), thrombosis (n = 1) and endoleak (n = 2) -occurred in 10 patients (5.6%). However, only two patients required reinterventions. MAL+ patients had overall lower long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: CA compression by MAL is a predictor of increased procedural complexity during fenestrated/branched device implantation. However, technical success, long-term device integrity and CA patency are similar to that of patients with MAL- anatomy.

Midterm Outcomes of Patients With Complex Aortic Aneurysms Treated Using Mixed and Matched Endoprosthesis From Different Manufacturers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of patients with complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (f/b-EVAR) using a combination of endoprostheses from different manufacturers. METHODS: The study is a 2-center retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases of patients with cAAs undergoing f/b-EVAR using a combination of endoprostheses from different manufacturers from 2013 to 2023. Primary endpoints included technical success, major adverse events and reintervention rates. Technical success was defined as implantation of the device without type I or type III endoleak or conversion to open repair. Secondary endpoints included mortality and mid-term device performance. RESULTS: During this time, 353 patients with cAAs underwent f/b-EVARs at both centers. Of these, 80 (22.7%) required use of a combination of devices from 4 different manufacturers for repair. Fifty-one (64%) were treated for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and 29 (36%) for pararenal aneurysms. Majority (74%) were male with a median age of 75 (69, 81) years and aneurysm size of 65 (59, 72) mm. Thirty-five (44%) patients required a proximal thoracic stent graft-W.L. Gore (17), Cook, Medtronic, and Terumo (6), respectively. Seventy-seven (96%) patients required a bifurcated device, including Cook Flex (34), Gore (40), and Medtronic (3). Twelve patients underwent common iliac artery aneurysm repair with a Gore iliac branched endoprosthesis. One hundred fifty-four limbs were implanted: Gore: 68, Cook: 82 and Medtronic: 4. Three hundred fourteen target vessels were incorporated. Median operating room time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy time and dose were 209 (186, 278) minutes, 100 (50, 663) mL, 77 (59, 100) minutes, 2385 (1415, 3885) mGy, respectively. Three endoleaks were observed on completion angiography-2 type Ic and 1 type IIIa-all of which resolved at 1 month. Fifteen MAEs were observed in 11 patients at 30 days, including 3 (3.9%) deaths, 7 renal insufficiency, 1 renal failure requiring dialysis, 2 MI and paraplegia, respectively. At a median follow-up of 400 (85, 1132) days, there were 8 reinterventions for endoleaks in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mixed devices proximal and distal to f/b-devices built to treat patients with cAAs is safe and has good mid-term results. CLINICAL IMPACT: While not yet formally assessed in randomized clinical trials or endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the practice of utilizing devices from various manufacturers to address complex aortic anatomy is widespread in everyday clinical settings, yet outcomes remain insufficiently documented. To our knowledge, ours is the first manuscript demonstrating that the use of endoprostheses from different manufacturers for treating patients with complex aortic aneurysms is both safe and yields favorable mid-term results. This frequently employed strategy warrants further exploration through meticulously designed clinical trials, aiming to furnish vascular specialists with a well-founded guideline based on robust clinical evidence.

Routine Versus Selective Distal Perfusion Catheter Use in Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Although current studies support the use of prophylactic distal perfusion catheters (DPCs) to decrease limb ischemia in patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO), methods for monitoring limb ischemia differ between studies. We evaluated the safety of a selective rather than prophylactic DPC strategy at a single center with a well-established protocol for limb ischemia monitoring. Distal perfusion catheters were placed selectively if there was evidence of hypoperfusion at any point until decannulation. All patients were followed daily by vascular surgery with continuous regional saturation monitoring. Of 188 patients supported with VA ECMO, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with upfront, delayed, and no DPC. Thirty day mortality was highest in patients with an upfront DPC (56% in the upfront DPC group, 19% in the delayed DPC group, and 22% in the no-DPC group, p < 0.001). The incidence of major bleeding, fasciotomy, and amputation in the entire cohort was 3.7%, 3.7%, and 0%, respectively. With strict adherence to a protocol for limb ischemia monitoring, a selective rather than prophylactic DPC strategy is safe and may obviate the risks of an additional arterial catheter.