Early Experience with Patient-Specific Unibody Bifurcated Fenestrated-Branched Devices for Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Short distances between the lowest visceral/renal artery and the aortic bifurcation are technically challenging during complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly after previous infrarenal repair. Traditionally, inverted limb bifurcated devices have been used in addition to fenestrated-branched (FB) endografts, but short overlap, difficult cannulation, and potential crushing of bridging stents are limitations for their use. This study reviews the early experience of patient-specific company manufactured devices (PS-CMD) with a unibody bifurcated FB design for complex EVAR. METHODS: Consecutive complex EVAR procedures over a 34-month period with unibody bifurcated FB-devices as part of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at two institutions were reviewed. Unibody bifurcated FB-designs included fenestrated-branched bifurcated or fenestrated inverted limb devices. Endpoints included technical success, survival, frequency of type I or III endoleaks, limb occlusion, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Among 168 patients undergoing complex EVAR, 33 (19.6%) patients (78.7% male; mean age 77) received unibody bifurcated FB PS-CMDs. Fenestrated-branched bifurcated and fenestrated inverted limb devices were used in 31 (93.9%) and 2 (6.06%) patients, respectively. Median maximum aneurysm diameter was 61 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 55-69). Prior EVAR was reported by 29 (87.9 %) patients, of which 2 (6.06%) had suprarenal stents. A short distance between the lowest renal artery and aortic bifurcation was demonstrated in 30 (90.9%) patients, with median distance of 47 mm (IQR 38-54). Preloaded devices were used in 23 patients (69.7%). A total of 128 fenestrations were planned; 22 (17.2%) were preloaded with guidewires, and 5 (3.9%) with catheters. The median operative time was 238 min (226-300), with a median fluoroscopy time of 65.5 min (IQR 56.0-77.7) and a median dose area product of 147 mGy*cm2 (IQR 105-194). Exclusive femoral access was used in 14 (42.4%) procedures. Technical success was 100%. Target vessel primary patency was 100% at median follow-up time of 11.7 months (IQR 3.5-18.6). Two (6.06%) patients required reintervention for iliac occlusion; one patient required stenting and the other a femoral-femoral bypass. No aortic-related deaths occurred after the procedure. During follow-up, 11 (33.3 %) type II endoleaks and one (3.03%) type Ib endoleak were detected; the latter was treated with leg extension. No type Ia or III endoleaks occurred. CONCLUSION: Complex EVAR using unibody bifurcated FB-PS-CMDs is a simple, safe, and cost-effective alternative for the treatment of patients with short distances between the renal arteries and the aortic bifurcation. Further studies are required to assess benefits and durability of unibody bifurcated FB-devices.

Prospective evaluation of upper extremity access and total transfemoral approach during fenestrated and branched endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE: Total transfemoral (TF) access has been increasingly used during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR). However, it is unclear whether the potential decrease in the risk of cerebrovascular events is offset by increased procedural difficulties and other complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of FB-EVAR using a TF vs upper extremity (UE) approach for target artery incorporation. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial in two centers to investigate the use of FB-EVAR for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) between 2013 and 2022. Patients were classified into TF or UE access group with a subset analysis of patients treated using designs with directional branches. End points were technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day cerebrovascular events defined as stroke or transient ischemic attack, and any major adverse events (MAEs). RESULTS: There were 541 patients (70% males; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 2107 renal-mesenteric TAs incorporated. TF was used in175 patients (32%) and UE in 366 patients (68%) including 146 (83%) TF and 314 (86%) UE access patients who had four or more TAs incorporated. The use of a TF approach increased from 8% between 2013 and 2017 to 31% between 2018 and 2020 and 96% between 2021 and 2022. Compared with UE access patients, TF access patients were more likely to have CAAAs (37% vs 24%; P = .002) as opposed to TAAAs. Technical success rate was 96% in both groups (P = .96). The use of the TF approach was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time and procedural time (each P < .05). The 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% for TF and 1.4% for UE (P = .67). There was no early cerebrovascular event in the TF group, but the incidence was 2.7% for UE patients (P = .035). The incidence of MAEs was also lower in the TF group (9% vs 18%; P = .006). Among 237 patients treated using devices with directional branches, there were no significant differences in outcomes except for a reduced procedural time for TF compared with UE access patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TF access was associated with a decreased incidence of early cerebrovascular events and MAEs compared with UE access for target artery incorporation. Procedural time was decreased in TF access patients irrespective of the type of stent graft design.

Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysms offers mid-term survival advantage.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of 1-year changes in aneurysm sac diameter on patient survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of patients enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study investigating FB-EVAR (2013-2022). Patients with sequential follow up computed tomography scans at baseline and 6 to 18 months after FB-EVAR were included in the analysis. Aneurysm sac diameter change was defined as the difference in maximum aortic diameter from baseline measurements obtained in centerline of flow. Patients were classified as those with sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) or failure to regress (<5 mm or expansion) according to sac diameter change. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were aortic-related mortality (ARM), aortic aneurysm rupture (AAR), and aorta-related secondary intervention. RESULTS: There were 549 patients treated by FB-EVAR. Of these, 463 patients (71% male, mean age, 74 ± 8 years) with sequential computed tomography imaging were investigated. Aneurysm extent was thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in 328 patients (71%) and abdominal aortic aneurysms in 135 (29%). Sac shrinkage occurred in 270 patients (58%) and failure to regress in 193 patients (42%), including 19 patients (4%) with sac expansion at 1 year. Patients from both groups had similar cardiovascular risk factors, except for younger age among patients with sac shrinkage (73 ± 8 years vs 75 ± 8 years; P < .001). The median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range, 18-51 months). The 5-year survival estimate was 69% ± 4.1% for the sac shrinkage group and 46% ± 6.2% for the failure to regress group. Survival estimates adjusted for confounders (age, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and aneurysm extent) revealed a higher hazard of late mortality in patients with failure to regress (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.52; P = .005). The 5-year cumulative incidences of ARM (1.1% vs 3.1%; P = .30), AAR (0.6% vs 2.6%; P = .20), and aorta-related secondary intervention (17.0% ± 2.8% vs 19.0% ± 3.8%) were both comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year is common after FB-EVAR and is associated with improved patient survival, whereas sac enlargement affects only a minority of patients. The low incidences of ARM and AAR indicate that failure to regress may serve as a surrogate marker for nonaortic-related death.

Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical significance of family history (FH) of aortic disease on the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR) has not been well described. This study aimed to assess how FH of aortic disease affects outcomes following FB-EVAR for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs). METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in 10 ongoing, prospective, non-randomised, physician sponsored, investigational device exemption studies to evaluate FB-EVAR (2005 - 2022) in the United States Aortic Research Consortium database. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of FH of any aortic disease in any relative. Patients with confirmed genetically triggered aortic diseases were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events (MAEs) and late survival. Secondary outcomes included late secondary interventions and aneurysm sac enlargement. RESULTS: During the study period, 2 901 patients underwent FB-EVAR. A total of 2 355 patients (81.2%) were included in the final analysis: 427 (18.1%) with and 1 928 (81.9%) without FH of aortic disease. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and aneurysm extent were similar between the groups. Patients with FH of aortic disease more frequently had prior open abdominal aortic repair, but less frequently had prior endovascular aneurysm repair (p < .050). There were no statistically significant differences in 30 day mortality (4% vs. 2%; p = .12) and MAEs for patients with or without FH of aortic disease (12% vs. 12%; p = .89). Three year survival estimates were 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 - 0.78%) and 71% (95% CI 0.68 - 0.74%), respectively (p = .74). Freedom from secondary intervention and aneurysm sac enlargement were also not statistically significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: A family history of aortic disease had no impact on 30 day and midterm outcomes of FB-EVAR of CAAs. In the absence of an identified genetically triggered aortic disease, treatment selection for CAAs should be based on clinical risk and patient anatomy rather than FH of aortic disease.

Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

How We Would Treat Our Own Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

This manuscript is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge on endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The management of these complex aneurysms requires an interdisciplinary and patient-specific approach in high-volume centers. An index case is used to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of a patient undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for a TAAA.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). BACKGROUND: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006-2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. RESULTS: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P <0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P <0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7-37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50-2.44; P <0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.62; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in patients with or without prior history of abdominal endovascular or open surgical repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: The clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis. RESULTS: There were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis.

Changes in renal-mesenteric duplex ultrasound velocities after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with <60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches. RESULTS: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR.

Transatlantic multicenter study on the use of a modified preloaded delivery system for fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the outcomes of endovascular complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the Cook fenestrated device with the modified preloaded delivery system (MPDS) with a biport handle and preloaded catheters. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective single arm cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms treated with the MPDS fenestrated device (Cook Medical). Patient clinical characteristics, anatomy, and indications for device use were collected. Outcomes, classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards, were collected at discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Overall, 712 patients (median age, 73 years; interquartile range [IQR], 68-78 years; 83% male) from 16 centers in Europe and the United States treated electively were included: 35.4% (n = 252) presented with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and 64.6% (n = 460) with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Overall, 2755 target vessels were included (mean ,3.9 per patient). Of these, 1628 were incorporated via ipsilateral preloads using the MPDS (1440 accessed from the biport handle and 188 from above). The mean size of the contralateral femoral sheath during target vessel catheterization was 15F ± 4, and in 41 patients (6.7%) the sheath size was ≤8F. Technical success was 96.1%. Median procedural time was 209 minutes (IQR, 161-270 minutes), contrast volume was 100 mL (IQR, 70-150mL), fluoroscopy time was 63.9 minutes (IQR, 49.7-80.4 minutes) and median cumulative air kerma radiation dose was 2630 mGy (IQR, 838-5251 mGy). Thirty-day mortality was 4.8% (n = 34). Access complications occurred in 6.8% (n = 48) and 30-day reintervention in 7% (n = 50; 18 branch related). Follow-up of >30 days was available for 628 patients (88%), with a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR, 8-39 months). Branch-related endoleaks (type Ic/IIIc) were observed in 15 patients (2.6%) and aneurysm growth of >5 mm was observed in 54 (9.5%). Freedom from reintervention at 12 and 24 months was 87.1% (standard error [SE],1.5%) and 79.2% (SE, 2.0%), respectively. Overall target vessel patency at 12 and 24 months was 98.6% (SE, 0.3%) and 96.8% (SE, 0.4%), respectively, and was 97.9% (SE, 0.4%) and 95.3% (SE, 0.8%) for arteries stented from below using the MPDS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MPDS is safe and effective. Overall benefits include a decrease in contralateral sheath size in the treatment of complex anatomies with favorable results.

Iliac Branch Devices in the Repair of Ruptured Aorto-iliac Aneurysms: A Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of preserving the internal iliac artery (IIA) with iliac branched devices (IBDs) during acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysm with an IBD at 8 aortic centers between December 2012 and June 2020. A control group was used where the IIA was intentionally occluded from the same study period. The main outcome measures were 30-day mortality, major adverse events, technical success, and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were buttock claudication, primary patency, primary-assisted and secondary patency of the IBD, occurrence of endoleak types I/III, and reintervention. Values are presented as numbers and percentages or interquartile range in parenthesis. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included in the study: 24 with IBD and 24 with IIA occlusion. There was no difference in demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent. Twenty (83%) of them were hemodynamically stable during the procedure as opposed to 14 (58%, p=.23) with the IIA occlusion. Technical success was achieved in all cases with a procedure time of 180 (133-254) minutes, 45 (23-65) of which were from IBD. There were 2 (8%) deaths during the first 30 days and 2 (8%) major complications unrelated to the IBD, whereas in the IIA occlusion, the figures were 10 (42%) and 7 (29%), respectively. No patient in the IBD group developed buttock claudication compared to 8 (57%, p<.0001) in the IIA occlusion group; 1 (4%) patient developed bowel ischemia on both groups, with 1 in the IIA occlusion group needing resection. The median follow-up duration was 17 months (interquartile range 2-39) for the IBD group, with a primary patency of 60±14% at 3 years that went up to 92±8% with reinterventions (8 reinterventions in 6 patients). When the first 90 days were disregarded, there were no differences in survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: IBD is a valid alternative for maintaining the pelvic circulation for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms. The technical success and midterm outcomes are very satisfactory but require patient selection particularly regarding hemodynamic stability. The reintervention rate is considerable, mandating continuous follow-up. CLINICAL IMPACT: This multicenter study demonstrates that ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms do not necessarily require mandatory occlusion of hypogastric arteries. Iliac branch devices are shown to be a valid alternative in highly selected cases, with good midterm results, even if reinterventions are required in a significant proportion of patients.

Evaluation of Arterial and Venous Allografts in Subinguinal Bypasses.

BACKGROUND: Autologous saphenous vein is the preferred conduit for below-the-knee bypasses in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia. Alternative graft must be considered for patients without (autologous saphenous vein). The aim of this article is to evaluate the mid-term performance of arterial allograft (AA) and venous allograft (VA) used as alternative conduits. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia, with or without a history of homolateral femoropopliteal bypass, and no autologous veins were available who underwent infrainguinal arterial reconstructions using VA or AA from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing revision operations for infected bypasses were excluded. Primary patency (PP), primary assisted patency, secondary patency, major amputation, and death from any cause were the endpoints. For each event, a set of analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 111 patients (63 VAs and 48 AAs) were included, with 108 having below-the-knee bypass. The median follow-up time was 27.8 months (15.6-37.4). The difference in PP between the 2 allograft types was significant (P = 0.049), with 65.9% (43.7-81.0), 44.1% (24.2-62.3), and 44.1% (24.2-62.3) in the AA group, respectively, at 6, 12, and 18 months, whereas 55.6% (40.0-68.6), 46.0% (30.6-60.2), and 33.2% (18.2-49.0) in the VA group. The choice of an AA over a VA was an independent factor associated with patency (for PP: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.43 [0.24-0.75], P = 0.003); primary assisted patency: HR = 0.52 (0.30-0.89], P = 0.018; and secondary patency: HR = 0.49 (0.27-0.88), P = 0.016. The allograft type did not affect either the incidence of major amputation or death from any cause (respectively, HR = 1.20 [0.49-2.93], and 0.88 [0.37-2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the allograft appears to influence the patency of infrainguinal reconstruction, but not the course of the disease. Performant alternative grafts answering infectious issues are needed.

Iliac branch device to treat type Ib endoleak with a brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we reviewed the results of secondary iliac branch device (IBD) implantation for patients with a type Ib endoleak after prior fenestrated and/or branched (F/B) or infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using either brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis between January 2016 and October 2021 of consecutive patients who had undergone IBD to correct a type Ib endoleak after prior EVAR or F/B-EVAR. The groups were defined by arterial access, which was either brachial (group 1) or transfemoral (group 2). All implanted IBDs had been manufactured by Cook Medical, Inc (Bloomington, IN). The demographics, anatomic features, technical success, and 30-day major adverse events were recorded in accordance with the current Society for Vascular Surgery standards. The survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method were calculated. Branch instability was a composite end point of any internal iliac artery (IIA) branch-related complication or reintervention indicated to treat endoleak, kink, disconnection, stenosis, occlusion, or rupture. RESULTS: Overall, 28 patients (93% male; median age, 74 years), who had received 32 IBDs, were included, with 14 patients in each group. The prior endovascular aortic repairs included 23 cases of EVAR and 5 cases of F/B-EVAR, with an interval from the initial repair of 58 months (interquartile range [IQR], 48-70 months). The median pre-IBD maximal aneurysm diameter was 63.5 mm (IQR, 59.0-78.0 mm). The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for pulmonary status. All procedures were performed in a hybrid operative room. The median total operating time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product was 120 minutes (IQR, 86-167 minutes), 23 minutes (IQR, 15-32 minutes), and 54 Gyccm2 (IQR, 40-62 Gyccm2), respectively. The total operating time was shorter for group 2 (P = .006). The technical success rate was 100%, and no early deaths occurred. One 30-day major adverse event, medically treated colonic ischemia, had occurred in one patient in group 2. Aortic-related secondary interventions had been required for seven patients (five in group 1 and two in group 2), including three cases of surgical explantation. The median follow-up was 31 months (IQR, 24-42 months) and 6 months (IQR, 3-10 months) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. For group 1, the 2-year freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 84.6% (IQR, 67.1%-100%) and 92.3% (IQR, 78.9%-100%), respectively. For group 2, the 6-month freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 87.5% (IQR, 67.3%-100%) and 91.7% (IQR, 77.3%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have shown that secondary implantation of an IBD to correct a distal type I endoleak from a previous aortic stent graft is safe with a high technical success rate. The "up-and-over" technique can be considered an alternative to brachial access for patients with suitable anatomy.

Early Institutional Experience with One-Piece Bifurcated-Fenestrated Stentgraft in the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To review the early experience of the use of a bifurcated-fenestrated endograft (Bif-FEVAR) to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in a high-volume aortic center. METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis was conducted between March 2019 and April 2021 including consecutive patients that underwent Bif-FEVAR. Only patients without a proper infrarenal neck and a distance <70 mm between the lowest target artery and the native or prosthetic aortic bifurcation were considered. All Bif-FEVAR custom-made devices were manufactured by Cook Medical (Inc., Bloomington, Indiana). Demographics, anatomical features, technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and survival according to Kaplan-Meier were analyzed according to Society for Vascular Surgery standards. RESULTS: Overall, 10 patients (100% male with median age 78) were included. The median preoperative maximal aneurysm diameter was 68 mm [51-84]. Eight patients were treated for a proximal type I endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair. A total of 36 fenestrations were planned. The median operative time was 144 min [127-168], with a median fluoro time of 40.5 min [34-54] and a median dose area product of 73 Gy cm2 [61-89]. Technical success rate was 100%. No patients experienced a major postoperative adverse event. Median follow-up time was 8 months [6-13]. CONCLUSION: Bif-FEVAR is technically feasible when there is a short distance below the lowest target artery and the aortic bifurcation, with favorable short-term results. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study assessed the use of an innovative one-piece bifurcated fenestrated stent-graft as a primary procedure or in the treatment of proximal endoleak after standard infrarenal EVAR. We demonstrated these custom-made devices can be used safely with favorable short-term results. One-piece bifurcated fenestrated stent-grafts extend the indications of FEVAR for patients with an unusually short distance between the lowest renal artery and the aorto-iliac bifurcation or the diverter flow of a preexisting bifurcated infrarenal stent-graft.

Hybrid Room: Does it Offer Better Accuracy in the Proximal Deployment of Infrarenal Aortic Endograft?

BACKGROUND: This work aims to evaluate the impact of hybrid rooms and their advanced tools on the accuracy of proximal deployment of infrarenal bifurcated endograft (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective single center analysis was conducted between January 2015 and March 2019 including consecutive patients that underwent EVAR. Groups were defined whether the procedure was performed in a hybrid operating room (HOR group) or using a mobile 2D fluoroscopic imaging system (non-HOR group). The accuracy of the proximal deployment was estimated by the distance (mm) between the bottom of the lowest renal artery (LwRA) origin and the endograft radiopaque markers parallax (LwRA/EDG distance) after curvilinear reconstruction. The impact of HOR on the LwRA/EDG distance was investigated using a multiple linear regression model. A composite "proximal neck"-related complications event was studied (Cox models). RESULTS: Overall, 93 patients (87 %male, median age 73 years) were included with 49 in the HOR group and 44 in the non-HOR group. Preoperative CTA analysis of the proximal neck exhibited similar median length, but different median aortic diameter (P = 0.012) and median beta angulation (P = 0.027) between groups. The median LwRA/EDG distance was shorter in the HOR group (multivariate model, P = 0.022). No difference in "proximal neck"-related complications was evidenced between the HOR and non-HOR groups (univariate analysis, P = 0.620). Median follow-up time was respectively 25 [14-28] and 36 months [23-44] in the HOR group and in the non-HOR group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HOR offer more accurate proximal deployment of infrarenal endografts, with however no difference in "proximal neck"-related complications between groups.

Outcomes of Preventive Embolization of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery during Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of preemptive inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization on outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to July 2017, all patients undergoing elective EVAR or fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR) for asymptomatic AAA in a single tertiary hospital were retrospectively included. Three groups of patients were defined: patients with a patent IMA who underwent embolization during EVAR/F-EVAR (group 1), those with a patent IMA who did not undergo embolization during EVAR/F-EVAR (group 2), and those with a chronically occluded IMA (group 3). Preoperative aortic morphology, demographics, and procedural details were recorded. Aneurysmal growth (≥5 mm), reintervention, and overall mortality rates were analyzed using multivariate proportional hazard multivariate modeling. Propensity scores were constructed, and inverse probability weighting was applied to a new set of multivariate analyses to perform a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients (male, 95% [n = 249]) with a median age of 70 (65-77) years were included, with F-EVAR procedures comprising 87 (32.7%) of the interventions. There were 52, 142, and 72 patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Changes in aneurysmal sac size did not differ between groups, nor did overall survival or reintervention rates at 24 months. IMA embolization was not identified as an independently protective factor for aneurysmal growth during follow-up (relative risk [RR] = 2.82/mm [0.96-8.28], P = .060), whereas accessory renal arteries (RR = 5.07/mm [1.72-14.96], P = .003) and a larger preoperative aneurysmal diameter (RR = 1.09/mm [1.03-1.15], P = .004) were independent risk factors for sac enlargement. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive embolization of the IMA during EVAR or F-EVAR did not promote aneurysmal sac shrinking or decrease the reintervention rate at 2-year follow-up.

Management of Type IA Endoleak After EVAR by Explantation or Custom Made Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Proximal type 1 endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) remains challenging to solve with no existing consensus. This work aims to compare two different surgical strategies to remedy type IA endoleak: endograft explantation (EXP) and aortic reconstruction or relining by custom made fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective single centre analysis between 2009 and 2018 was conducted including patients treated for type IA endoleak after EVAR with either EXP or F-EVAR. The choice of surgical technique was based on morphological factors (F-EVAR eligibility), sac growth rate, emergency presentation and/or patient symptoms. Technical success, morbidity, secondary interventions, 30 day mortality, and long term survival according to Kaplan-Meier were determined for each group and compared. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (91% male, mean age 79 years) underwent either EXP (n = 26) or F-EVAR (n = 33) during the study period. The two groups were equivalent in terms of comorbidity and age at the time of procedure. The median time from initial EVAR was 60.4 months (34-85 months), with no difference between groups. The maximum aneurysm diameter was greater in the EXP group compared with the F-EVAR group, 86 mm (65-100) and 70 mm (60-80), respectively (p = .008). Thirty day secondary intervention (EXP: 11.5% vs. F-EVAR: 9.1%) and mortality (EXP: 3.8% vs. F-EVAR: 3.3%) rates did not differ between groups, while major adverse events at 30 days, defined by the current SVS guidelines, were lower in the F-EVAR group (2.4% vs. 13.6%; p = .016). One year survival rates were similar between the groups (EXP: 84.0% vs. F-EVAR: 86.6%). CONCLUSION: Open explantation and endovascular management with a fenestrated device for type IA endoleak after EVAR can be achieved in high volume centres with satisfactory results. F-EVAR is associated with decreased early morbidity. Open explantation is a relevant option because of acceptable outcomes and the limited applicability of F-EVAR.

Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts After Failed Endovascular Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Type Ia Endoleak.

OBJECTIVE: Failed endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to development of late type Ia endoleak exposes patients to the risk of rupture and should be treated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for treatment of failed EVAR with type Ia endoleak. METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2019, a prospective multicentre study was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04532450) that included 85 consecutive patients who had undergone F/BEVAR to treat a type Ia endoleak following EVAR. The primary outcome was overall freedom from any re-intervention or death related to the F/BEVAR procedure. RESULTS: In 30 cases (35%) EVAR was associated with a short < 10 mm or angulated (> 60°) infrarenal aortic neck, poor placement of the initial stent graft (n = 3, 4%), sizing error (n = 2, 2%), and/or stent graft migration (n = 7, 8%). Type Ia endoleak was observed after a period of 59 ± 25 months following EVAR. The authors performed 82 FEVAR (96%) and three BEVAR (4%) procedures with revascularisation of 305 target arteries. Overall technical success was 94%, with three failures including one persistent Type Ia endoleak and two unsuccessful stent graft implantations. Intra-operative target artery revascularisation was successful in 303 of 305 attempts. The in hospital mortality rate was 5%. Cardiac, renal and pulmonary complications occurred in 6%, 14%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Post-operative spinal cord ischaemia occurred in four patients (4.7%). At three years, the survival rate was 64% with overall freedom from any re-intervention or aneurysm related death of 40%, and freedom from specific F/BEVAR re-intervention of 73%. At three years, the secondary patency rate of the target visceral arteries was 96%. During follow up, 27 patients (33%) required a revision procedure of the fenestrated (n = 11) or index EVAR stent graft (n = 16), including six open conversions. CONCLUSION: While manufactured F/BEVAR was effective in treating type Ia endoleak in patients with failed EVAR, it was at the cost of a number of secondary endovascular and open surgical procedures.

Editor's Choice - Multicentre Outcomes of Redo Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair to Rescue Failed Fenestrated Endografts.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of redo fenestrated and/or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR in FEVAR) to rescue previous failed FEVAR. METHODS: Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing F/BEVAR in FEVAR at eight aortic centres including pre-, intra-, and post-operative data according to a pre-established protocol. Follow up consisted of at least yearly computed tomography angiography. Values are presented as median and interquartile range, and survival as estimate ± standard error in percentage. RESULTS: 18 male patients (76 years old; range 69 - 78 years) receiving FEVAR involving two (two or three) target vessels between 2006 and 2016 underwent F/BEVAR in FEVAR between 2012 and 2019 (aneurysm diameter of 63 mm; range 56 - 69 mm). Median interval between the procedures was 53 (29 - 103) months. The indication for F/BEVAR in FEVAR was type Ia endoleak in 16 cases (eight isolated and eight combined with graft migration), one graft migration without endoleak and one migration with significant proximal aortic expansion. F/BEVAR in FEVAR involved all patent renovisceral arteries and had an operating time of 260 (204 - 344) minutes. Technical success was achieved in 15 (83%) cases. There was a failure to bridge one renal artery, one renal capsular bleed with the subsequent need for renal artery embolisation within 24 hours and one persistent type Ib endoleak despite iliac extension. There was no peri- or in hospital death. Two patients developed spinal cord ischaemia, one transient paraparesis and one permanent paraplegia. The latter occurred in a non-staged procedure where spinal drainage was used. During a follow up of 27 (7 - 39) months, three (17%) patients underwent late re-interventions. Overall survival at 24 months was 70 ± 11% with no aneurysm related death and a secondary clinical success at 24 months of 84 ± 11%. CONCLUSION: F/BEVAR in FEVAR is a technically challenging but feasible solution to rescue failed FEVAR. The outcomes are promising in many aortic centres but need to be confirmed by further studies with longer follow up.

Mid-Term Survival and Risk Factors Associated With Myocardial Injury After Fenestrated and/or Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is an independent predictor of post-operative mortality in non-cardiac surgery patients and may increase health costs. Few data are available for MINS in vascular surgery patients, in general, and those undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repairs (F/BEVAR), in particular. The incidence of MINS after F/BEVAR, the associated risk factors, and prognosis have not been determined. The aim of the present study was to help fill these knowledge gaps. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective study was carried out at a high volume F/BEVAR centre in a university hospital. Adult patients who underwent F/BEVAR between October 2010 and December 2018 were included. A high sensitivity troponin T (HsTnT) assay was performed daily in the first few post-operative days. MINS was defined as a HsTnT level ≥ 14 ng/L (MINS14) or ≥ 20 ng/L (MINS20). After assessment of the incidence of MINS, survival up to two years was estimated in a Kaplan-Meier analysis and the groups were compared according to MINS status. A secondary aim was to identify predictors of MINS. RESULTS: Of the 387 included patients, 240 (62.0%) had MINS14 and 166 (42.9%) had MINS20. In multivariable Cox models, both conditions were significantly associated with poor two year survival (MINS14: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 - 4.19; MINS20: aHR 2.43, 95% CI 1.36 - 4.34). In a multivariable logistic regression, age, revised cardiac risk index, duration of surgery, pre-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and haemoglobin level were independent predictors of MINS. CONCLUSION: After F/BEVAR surgery, the incidence of MINS was particularly high, regardless of the definition considered (MINS14 or MINS20). MINS was significantly associated with poor two year survival. The modifiable predictors identified were duration of surgery, eGFR, and haemoglobin level.