Outcomes using inverted iliac limb bifurcate components in fenestrated/branched endografting.

BACKGROUND: The use of standard bifurcate pieces in fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) requires adequate length from the lowest branch or fenestration to the aortic bifurcation. In patients with prior aortic surgery, the aortic bifurcation is often artificially established in a more proximal position, compromising the infrarenal length, which hinders the placement of a standard bifurcate component below the fenestrated/branched component. Short bifurcate bodies using an inverted contralateral limb have been purpose-built to address this challenge. However, reported outcomes for this device remain limited, with specific concerns about the durability of the inverted iliac limb sealing region. We sought to evaluate outcomes of F/BEVAR using an investigational inverted iliac limb bifurcate, manufactured by Cook Medical. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively maintained data from the US-Aortic Research Consortium from 2005 to 2022. Patients were included if they underwent F/BEVAR for thoracoabdominal or complex abdominal aortic aneurysms. Patients were excluded if they did not have a bifurcate device placed. Patients were then compared based on the use of an inverted iliac limb or standard bifurcate component. The primary outcome for this study was technical success. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, freedom from ischemic leg complications, freedom from type I endoleaks (TIELs), freedom from type II endoleaks (TIIELs), freedom from type III endoleaks (TIIIELs), and graft component separations. RESULTS: A total of 1944 patients met study criteria with 442 (22.8%) inverted iliac limb bifurcates and 1502 (77.2%) standard bifurcates. Patients who received inverted iliac limbs were more likely to have had prior aortic surgery (63.8% vs 28.5%; P < .001). Patients receiving inverted iliac limbs had longer procedure times (265 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 201-342 minutes vs 241 minutes; IQR, 186-313 minutes; P < .001), more contrast use (89 mL [IQR, 55-135 mL] vs 109 mL [IQR, 75-156 mL]; P < .001), and higher estimated blood loss (250 mL [IQR, 150-500 mL] vs 250 mL [IQR, 110-400 mL]; P = .042). There were no differences in rates of technical success (97.3% vs 96.1%; P = .310), rates of endoleaks upon completion of the case (18.0% vs 21.4%; P = .123), or 30-day mortality rates (1.8% vs 2.5%; P = .466) between patients receiving inverted iliac limb and standard bifurcated components. There were no differences in cumulative survival, freedom from limb ischemia, freedom from aneurysm rupture, and freedom from TIIIELs over the course of 5 years between patients receiving inverted bifurcates and standard bifurcated components. Patients with inverted iliac limb bifurcate components had decreased freedom from reinterventions, TIELs, and TIIELs. After adjustment for potential confounders, the use of an inverted iliac limb was not associated with reinterventions (hazard ratio,1.044; 95% confidence interval, 0.849-1.285; P = .682). There was a total of 2 component separations (0.1%) of the bifurcate component from the fenestrated/branched component over the study period, both of which occurred in the standard bifurcate components. CONCLUSIONS: The use of investigational inverted iliac limb bifurcate components is a safe option with favorable mid-term outcomes in patients who are not anatomical candidates for standard bifurcate components. Patients undergoing investigational inverted iliac limb bifurcate component implantation had decreased freedom from reinterventions, which likely corresponds with the complexity of repair associated with them.

Age is not a sole predictor of outcomes in octogenarians undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the perioperative, postoperative, and long-term outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) in octogenarians compared with nonoctogenarians. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Vascular Quality Improvement database, which prospectively captures information on patients who undergo vascular surgery across 1021 academic and community hospitals in North America. All patients who underwent F/BEVAR endovascular aortic repair from 2012 to 2022 were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: those aged <80 years and those aged ≥80 years at the time of the procedure. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included aortic-specific mortality and aortic-specific reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 6007 patients (aged <80 years, n = 4860; aged ≥80 years, n = 1147) who had undergone F/BEVAR procedures were included. No significant difference was found in technical success, postoperative length of stay, length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative bowel ischemia, and spinal cord ischemia. After adjustment for baseline covariates, octogenarians were more likely to suffer from a postoperative complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.16; [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.37], P < .001) and be discharged to a rehabilitation center (OR: 1.60; [95% CI: 1.27-2.00], P < .001) or nursing home (OR: 2.23; [95% CI: 1.64-3.01], P < .001). Five-year survival was lower in octogenarians (83% vs 71%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.70; [95% CI: 1.46-2.0], P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that age was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.72, [95% CI: 1.39-2.12], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 1.92, [95% CI: 1.04-3.68], P = .038). Crawford extent II aortic disease was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; [95% CI: 1.01-2.19], P < .001), aortic-specific mortality (HR: 5.05; [95% CI: 1.35-18.9], P = .016), and aortic-specific reintervention (HR: 1.91; [95% CI: 1.24-2.93], P = .003). Functional dependence was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 2.90; [95% CI: 1.87-4.51], P < .001) and aortic-specific mortality (HR: 4.93; [95% CI: 1.69-14.4], P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that octogenarians do have a mildly increased mortality rate and rate of adverse events after F/BEVAR procedures. Despite this, when adjusted for other risk factors, age is on par with other medical comorbidities and therefore should not be a strict exclusion criterion for F/BEVAR procedures, rather considered in the global context of patient's aortic anatomy, health, and functional status.

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.

A dedicated risk prediction model of 1-year mortality following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair involving the renal-mesenteric arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment goals of prophylactic endovascular aortic repair of complex aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries (complex endovascular aortic repair [cEVAR]) include achieving both technical success and long-term survival benefit. Mortality within the first year after cEVAR likely indicates treatment failure owing to associated costs and procedural complexity. Notably, no validated clinical decision aid tools exist that reliably predict mortality after cEVAR. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a preoperative prediction model of 1-year mortality after elective cEVAR. METHODS: All elective cEVARs including fenestrated, branched, and/or chimney procedures for aortic disease extent confined proximally to Ishimaru landing zones 6 to 9 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative were identified (January 2012 to August 2023). Patients (n = 4053) were randomly divided into training (n = 3039) and validation (n = 1014) datasets. A logistic regression model for 1-year mortality was created and internally validated by bootstrapping the AUC and calibration intercept and slope, and by using the model to predict 1-year mortality in the validation dataset. Independent predictors were assigned an integer score, based on model beta-coefficients, to generate a simplified scoring system to categorize patient risk. RESULTS: The overall crude 1-year mortality rate after elective cEVAR was 11.3% (n = 456/4053). Independent preoperative predictors of 1-year mortality included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine >1.8 mg/dL or dialysis dependence), hemoglobin <12 g/dL, decreasing body mass index, congestive heart failure, increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥IV, current tobacco use, history of peripheral vascular intervention, and increasing extent of aortic disease. The 1-year mortality rate varied from 4% among the 23% of patients classified as low risk to 23% for the 24% classified as high risk. Performance of the model in validation was comparable with performance in the training data. The internally validated scoring system classified patients roughly into quartiles of risk (low, low/medium, medium/high and high), with 52% of patients categorized as medium/high to high risk, which had corresponding 1-year mortality rates of 11% and 23%, respectively. Aneurysm diameter was below Society for Vascular Surgery recommended treatment thresholds (<5.0 cm in females, <5.5 cm in males) in 17% of patients (n = 679/3961), 41% of whom were categorized as medium/high or high risk. This subgroup had significantly increased in-hospital complication rates (18% vs 12%; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (13% vs 5%; P < .0001) compared with patients in the low- or low/medium-risk groups with guideline-compliant aneurysm diameters (≥5.0 cm in females, ≥5.5 cm in males). CONCLUSIONS: This validated preoperative prediction model for 1-year mortality after cEVAR incorporates physiological, functional, and anatomical variables. This novel and simplified scoring system can effectively discriminate mortality risk and, when applied prospectively, may facilitate improved preoperative decision-making, complex aneurysm care delivery, and resource allocation.

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-CMDs) 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 FB bifurcated or fenestrated inverted limb devices. End points included technical success, survival, frequency of type I or III endoleaks, limb occlusion, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Among 168 patients undergoing complex EVAR, 33 patients (19.6%; 78.7% male; mean age, 77 years) received unibody bifurcated FB PS-CMDs. FB bifurcated and fenestrated inverted limb devices were used in 31 (93.9%) and 2 (6.06%) patients, respectively. The median maximum aneurysm diameter was 61 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 55-69 mm). Prior EVAR was reported by 29 patients (87.9%), of whom 2 (6.06%) had suprarenal stents. A short distance between the lowest renal artery and aortic bifurcation was demonstrated in 30 patients (90.9%), with median distance of 47 mm (IQR, 38-54 mm). 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 minutes (226-300 minutes), with a median fluoroscopy time of 65.5 minutes (IQR, 56.0-77.7 minutes) and a median dose area product of 147 mGy∗cm2 (IQR, 105-194 mGy∗cm2). Exclusive femoral access was used in 14 procedures (42.4%). Technical success was 100%. Target vessel primary patency was 100% at a median follow-up time of 11.7 months (IQR, 3.5-18.6 months). Two patients (6.06%) 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 type II endoleaks (33.3%) and 1 type Ib endoleak (3.03%) were detected; the latter was treated with leg extension. No type Ia or III endoleaks occurred. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms stratified by the aneurysm extent. METHODS: Patients with the diagnosis of complex aortic aneurysm, who underwent F/BEVAR at a single center were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided according to the aneurysm extent, comparing group 1 (types I-III thoracoabdominal aneurysms [TAAAs]), group 2 (type IV TAAAs), and group 3 (juxtarenal [JRAAs], pararenal [PRAAs], or paravisceral [PVAAs] aortic aneurysms). The primary endpoints were 30-day and 5-year survival. The secondary endpoints were technical success, occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, primary patency of the visceral arteries, freedom from target vessel instability, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Of 436 patients who underwent F/BEVAR between July 2012 and May 2023, 131 presented with types I to III TAAAs, 69 with type IV TAAAs, and 236 with JRAAs, PRAAs, or PVAAs. All cases were treated under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption protocol with a patient-specific company-manufactured or off-the-shelf device. Group 1 had significantly younger patients than group 2 or 3 respectively (69.6 ± 8.7 vs 72.4 ± 7.1 vs 73.2 ± 7.3 years; P < .001) and had a higher percentage of females (50.4% vs 21.7% vs 17.8%; P < .001). Prior history of aortic dissection was significantly more common among patients in group 1 (26% vs 1.4% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and mean aneurysm diameter was larger in group 1 (64.5 vs 60.7 vs 63.2 mm; P = .033). Comorbidities were similar between groups, except for coronary artery disease (P < .001) and tobacco use (P = .003), which were less prevalent in group 1. Technical success was similar in the three groups (98.5% vs 98.6% vs 98.7%; P > .99). The 30-day mortality was 4.5%, 1.4%, and 0.4%, in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and was significantly higher in group 1 when compared with group 3 (P = .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 3 (5.3% vs 4.3% vs 0.4%; P = .004). The 5-year survival was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .01). Freedom from secondary intervention was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .003). At 5 years, there was no significant difference in freedom from target vessel instability between groups or primary patency in the 1652 target vessels examined. CONCLUSIONS: Larger aneurysm extent was associated with lower 5-year survival, higher 30-day mortality, incidence of secondary interventions, and spinal cord ischemia. The prevalence of secondary interventions in all groups makes meticulous follow-up paramount in patients with complex aortic aneurysm treated with F/BEVAR.

Effect of fenestration configuration on renal artery outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of fenestration configuration and fenestration gap on renal artery outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed, including patients with complex aortic aneurysms treated with F/BEVAR that incorporated at least one small fenestration to a renal artery. The renal fenestrations were divided into groups 1 (8 × 6 mm) and 2 (6 × 6 mm). Primary patency, target vessel instability (TVI), freedom from secondary interventions (SIs), occurrence of type IIIc endoleak, all related to the renal arteries, were analyzed at 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year landmarks. The fenestration gap (FG) distance was analyzed as a modifier, and clustering was addressed at the patient level. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients were included in this study, 71.7% male, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 8.1 years. The mean follow-up was 30.0 ± 20.6 months. Of the 1474 small renal fenestrations analyzed, 47.6% were 8 × 6 mm, and 52.4% were 6 × 6 mm. At the 30-day landmark, primary patency (99.9% vs 98.0%; P value < .001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively), freedom from TVI (99.6% vs 97.1%; P value < .001 for groups 1 and 2, respectively), and freedom from SI (99.8% vs 98.4%; P value = .022 for groups 1 and 2, respectively) were higher in 8 × 6 compared with 6 × 6 fenestrations, and the incidence of acute kidney injury was similar across the groups (92.6% vs 92.7%; P value = .953 for groups 1 and 2 respectively). The primary patency at 1 and 5 years was higher in 8 × 6 fenestrations (1-year: 98.8% vs 96.9%; 5-year: 97.8% vs 95.7%, for groups 1 and 2, respectively, P values = .010 and .021 for 1 and 5 year comparisons, respectively). The freedom from SIs was significantly higher among 6 × 6 fenestrations at 5 years (93.1% vs 96.4%, for groups 1 and 2, respectively, P value = .007). The groups were equally as likely to experience a type Ic endoleak (1.3% and 1.6% for 8 × 6 and 6 × 6mm fenestrations, respectively, P = .689). The 6 × 6 fenestrations were associated with higher risk of kidney function deterioration (17.8%) when compared with 8 × 6 fenestrations (7.6%) at 5 years (P < .001). The risk of type IIIc endoleak was significantly higher among 8 × 6 fenestrations at 5 years (4.9% and 2% for 8 × 6 and 6 × 6 mm fenestrations, respectively; P = .005). A FG ≥5 mm negatively impacted the cumulative 5-year freedom from TVI (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.714, FG <5 mm = 0.857; P < .001; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.761, FG <5 mm = 0.929; P < .001) and the cumulative 5-year freedom from type IIIc endoleak (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.759, FG <5 mm = 0.921; P = .034; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.853, FG <5 mm = 0.979; P < .001) in both groups and the cumulative 5-year patency in group 2 (group 1: FG ≥5 mm = 0.963, FG <5 mm = 0.948; P = .572; group 2: FG ≥5 mm = 0.905, FG <5 mm = 0.938; P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: Fenestration configuration for the renal arteries impacts outcomes. The 8 × 6 small fenestrations have better patency at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, whereas 6 × 6 small fenestrations are associated with lower rates of SIs, primarily due to a lower incidence of type IIIc endoleaks. FG ≥5 mm at the level of the renal arteries significantly impacts the freedom from TVI, freedom from type IIIc endoleak, and 5-year patency independently of the fenestration size or vessel diameter.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.

Overhead arm support reduces radiation exposure during complex endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex endovascular aortic surgery has been associated with increased fluoroscopic radiation exposure. The radiation dosage necessary for visualization is dependent on the amount of tissue penetration required. Elevation of a patient's arms above their head during endovascular surgery could improve visualization by removing the arms from the field of view. Furthermore, it might reduce the radiation dose required. In the present study, we sought to determine the effect of arm elevation on radiation exposure during endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms. METHODS: All patients enrolled in a single-institution, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study for endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair [F/BEVAR]) from 2012 to 2022 were assessed. The first 30 patients treated were excluded to account for the learning curve required with treatment. Patients treated after December 2020 were positioned with their arms elevated above their head using an overhead arm support (OAS). These patients were compared with those who had undergone F/BEVAR before the practice change. The radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume used were compared. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect for patients with brachial access. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were included in the present study, of whom 43 (30%) had undergone F/BEVAR with their arms supported overhead. No differences were identified in age, body mass index, aneurysm size, or prior aortic intervention between the groups with and without the use of the OAS. A history of dissection (23% vs 7.8%; P = .01) was more frequent for the patients treated with their arms elevated. Arm elevation was associated with a significant reduction in the mean radiation exposure (2261 vs 3100 mGy; P = .01). No differences were observed in the fluoroscopy time or contrast volume used between the two groups. In addition, no patient experienced palsy of the brachial plexus. Of the 145 patients, 55 (38%) had required brachial arterial access, limiting their ability to elevate both arms. In the subgroup analysis, the patients without brachial access continued to show a significant reduction in radiation exposure with arm elevation (2159 vs 3179 mGy; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Elevation of a patient's arms above their head using an OAS during F/BEVAR offered a low-cost, simple strategy that resulted in a 30% reduction in radiation exposure without added complications. This technique improved visualization and reduced radiation exposure for patients and physicians and should be included in abdominal aortic and visceral procedures work to improve patient and surgeon safety.

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.