Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using a Supraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone Versus an Infraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) achieves more extensive proximal seal than conventional infrarenal devices, thereby increasing aneurysm exclusion durability. Optimal seal zone length remains undefined. We assessed relative risks and benefits of extending the proximal seal above the celiac artery. METHODS: The prospective database of all complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs at a single institution (institutional review board-approved, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial, 10/2010-6/2017) was used to classify repairs according to the number of target visceral-renal arteries incorporated: 4-vessel versus <4-vessel. Comparisons of aneurysm characteristics, perioperative details, and postoperative complications were performed, stratified by repair type. One-year survival, target artery patency, freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak, and freedom from reintervention were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 175 F/B-EVARs, 38% (n = 67) were 4-vessel and 62% (n = 108) were <4-vessel. Intraoperatively, there was no difference in mean contrast use (76 mL vs. 74 mL, P = non significant [NS]) or dose area product (63,428 mGy cm2 vs. 96,015 mGy cm2), but there was increased median procedure time (4.8 hr, interquartile range [IQR] = 4.1-5.8 versus 3.6 hr, IQR = 2.9-4.1, P < 0.0001) and mean operating room direct costs ($52,532, standard deviation [SD] = 18,640 versus $40,128, SD = 15,135, P < 0.0001) in 4-vessel repairs. There were no differences in mortality (1.9% vs. 4.5%), paraparesis (0% vs. 3.0%), or paralysis (0.9% vs. 0%), all P = NS. There were no differences in one-year survival, target artery patency, or freedom from reintervention. There was a lower 1-year freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak with 4-vessel repairs (82% vs. 94%, log-rank P = 0.02), driven by an increased rate of type 3 endoleaks. Endoleak resolution after treatment was equivalent in both groups (4-vessel, 10 of 12, 83% resolved; <4-vessel, 7 of 7, 100% resolved, P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: With F/B-EVAR, utilization of a supraceliac seal zone, compared with an infraceliac seal zone, is associated with statistical differences in operative characteristics/resource utilization, but with negligible clinical significance. Further innovation to eliminate type 3 endoleaks at fenestrations/branches remains an unmet need. To achieve adequate F/B-EVAR proximal seal zone length, one should have a low threshold to incorporate the celiac artery.

Imaging Obtained Up To 12 Months Preoperatively Is Adequate for Planning Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Patients referred for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) often present with a previous computed tomography angiogram (CTA), but it is unknown how recent the CTA must be to ensure accurate F/BEVAR planning. We sought to determine whether anatomic planning parameters change significantly between a CTA used for F/BEVAR planning and a CTA obtained 6 to 12 months prior. METHODS: Two blinded observers reviewed preoperative CTAs from 21 patients who underwent F/BEVAR. Each patient had a "recent" scan obtained 0 to 6 months before F/BEVAR planning and a "prior" scan obtained 6 to 12 months before the "recent" CTA. Standard measurements included (1) target vessel separation distances, (2) target vessel origin clock position, and (3) proximal F/BEVAR device diameter. Clinically significant differences for target vessel separation distance, target vessel origin clock position, and proximal F/BEVAR device diameter were predefined as >5 mm, >30 minutes, and >4 mm, respectively. Differences between "recent"/"prior" CTA scans were examined by paired t test. RESULTS: Mean time interval between paired "recent"/"prior" CTAs was 8.0 months (standard deviation: ±1.7). Mean difference in paired "recent"/"prior" target vessel distance (relative to celiac artery [CA]) was 2.6 mm for the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), 2.5 mm for the right renal artery (RRA), and 3.3 mm for the left renal artery (LRA). Of the 21 paired "recent"/"prior" CTAs, clinically significant differences were observed in 2, 4, and 2 patients for SMA, RRA, and LRA target vessel distance, respectively. Target vessel clock position (SMA reference at 12:00) varied by 12 minutes for the CA, 13 minutes for the RRA, and 15 minutes for the LRA. One paired "recent"/"prior" CTA was found to have a clinically significant difference for the LRA. No clinically significant differences were observed for proximal device diameter. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent successful F/BEVAR, measurement comparisons between CTAs obtained up to 1 year prior were minor and unlikely to yield clinically significant changes to F/BEVAR design.