Appropriateness of care in complex fenestrated-branched aortic endografting.

Fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms is increasingly replacing open repair as the primary modality of treatment. Mid- and long-term results are encouraging and support its use in the correct settings. Nevertheless, appropriateness of indication for treatment, patient selection, and surgeon and hospital performance has not been clearly evaluated and reviewed. The objective of this review article was to identify areas in which appropriateness of care is relevant and can be optimized when considering treatment of patients with fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Trends in hospitalization of patients undergoing endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms based on cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify trends in hospital length of stay (HLOS) and intensive care unit length of stay (ICULOS), and the relationship with cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) protocols in patients undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective FB-EVAR for extent I to IV TAAAs between 2008 and 2023 at a single aortic center of excellence was conducted. Patient demographics, cardiovascular comorbidities, surgical risk, technical details, CSFD strategy (prophylactic or therapeutic), procedural success, and perioperative outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into two groups based on CSFD protocol. Group 1 included patients treated before 2020 when prophylactic CSFD was performed widely, and Group 2 consisted of patients treated since 2020 with therapeutic CSFD. Primary end points were HLOS, ICULOS, major adverse events, and perioperative mortality. RESULTS: FB-EVAR was performed in 702 patients; 412 underwent elective TAAA repair and were included in the analysis. Mean age was 73 ± 8 years and 68% were male. Patient-specific manufactured devices were used in 252 patients (61%), physician-modified endografts in 110 (27%), and 50 patients (12%) were treated with off-the-shelf devices. Demographics, aneurysm extent, major adverse events (including spinal cord ischemia [SCI]), and mortality were similar in both groups. A significant reduction in mean HLOS between the groups (9 ± 9 vs 6 ± 5 days; P = .02) coincided with decreased use of prophylactic CSFD (70% vs 1.2%; P < .001), with similar rates of SCI (7.6% vs 4.9%; P = .627) and ICULOS (3 ± 3 vs 2.5 ± 3; P = .19). Patients in the therapeutic drainage cohort (group 2) had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure (24% vs 11%; P = .003), hypercholesterolemia (91% vs 80%; P = .015), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% vs 37%; P = .004), and peripheral artery disease (39% vs 19%; P < .001) compared with group 1, suggesting treatment of a more complex patient cohort. On adjusted multivariable analysis accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, comorbidities, and device type, the difference in HLOS remained statistically significant (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: HLOS decreased over time in patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAA after transition from a prophylactic to a therapeutic CSFD protocol. This transition was the only modifiable, independent risk factor for a shorter HLOS, without an increase in SCI, albeit with similar ICULOS.

Implications and late outcomes of type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) are the most common cause of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Although most resolve spontaneously, the long-term implications of T2ELs remain elusive. We aim to evaluate the impact of persistent and late T2ELs on clinical outcomes after EVAR. METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of patients who underwent EVAR for degenerative infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between January 2010 and June 2022 with no type I (T1EL) or III (T3EL) endoleak seen at EVAR completion. Patients were categorized based on T2EL status. Group 1 included patients with never detected or transient T2ELs (detected at EVAR completion but not after). Group 2 encompassed persistent T2ELs (seen at EVAR completion and again during follow-up) and late T2ELs (detected for the first time at any point during follow-up). Time-to-event analysis was conducted using a time-dependent approach to T2EL status. Primary outcomes included freedom from sac enlargement (SE), aneurysm-related reinterventions, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients met inclusion criteria. Group 1 included 418 patients (52%), of which 85% had no T2ELs and 15% had transient T2ELs. Group 2 had 385 patients; 23% had persistent T2ELs, and 77% developed a new T2EL. Patients in group 1 had a higher prevalence of smoking (88% vs 83%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (33% vs 25%; P = .008), chronic kidney disease (13% vs 8%; P = .021), and a higher mean Society for Vascular Surgery score (7 vs 6 points; P = .049). No differences were found in aneurysm diameter or morphology. Mean follow-up was 5 years for the entire cohort. In Group 2, 58 patients (15%) underwent T2EL treatment, most commonly transarterial embolization. At 10 years after EVAR, Group 2 was associated with lower freedom from SE (P < .001) and abdominal aortic aneurysm-related reinterventions (P < .001) and comparable overall survival (P = .42). More T1ELs were detected during follow-up in Group 2 (6 [1%] vs 20 [5%]; P = .004), with 15 (75%) of these detected at a median of 3 years after the T2EL. No difference between groups was observed in explant (0.7% vs 2.1%; P = .130) or aneurysm rupture (0.5% vs 1.3%; P = .269) rates. CONCLUSIONS: One-half of patients treated with infrarenal EVAR developed persistent/late T2ELs, which are associated with a higher risk of SE and reinterventions. No difference in overall survival or aneurysm rupture risk was seen at 10 years, based on T2EL status or T2EL intervention. A conservative approach to T2ELs may be appropriate for most patients with absent T1ELs or T3ELs.