Multicenter Study on Physician-Modified Endografts for Thoracoabdominal and Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68-79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6-50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS: Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS: A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts, at least 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total aortic arch repair with at least 3 years of follow-up. METHODS: All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic arch repair combined with a homemade double-fenestrated stent graft from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed. RESULTS: 74 patients were treated for pathological arch conditions with a double-fenestrated PMEG. Of these, 81% were male, the mean age was 69.9 years, and 59% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiology 3 or 4. Thirty-five percent were treated for a postdissection aneurysm, 36% for a degenerative aneurysm, and 14% for acute type B dissection. Fifteen percent had supra-aortic trunk dissection. Fenestration on the subclavian artery was performed in 96%; if not, a carotid-subclavian bypass was carried out. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone is consistently in zone 0. Early outcomes revealed a 3% occurrence of type 1 endoleak, which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. One retrograde dissection occurred, and one patient died from hemorrhage on an iliac conduit. A 5% stroke rate was reported. During long-term follow-up (mean time 40.7 months), one type 1 endoleak appeared and was successfully treated; no type 2 or type 3 endoleak requiring intervention occurred. No stent fractures or migrations were reported. Four percent of patients required reintervention, but no surgical conversion to open surgical repair was needed on the aortic arch. No patient died from a cause related to the main procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for the main aortic pathologies. Moreover, it is easily available for emergency situations.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Custom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. METHODS: We studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. RESULTS: A total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

Practice patterns of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy are commonly prescribed after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR). However, the optimal regimen remains unknown. We sought to characterize practice patterns and outcomes of antiplatelet and anticoagulant use in patients who underwent F/BEVAR. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled (2012-2023) as part of the United States Aortic Research Consortium (US-ARC) from 10 independent physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies were evaluated. The cohort was characterized by medication regimen on discharge from index F/BEVAR: (1) Aspirin alone OR P2Y12 alone (single-antiplatelet therapy [SAPT]); (2) Anticoagulant alone; (3) Aspirin + P2Y12 (dual-antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]); (4) Aspirin + anticoagulant OR P2Y12 + anticoagulant (SAPT + anticoagulant); (5) Aspirin + P2Y12 + anticoagulant (triple therapy [TT]); and (6) No therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to compare 1-year outcomes including survival, target artery patency, freedom from bleeding complication, freedom from all reinterventions, and freedom from stent-specific reintervention. RESULTS: Of the 1525 patients with complete exposure and outcome data, 49.6% were discharged on DAPT, 28.8% on SAPT, 13.6% on SAPT + anticoagulant, 3.2% on TT, 2.6% on anticoagulant alone, and 2.2% on no therapy. Discharge medication regimen was not associated with differences in 1-year survival, bleeding complications, composite reintervention rate, or stent-specific reintervention rate. However, there was a significant difference in 1-year target artery patency. On multivariable analysis comparing with SAPT, DAPT conferred a lower hazard of loss of target artery patency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.84; P = .01). On sub-analyses of renal stents alone or visceral stents alone, DAPT no longer had a significantly lower hazard of loss of target artery patency (renal: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.35-1.27; P = .22; visceral: HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.05-1.9; P = .21). Lastly, duration of DAPT therapy (1 month, 6 months, or 1 year) did not significantly affect target artery patency. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns for antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimens after F/BEVAR vary widely across the US-ARC. There were no differences in bleeding complications, survival or reintervention rates among different regimens, but higher branch vessel patency was noted in the DAPT cohort. These data suggest there is a benefit in DAPT therapy. However, the generalizability of this finding is limited by the retrospective nature of this data, and the clinical significance of this finding is unclear, as there is no difference in survival, bleeding, or reintervention rates amongst the different regimens. Hence, an "optimal" regimen, including the duration of such regimen, could not be clearly discerned. This suggests equipoise for a randomized trial, nested within this cohort, to identify the most effective antiplatelet/anticoagulant regimen for the growing number of patients being treated globally with F/BEVAR.

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic and therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular techniques have transformed the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a prevalent and devastating complication. Prophylactic drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is among the proposed strategies for prevention of SCI. Although prophylactic CSF drainage is widely used and conceptually attractive, prophylactic CSF drains have not been demonstrated to definitively prevent the occurrence nor mitigate the severity of SCI in endovascular TAAA repair. Whether or not outcomes of prophylactic drains are superior to therapeutic drains remains unknown. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial designed to investigate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair using branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FBEVAR). METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and The University of Massachusetts. Twenty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the prophylactic drainage or therapeutic drainage groups, prior to undergoing FBEVAR for extensive TAAAs and arch aortic aneurysms. This was a pilot feasibility study that was not powered to detect statistical differences in clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was feasibility of randomization and compliance with a shared lumbar drain protocol. Secondary outcomes included rate of drain complications and SCI. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled and successfully randomized, without any crossovers, to either the control cohort (n = 10), without prophylactic drains, or the experimental cohort (n = 10), with prophylactic drains. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, or history of prior aortic surgery across the cohorts. All patients were treated with FBEVAR. Aneurysm classifications were as follows: Extent I (10%), Extent II (50%), Extent III (35%), and Extent IV (5%). The average length of aortic coverage was 207 ± 21.6 mm. The length of aortic coverage did not vary across cohorts, nor did procedural times or blood loss volume. Compliance with the SCI prevention protocol was 100% across both groups. Within the prophylactic drain cohort, one patient experienced an adverse event related to lumbar drain placement, manifested as an epidural hematoma requiring laminectomy, without neurologic deficit (n = 1/10; 10%). There was one SCI event (n = 1/20; 5%), which occurred in the prophylactic drain cohort on postoperative day 9 following an episode of hypotension related to a gastrointestinal bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The role of prophylactic CSF drains for the prevention of SCI following endovascular TAAA repair is a topic of ongoing research, with many current practices based on expert opinion and experience, rather than rigorous scientific data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair.

Large-Diameter Fenestrated Endograft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Is Not Associated With Medium-Term Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggests that infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) endovascular repair (EVAR) with large diameter grafts (LGs) may have a higher risk of endoleak and reintervention. However, this has not been studied extensively for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR). We, therefore, sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing fEVAR with large-diameter endografts. METHODS: Patients from the national Vascular Quality Initiative registry who underwent fEVAR for intact juxtarenal AAA were identified. Patients with genetic causes for aneurysms, those with prior aortic surgery, and those undergoing repair for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Rates of endoleaks and reintervention at periprocedural and long-term follow-up timepoints (9-22 mo) were analyzed in grafts 32 mm or larger (LG) and were compared to those smaller than 32 mm (small diameter graft). RESULTS: A total of 693 patients (22.8% LG) were identified. Overall, demographic variables were comparable except LG exhibited a more frequent history of coronary artery disease (32.9% versus 25.4%, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences in the rates of endoleak at procedural completion. Overall survival at 5 y was no different. The rate of reintervention at 1 y was also no different (log-rank P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: While graft size appears to have an association with outcomes in infrarenal aneurysm repair, the same does not appear to be true for fEVAR. Further studies should evaluate the long-term outcomes associated with LG which could alter the approach to repair of AAA with large neck diameters traditionally treated with standard infrarenal EVAR.

Multicentric Use of Commercially Available Infrarenal Endografts During Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and short-term outcomes of different manufactured proximal and distal stent graft components during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review was conducted at 3 aortic centers, involving all consecutive patients who underwent FEVAR utilizing a customized Dacron-based tubular proximal and a distal bifurcated polytetrafluoreten (PTFE)-based commercially available stent grafts. Primary outcomes were 30 day mortality, major adverse events, and technical and clinical success. Secondary outcomes assessed stent graft migration, occurrence of types I/III endoleak, and reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 23 FEVAR cases across all centers were included in this study. Technical success was achieved in all cases, with a median procedure time of 183 (153-244) minutes. There were no major adverse events, except for 1 transient acute renal failure. The median follow-up period was 23 (17-28) months. All target vessels retained patent with the exception of 1 right renal fenestration that showed signs of kinking at the first follow-up, and despite secondary intervention with relining and distal extension, there was an occlusion afterward and 1 hepatic artery with a separate fenestration. This and 1 successful relining of a superior mesenteric artery kink were the only reinterventions in this cohort. One case of persistent type 1b endoleak was reported in a patient with chronic type B aortic dissection, which resolved with distal extension on the external iliac artery 5 months after the index procedure. No deaths occurred throughout the follow-up with, and there were no signs of stent graft migration or type 3 endoleak. CONCLUSION: The use of commercially available PTFE-based bifurcated stent grafts to extend distally the tubular graft appears to be a feasible approach during FEVAR, with promising short-term outcomes. Further studies are necessary to define the applicability of this solution and evaluate long-term outcomes. CLINICAL IMPACT: This multicentric study on fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) demonstrates the feasibility and good short-term outcomes of utilizing a PTFE-based commercially available stent graft to extend the proximal tubular custom-made fenestrated stent graft. The high technical success rate, absence of major adverse events, and low occurrence of complications such as stent graft migration and endoleaks highlight the potential clinical benefits of this approach with an off-the-shelf distal extension whose delivery system does not cross the fenestrations intraoperatively.

Technical Aspects and Outcome of Multi-Staged and Single-Staged Thoracoabdominal Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: In some cases of endovascular thoracoabdominal or juxtarenal aortic aneurysm repair, a thoracic endograft in combination with a fenestrated renovisceral device may be needed in order to create a sufficient proximal landing zone. This study aimed to evaluate the technical aspects and postoperative morbidity of a single- or 2-stage approach. METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in combination with elective fenestrated repair (fenestrated endovascular aortic repair [FEVAR]; fenestrated Anaconda device) from 2015 to 2022 were included in this retrospective bicentric study. Underlying pathologies, aortic morphology, technical details, and postoperative morbidity were recorded. RESULTS: Single-staged ("1S," n=61) and 2-staged ("2S," n=26) interventions were compared. Indications were thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) (Crawford I-IV) (n=56, 64%) and juxtarenal aneurysms (n=31, 36%). In 2S, the proportion of TAAA was higher than in 1S (2S: 77%, 1S: 59%; p=0.001). In 2S, the covered length of the descending aorta was longer (1S: 128±60 mm, 2S: 202±64 mm; p=0.003). Temporary aneurysm sack perfusion (TASP) was established in 11 (18%) of 1S and 1 (4%) of 2S patients (p=0.079), as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage catheter in 48 (79%) of 1S and 19 (73%) of 2S. The rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) and the severity of SCI were not different in both groups, with a total of 3 cases of persisting paraplegia. The rate of access complications was higher in 2S (n=6, 23%) than in 1S (n=4, 7%; p=0.027). Postoperative 30 day morbidity did not significantly differ in both groups and neither did 30 day mortality (4.6% in 1S vs 3.8% in 2S; p=0.083). CONCLUSION: The combination of TEVAR and FEVAR using a fenestrated endograft is feasible and safe. Aortic morphology does not change significantly after endovascular repair. A single-staged strategy is feasible with excellent results, especially in Crawford IV, Crawford V, or juxtarenal aneurysms. Two-staged repair is recommended in cases with long aortic coverage and a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Follow-up data are needed to evaluate the long-term stability of the TEVAR/FEVAR interconnection. CLINICAL IMPACT: Our study has revealed the safety and efficacy of the combination of TEVAR and FEVAR in the treatment of TAAAs and juxtarenal aneurysms with compromised supravisceral landing zones. A single-staged concept is not necessary in all cases. Staged procedures may reduce postoperative morbidity in cases with long aortic coverage and higher ASA class.

Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Grafts for High-Risk Patients: Evolving yet Safe.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair using fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) devices at a single center in Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair with F/BEVAR from June 2007 to July 2020. Imaging and clinical endpoints of interest including death, reintervention, and target vessel patency were reported. RESULTS: Ninety-five consecutive patients underwent endovascular TAAA repair using F/BEVAR stent grafts (63 males, median age 74 [interquartile range 70, 78] years). Repairs included 81 elective and 14 urgent/emergent cases (6 ruptures and 8 symptomatic). Graft deployment was 100% successful. Intraoperative target vessel revascularization was successful in 336/355 (94.6%) vessels with the celiac having the lowest success rate 72/82 (87.8%). In-hospital mortality was 9.5% (7.4% elective and 21.4% urgent/emergent, p=0.125) and permanent paraplegia was 4.2% (3.7% elective and 7.1% urgent/emergent, p=0.458). In-hospital complications included stroke in 5.3%, acute myocardial infarction in 8.4%, and bowel ischemia in 5.3%. No patients required permanent dialysis or tracheostomy during their hospital stay. However, 22 (23.2%) patients required additional unplanned procedures for various indications (branch occlusion, endoleaks, realignment) during their hospital stay. Patients were followed up for a mean of 3.6 ± 3.0 years. Clinical follow-up was 100%, with 80/86 (93%) having surveillance imaging. On follow-up imaging, 43 (50%) patients had at least 1 endoleak identified and 337/341 (98.8%) of the target vessels were found to be patent. At 5 years, cumulative probability of reintervention was 46.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.1-56.4). Survival at 5 and 8 years was 50.1% (95% CI, 38.4-65.4) and 34.4% (95% CI, 22.5-52.8), respectively. Progression of aneurysmal disease leading to rupture on follow-up was confirmed in 1 patient at 10 years. CONCLUSION: Endovascular TAAA repair provides a safe treatment option with a high technical success rate and low pulmonary and renal complications. Long-term survival is similar to previous literature; however, high rates of secondary reintervention reaffirm the need for ongoing patient follow-up and further technical improvements. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study demonstrates that endovascular repair of TAAAs can be performed in a high-risk elderly population with acceptable rates of mortality, TALE and SCI, using evolving technology. The incidences of post-operative respiratory failure and renal dysfunction were lower in patients who underwent endovascular repair compared with open repair. Future technical and procedural refinements in addition to increasing surgical experience are expected to lead to further improvements in short- and long-term outcomes exceeding those of open repair.

Reinterventions after physician-modified endovascular grafts for treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms are non-detrimental to long-term survival.

OBJECTIVE: Reintervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is common. However, their frequency and impact on mortality after physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) is unknown. This study aims to describe reinterventions after PMEG for treatment of juxtarenal aneurysms and their effect on survival. METHODS: Data from a prospective investigational device exemption clinical trial (Identifier #NCT01538056) from 2011 to 2022 were used. Reinterventions after PMEG were categorized as open or percutaneous and major or minor by Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards and as high or low magnitude based on physiologic impact. Reinterventions were also categorized by timing, based on whether they occurred within 30 days of PMEG as well as within 1 week of PMEG. Survival was compared between patients who did and did not undergo reintervention and between reintervention subcategories. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients underwent PMEG, 50 (29%) of whom underwent a total of 91 reinterventions (mean reinterventions/patient, 1.8). Freedom from reintervention was 84% at 1 year and 60% at 5 years. Reinterventions were most often percutaneous (80%), minor (55%), and low magnitude (77%), and the most common reintervention was renal stenting (26%). There were 10 early reinterventions within 1 week of PMEG. Two aortic-related mortalities occurred after reintervention. There were no differences in survival between patients who underwent reintervention and those who did not. However, survival differed based on the timing of reintervention. After adjusted analysis, reintervention within one week of PMEG was associated with an increased risk of mortality both compared with late reintervention (hazard ratio, 11.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-46.5) and no reintervention (hazard ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-16.8). CONCLUSIONS: Reinterventions after PMEG were most commonly percutaneous, minor, and low magnitude procedures, and non-detrimental to long-term survival. However, early reinterventions were associated with increased mortality risk. These data suggest that a modest frequency of reinterventions should be expected after PMEG, emphasizing the critical importance of lifelong surveillance.

Females experience elevated early morbidity and mortality but similar midterm survival compared to males after branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify sex-related differences in outcomes following branched and/or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (B/FEVAR) for thoracoabdominal (TAAA) and juxtarenal (JRAA) aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Chart review completed on 242 B/FEVAR patients (57 female; 23.5%) between 2007 and 2020 at a single center. Median follow-up time was 3.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6-5.3 years). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in age (females, 75.9 ± 5.4 years vs males, 74.7 ± 7.2 years; P = .162) or aneurysm size (64.9 ± 6.8 vs 65.8 ± 9.4 mm; P = .41) at presentation were observed between sexes. Females presented with fewer JRAAs (45.6% vs 73%; P < .001) and received more Crawford extent II (26.3% vs 10.8%; P =.004) TAAA coverage. Increased incidence of moderate/severe target vessel stenosis (29.8% vs 14%; P = .022) was observed in female patients. Intraoperatively, females had higher procedure times (530 [IQR, 425-625] vs 420 [IQR, 350-510] minutes; P < .001), fluoroscopy times (124.1 ± 49 vs 107.3 ± 43.5 minutes; P = .017), and contrast usage (200 [IQR, 150-270] vs 175 [IQR, 130-225] mL; P = .005). Unplanned intraoperative maneuvers (45.6% vs 28.1%; P = .043), graft delivery issues (24.6% vs 4.9%; P < .001), and additional intraoperative complications (61.4% vs 35.7%; P < .001) were also increased in females. Postoperatively, females had a longer intensive care unit (3 [IQR, 1-5] vs 1 [IQR, 1-3] days; P = .002) and hospital stay (8 [IQR, 5-13] vs 5 [IQR, 3-9] days; P < .001) and experienced increased rates of spinal cord ischemia (15.8% vs 3.8%; P = .001) and bowel ischemia (10.5% vs 2.7%; P = .013). In-hospital mortality (12.3% vs 2.7%; P = .004) was higher in female patients but midterm (6-year) survival was 60.2% for all patients (95% confidence interval, 53.0%-68.5%) and was similar between sexes (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .83), which were the primary endpoints. No sex differences in midterm follow-up reintervention, endoleak, and rupture rates were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Females experienced significantly higher B/FEVAR intraoperative times, complications, and in-hospital morbidity and mortality compared with males but similar midterm outcomes. Anatomic and atherosclerotic differences may have contributed to the observed in-hospital differences.

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.

Multicenter trans-Atlantic experience with fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter international study aimed to describe outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FB-EVAR) in a cohort of patients treated for chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (PD-TAAAs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of all consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for repair of extent I to III PD-TAAAs in 16 centers from the United States and Europe (2008-2021). Data were extracted from institutional prospectively maintained databases and electronic patient records. All patients received off-the-shelf or patient-specific manufactured fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Endpoints were any cause mortality and major adverse events at 30 days, technical success, target artery (TA) patency, freedom from TA instability, minor (endovascular with <12 Fr sheath) and major (open or ≥12 Fr sheath) secondary interventions, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM). RESULTS: A total of 246 patients (76% male; median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-73 years]) were treated for extent I (7%), extent II (55%), and extent III (35%) PD-TAAAs by FB-EVAR. The median aneurysm diameter was 65 mm (interquartile range, 59-73 mm). Eighteen patients (7%) were octogenarians, 212 (86%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3, and 21 (9%) presented with contained ruptured or symptomatic aneurysms. There were 917 renal-mesenteric vessels targeted by 581 fenestrations (63%) and 336 directional branches (37%), with a mean of 3.7 vessels per patient. Technical success was 96%. Mortality and rate of major adverse events at 30 days was 3% and 28%, including disabling complications such as new onset dialysis in 1%, major stroke in 1%, and permanent paraplegia in 2%. Mean follow-up was 24 months. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated patient survival at 3 and 5 years was 79% ± 6% and 65% ± 10%. KM estimated freedom from ARM was 95% ± 3% and 93% ± 5% at the same intervals. Unplanned secondary interventions were needed in 94 patients (38%), including minor procedures in 64 (25%) and major procedures in 30 (12%). There was one conversion to open surgical repair (<1%). KM estimated freedom from any secondary intervention was 44% ± 9% at 5 years. KM estimated primary and secondary TA patency were 93% ± 2% and 96% ± 1% at 5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR for chronic PD-TAAAs was associated with high technical success and a low rate of mortality (3%) and disabling complications at 30 days. Although the procedure is effective in the prevention of ARM, patient survival was low at 5 years (65%), likely due to the significant comorbidities in this cohort of patients. Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 44%, although most procedures were minor. The significant rate of reinterventions highlights the need for continued patient surveillance.

Clinical presentation, operative management, and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II). RESULTS: Of 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta. CONCLUSIONS: LAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.

Comparison of upper extremity and transfemoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The use of upper extremity (UE) access is an accepted and often implemented approach for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR). The advent of steerable sheaths has enabled the performance of F-BEVAR using a total transfemoral (TF) approach without UE access, potentially decreasing the risks of cerebral embolic events. The purpose of the present study was to assess the outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE vs TF access. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from nine physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at U.S. centers were analyzed using a standardized database. All patients were treated for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using industry-manufactured fenestrated and branched stent grafts between 2005 and 2020. The outcomes were compared between patients who had undergone UE vs total TF access. The primary composite outcome was stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) and 30-day or in-patient mortality during the perioperative period. The secondary outcomes included technical success, local access-related complications, and perioperative mortality. RESULTS: Among 1681 patients (71% men; mean age, 73.43 ± 7.8 years) who had undergone F-BEVAR, 502 had had CAAAs (30%), 535 had had extent IV TAAAs (32%), and 644 had had extent I to III TAAAs (38%). UE access was used for 1103 patients (67%). The right side was used for 395 patients (24%) and the left side for 705 patients (42%). UE access was preferentially used for TAAAs (74% vs 47%; P < .001). In contrast, TF access was used more frequently for CAAAs (53% vs 26%; P < .01). A total of 38 perioperative cerebrovascular events (2.5%), including 32 strokes (1.9%) and 6 TIAs (0.4%), had occurred. Perioperative cerebrovascular events had occurred more frequently with UE access than with TF access (2.8% vs 1.2%; P = .036). An individual component analysis of the primary composite outcome revealed a trend for more frequent strokes (2.3% vs 1.2%; P = .13) and TIAs (0.54% vs 0%; P = .10) in the UE access group. On multivariable analysis, total TF access was associated with a 60% reduction in the frequency of perioperative cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 0.39; P = .029). No significant differences were observed between UE and TF access in the technical success rate (96.5% vs 96.8%; P = .72), perioperative mortality (2.9% vs 2.6%; P = .72), or local access-related complications (6.5% vs 5.5%; P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: In the present large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, a total TF approach for F-BEVAR was associated with a lower rate of perioperative cerebrovascular events compared with UE access. Although the cerebrovascular event rate was low with UE access, the TF approach offered a lower risk of stroke and TIA. UE access will continue to play a role for appropriately selected patients requiring more complex repairs with anatomy not amenable to the TF approach.

Predictors and outcomes of spinal cord injury following complex branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in the US Aortic Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a well-known complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair and is associated with profound morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe predictors for the development of SCI, as well as outcomes for patients who develop SCI, after branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in a large cohort of centers with adjudicated physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies. METHODS: We used a pooled dataset from nine US Aortic Research Consortium centers involved in investigational device exemption trials for treatment of suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. SCI was defined as new transient weakness (paraparesis) or permanent paraplegia after repair without other potential neurological etiologies. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of SCI, and life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier methodologies were used to evaluate survival differences. RESULTS: A total of 1681 patients underwent branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020. The overall rate of SCI was 7.1% (3.0% transient and 4.1% permanent). Predictors of SCI on multivariable analysis were Crawford Extent I, II, and III distribution of aortic disease (odds ratio [OR], 4.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-4.81; P < .001), age ≥70 years (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.63-1.64; P = .029), packed red blood cell transfusion (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.99-2.00; P = .001), and a history of peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.64-1.65; P = .034). The median survival was significantly worse for patients with any degree of SCI compared with those without SCI (any SCI, 40.4 vs no SCI, 60.3 months; log-rank P < .001), and also worse in those with a permanent deficit (24.1 months) vs those with a transient deficit (62.4 months) (log-rank P < .001). The 1-year survival for patients who developed no SCI was 90.8%, compared with 73.9% in patients who developed any SCI. When stratified by degree of deficit, survival was 84.8% at 1 year for those who developed paraparesis and 66.2% for those who developed permanent deficits. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of any SCI at 7.1% and permanent deficit at 4.1% observed in this study compare favorably with those reported in contemporary literature. Our findings confirm that increased length of aortic disease is associated with SCI and those with Crawford Extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms are at highest risk. The long-term impact on patient mortality underscores the importance of preventive measures and rapid implementation of rescue protocols if and when deficits develop.

Acute Kidney Injury and Mortality After Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication following endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). An association of AKI with patient survival after fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) is currently under investigation. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR between April 2013 and June 2020 were included in the study. AKI was defined according to acute kidney injury network criteria. Demographic and perioperative data, complications, and survival are reported for the study cohort. The data were analyzed to identify possible predictors of AKI. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen patients underwent FEVAR during the study period. Survival at last follow-up (20.4 ± 20.1 mo) was 75.1%. Thirty patients experienced AKI (13.8%). Six of 30 patients with AKI (20%) died within 30 days or in-hospital and 1 (3.3%) progressed to hemodialysis. Within 1 y, renal function had recovered in 23 patients (76.7%). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with AKI (20% versus 4.3%, P = 0.006). A higher rate of AKI was seen in patients in whom an intraoperative technical complication had been documented (38.5% versus 8.4%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing FEVAR are at risk of developing AKI, especially if they experience technical intraoperative complications. Most patients see recovery of renal function within the first 30 days to 1 y, but AKI remains associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality.

Virtual Reality to Ease Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms Under Local Anesthesia.

Purpose: Virtual reality (VR) has both a non-pharmacological analgesic and anxiolytic action that can be used as an alternative to general anesthesia for very high-risk patients. Case report: We present here the case of a patient treated for a complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm exclusion using a 4-fenestrated aortic endograft using VR. The patient had no postoperative complications and was safely discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 6. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that the use of VR in addition to local anesthesia can be a safe alternative to general anesthesia.