Search

Objectives: Celiac artery (CA) incorporation during FB-EVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAA) is typically performed with fenestrations. Double-wide scallops (DWS) can be used when appropriate. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients treated with DWS for the CA during FB-EVAR for cAAA., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients enrolled in a prospective investigational device exemption trial undergoing FB-EVAR for cAAA from 2013-2020. Use of DWS or fenestrations for management of the CA was selected to optimize seal. Patients with longer lengths of normal caliber aorta between the renal and celiac arteries, and without thoracic aortic ectasia or multifocal thoracic aortic aneurysms were considered for DWS, whereas those with shorter visceral segment seal zones or thoracic aortic disease were preferentially treated with fenestrations for the CA. Endpoints were morbidity, mortality, technical success, freedom from type IA endoleak, and target vessel instability (TVI)., Results: FB-EVAR with CA DWS or fenestration was performed in 131 patients, 97 male (74%). DWS were used in 68 patients (52%) and fenestrations in 63 (48%). Mean age was 75±7.4 years in both groups. Demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and mean aortic diameter (p=0.382) were similar between groups. Median number of incorporated vessels was similar (4, p=0.373) between groups. Median endovascular operative time (DWS=118[98-154] min, Fenestration=141[122-170] min, p=0.006) and fluoroscopy time (DWS=64[51-78] min, Fenestration=70[61-83] min, p=0.032) were shorter with DWS, with no difference in contrast volume (p=0.204). Technical success was 96% with DWS and 100% with fenestrations (p=0.096). Three patients with DWS had partial or complete CA coverage. Median aortic coverage (above CA) was higher with fenestrations (Fenestration=5.5[4.5-6.4] cm, DWS=3.8[3.5-4.2] cm, p<0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (DWS=0%, Fenestration=1.6%, p=0.297) or major adverse events (DWS=17.6% vs Fenestration=17.5%, p=0.978). Median follow-up was 42 months [25, 50]. There were no Type IA endoleaks, aortic ruptures, or open conversions. There was no difference in sac regression (DWS=60%, Fenestration=67%, p=0.449), survival (p=0.859) or CA TVI (p=0.320)., Conclusions: FB-EVAR with DWS and fenestrations show comparable perioperative and long-term outcomes without significant differences in technical success, TVI, and sac regression when used with precise device selection based on visceral segment seal zone lengths and risk for aortic degeneration. Device design should be determined by patient anatomy and seal-zone given comparable outcomes., (Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To compare target artery (TA) outcomes after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Background: Few studies have compared TA outcomes after endovascular incorporation and open reconstruction., Methods: Among consecutive patients who underwent elective OSR or FB-EVAR of TAAAs (2008-2020), we reviewed those who had postoperative imaging studies evaluating TA. Data of FB-EVAR patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. TAs included celiac, superior mesenteric, right and left renal arteries treated during TAAA repairs. Primary endpoint was TA patency (primary and secondary)., Results: There were 131 patients (487 TAs) treated by OSR and 350 (1,300 TAs) by FB-EVAR. In the OSR group, 440 TAs (90.3%) were reconstructed by bypasses, and 47 (9.7%) by reimplantation. In the FB-EVAR group, 841 TAs (64.7%) were incorporated by fenestrations, and 459 (35.3%) by DBs. Thirty-day TA primary patency rates were not significantly different between FB-EVAR and OSR (99.4%% vs. 99.0%, P =0.36), but secondary patency rate was higher after FB-EVAR (99.8% vs. 99.0%, P =0.02). Three-year primary patency rates were 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-97.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 92.2-97.2%), respectively; secondary patency rates were 98.5% (95% CI, 97.7-99.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 95.7-99.2%), respectively. There were no significant differences in late primary patency and secondary patency between groups (each P <0.05)., Conclusion: Target artery primary and secondary patency rates following elective OSR or FB-EVAR were high. Endovascular repair was not associated with loss of primary patency and late secondary patency., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest : Gustavo S. Oderich (UTHealth Texas) has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W. L. Gore, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and The University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). Bernardo C. Mendes has consulting fees and research grants from Cook Medical and W. L. Gore, scientific advisory board of Medtronic. Other co-authors: none., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Comprehensive endovascular aortic programmes need optimal infrastructure and multidisciplinary teams to manage complex aortic aneurysms. This study assessed the implementation of such a programme in two centres and its impact on fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) outcomes., Methods: A retrospective review of patients treated for complex abdominal and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) by FB-EVAR between 2013 and 2023 was undertaken. All FB-EVAR patients were analysed, including investigational trials and high risk patients with physician modified endografts. Centre 1 (2013 - 2020) and Centre 2 (2020 - 2023) were compared. Primary endpoints were 30 day and or in hospital mortality and major adverse event (MAE) rates. Secondary endpoints were procedural metrics, spinal cord injuries, freedom from all cause death, failure to rescue, and one year mortality and re-intervention rates., Results: A total of 629 patients were included (475, 75.5% at Centre 1 and 154, 24.5% at Centre 2). The median age was 74 years (interquartile range 68, 79) and 441 (70.1%) were male. Centre 2 had a higher proportion of American Society of Anesthesiology class ≥ 3, genetically triggered aortic diseases (p = .002), chronic post-dissection aneurysms, prior aortic repairs, TAAAs (each p < .001), and symptomatic, larger aneurysms (p < .021). Technical success rates were similar between centres (97.9% vs. 98.1%; p = .91). The early mortality rate was 1.1% (7/629) with no statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences (p > .050) in new onset permanent dialysis (0.6% vs. 2.0%), major stroke (0.6% vs. 0.6%), and permanent paraplegia (0.8% vs. 2.0%) were observed. Failure to rescue rates were 5.3% in Centre 2 and 3.5% in Centre 1 (p = .74). The one year mortality rate (91% vs. 89%; p = .71) and re-intervention rate (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.30; p = .21) were similar between centres., Conclusion: FB-EVAR was performed with low mortality and risk of disabling complication rates. No differences in mortality and MAE rates were observed after establishing a comprehensive endovascular programme, despite higher risk and more extensive cases at the new institution., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: This study aimed to compare the completion of gate cannulation task performed by participants of varying experience using fluoroscopy, the Intraoperative Positioning System (IOPS)-a United States Food and Drug Administration-cleared endovascular navigation system that has been developed to reduce dependence on fluoroscopy-or an investigational augmented reality electromagnetic navigation technology based on IOPS., Methods: The task consisted in the cannulation of the gate of a GORE Excluder AAA endoprosthesis bifurcated aortic stent graft (W.L. GORE & Associates) deployed into a three-dimensional printed abdominal aortic aneurysm model connected to a 7000 MDX flow pump (Sarns Inc/3M) reproducing physiological conditions. The procedure was performed in a hybrid operating room (GE Allia IGS 7). Each participant performed the cannulation task with fluoroscopy, standard IOPS guidance with flat screen display (IOPS-FS), and the investigational IOPS with augmented reality headset (IOPS-AR), in a randomly assigned order. All participants used the same sensorized guidewire and steerable 6Fr catheter during their three cannulation tasks. A total of 26 participants were classified in three groups of experience: Group 1 (endovascular naïve; n = 13), Group 2 (surgeon in training; n = 12) and Group 3 (one expert surgeon). Primary endpoints included cannulation time and technical success, which was defined as the advancement of the catheter over the guidewire within the main body of the aortic stent graft within a maximum 15-minute cutoff time for each trial., Results: In group 1, the mean cannulation time was shorter using IOPS-AR vs fluoroscopy (4.3 ± 4.4 vs 7.1 ± 4.9 minutes; P = .04), but not statistically different when comparing IOPS-FS and fluoroscopy (6.3 ± 4.5 vs 7.1 ± 4.9 minutes; P = .63). In group 1, technical success was 77% with fluoroscopy and 92% with both IOPS-FS and IOPS-AR (P = .59). In group 2, although there was no significant difference between cannulation time among the three different endovascular approaches, there was a trend towards shorter cannulation times with IOPS-FS or IOPS-AR as compared with fluoroscopy (mean time of 2.5 ± 0.9, 4.4 ± 4.0, and 5.2 ± 4.5 minutes, respectively). In group 2, technical success was 92% with fluoroscopy and 100% with both IOPS-FS and IOPS-AR (P > .99). The expert vascular surgeon repeated the cannulation task four times for each endovascular approach, with 100% technical success and no difference in mean cannulation time between the imaging modalities (P = .89)., Conclusions: Augmented reality allows for reducing the gate cannulation time as compared with fluoroscopy in participants with no previous exposure to any endovascular procedure. This suggests that augmented reality can be beneficial for individuals early in their career and can mitigate the learning curve. As individuals become experts, their ability to adapt to different endovascular modalities increases, eliminating the learning curve altogether., Competing Interests: Disclosures G.O. is a scientific advisor for Centerline Biomedical and holds stock options in the company., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endovascular repair of aortic dissections may be complicated by inadequate sealing zones, persistent false lumen perfusion, and limited space for catheter manipulation and target artery incorporation. The aim of this study was to describe the indications, technical success, and early outcomes of transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy (TES) during endovascular repair of aortic dissections., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by endovascular repair of aortic dissections with adjunctive TES in two centers between 2021 and 2023. End points were technical success, defined by successful septotomy without dislodgment of the lamella or target artery occlusion, and 30-day rates of major adverse events (MAEs)., Results: Among 197 patients treated by endovascular repair for aortic dissections, 36 patients (18%) (median age, 61.5 years (interquartile range, 55.0-72.5 years; 83% male) underwent adjunctive TES for acute (n = 3 [8%]), subacute (n = 1 [3%]), or chronic postdissection aneurysms (n = 32 [89%]). Indications for TES were severe true lumen (TL) compression (≤16 mm) in 28 patients (78%), target vessel origin from false lumen in 19 (53%), creation of suitable landing zone in 12 (33%), and organ/limb malperfusion in four (11%). Endovascular repair included fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in 18 patients (50%), thoracic EVAR/EVAR/PETTICOAT in 11 (31%), and arch branch repair in 7 (19%). All patients had dissections extending through zones 5 to 7, and 28 patients (78%) underwent TES across the renal-mesenteric segment. Technical success of TES was 92% (33/36) for all patients and 97% (32/33) among those with subacute or chronic postdissection aneurysms. There were three technical failures, including two patients with acute dissections with inadvertent superior mesenteric artery dissection in one patient and distal dislodgement of the dissection lamella in two patients. There were no arterial disruptions. The mean postseptotomy aortic lumen increased from 13.2 ± 4.8 mm to 28.4 ± 6.8 mm (P < .001). All 18 patients treated by fenestrated-branched EVAR had successful incorporation of 78 target arteries. There was one early death (3%) from stroke, and three patients (8%) had major adverse events. After a median follow-up of 8 months (interquartile range, 4.5-13.5 months), 13 patients (36%) had secondary interventions, and two (6%) died from non-aortic-related events. There were no other complications associated with TES., Conclusions: TES is an adjunctive technique that may optimize sealing zones and luminal aortic diameter during endovascular repair of subacute and chronic postdissection. Although no arterial disruptions or target vessel loss occurred, patients with acute dissections are prone to technical failures related to dislodgement of the lamella., Competing Interests: Disclosures C.H.T. and M.S.B. are consultants for and received research support from Cook Medical Inc., W. L. Gore & Associates, and Philips Medical Systems Netherland BV; G.S.O. has received consulting fees and/or grants from W. L. Gore & Associates, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare. G.S.O. has consulting and scientific advisory board agreement with Cook Medical Inc., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures F.E.P. reports stock options from Centerline Biomedical. G.O. reports consulting for Gore, Cook, GE, and Centerline Biomedical. B.M. reports research funding from Gore and Cook; and aortic advisory board for Medtronic (all paid to Mayo Clinic). M.A.F. reports consulting and clinical trial support from WL Gore; consulting for Getinge; research support and clinical trial support from Cook; consulting and clinical trial support from ViTTA; and stock options and clinical trial support from Centerline Biomedical., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The following authors declare conflicts of interest regarding consulting, research grants, advisory boards and/or any compensation fees from the mentioned companies. N. Tsilimparis (Proctor fees, speaking fees and institutional research support), D.J. Adam (speaking, research and proctor fees), L. Mendes Pedro (speaking and proctor fees), L. Bertoglio (speaking and proctor fees), T. Kölbel (speaking and proctor fees, institutional research support, royalties and consulting), and G. Panuccio (proctor and speaking fees) are supported by Cook Medical. R. Gouveia e Melo is supported by Cook Medical (speaking fees), Cordis (speaking fees), and Abbott Laboratories (travel and accommodation for congress). S. Scali is supported by Medtronic Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Cook Medical (food and beverage). B. Mendes is supported by WL Gore & Associates Inc, Cook Medical (consulting, speaker and research fees, all proceeds towards Mayo Clinic), Medtronic Inc (aortic advisory board); and Bolton Medical Inc (food and beverage). S. Han is supported by WL Gore & Associates Inc, Cook Medical, Bolton Medical Inc (research support and consulting with all proceeds towards University of San Diego); Medtronic Inc (travel and lodging); Artivion Inc (food and beverage), Guard Medical Inc (consulting fees), Bolton Medical Inc (food and beverage), Endologix LLC (food and beverage), Silk Road Medical Inc (food and beverage), and Viz.ai Inc(food and beverage). M. Schermerhorn is supported by WL Gore & Associates Inc, Silk Road Medical Inc (travel and lodging), Shape Memory Medical Inc and Medtronic Inc (food and beverage). M. Farber is supported by Cook Medical (research support, honoraria and clinical trial support), Centerline Biomedical Inc, WL Gore & Associates Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (consulting), Medtronic Inc and Getinge USA Sales LLC (food and beverage). B. Starnes is supported by Bolton Medical Inc, Terumo Aortic (consulting and travel and lodging), Surmodics Inc, Abbott Laboratories and Medtronic Inc and Cook Medical(food and beverage). D. Branzan is supported by Artivion, Bentley InnoMed, Cook Medical, Endologix, Getinge, and Medtronic (consulting and research support).C. Timaran is supported by Cook Medical, WL Gore & Associates Inc, and Philips Healthcare (research support and consulting). F. Verzini is supported by Cook Medical, WL Gore & Associates Inc, and Medtronic (proctor and speaking fees). A.W. Beck is supported by Artivion, Cook Medical, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, Terumo, and WL Gore & Associates (research and consulting fees with all proceeds towards the University of Alabama). J. Chait is supported by WL Gore & Associates, Bard Peripheral Vascular, and Medtronic Inc (food and beverage). A. Pyun is supported by Silk Road Medical Inc (food and beverage) and Medtronic Inc (education). G. Magee is supported by Silk Road Medical Inc (consulting, travel and lodging, food and beverage), Medtronic Inc (consulting fees, travel and lodging), WL Gore & Associates (consulting fees, food and beverage), ShockWave Medical Inc (travel and lodging and food and beverage), Penumbra Inc, Boston Scientific Inc and Bolton Medical Inc (food and beverage). N. Swerdlow is supported by Silk Road Medical Inc and Shape Memory Medical Inc (food and beverage). M. Juszczak is supported by Cook Medical (research support) and Terumo (research grant). A. Barleben is supported by Cook Medical (consulting; travel and lodging fees), Endologix LLC (consulting; food and beverage), WL Gore & Associates (food and beverage), Silk Road Medical Inc (food and beverage), Penumbra Inc (consulting; travel and lodging), Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation Inc (food and beverage), Abbott Laboratories (food and beverage), Surmodics Inc (food and beverage), and Cagent Vascular Inc (food and beverage). R. Patel is supported by Silk Road Medical Inc (food and beverage). M.P. Sweet is supported by Artivion Inc and Bolton Medical Inc (food and beverage). S.L. Zettervall is supported by WL Gore & Associates Inc, Bolton Medical Inc, Cook Medical, and Terumo Aortic (consulting and research support), Silk Road Medical Inc and Artivion Inc (food and beverage). G.S. Oderich is supported by Cook Medical (consulting, travel and lodging, speaking fees), WL Gore & Associates (consulting, travel and lodging, education, food and beverage), GE HealthCare (speaking fees, food and beverage), Centerline Biomedical Inc (consulting), Atrium Medical Corporation, Silk Road Medical Inc, Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc, Medtronic Inc (food and beverage). The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Background: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has been used as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgical repair to treat patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The aim of this study was to evaluate aortic-related mortality (ARM) and aortic aneurysm rupture after FB-EVAR of TAAAs., Methods: Patients enrolled in 8 prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 who underwent elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs were analyzed. Primary end points were ARM, defined as any early mortality (30 days or in hospital) or late mortality from aortic rupture, dissection, organ or limb malperfusion attributable to aortic disease, complications of reinterventions, or aortic rupture. Secondary end points were early major adverse events, TAAA life-altering events (defined as death, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, or stroke), all-cause mortality, and secondary interventions., Results: A total of 1109 patients were analyzed; 589 (53.1%) had extent I-III and 520 (46.9%) had extent IV TAAAs. Median age was 73.4 years (interquartile range, 68.1-78.3 years); 368 (33.2%) were women. Early mortality was 2.7% (n=30); congestive heart failure was associated with early mortality (odds ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.22-8.02]; P =0.01). Incidence of early aortic rupture was 0.4% (n=4). Incidence of early major adverse events and TAAA life-altering events was 20.4% (n=226) and 7.7% (n=85), respectively. There were 30 late ARMs; 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.6%-5.4%); older age and extent I-III TAAAs were independently associated with late ARM (each P <0.05). Fourteen late aortic ruptures occurred; 5-year cumulative incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.3%); extent I-III TAAAs were associated with late aortic rupture (hazard ratio, 5.85 [95% CI, 1.31-26.2]; P =0.02). Five-year all-cause mortality was 45.7% (95% CI, 41.7%-49.4%). Five-year cumulative incidence of secondary intervention was 40.3% (95% CI, 35.8%-44.5%)., Conclusions: ARM and aortic rupture are uncommon after elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs. Half of the ARMs occurred early, and most of the late deaths were not aortic related. Late all-cause mortality rate and the need for secondary interventions were 46% and 40%, respectively, 5 years after FB-EVAR., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02089607, NCT02050113, NCT02266719, NCT02323581, NCT00583817, NCT01654133, NCT00483249, NCT02043691, and NCT01874197., Competing Interests: Dr Oderich has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and the University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). Dr Schanzer received funding from Cook Medical, Philips, and Artivion. Dr Timaran received funding from Cook Medical and W.L. Gore. Dr Schneider reports funding from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, Endologix, and Medtronic. Dr Mendes received funding from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, and Medtronic. Dr Farber reports funding from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, ViTaaa, Centerline, and Getinge. Dr Beck received funding from Artivion, Cook Medical, Medtronic, W.L. Gore, and Terumo (all paid to his university). Dr Sweet received funding from Artivion. Dr Lee received funding from Terumo Aortic, W.L. Gore, and Cook Medical. The other authors report no conflicts.

Objective: Target artery patency is crucial for fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Occlusions more frequently occur in the renal arteries (RAs) than in the coeliac and superior mesenteric arteries, especially in patients with hostile anatomy treated by B-EVAR. This study aimed to report RA outcomes using a hybrid bridging stent graft technique with distal self expandable (SE) combined with proximal balloon expandable (BE) stent graft during B-EVAR with hostile RA anatomies., Methods: Clinical data from consecutive patients treated for TAAA by FB-EVAR in three aortic centres (two in the USA, one in Europe) from 2016 to 2022 were collected prospectively. RA orientation was defined as hostile in case of upward (type B) or downward + upward (type D) orientation. Hostile RAs accommodated by B-EVAR and combination of SE + BE stent grafts were evaluated retrospectively. Intra-operative RA related complications, technical success (TS), and branch occlusions were assessed as early outcomes. Primary and secondary RA patency, freedom from RA related re-interventions, and freedom from RA instability were assessed during follow up., Results: Of 584 TAAAs managed by FB-EVAR, 83 patients (14.2%) had 125 hostile RAs (type B, 45.6%; type D, 54.4%) managed by B-EVAR with hybrid SE + BE stent grafts. Intra-operative complications occurred in three RAs (2.4%), including two dissections and one disconnection, all successfully managed with additional stents. TS was achieved in all cases, with no RA occlusions at 30 days. The median follow up was 21 (interquartile range 4, 38) months. Estimated three year RA primary patency was 97 ± 2%. Re-interventions were performed in five RAs (4.0%), including two RA branch embolisations for bleeding, two catheter thrombectomies with stent relining (bilateral occlusion in one patient), and one revision of type Ic endoleak. Freedom from RA related re-interventions and RA instability was 95 ± 2% and 91 ± 3% at three years, respectively. RA secondary patency was 99 ± 1% at three years., Conclusion: In hostile RA anatomies, a combination of distal SE and proximal BE stent grafts as bridging stenting in B-EVAR is safe and effective, with low rates of occlusion, re-interventions, and branch instability at midterm follow up., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Provisional Extension to Induce Complete Attachment Technique (PETTICOAT) uses a bare-metal stent to scaffold the true lumen in patients with acute or subacute aortic dissections. While it is designed to facilitate remodeling, some patients with chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) require repair. This study describes the technical pitfalls of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in patients who underwent prior PETTICOAT repair., Technique: We report 3 patients with extent II TAAAs who had prior bare-metal dissection stents treated by FB-EVAR. Two patients required maneuvers to reroute the aortic guidewire, which was initially placed in-between stent struts. This was recognized before the deployment of the fenestrated-branched device. A third patient had difficult advancement of the celiac bridging stent due to a conflict of the tip of the stent delivery system into one of the stent struts, requiring to redo catheterization and pre-stenting with a balloon-expandable stent. There were no mortalities and target-related events after a follow-up of 12 to 27 months., Conclusion: FB-EVAR following the PETTICOAT is infrequent, but technical difficulties should be recognized to prevent complications from the inadvertent deployment of the fenestrated-branched stent-graft component in-between stent struts., Clinical Impact: The present study highlights a few maneuvers to prevent or overcome possible complications during endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm following PETTICOAT. The main problem to be recognized is the placement of the aortic wire beyond one of the struts of the existing bare-metal stent. Moreover, encroachment of catheters or the bridging stent delivery system into the stent struts may potentially cause difficulties., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of 1-year changes in aneurysm sac diameter on patient survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of patients enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study investigating FB-EVAR (2013-2022). Patients with sequential follow up computed tomography scans at baseline and 6 to 18 months after FB-EVAR were included in the analysis. Aneurysm sac diameter change was defined as the difference in maximum aortic diameter from baseline measurements obtained in centerline of flow. Patients were classified as those with sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) or failure to regress (<5 mm or expansion) according to sac diameter change. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were aortic-related mortality (ARM), aortic aneurysm rupture (AAR), and aorta-related secondary intervention., Results: There were 549 patients treated by FB-EVAR. Of these, 463 patients (71% male, mean age, 74 ± 8 years) with sequential computed tomography imaging were investigated. Aneurysm extent was thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in 328 patients (71%) and abdominal aortic aneurysms in 135 (29%). Sac shrinkage occurred in 270 patients (58%) and failure to regress in 193 patients (42%), including 19 patients (4%) with sac expansion at 1 year. Patients from both groups had similar cardiovascular risk factors, except for younger age among patients with sac shrinkage (73 ± 8 years vs 75 ± 8 years; P < .001). The median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range, 18-51 months). The 5-year survival estimate was 69% ± 4.1% for the sac shrinkage group and 46% ± 6.2% for the failure to regress group. Survival estimates adjusted for confounders (age, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and aneurysm extent) revealed a higher hazard of late mortality in patients with failure to regress (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.52; P = .005). The 5-year cumulative incidences of ARM (1.1% vs 3.1%; P = .30), AAR (0.6% vs 2.6%; P = .20), and aorta-related secondary intervention (17.0% ± 2.8% vs 19.0% ± 3.8%) were both comparable between the groups., Conclusions: Aneurysm sac shrinkage at 1 year is common after FB-EVAR and is associated with improved patient survival, whereas sac enlargement affects only a minority of patients. The low incidences of ARM and AAR indicate that failure to regress may serve as a surrogate marker for nonaortic-related death., Competing Interests: Disclosures G.S.O. has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W. L. Gore & Associates, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and The University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). B.C.M. reports consulting fees and research grants from Cook Medical and W. L. Gore & Associates and scientific advisory board membership for Medtronic. H.J.M.V. is a consultant of Medtronic, W. L. Gore & Associates, Terumo Aortic, Endologix, Artivion, and Philips. F.B.G. has received speaker and proctoring fees from Medtronic, W. L. Gore & Associates, and Cook Medical., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Total transfemoral (TF) access has been increasingly used during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR). However, it is unclear whether the potential decrease in the risk of cerebrovascular events is offset by increased procedural difficulties and other complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of FB-EVAR using a TF vs upper extremity (UE) approach for target artery incorporation., Methods: We analyzed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial in two centers to investigate the use of FB-EVAR for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) between 2013 and 2022. Patients were classified into TF or UE access group with a subset analysis of patients treated using designs with directional branches. End points were technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day cerebrovascular events defined as stroke or transient ischemic attack, and any major adverse events (MAEs)., Results: There were 541 patients (70% males; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 2107 renal-mesenteric TAs incorporated. TF was used in175 patients (32%) and UE in 366 patients (68%) including 146 (83%) TF and 314 (86%) UE access patients who had four or more TAs incorporated. The use of a TF approach increased from 8% between 2013 and 2017 to 31% between 2018 and 2020 and 96% between 2021 and 2022. Compared with UE access patients, TF access patients were more likely to have CAAAs (37% vs 24%; P = .002) as opposed to TAAAs. Technical success rate was 96% in both groups (P = .96). The use of the TF approach was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time and procedural time (each P < .05). The 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% for TF and 1.4% for UE (P = .67). There was no early cerebrovascular event in the TF group, but the incidence was 2.7% for UE patients (P = .035). The incidence of MAEs was also lower in the TF group (9% vs 18%; P = .006). Among 237 patients treated using devices with directional branches, there were no significant differences in outcomes except for a reduced procedural time for TF compared with UE access patients (P < .001)., Conclusions: TF access was associated with a decreased incidence of early cerebrovascular events and MAEs compared with UE access for target artery incorporation. Procedural time was decreased in TF access patients irrespective of the type of stent graft design., Competing Interests: Disclosures G.S.O. has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W. L. Gore & Associates, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and The University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). B.C.M. has received consulting fees and research grants from Cook Medical and W. L. Gore & Associates; and serves on the scientific advisory board of Medtronic., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of "anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).", Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability., Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups ( P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001)., Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA., Clinical Impact: The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Nonhome discharge (NHD) has significant implications for patient counseling and discharge planning and is frequently required following fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). We aimed to identify preoperative predictors of NHD after elective FB-EVAR for CAAA and TAAA and develop a risk calculator able to predict NHD., Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing FB-EVAR between January 2007 and December 2021 at a single institution was performed. Exclusion criteria were admission from a nonhome setting, emergency and repeat FB-EVAR, and discharge to an unknown destination. The cohort was randomly split into separate development (70% of patients) and validation (30%) cohorts to develop a predictive calculator for NHD. Independent variables associated with NHD were assessed in a series of logistic regression analyses from 100 bootstrapped samples of the development set, and a model was developed using the most predictive variables. Resulting parameter estimates were applied to data in the validation set to assess model discrimination and calibration., Results: From the initial cohort of 712 FB-EVAR patients, 644 were included in the study (74% male; mean age, 75.4 ± 7.6 years), including 452 with CAAA (70%) and 192 with TAAA (30%). Early mortality occurred in eight patients (1.2%; 5 in CAAA and 3 in TAAA) and the median hospital stay was 5 days (4 for CAAA and 7 for TAAA). Ninety-seven patients (15%) had a NHD. On multivariable analysis, older age (per year, odds ratio [OR], 1.08; P < .001), female gender (OR, 3.03; P < .001), smoking (OR, 2.86; P = .01), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.05; P = .004), peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.81; P = .07), and extent I (OR, 3.17), II (OR, 2.84), and III (OR, 2.52; all P = .08) TAAAs were associated with an increased likelihood of NHD in the development set. Based on these factors, the risk calculator was developed which accurately predicts NHD in the validation set with an area under the curve of 0.7., Conclusions: Older, female smokers with congestive heart failure and peripheral artery disease and more extensive aneurysms are at highest risk of NHD after FB-EVAR. Using only preoperative factors, our risk calculator can predict accurately who will have a NHD, allowing enhanced preoperative patient counselling and accelerated hospital discharge., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To analyze the effectiveness of type II endoleaks (T2E) embolization using intra-operative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)., Methods: Consecutive patients treated for T2E underwent a standardized protocol with trans-arterial or trans-lumbar access, large volume embolization, onlay fusion, and intra-operative CEUS. Technical success was defined by exclusion of endoleak by CEUS., Results: Twenty-six patients (mean age 81 ± 11 years old; 89% male) were treated. The mean aneurysm sac enlargement was 11 ± 8 mm from T2E diagnosis. Embolization was performed using Onyx® 18 in all patients with adjunctive coils in 13 patients (50%). After the first embolization, CEUS documented residual T2E in 13 patients (50%). Ten patients (38%) had additional embolization, which successfully eradicated the T2E in seven of them. Technical success was 50% after the first embolization attempt and 77% after additional attempts guided by CEUS (P = 0.080). There was no mortality. Median imaging follow-up was 22 months. Among the 20 patients with no residual T2E on completion CEUS, 16 (80%) had sac stabilization and none required additional interventions for T2E. Of the six patients with residual T2Es on CEUS, three had sac stabilization (50%) and one required additional reintervention for T2E. There was one late aortic rupture at 56 months., Conclusion: One in two patients treated by T2E embolization had residual endoleak on intra-operative CEUS after a first embolization attempt, decreasing to one in four patients after multiple attempts. A negative completion CEUS following embolization was associated with higher rates of sac stabilization and no need for additional T2E embolization., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

Objective: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms., Methods: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with <60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches., Results: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement., Conclusions: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Percutaneous femoral artery access is being increasingly used in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The technique can be challenging in patients with previously surgically exposed or repaired femoral arteries because of excessive scar tissue. However, a successful percutaneous approach may cause less morbidity than a "re-do" open femoral approach. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prior open surgical femoral exposure on technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous approach., Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent percutaneous EVAR between 2010 and 2020 at 2 major aortic centers. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without prior open surgical femoral access) for analysis of clinical outcomes. Only punctures with sheaths ≥12Fr were included for analysis. The access and (pre)closure techniques were similar in both institutions. Primary end points were intraoperative technical success, access-related revision, and access complications. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of conversion to open approach and femoral access complications in intact and re-do groins., Results: A total of 632 patients underwent percutaneous (complex) EVAR: 98 had prior open surgical femoral access and 534 patients underwent de novo femoral percutaneous access. A total of 1099 femoral artery punctures were performed: 149 in re-do and 950 in intact groins. The extent of endovascular repair included 159 infrarenal, 82 thoracic, 368 fenestrated/branched, and 23 iliac branch devices. No significant differences were seen in technical success (re-do 93.3% vs intact 95.3%, p=0.311), access-related surgical revision (0.7% vs 0.6%, p=0.950), and access complications (2.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.443). For the whole group, significant predictors for access complications in multivariate analyses were main access site (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07%-5.35%; p=0.033) and increase of the procedure time per hour (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.34%-2.04%; p<0.001), while increase in sheath-vessel ratio had a protective effect (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.127%-0.85%; p=0.021). Surgical conversion was predicted by main access site (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.28%-4.19%; p=0.007) and calcification of 50% to 75% of the circumference of the access vessel (OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.38%-7.86%; p=0.005)., Conclusion: Within our population prior open surgical femoral artery exposure or repair had no negative impact on the technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous (complex) endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Objective: To report mid-term outcomes of renal-mesenteric target arteries (TAs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm., Background: TA instability (TAI) is the most frequent indication for reintervention after FB-EVAR., Methods: Data from consecutive patients enrolled in 9 prospective nonrandomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 were reviewed. TA outcomes through 5 years of follow-up were analyzed for vessels incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches (DBs), including TA patency, endoleak, integrity failure, reintervention, and instability., Results: A total of 1681 patients had 6349 renal-mesenteric arteries were targeted using 3720 fenestrations (59%), 2435 DBs (38%), and 194 scallops (3%). Mean follow was 23 ± 21 months. At 5 years, TAs incorporated by fenestrations had higher primary (95 ± 1% vs 91 ± 1%, P < 0.001) and secondary patency (98 ± 1% vs 94 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and higher freedom from TAI (87 ± 2% vs 84 ± 2%, P = 0.002) compared with TAs incorporated by DBs, with no differences in other TA events. DBs targeted by balloon-expandable stent-grafts had significantly lower freedom from TAI (78 ± 4% vs 88 ± 1%, P = 0.006), TA endoleak (87 ± 3% vs 97 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and TA reintervention (83 ± 4% vs 95 ± 1%, P < 0.001) compared with those targeted by self-expandable stent-grafts., Conclusions: Incorporation of renal and mesenteric TA during FB-EVAR is safe and durable with high 5-year patency rates and low freedom from TAI. DBs have lower patency rates and lower freedom from TAI than fenestrations, with better performance for self-expandable stent grafts as compared with balloon-expandable stent grafts., Competing Interests: G.S.O has received consulting fees and research grant support from Centerline Biomedical, Cook Medical, G.E. Healthcare, and W.L. Gore. G.S.O has a Global Principal Investigator agreement with Cook Medical; B.C.M. receives consulting fees and research support from Cook Medical and W.L. Gore and is a regional aortic advisor for Medtronic with all fees paid to Mayo Clinic; A.S. receives consulting and research grants from Cook; M.A.F. receives consulting and research grants from Cook, W. L. Gore, and Endologix and consulting and stock options from Centerline Biomedica; D.B.S. receives consulting and research grants from Cook, W. L. Gore, Endologix, and Medtronic. C.H.T. receives research support and consulting from Cook Medical Inc, W. L. Gore and Associates, and Philips Healthcare. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Staged endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with first-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair may decrease the risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) associated with fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms or optimize the proximal landing zone in the cases requiring total aortic arch repair. However, a limitation of multistaged procedures is the risk of interval aortic events (IAEs) including mortality from a ruptured aneurysm. We aim to identify the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs during staged FB-EVAR., Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective review of patients who underwent planned staged FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2021. Clinical and procedural details were reviewed. End points were the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs (defined as rupture, symptoms, and unexplained death) and outcomes in patients with or without IAEs., Results: Of 591 planned FB-EVAR patients, 142 underwent first-stage repairs. Twenty-two did not have a planned second stage because of frailty, preference, severe comorbidities, or complications after the first stage and were excluded. The remaining 120 patients (mean age: 73 ± 6 years, 51% female) were planned for second-stage completion FB-EVAR and comprised our cohort. The incidence of IAEs was 13% (16 of 120). This included confirmed rupture in 6 patients, possible rupture in 4, symptomatic presentation in 4, and early unexplained interval death with possible rupture in 2. The median time to IAEs was 17 days (range: 2-101 days), and the median time to uncomplicated completion repairs was 82 days (interquartile range: 30-147 days). Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no differences in familial aortic disease, genetically triggered aneurysms, aneurysm extent, or presence of chronic dissection. Patients with IAEs had significantly larger aneurysm diameters than those without IAEs (76.6 vs 66.5 mm, P ≤ .001). This difference persisted with indexing for body surface area (aortic size index: 3.9 vs 3.5 cm/m 2 , P = .04) and height (aortic height index: 4.5 vs 3.9 cm/m, P ≤ .001). IAE mortality was 69% (11 of 16) compared with no perioperative deaths for those with uncomplicated completion repairs., Conclusions: The incidence of IAEs was 13% in patients planned for staged FB-EVAR. This represented a notable morbidity, including rupture, which must be balanced with SCI and landing zone optimization when planning repair. Larger aneurysms, especially when adjusted for body surface area, are associated with IAEs. Minimizing time between stages vs single-stage repairs for larger (>7 cm) complex aortic aneurysms in patients with reasonable SCI risk should be considered when planning repair., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Endovascular treatment is not recommended for aortic pathologies in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) other than in redo operations and as bridging procedures in emergencies. However, recent developments in endovascular technology may challenge this dogma., Objective: To assess the midterm outcomes of endovascular aortic repair in patients with CTD., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this descriptive retrospective study, data on demographics, interventions, and short-term and midterm outcomes were collected from 18 aortic centers in Europe, Asia, North America, and New Zealand. Patients with CTD who had undergone endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020 were included. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to November 2022., Exposure: All principal endovascular aortic repairs, including redo surgery and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta., Main Outcomes and Measures: Short-term and midterm survival, rates of secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair., Results: In total, 171 patients were included: 142 with Marfan syndrome, 17 with Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 12 with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS). Median (IQR) age was 49.9 years (37.9-59.0), and 107 patients (62.6%) were male. One hundred fifty-two (88.9%) were treated for aortic dissections and 19 (11.1%) for degenerative aneurysms. One hundred thirty-six patients (79.5%) had undergone open aortic surgery before the index endovascular repair. In 74 patients (43.3%), arch and/or visceral branches were included in the repair. Primary technical success was achieved in 168 patients (98.2%), and 30-day mortality was 2.9% (5 patients). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 96.2% and 80.6% for Marfan syndrome, 93.8% and 85.2% for Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 75.0% and 43.8% for vEDS, respectively. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 4.7 years (1.9-9.2), 91 patients (53.2%) had undergone secondary procedures, of which 14 (8.2%) were open conversions., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that endovascular aortic interventions, including redo procedures and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta, in patients with CTD had a high rate of early technical success, low perioperative mortality, and a midterm survival rate comparable with reports of open aortic surgery in patients with CTD. The rate of secondary procedures was high, but few patients required conversion to open repair. Improvements in devices and techniques, as well as ongoing follow-up, may result in endovascular treatment for patients with CTD being included in guideline recommendations.

Objective: To assess outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of Extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) without prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD)., Background: Prophylactic CSFD has been routinely used during endovascular TAAA repair, but concerns about major drain-related complications have led to revising this paradigm., Methods: We reviewed a multicenter cohort of 541 patients treated for Extent I-III TAAAs by FB-EVAR without prophylactic CSFD. Spinal cord injury (SCI) was graded as ambulatory (paraparesis) or nonambulatory (paraplegia). Endpoints were any SCI, permanent paraplegia, response to rescue treatment, major drain-related complications, mortality, and patient survival., Results: There were 22 Extent I, 240 Extent II and 279 Extent III TAAAs. Thirty-day mortality was 3%. SCI occurred in 45 patients (8%), paraparesis occurring in 23 (4%) and paraplegia in 22 patients (4%). SCI was more common in patients with Extent I-II compared with Extent III TAAAs (12% vs. 5%, P =0.01). Rescue treatment included permissive hypertension in all patients, with CSFD in 22 (4%). Symptom improvement was noted in 73%. Twelve patients (2%) had permanent paraplegia. Two patients (0.4%) had major drain-related complications. Independent predictors for SCI by multivariate logistic regression were sustained perioperative hypotension [odds ratio (OR): 4.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.7-11.1], patent collateral network (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.6), and total length of aortic coverage (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10). Patient survival at 3 years was 72%±3%., Conclusion: FB-EVAR of Extent I-III TAAAs without CSFD has low mortality and low rates of permanent paraplegia (2%). SCI occurred in 8% of patients, and rescue treatment improved symptoms in 73% of them., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is one of the acute aortic syndromes along with acute aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer. The three conditions can occur alone or in combination with overlapping presentation. Medical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment is tailored depending on clinical presentation, timing, and location within the aorta. Among patients who present with acute IMH affecting the ascending aorta (Type A), urgent open surgical repair is considered the primary line of treatment in patients who are suitable candidates and unstable. The management of IMH in the descending aorta and aortic arch (Type B) is similar to that applied to treat acute dissections in the same segment. Medical treatment with sequential imaging is recommended in patients with uncomplicated course, and endovascular repair is indicated in patients with rupture, persistent pain, end-organ ischemia, or rapid aortic enlargement. This review discusses the ideal timing for treatment of IMH., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR)., Methods: The clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis., Results: There were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03)., Conclusions: FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of directional branches (DBs) bridging stent choice on target artery (TA) outcomes during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms., Methods: Patients enrolled in nine prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies in the United States between 2005 and 2020 were analyzed. All patients who had at least one TA incorporated by DB using either self-expandable (SESGs), balloon-expandable (BESGs), or hybrid stent graft combinations (HSGs). Endpoints were TA patency and freedom from TA endoleak, instability, and reintervention., Results: There were 800 patients with 2426 renal-mesenteric arteries incorporated by DBs. DB stent selection was SESGs in 1205 TAs (50%), BESGs in 1095 TAs (45%), and HSGs in 126 TAs (5%). SESGs were predominantly used in the first three quartiles of the study period, whereas BESGs comprised 75% of all stents between 2017 and 2020. The median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 6-35 months). At 5 years, BESGs had significantly lower freedom from TA instability (78% ± 4% vs 88% ± 1% vs 96% ± 2%; log-rank P =.010), freedom from TA endoleaks (87% ± 3% vs 97% ± 1% vs 99% ± 1%; log-rank P < .001), and freedom from TA reintervention (83% ± 4% vs 95% ± 1% vs 99% ± 2%; log-rank P <.001) compared with SESGs or HSGs, respectively. For renal arteries, there was no difference in freedom from TA instability for BESGs, SESGs, or HSGs. However, freedom from TA endoleaks and reintervention were lower for renal arteries targeted by BESGs compared with DBs targeted by SESGs and HSGs (83% ± 6% vs 98% ± 1% vs 100%; log-rank P < .001; and 70% ± 10% vs 92% ± 1% vs 96% ± 4%; log-rank P = .022). For mesenteric arteries, DBs targeted by BESGs had lower freedom from TA instability, endoleak, and reintervention than SESGs or HSGs. In stent-specific analysis, iCAST BESGs had the lowest freedom from TA instability either for renal or mesenteric arteries, primarily due to higher rates of TA endoleaks. There was no difference in patency in any scenario. Independent predictors of TA instability were age (+1-year: hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.99), stent diameter (+1 mm: HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80), and BESG (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9)., Conclusions: DBs incorporated using BESGs had lower freedom from TA instability, TA endoleak, and TA reintervention compared with SESGs and HSGs. The patency of DBs was not affected by the type of stent construction. The observed performance disadvantage associated with BESGs appears to have largely been driven by iCAST usage., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the technical success, feasibility, and outcomes of endovascular preservation of segmental arteries (SAs) during fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR)., Materials and Methods: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients treated with F/B-EVAR and a branch or fenestration for SA preservation. Eleven patients (median age, 57 years; range, 45-73 years; 7 men) were included., Results: Twelve SAs were preserved. Stent grafts were custom made with fenestrations, branches, or a combination of both in 1, 2, and 5 patients, respectively. A t-Branch stent graft was used in 2 patients, and a physician-modified thoracic stent graft with a branch was used in 1 patient. Eight branches and 4 fenestrations were used for the preservation of 12 SAs. Four fenestrations and 1 branch for the SAs were not bridged and were left for perfusion of the corresponding SAs. Technical success was achieved in 10 of 11 (91%) patients. No early mortality occurred. Early morbidities included renal insufficiency without dialysis in 1 patient and partially delayed paraplegia in 1 patient. Before discharge, computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed patency of all the SAs. The median follow-up duration was 30 months (range, 10-88 months). Late death occurred in 1 patient. Two SAs were occluded in 1 patient with 2 unstented fenestrations, as determined using 1-year follow-up CTA. This patient did not develop spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Other SAs remained patent during follow-up. One patient with a type IIIc endoleak was treated by relining of bridging stents., Conclusions: Endovascular preservation of SAs with F/B-EVAR for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm is feasible and safe in select patients and may add to preventive measures for SCI., (Copyright © 2023 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the impact of secondary intervention (SI) on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms., Background: The effect of SI after FB-EVAR on physical and mental HR-QOL has not been described., Methods: A cohort of 430 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR (2013-2020) was assessed with 1325 short-form 36 HR-QOL questionnaires preoperatively and during follow-up visits. SIs were classified as major or minor procedures. Endpoints included patient survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from SIs, and changes in HR-QOL physical component score (PCS) and mental component score., Results: There were 302 male with mean age 74±8 years treated by FB-EVAR for 133 complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and 297 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. After a mean follow up of 26±20 months, 97 patients (23%) required 137 SIs. At 5 years, freedom from any SI was 64%±4%, including freedom from minor SIs of 77%±4% and major SIs of 87%±3%. There was no difference in patient survival and freedom from ARM at same interval. On adjusted analysis, minor SIs correlated with improved survival. SIs had a negative correlation with PCS ( r =-0.8). There were no significant changes in mental component score with SIs. Predictors for SIs were fluoroscopy time, graft design, and aneurysm sac change., Conclusion: SIs were needed in nearly 1 out of 4 patients treated by FB-EVAR with no effect on patient survival or ARM. SI resulted in decline in PCS., Competing Interests: G.S.O. has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and The University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe a single-center experience of "complete aortic repair" consisting of surgical or endovascular total arch replacement/repair (TAR) followed by thoracoabdominal fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR)., Methods: We reviewed 480 consecutive patients who underwent FB-EVAR with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) or manufactured stent-grafts between 2013 and 2022. From those, we selected only patients treated with open or endovascular arch repair and distal FB-EVAR for aneurysms involving the ascending, arch and thoracoabdominal aortic segments (zones 0-9). Manufactured devices were used under an investigational device exemption protocol. Endpoints included early/in-hospital mortality, mid-term survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and target artery instability., Results: There were 22 patients, 14 men and 8 women with a median age of 72±7 years. Thirteen postdissection and 9 degenerative aortic aneurysms were repaired with a mean maximum diameter of 67±11 mm. Time from index aortic procedure to aneurysm exclusion was 169 and 270 days in those undergoing 2- and 3-stage repair strategies, respectively. The ascending aorta and aortic arch were treated with 19 surgical and 3 endovascular TAR procedures. Three (16%) surgical arch procedures were performed elsewhere, and perioperative details were unavailable. Mean bypass, cross-clamp, and circulatory arrest times were 295±57, 216±63, and 46±11 minutes, respectively. There were 4 major adverse events (MAEs) in 2 patients: both required postoperative hemodialysis, 1 had postbypass cardiogenic shock necessitating extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the other required evacuation of an acute-on-chronic subdural hematoma. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair was performed with 17 manufactured endografts and 5 PMEGs. There was no early mortality. Six (27%) patients experienced MAEs. There were 4 (18%) cases of spinal cord injury with 3 (75%) experiencing complete symptom resolution before discharge. Mean follow-up was 30±17 months in which there were 5 patient deaths-0 aortic related. Eight patients required ≥1 secondary intervention, and 6 target arteries demonstrated instability (3 IC, 1 IIIC endoleaks; 2 TA stenoses). Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of patient survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and target artery instability were 78±8%, 56±11%, and 68±11%, respectively., Conclusion: Complete aortic repair with staged surgical or endovascular TAR and distal FB-EVAR is safe and effective with satisfactory morbidity, mid-term survival, and target artery outcomes., Clinical Impact: The presented study demonstrates that repair of the entirety of the aorta - via total endovascular or hybrid means- is safe and effective with low rates of spinal cord ischemia. Cardiovascular specialists within comprehensive aortic teams at should feel confident that staged repair of the most complex degenerative and post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms can be safely performed in their patients with complication profile similar to that of less extensive repairs. Meticulous and intentional case planning is imperative for immediate and long-term success.

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality., Results: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach., Conclusions: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE)., Results: There were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups., Conclusions: FB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) in patients with occluded iliac arteries is challenging owing to limited access for branch vessel catheterization and increased risk for leg and spinal ischemic complications. The aim of this study was to analyze technical strategies and outcomes of F/BEVAR in patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all consecutive patients treated by F/BEVAR in two institutions (2003-2021). Patients with unilateral iliofemoral occlusive disease were included in the analysis. All patients had one patent iliac artery that was used for advancement of the fenestrated-branch component. Preloaded catheter/guidewire systems or steerable sheaths were used as adjuncts to facilitate catheterization. Primary endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events (stroke, spinal cord injury, dialysis or decrease in the glomerular filtration rate of more than 50%, bowel ischemia, myocardial infarction, or respiratory failure), primary iliac patency, and freedom from reinterventions., Results: There were 959 patients treated with F/BEVAR. Of these, 15 patients (1.56%; mean age, 74 years; 80% male) had occluded iliac arteries and 1 patent iliofemoral access and were treated for a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 8) or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 7). Brachial access was used in 14 of the 15 patients and preloaded systems in 7 of the 15 patients (47%). The remaining 53% had staggered deployment of stent grafts. There were seven physician-modified endovascular grafts, seven custom-made devices, and one off-the-shelf device used. Thirteen patients (87%) had distal seal using aortouni-iliac stent grafts and two (13%) had distal seal in the infrarenal aorta. Concomitant femoral crossover bypass (FCB) was performed in two patients and six patients had a prior FCB. Technical success was 100%. There were no intraoperative complications or early lower extremity ischemic complications, and all FCB were preserved. There was one mortality (7%) within 30 days owing to retrograde type A dissection. Major adverse events occurred in 20% of patients. The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0-85 months). Two patients (13%) required three reinterventions. One patient required proximal stent graft extension for an acute type B dissection (3 months) and another required iliac extension for type Ib endoleak of an aortouni-iliac graft (21 months) and thrombolysis of that extension (50 months). At last follow-up, all patients had primary graft patency except one with secondary graft patency without new claudication. One patient had a single renal artery stent occlusion at follow-up with no r-intervention. The overall survival rate was 60%, without aortic-related deaths., Conclusions: Although challenging, F/BEVAR with unilateral femoral/brachial approach is feasible in patients with occluded iliac limbs, with an important rate of ischemic complications, but satisfactory outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for treatment for aortic arch diseases, but these operations can be associated with wide heterogeneity in outcomes and significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in elderly patients with severe comorbidities or those who had prior arch procedures via median sternotomy. Endovascular repair has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair. The technique evolved with new device designs using up to three inner branches for incorporation of the supra-aortic trunks. This manuscript summarizes technical tips and clinical experience with the triple inner arch branch stent graft for total endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Objective: To describe the feasibility and outcomes of endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with a pre-loaded single retrograde left subclavian artery (LSA) branch stent graft., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective, non-randomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular aortic arch repair using patient-specific arch branch stent grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) between 2019 and 2022. All patients received a design with triple-wide scallop and a single retrograde LSA branch with a pre-loaded catheter., Results: There were five male patients with median age of 77 years old (72-80) treated using the single LSA branch stent graft. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Median operating time, fluoroscopy time, and total radiation dose area product were 103 (78-134) minutes, 26 (19-39) minutes, and 123 (71-270) mGy.cm 2 , respectively. There were no 30-day or in-hospital mortality, neurological or other major adverse events (MAEs). During median follow-up of 21 (20-27) months, all patients were alive with patent LSA branches, except for one who died of COVID-19 complications. There was no branch instability or secondary interventions., Conclusion: This early feasibility study demonstrates successful endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with single retrograde LSA branch without technical failures, mortality or neurological events. Larger clinical experience and longer follow-up are needed to determined effectiveness of this approach in patients who need endovascular repair with proximal extension into Zone 2., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been widely accepted as a treatment option in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections who have suitable anatomy. It is estimated that up to 60% of patients treated by TEVAR require extension of the repair into the distal aortic arch across Ishimaru zone 2. In these patients, coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) without revascularization has been associated with increased risk of arm ischemia, stroke, and spinal cord injury. The Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE, WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) is the first off-the-shelf thoracic branch stent-graft approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of distal aortic arch lesions requiring extension of the proximal seal into zone 2. This article summarizes the technical pitfalls and clinical outcomes of the TBE ® device in zone 2.

Objective: There is paucity of data on the durability of physician modified endografts (PMEGs) for complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) despite widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early and long-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for CAAAs and TAAAs using PMEGs., Methods: We reviewed clinical data and outcomes of patients treated by FB-EVAR using PMEGs for CAAAs (defined as short-neck infrarenal, juxtarenal, and pararenal AAAs) and TAAAs between 2007 and 2019. All patients were treated by a dedicated team with extensive manufactured device experience. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events, patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from secondary intervention, target artery (TA) patency, and freedom from TA endoleak and TA instability., Results: Of 645 patients undergoing FB-EVAR, 156 patients (24%) treated with PMEG (121 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) were included. There were 89 CAAAs, 33 extent IV TAAAs and 34 extent I to III TAAAs. A total of 452 renal-mesenteric targets (3.1 ± 1.0 vessels/patient) were incorporated. Patients with TAAAs had significantly (P < .05) larger aneurysms (73 ± 11 vs 68 ± 14 mm), more TAs incorporated (3.4 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 1.0), and more often had previous aortic repair (54% vs 27%). Technical success was higher in patients treated for CAAAs (99% vs 91%; P = .04). Thirty-day and/or in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and was significantly lower for CAAAs compared with TAAAs (2% vs 10%; P = .04), with three of nine early mortalities (33%) among patients treated emergently. After a mean follow-up of 49 ± 38 months, there were 12 aortic-related deaths (7.6%), including nine early deaths (5.7%) from perioperative complications and three late deaths (1.9%) from rupture. At 5 years, patient survival was 41%. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher 5-year freedom from ARM (P = .016), TA instability (P = .05), TA endoleak (P = .01), and TA secondary interventions (P = .05) with a higher, but non-significant, freedom from sac enlargement ≥5 mm (P = .11). Primary and secondary TA patency was 91% ± 2% and 99% ± 1%, respectively. Sac regression ≥5 mm occurred in 67 patients (43%) and was associated with increased survival (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80) compared with those without sac regression., Conclusions: FB-EVAR using PMEGs was performed with acceptable long-term outcomes. Overall patient survival was low due to significant underlying comorbidities. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher freedom from ARM, TA instability, TA endoleak, TA secondary interventions, and a trend towards higher freedom from sac enlargement compared with patients treated for TAAAs. Sac regression was associated with improved patient survival., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of a standardized protocol using routine CSFD, neuromonitoring, LL reperfusion, and selective TASP to prevent SCI during F-BEVAR., Background: SCI is to be the most devastating complication for the patient, family, and surgeon, with impact on patient's quality of life and long-term prognosis. An optimal standardized protocol may be used to improve outcomes., Methods: Patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study between 2013 and 2018. A SCI prevention protocol was used for TAAAS or complex abdominal aneurysms with ≥5-cm supraceliac coverage including CSFD, neuromonitoring, LL reperfusion, and selective TASP. Endpoints included mortality and rates of SCI., Results: SCI prevention protocol was used in 170 of 232 patients (73%) treated by F-BEVAR. Ninety-one patients (55%) had changes in neuromonitoring, which improved with maneuvers in all except for 9 patients (10%) who had TASP. There was one 30-day or in-hospital mortality (0.4%). Ten patients (4%) developed SCIs including in 1% (1/79) of patients with normal neuromonitoring and 10% (9/91) of those who had decline in neuromonitoring ( P = 0.02). Permanent paraplegia occurred in 2 patients (1%). Factors associated with SCI included total operating time (odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.2, P = 0.02) and persistent changes in neuromonitoring requiring TASP (odds ratio 15.7, 95% confidence interval 2.9-86.2, P = 0.001)., Conclusion: This prospective nonrandomized study using a standardized strategy to prevent SCI was associated with low incidence of the SCI during F-BEVAR. Permanent paraplegia occurred in 1%., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. We illustrate total percutaneous transfemoral approach with a 3-vessel inner branch stent-graft to treat aortic arch aneurysm. ( Level of Difficulty: Advanced. )., Competing Interests: Dr Oderich has received consulting fees and grants from Cook Medical, W.L. Gore, Centerline Biomedical, and GE Healthcare (all paid to Mayo Clinic and the University of Texas Health Science at Houston with no personal income). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Objective: We compared the outcomes of fenestrated-branched (FB) endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using low-profile (LP) and standard-profile (SP) stent grafts for the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients (70% male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for the treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs (2013-2021). The endpoints compared between the patients treated with LP (18F-20F) and SP (20F-22F) devices included procedural metrics, access-related complications, major adverse events (MAE), patient survival, freedom from secondary intervention, thromboembolic events, stent graft integrity issues, aneurysm sac enlargement, and the rate of sac shrinkage., Results: Of the 466 aneurysms treated by FB-EVAR, 138 were CAAAs and 141 were extent IV and 187 extent I to III TAAAs, with a mean number of 3.9 ± 0.5 vessels stented per patient. LP devices had been used in 239 patients (51%) and SP devices in 227 patients (49%). LP devices had been used more frequently for chronic dissections (12% vs 7%; P = .041) and with preloaded systems (77% vs 65%; P = .005) and bilateral percutaneous femoral access (83% vs 74%; P = .020) and less frequently with upper extremity access (67% vs 88%; P < .001) and iliac conduits (2% vs 6%; P = .020). The patients treated using LP devices had experienced similar technical success (96% vs 97%; P = .527), with a shorter total operating time (225 ± 81 minutes vs 243 ± 78 minutes; P = .018), lower radiation exposure (median, 0.93 Gy; interquartile range [IQR], 0.94; vs median, 1.01 Gy; IQR, 0.91 Gy; P < .001), and less use of contrast (median, 135 mL; IQR, 68 mL; vs median, 144 mL; IQR, 80 mL; P = .008). No differences were found in the rates of iliofemoral access complications between the LP and SP device groups (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .107). At 30 days, 5 patients had died (1%) and MAEs had occurred in 89 patients (19%), with no differences between the two groups. The mean follow-up was 28 months (95% confidence interval, 25-30 months). At 4 years, the patients treated with LP devices had had similar freedom from all-cause mortality (69% ± 6% vs 68% ± 4%; P = .199), freedom from aortic-related mortality (97% ± 1% vs 98% ± 1%; P = .488), freedom from any secondary intervention (65% ± 6% vs 70% ± 4%; P = .433), freedom from thromboembolic events (98% ± 1% vs 99% ± 1%; P = .364) and aneurysm sac enlargement (93% ± 3% vs 91% ± 3%; P = .293). However, the LP group had had less freedom from any integrity-related issues (92% ± 5% vs 100%; P < .001). The cumulative risk of sac shrinkage was greater for patients treated with LP devices (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.040; 95% confidence interval, 1.516-2.744; P < .001)., Conclusions: FB-EVAR was performed with low rates of mortality and MAEs, irrespective of the device profile. However, the procedures performed with LP devices had had less need for iliac conduits and had had better procedural metrics. The use of LP devices resulted in higher rates of sac shrinkage. However, the results on stent graft integrity require future investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In the present study, we assessed the effects of patient frailty status on the early outcomes and late survival after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients who had undergone elective FB-EVAR from 2007 to 2019 in a single institution. A previously validated 11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11) was derived from the comorbidity and preoperative functional status data. An mFI-11 <0.3 was defined as low risk, 0.3 to 0.5 as medium risk, and >0.5 as high risk. The studied outcomes were 90-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE), and long-term survival. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent predictors of these outcomes., Results: A total of 592 patients (155 women, mean age, 75 ± 8 years) had undergone FB-EVAR. Using the mFI-11, 310 patients (52%) were included in the low-risk, 199 (34%) in the medium-risk, and 83 (14%) in the high-risk group. The 90-day mortality was significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the medium- and low-risk groups (13%, 4%, and 3%, respectively; P < .01). The corresponding MAE rates were 27%, 18%, and 19% (P = .23). As a subgroup, 44 patients in the high-risk group had had chronic kidney disease (CKD). The 90-day mortality for these patients was as high as 23%, and 32% had experienced MAE. On multivariable analysis, the independent risk factors for 90-day mortality were CKD, respiratory disease, and a high mFI-11. The independent risk factors for MAE were female sex, CKD, larger aneurysm diameter, and the high-risk subgroup with CKD. The independent risk factors for long-term mortality were age, a low body mass index, CKD, larger aneurysm diameter, extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, respiratory disease, congestive heart failure, a history of cerebrovascular problems, and higher mFI-11. The estimated survival at 1 year was 91% ± 2% in the low-risk, 88% ± 2% in the medium-risk, and 78% ± 5% in the high-risk group (P < .001). The corresponding 5-year survival estimates were 60% ± 4%, 52% ± 5%, and 32% ± 6%. The mean follow-up time was 2.9 ± 2.3 years. The patients treated during the first quartile of the study period were significantly more frail than were those in the later quartiles. Also, the outcomes of FB-EVAR had improved over time., Conclusions: Greater frailty was significantly associated with early mortality. Together with CKD, frailty was also associated with MAE and lower patient survival after FB-EVAR. The mFI-11 represents the accumulation of comorbidities and can be used to assist in better patient selection for FB-EVAR., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid debranching repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms was initially designed as a better alternative to standard open repair, addressing the limitations of endovascular repair involving the visceral aorta. We reviewed the collective outcomes of hybrid debranching repairs using extra-anatomic, open surgical debranching of the renal-mesenteric arteries, followed by endovascular aortic stenting., Methods: Data from patients who underwent hybrid repair in 14 North American institutions during 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. Society of Vascular Surgery scores were used to assess comorbidity risk. Early and late outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, reintervention, and patency were analyzed., Results: A total of 208 patients (118 male; mean age, 71±8 years old) were treated by hybrid repair with extraanatomic reconstruction of 657 renal and mesenteric arteries (mean 3.2 vessels/patient). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.6±1.3 cm. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were identified in 163 (78%) patients and pararenal aneurysms in 45 (22%). A single-stage repair was performed in 92 (44%) patients. The iliac arteries were the most common source of inflow (n=132; 63%), and most (n=150; 72%) had 3 or more bypasses. There were 30 (14%) early deaths, ranging widely across sites (0%-21%). A Society of Vascular Surgery comorbidity score >15 was the primary predictor of early mortality ( P <0.01), whereas mortality was 3% in a score ≤9. Early complications occurred in 140 (73%) patients and included respiratory complications in 45 patients (22%) and spinal cord ischemia in 22 (11%), of whom 10 (45%) fully recovered. At 5 years, survival was 61±5%, primary graft patency was 90±2%, and secondary patency was 93±2%. The most significant predictor of late mortality was renal insufficiency ( P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Mortality after hybrid repair and visceral debranching is highly variable by center, but strongly affected by preoperative comorbidities and the centers' experience with the technique. With excellent graft patency at 5 years, the outcomes of hybrid repair done at centers of excellence and in carefully selected patients may be comparable (or better) than traditional open or even totally endovascular approaches. However, in patients already considered as high-risk for surgery, it may not offer better outcomes.

Patients with complex aortic aneurysms (CAA) are often high risk due to advanced age and widespread atherosclerosis affecting numerous vascular territories. Therefore, a thorough perioperative evaluation is needed prior to performing in any type of aortic repair, regardless of whether an endovascular or open surgical approach is selected. Because these operations are technically demanding and often result in end organ ischemia, it is not surprising that complex aortic repair carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Disabling complications such as dialysis, major stroke and paraplegia constitute the main limitation of complex aortic repair. The aim of this article was to review postoperative management to mitigate complications after CAA repair.

Purpose: To assess technical aspects and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) using a femoral-to-brachial (FTB) preloaded delivery system (PDS) with two separate configurations., Methods: Clinical data of all consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective study to evaluate FB-EVAR for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs & TAAA) between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients treated with FTB-PDS were included. The two configurations included 4 trans-brachial preloaded wires (4BR) or 2 trans-brachial and 2 transfemoral preloaded wires (2BR-2FE). Outcome measures included technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day or in-hospital mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and target-vessel outcomes., Results: There were 115 patients with a mean age of 73.8 ± 8 years, treated with FTB-PDS. Of these, 62 patients (54%) had 4BR and 53 patients (46%) had 2BR-2FE FTB-PDS. There were 106 TAAA (92%) and 9 CAAAs (8%). Technical success, defined as successful implantation of the stent-graft and all intended target-vessel stents without type I or III endoleak, was 97%, with no differences in total operating time, endovascular time, and radiation dose between groups. There were 3 deaths (3%) at 30 days. MAEs were noticed in 21 patients (18%) with no difference between groups, including new-onset dialysis (2% vs. 4%, P = 0.59), and paraplegia (7% vs. 11%, P = 0.51), for 4BR and 2BR-2FE, respectively. Patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality at 2-years were 79 ± 5% and 97 ± 1.7%, respectively, with no difference between groups., Conclusion: The use of FTB-PDS for FB-EVAR is safe with high technical success and a reasonable rate of MAEs. Each configuration provides specific benefits based on patient anatomy, while having similar procedural metrics and clinical outcomes., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

Objective: To report the outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FBEVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic pathology after total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR+FET)., Methods: Interrogation of prospectively maintained databases from four high-volume aortic centers identified consecutive patients treated with distal FBEVAR after prior TAR+FET between August 2013 and September 2020. The primary end point was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points were technical success, early clinical success, midterm survival, and freedom from reintervention. Data are presented as median (interquartile range)., Results: A total of 39 patients (21 men; median age, 73 years [67-75 years]) with degenerative (n = 22) and postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (n = 17) (median diameter, 71 mm [61-78 mm]) were identified. Distal FBEVAR was intended in 27 patients (median interval, 9.8 months [6.2-16.6 months]), anticipated in 7, and unexpected in 5. A total of 31 patients had a two- (n = 24) or three-stage (n = 7) distal FBEVAR. Renovisceral target vessel preservation was 99.3% (145 of 146). Early primary and secondary technical success was 92% and 97%, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6% (n = 1; respiratory failure and spinal cord ischemia [SCI]). Six survivors also developed SCI, which was associated with complete (n = 4) or partial recovery (n = 2) at hospital discharge. No patients required renal replacement therapy or suffered a stroke. Early clinical success was 95%. Median follow-up was 30.5 months (23.7-49.7 months). Eleven patients required 16 late reinterventions. Estimated 3-year survival and freedom from reintervention were 84% ± 6% and 63% ± 10%, respectively., Conclusions: Distal FBEVAR after prior TAR+FET is associated with high technical success and low early mortality. The risk of SCI is significant although the majority of patients demonstrate full or partial recovery before hospital discharge. Midterm patient survival is favorable, but there remains a high requirement for late reintervention. FBEVAR represents an acceptable alternative to distal open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)