Search

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.

Objective: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive hybrid surgical carotid stenting technique which utilizes cerebral flow reversal as embolic protection during carotid lesion manipulation. This investigation was performed to define the perioperative risks associated with this operation in the obese patient., Methods: A retrospective review of tandem carotid revascularization databases maintained at two high-volume health systems was performed to capture all TCARs performed between 2015 and 2022. A threshold of body mass index of 35 kg/m 2 defined the "obese" patient. Demographics, intraoperative, perioperative, and follow-up characteristics were compared using univariate analysis., Results: We performed 793 TCAR procedures that qualified for study inclusion within the prespecified time. After applying our obesity definition, 129 patients qualified as obese and were compared to the remainder. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics as comparable Charlson Comorbidity Indices were noted between groups; however, obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. Intraoperative, case complexity in the obese patients did not seem to be increased, as measured by operative time (68.4 ± 23.0 vs 64.2 ± 25.8 min, p = 0.09), fluoroscopic time (4.9 ± 3.2 vs 4.6 ± 3.6 min, p = 0.38), and estimated blood loss (40.6 ± 49.0 vs 46.6 ± 49.4 min, p = 0.22). Similarly, no disparities were observed with respect to ipsilateral stroke (3.1 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.29), contralateral stroke (0 vs. 0.2%, p > 0.99), death (0 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.61), and stroke/death (3.1 vs. 3.0%, p > 0.99) in the 30-day perioperative period. Both cohorts were followed for approximately 1 year (12.0 ± 13.4 vs 11.6 ± 13.4 months, p = 0.76). During this period, rates of ipsilateral stroke (3.1% vs. 2.7%, p > 0.99), contralateral stroke (1.1 vs. 0.8%, p > 0.99), and death (4.7 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.68) were similar., Conclusions: TCAR performed in the obese population was not more challenging by intraoperative characteristics and did not result in a statistically higher incidence of adverse events in the perioperative phase., 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.

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 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.)

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.

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: 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.)

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: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of blood loss and transfusion requirements on clinical outcomes of patients treated by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of 370 consecutive patients (277 male, mean age 74 ± 10 years) treated by F-BEVAR between 2007 and 2017. Outcomes were estimated blood loss (EBL), use of intraoperative blood salvage (IOBS), transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs)., Results: There were 189 patients (51%) treated for PRAs and 181 patients (49%) treated for TAAAs. IOBS was used in 194 patients (52%) and transfusion of PRBCs was needed in 137 (37%). Thirty-day mortality was 2.2% (8/370) and MAEs occurred in 123 patients (33%), including 74 patients (20%) who had EBL > 1L. EBL > 1L and transfusion of PRBCs were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients treated in the first half of clinical experience and in those with larger aneurysms, iliofemoral conduits, bilateral open surgical femoral access and Extent I-III TAAAs. Use of DrySeal ® sheaths (WL Gore, Flagstaff AZ) was associated with significantly lower (P < .05) EBL volume and with less transfusion of PRBCs. On multivariate analysis PRBCs > 1L, male gender and the last half of clinical experience were associated with MAEs/mortality., Conclusions: F-BEVAR was associated with significantly higher volume of blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients treated in the early experience and in those who had iliofemoral conduits, open femoral surgical exposure or Extent I-III TAAAs.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using a novel low profile (LP) device with upper extremity preloaded guidewire system (PGS) and compare procedural metrics and outcomes with a standard multibranch stent graft (t-Branch; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind)., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of 232 consecutive patients treated by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair for TAAA and enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized trial between 2014 and 2017. Patients who had repair using t-Branch or patient-specific TAAA devices using upper extremity LP-PGS were included. End points were technical success, operative and fluoroscopic time, patient radiation exposure, time from arterial access to complete device deployment, total contrast volume, and 30-day rates of major adverse events (MAEs) and mortality., Results: There were 54 patients, including 33 males (67%) and 21 females (33%), with a mean age of 73 ± 9 years old. Forty-nine patients (91%) had extent I-III and five patients (9%) had extent IV TAAAs. Device design was t-Branch in 24 patients (44%) and LP-PGS in 30 patients (56%). A total of 206 renal-mesenteric arteries were incorporated with no difference between groups (mean, 3.8 ± 0.6 target vessels/patient; P = .92). Patients treated by t-Branch device had larger mean aneurysm diameter (79 ± 16 vs 66 ± 10 mm; P = .0006). All patients had transbrachial approach. Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. Patients treated by LP-PGS devices had lower radiation dose (1250 ± 849 vs 3154 ± 2421 mGy; P = .003) and shorter operating time for complete device deployment (105 ± 42 vs 123 ± 34 minutes; P = .043). There was no difference in mean operative time (252 ± 69 vs 273 ± 56 minutes; P = .23), fluoroscopy time (82 ± 29 vs 96 ± 35 minutes; P = .08) or contrast volume (163 ± 59 vs 197 ± 75 mL; P = .07) comparing LP-PGS and t-Branch respectively. There was no 30-day or in-hospital mortality. There were no differences in MAEs, which occurred in 18 patients (33%) in both groups (P > .05)., Conclusions: Endovascular TAAA repair using the standard or LP-PGS multibranch stent graft was associated with high technical success, no mortality, and a low rate of MAEs in this study. Patients treated by upper extremity LP-PGS had shorter time to complete device deployment, suggesting decreased technical demand with preloaded systems., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study is to describe a modification technique using the low-profile Cook Zenith Alpha™ thoracic stent graft, and addition of a preloaded wire system, for urgent repair of pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal (TAAA) aortic aneurysms., Methods: We analyzed 20 consecutive patients who underwent urgent physician modified endograft repair (PMEG) of PRA and TAAA at 2 institutions. The low-profile Cook Zenith Alpha Thoracic stent graft was modified in accordance with each specific patient anatomic characteristics. End points were technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs)., Results: Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%). A total of 76 renal-mesenteric arteries were incorporated by fenestrations (70%) or directional branches (30%) with an average of 3.7 ± 0.6 vessels per patient. There were 6 different types of stent configuration. The most common design consisted of 4 fenestrations (9 patients, 45%). The average of modification time was 110 ± 27 minutes. Total procedure time (including the time for open component) was 242 ± 75 minutes. There was no death within the first 30 days or hospital stay. MAEs occurred in 10 patients (50%). The most common MAEs were acute kidney injury (by Risk, Injury, and Failure; and Loss; and End-stage kidney disease criteria) in 6 patients (30%), estimated blood loss >1 L, respiratory failure requiring reintubation in 2 patients (10%) each, and paraplegia and ischemic colitis in 1 patient (5%) each. One patient (5%) required temporary, new-onset dialysis., Conclusions: PMEG using low-profile Zenith Alpha thoracic stent graft was safe with no early mortality and acceptable early morbidity., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to review the learning curve for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs)., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of 334 consecutive patients (255 males, mean age 75 ± 7 years) who underwent F-BEVAR between 2007 and 2016 in a single institution. Outcomes were analyzed in four quartiles of experience (Q1-Q4). Study outcomes included trends in patient characteristics, device design, procedural variables, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs)., Results: There were 178 patients (53%) treated for pararenal aneurysms and 156 (47%) for TAAAs. During the study period, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of TAAAs and in the number of vessels incorporated. Despite this, there was a steady decrease in 30-day mortality (6% in Q1 to 0% in Q4; P < .04) and in the rate of MAEs (60% in Q1 to 29% in Q4; P<.001). By linear regression analysis, there was significant decline in estimated blood loss (1358 ± 1517 mL in Q1 to 486 ± 520 mL in Q4; P < .001), total operating time (325 ± 116 minutes in Q1 to 248 ± 92 minutes in Q4; P < .001), total fluoroscopy time (121 ± 59 minutes in Q1 to 85 ± 39 minutes in Q4; P < .001), contrast volume (201 ± 92 mL in Q1 to 160 ± 61 mL in Q4; P = .002), and radiation dose (4141 ± 2570 mGy in Q2 to 2543 ± 1895 mGy in Q4; P < .001). Independent predictors of MAEs were total operating time (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-1.8; P < .001), Society for Vascular Surgery total score (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.02-1.2; P = .009), and quartile 1 (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.2; P < .001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates significant improvement in perioperative mortality, MAEs, procedural variables, and secondary interventions in patients treated by F-BEVAR, despite the increase in complexity of aneurysm pathology during the study period. Also, better patient selection contributed to improve outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Upper extremity (UE) access is frequently used during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) to facilitate catheterization of downgoing vessels. Limitations include risk of cerebral embolization and of UE arterial or peripheral nerve injury. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE access., Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of 334 consecutive patients (74% males; mean age 75 ± 8 years) treated by F-BEVAR for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms or pararenal aortic aneurysms between 2007 and 2016. Patients who underwent F-BEVAR with an UE approach for catheterization of the renal and/or mesenteric arteries were included in the study. End points were technical success, mortality, and a composite of access-related complications including cerebral embolization (stroke/transient ischemic attack), peripheral nerve injury, and axillary-brachial arterial complications requiring intervention., Results: There were 243 patients (73%) treated by F-BEVAR with UE access, including 147 patients (60%) with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and 96 patients (40%) with pararenal aortic aneurysms. A total of 878 renal-mesenteric arteries were incorporated by fenestrations or branches with a mean of 3.6 ± 0.8 vessels per patient. All patients had surgical exposure of the brachial artery. The left side was selected in 228 (94%) and the right side in 15 (6%). The technical success of target vessel incorporation was achieved in 99% of patients (870 of 878). Arterial closure was performed using primary repair in 213 patients (88%) or bovine patch angioplasty in 29 (12%). Patch closure was required in 13% of patients (21 of 159) treated by 10- to 12F sheaths and 8% (7 of 83) of those who had 7- to 8F sheaths (P = .19). There were six deaths (2.5%) at 30 days or within the hospital stay, none owing to access-related complications. Major access-related complication occurred in eight patients (3%), with no difference between the 10- to 12F (6 of 159 [4%]) or 7- to 8F sheaths (2 of 83 [2%]; P = .45). Two patients (1%) had transient median nerve neuropraxia, which resolved within 1 year. One patient (0.5%) required surgical evacuation of an access site hematoma. There were no UE arterial pseudoaneurysms, occlusions, or distal embolizations. Five patients (2%) had strokes (three minor, two major), occurring more frequently with right side (2 of 15 [13%]) as compared with left-sided access (3 of 228 [1%]; P = .03). After a mean follow-up of 38 ± 15 months, there were no other access-related complications or reinterventions., Conclusions: UE arterial access with surgical exposure was associated with a low rate of complications in patients treated with F-BEVAR. Closure with patch angioplasty is frequently needed, but there were no arterial occlusions, pseudoaneurysms, or distal embolizations requiring secondary procedures., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F-BEVAR) has been increasingly used to treat patients with complex aortic aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries. As with any new procedure, there is a learning curve associated with mastering the technique. However, proficiency with deployment is only one aspect of the learning process, and ultimately, this curve is defined not by one quality parameter, but by patient selection, the performance of the entire team, the surgeon's ability to adapt to unexpected events, and the durability of the repair. This article reviews the importance of novel training paradigms, learning curve, and factors affecting outcomes of complex endovascular aneurysm repair.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has been applied to treat chronic postdissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). We report a patient with diffuse postdissection aortic aneurysm involving the arch and thoracoabdominal aorta treated in a staged fashion with redo aortic arch repair using the frozen elephant trunk technique, followed by completion endovascular TAAA using preloaded guidewire system and a five-vessel fenestrated and branched stent graft. A technical video illustrates the use of onlay fusion and sequential catheterization with the preloaded guidewire system to facilitate TAAA repair., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)