Search

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.

OBJECTIVES: Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) in patients with occluded iliac arteries is challenging due 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 (UIOD).METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all consecutive patients treated by F/BEVAR in two institutions (2003-2021). Patients with UIOD were included in the analysis. All patients had one patent iliac artery which 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 (MAEs: stroke, spinal cord injury, dialysis/GFR decline >50%, bowel ischemia, myocardial infarction or respiratory failure), primary iliac patency and freedom from reinterventions.RESULTS: There were 959 patients treated by F/BEVAR. Of these, 15 patients (1.56%, mean age 74, 80% male) had occluded iliac arteries and one patent iliofemoral access and were treated for a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (8) or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (7). Brachial access was used in 14/15 patients and preloaded systems in 7/15 patients (47%). The remaining 53% had staggered deployment of stent grafts. There were 7 physician-modified endovascular grafts, 7 custom-made devices and 1 off-the-shelf device used. Thirteen (87%) patients had distal seal using AUI stent-grafts and two (13%) had distal seal in the infrarenal aorta. Concomitant femoral crossover bypass (FCB) was performed in 2 patients and 6 patients had a prior FCB. Technical success was 100%. There were no intra-operative complications or early lower extremity ischemic complications and all FCB were preserved. There was one 30-day mortality (7%) due to retrograde type A dissection. MAEs occurred in 20% of patients. Median follow-up was 12 months (0-85). 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 AUI (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 re-intervention. Overall survival 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.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has gained widespread acceptance in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. It has evolved from an alternative to treat elderly and higher risk patients to the first line of treatment in most patients with suitable anatomy, independent of the clinical risk. Currently, these devices are available off-the-shelf (ready to use) and tailored to the patient anatomy with the options of fenestrated, branched and mixed fenestrated, and branched designs. Reports from single and multicenter experiences and systematic reviews have shown lower mortality and morbidity for FB-EVAR compared with historical results of open surgical repair. The main advantages are noted on mortality, respiratory complications, acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay. The purpose of this article is to review the advances in the endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms exploring the indications for treatment, preoperative evaluation, patient selection, device design, and implantation technique.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has been disseminated worldwide from a technique used to treat high-risk patients to a valid alternative in almost any patient who is anatomically suitable and has complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. As with any new procedure, there is a steep learning curve that goes beyond proficiency with deployment. Ultimately, patient selection, team performance, surgeon's ability to adapt to unexpected events, and the constant evolution of improvements in technical aspects all affect the early outcomes and durability of the repair. This article reviews the importance of the learning curve, evolution of complex endovascular techniques, and factors affecting outcomes of complex endovascular aneurysm repair.

International audience; ObjectiveThe 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionStaging 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.

Objective: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers’ consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.Results: Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.Conclusion: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.

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 report the outcomes of redo fenestrated and/or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR in FEVAR) to rescue previous failed FEVAR. Methods Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing F/BEVAR in FEVAR at eight aortic centres including pre-, intra-, and post-operative data according to a pre-established protocol. Follow up consisted of at least yearly computed tomography angiography. Values are presented as median and interquartile range, and survival as estimate ± standard error in percentage. Results 18 male patients (76 years old; range 69 – 78 years) receiving FEVAR involving two (two or three) target vessels between 2006 and 2016 underwent F/BEVAR in FEVAR between 2012 and 2019 (aneurysm diameter of 63 mm; range 56 – 69 mm). Median interval between the procedures was 53 (29 – 103) months. The indication for F/BEVAR in FEVAR was type Ia endoleak in 16 cases (eight isolated and eight combined with graft migration), one graft migration without endoleak and one migration with significant proximal aortic expansion. F/BEVAR in FEVAR involved all patent renovisceral arteries and had an operating time of 260 (204 – 344) minutes. Technical success was achieved in 15 (83%) cases. There was a failure to bridge one renal artery, one renal capsular bleed with the subsequent need for renal artery embolisation within 24 hours and one persistent type Ib endoleak despite iliac extension. There was no peri- or in hospital death. Two patients developed spinal cord ischaemia, one transient paraparesis and one permanent paraplegia. The latter occurred in a non-staged procedure where spinal drainage was used. During a follow up of 27 (7 – 39) months, three (17%) patients underwent late re-interventions. Overall survival at 24 months was 70 ± 11% with no aneurysm related death and a secondary clinical success at 24 months of 84 ± 11%. Conclusion F/BEVAR in FEVAR is a technically challenging but feasible solution to rescue failed FEVAR. The outcomes are promising in many aortic centres but need to be confirmed by further studies with longer follow up.

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

PURPOSE Peripheral nerve and brachial plexus injury can occur from compression or stretching during positioning for operative procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of overhead upper extremity positioning to optimize imaging during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS Forty-four consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective non-randomized study underwent FB-EVAR with overhead upper extremity positioning. Patients underwent intra-operative neuromonitoring of upper and lower extremities and neurological examination prior to discharge and at 2 months following the procedure. End points were peripheral or brachial plexus nerve injury, quality of lateral projection and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and major adverse event (MAEs). RESULTS There were 28 (64%) male patients with mean age of 74 ± 8 years treated for 10 PRAs (23%) and 34 (78%) TAAAs. Mean body mass index was 29 ± 7 kg/m2, with 17 obese patients (39%). Open surgical upper extremity access was used in 19 patients (43%). Three patients (16%) had access-related complications, all focal brachial artery dissections treated by patch angioplasty. Two patients (5%) developed upper extremity changes in neuromonitoring, which immediately resolved with repositioning of the upper extremity. Technical success was 95%. Lateral projection and rotational CBCT were feasible in all patients with satisfactory imaging quality for catheterization and stenting of the celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery. There was one mortality (2%) at 30 days, and six patients (14%) had MAEs. There were no upper extremity neurological injuries. CONCLUSION Overhead upper extremity position allows optimal imaging on lateral projections and rotational CBCT during FB-EVAR. There were no upper extremity neurological injuries in this study.

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 P 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.

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).Prophylactic CSFD has been routinely used during endovascular TAAA repair, but concerns about major drain-related complications gave led to revising this paradigm.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 non-ambulatory (paraplegia). Endpoints were any SCI, permanent paraplegia, response to rescue treatment, major drain-related complications, mortality, and patient survival.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 to 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 peri-operative hypotension (OR 4.4, 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, CI 95% 1.01-1.10). Patient survival at 3-years was 72±3%.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.

Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. This case illustrates a 71-year-old male patient with an asymptomatic saccular aortic arch aneurysm treated by total endovascular aortic repair using 3-vessel inner branch stent graft. Postoperative course was unremarkable, and the patient was discharge home on postoperative day 3. Total endovascular aortic arch repair is a suitable alternative in higher-risk patients with aortic arch aneurysms who are not ideally suited for open surgical repair.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the midterm outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Summary background data FB-EVAR has been associated with decreased morbidity compared to open repair, but there is limited midterm data. Methods A total of 430 patients (302 males, mean age 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized investigational device exemption study. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), freedom from all cause and aortic-related mortality, target vessel patency, and freedom from secondary intervention and target vessel instability. Results There were 133 PRAs and 297 TAAAs with 1673 renal-mesenteric arteries incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches (3.9 ± 0.5 vessels/patient). At 30 days or within the hospital stay if longer than 30 days, there were 4 (0.9%) deaths. MAEs included new-onset dialysis in 8 patients (2%), permanent paraplegia or stroke in 10 patients each (2%), and respiratory failure requiring tracheostomy in 2 patients (0.5%). After a mean follow-up of 26 ± 20 months, there were 3 (0.7%) aortic-related deaths from SMA stent occlusion, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, or complications of open arch repair. At 5 years, freedom from all-cause and aortic-related mortality were 57% ± 5% and 98% ± 1%, respectively. Freedom from secondary intervention was 64% ± 4%, primary target vessel patency was 94% ± 1%, and freedom from target vessel instability was 89% ± 2% at same interval. One patient (0.2%) had nonfatal aneurysm treated using endovascular repair. Conclusion FB-EVAR is safe and effective for treatment of PRA and TAAAs with low rate of aortic-related mortality and aneurysm rupture on midterm follow-up.

Purpose:Common celiomesenteric trunk (CMT) is a rare anatomical variation that occurs in 0.5% to 3.4% of the general population. Its presence may complicate planning and implantation of fenestrated and branched stent-grafts because the wide diameter and short length of the CMT to its bifurcation does not allow sufficient sealing for placement of bridging stents.Case Report:We report a patient with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and CMT treated by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) using double kissing directional branches to incorporate the celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery. Pitfalls of stent design and implantation are outlined.Conclusion:Double kissing directional branches should be considered as an alternative to incorporate vessels with early bifurcation such as a CMT.

Background Acute occlusion of renal bridging stent grafts after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is an acknowledged complication with high morbidity that often results in chronic dialysis dependence. The feasibility and effect of timely or late (≥6 hours of ischemia) renal artery revascularization has not been adequately reported. Methods We performed a retrospective, multicenter study across 11 tertiary institutions of all consecutive patients who had undergone revascularization of renal artery stent graft occlusions after complex EVAR. The end points were technical success, association between ischemia time and renal function salvage, interventional complications, mortality, and mid-term outcomes. Results From 2009 to 2019, 38 patients with 46 target vessels (TVs; eight bilateral occlusions) were treated for renal artery occlusions after complex EVAR (mean age, 63.5 ± 10 years; 63.2% male). Six patients had a solitary kidney (15.8%). Of the 38 patients, 16 (42.1%) had undergone FEVAR and 22 (57.9%) had undergone BEVAR. The technical success rate was 95.7% (44 of 46 TVs). The recanalization technique used was sole aspiration thrombectomy in 5.3%, aspiration thrombectomy and stent graft relining in 52.6%, and sole stent graft relining in 36.8%. The median renal ischemia time was 27.5 hours (range, 4-720 hours; interquartile range, 4-36 hours). Most patients (94.4%) had been treated after ≥6 hours of renal ischemia time, and 55.6% had been treated after 24 hours. In 14 patients (36.8%), renal function had improved after intervention (mean glomerular filtration rate improvement, 14.2 ± 9 mL/min/1.73 m2). However, 24 patients (63.2%) showed no improvement. Improvement of renal function did not correlate with the length of renal ischemia time. Of the 14 patients with bilateral renal artery occlusion or a solitary kidney, 9 experienced partial recovery of renal function and no longer required hemodialysis. In-hospital mortality was 2.6%. The cause of renal stent graft occlusion could not be identified in 50% of the TVs (23 of 46). However, in 19 (41.3%), significant stenosis or a kink of the renal stent graft was found. The median follow-up was 11 months (interquartile range, 0-28 months). The estimated 1-year patient survival and patency rate of the renal stent grafts was 97.4% and 83.8%, respectively. Conclusions Revascularization of occluded renal bridging stent grafts after F/B-EVAR is a safe and feasible technique and can lead to significant improvement of renal function, even after long ischemia times (>24 hours) of the renal parenchyma or bilateral occlusion, as long as residual perfusion of the renal parenchyma has been preserved. Also, the long-term patency rates justify aggressive management of renal artery occlusion after F/B-EVAR.

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.The effect of SI after FB-EVAR on physical and mental HR-QOL has not been described.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.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.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.

To describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).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 (IIAs) or endovascular technique among those with occluded IIAs. Endpoints 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).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 2013-2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018-2021 (P=.019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, eleven had temporary iliac conduits and five had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with Extent I-III TAAA, in 6% with Extent IV TAAA and in 3% with CAAA (P=.009). Use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74%vs27%; P.001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49%vs28%; P=.013), peripheral artery disease (31%vs15%; P=.009) and ASA ≥ III (74%vs51%; P=.009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. Thirty-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively for all patients. Iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322[97] vs 323[110] vs 215[90] min; P.001), higher estimated blood loss (425[620] vs 580[1050] 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 to 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 nor in other specific MAE among the three groups.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 less transfusion requirements in the index procedure.

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.

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%; pConclusion: 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 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. End-points 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%.

Background The aim of our study is to examine the perioperative outcomes of carotid–subclavian bypass or transposition (CS-BpTp) versus endovascular techniques (ETs) for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during nontraumatic zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Methods We used prospectively collected data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) to identify patients who had undergone TEVAR at participating centers (2013–2018). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had undergone nontraumatic zone 2 TEVAR and concomitant LSA revascularization. Our main exposure of interest was LSA revascularization technique, CS-BpTp, or any ET. If a patient underwent multiple TEVAR procedures during the study period, the first case involving zone 2 was used for analysis. Preoperative patient characteristics were reviewed between treatment groups. The primary outcomes were mortality, transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke, and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). All outcomes were assessed up to 30 days postoperatively. Results A total of 837 patients were included in the study. The pathologies most frequently treated were aneurysm in 248 (34%) and dissection in 326 (45%). Overall, 721 subjects (86%) underwent CS-BpTp while 116 subjects (16%) underwent ETs. The latter included the following techniques: 23 chimney grafts, 3 scallops, 15 fenestrated grafts, and 75 branched grafts. Mortality was equal at 3% for both groups (P = 0.67). The rate of TIA/stroke was not significantly different in both groups (5.5% vs. 5%, P = 0.78). Similarly, the rate of SCI was 3% in the entire cohort without significant differences seen between treatment groups (P = 1). Multivariate logistic regression could not identify either CS-BpTp or ETs as independent predictors for death or TIA/stroke. Conclusions Within VQI, LSA revascularization during nontraumatic zone 2 TEVAR is safely and effectively achieved with either CS-BpTp or ETs across all nontraumatic thoracic aortic diseases. These techniques appear to be associated with similar perioperative outcomes in selected patients with low rates of mortality and major neurologic morbidity. Although no differences were seen in the proportion of early type I or III endoleaks, further prospective studies are warranted to elucidate the long-term durability of ETs compared with CS-BpTp.

Occult endoleaks can pose a diagnostic and treatment challenge. These endoleaks are not effectively identified by multiphase computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Possible causes are small fabric tears and slow-flow, dynamic, or positional endoleaks. We describe a patient with rapid aneurysm sac expansion and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy 46 months after four-vessel branched physician-modified endograft repair of a ruptured extent III thoracoabdominal aneurysm. Imaging failed to demonstrate an endoleak but identified fresh blood products within the sac. The patient underwent total realignment using branch-in-branch repair with a physician-modified endograft. Repeated imaging 25 days postoperatively revealed decrease in aneurysm diameter by 10 mm.

Introduction Fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair with custom manufactured devices (CMDs) has been applied to treat post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), but the long waiting period for device manufacture limits its application in symptomatic or contained ruptured aneurysms. Report A 59 year old female presented with a 7 cm chronic post-dissection extent II TAAA. The patient underwent first stage total arch repair with the elephant trunk technique. At the time of the initial placement of the thoracic stent graft a fenestration was created in the septum to perfuse the right renal artery, which originated from the false lumen. A second stage procedure was planned with a CMD, but the patient presented with severe chest pain and lower extremity weakness, which was attributed to compression of the true lumen below the renal arteries due to increased flow into a pressurised false lumen. The patient underwent successful repair using a physician modified endograft (PMEG) with four fenestrations and preloaded guidewires. Follow up at 21 months showed no complications and a widely patent stent graft. Discussion The Zenith Alpha has several advantages over the TX2 platform for modification, notably lower profile fabric and wider Z tents, which provide greater flexibility for the creation of fenestrations or branches. In this case, the creation of a larger fenestration during the first stage procedure probably contributed to pressurisation of the false lumen. PMEGs remain a valuable option for TAAA repair, including chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Their application is particularly useful in symptomatic patients who are not candidates for an off the shelf endograft and cannot wait for a device to be manufactured., Highlights • The time to manufacture a custom made stent-grafts limits their application in urgent cases. • PMEG remains a valuable option for TAAA repair in an urgent setting. • PMEG remains a good option for urgent TAAA repair in patients unsuitable for off-the-shelf options.

Background The aim of our study was to describe outcomes of stand-alone use (i.e., without concomitant implantation of an aortic stent graft) of the Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) for elective endovascular repair of isolated iliac artery aneurysms. Methods We evaluated all consecutive patients electively treated for isolated iliac artery aneurysms using standalone Gore Excluder IBE (January 2014–December 2018). Early (i.e., 30-day) endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and major access-site complications. Late endpoints were survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), internal iliac artery (IIA) primary patency, IIA branch instability, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), secondary interventions, endoleaks (ELs), aneurysm sac behavior, and new-onset buttock claudication (BC). Results A total of 11 consecutive patients (10 men; median age 75 years) were included. The technical success rate was 100%. At 30 days, mortality, MAEs, and major access-site complications were all 0%. Survival and freedom from ARM were 91% and 100%, respectively; only one nonaortic related death was recorded during follow-up. At a median follow-up of 14 months, IIA primary patency, IIA branch instability, and GRAEs were 100%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. No instances of graft migration ≥10 mm were detected. No graft-related secondary interventions were recorded, and 2 patients required a procedure-related secondary intervention 3 months after the index procedure (1 common femoral artery endarterectomy and 1 external iliac artery stenting). Although new-onset type 1 or type 3 ELs were never noted, one patient developed a new-onset type 2 EL. Aneurysm sac regression ≥5 mm was noted in 6 patients (55%), whereas in the remaining ones, the sac size was stable. No instances of new-onset BC were noted. Conclusions Use of standalone Gore Excluder IBE for elective endovascular repair of isolated iliac artery aneurysms is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment option. These results may support use of the technique as an effective means of endovascular reconstruction in patients with suitable anatomy.

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.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms carries a risk of spinal cord ischemia owing to extensive coverage of intercostal arteries, but other consequences of decreased flow to the paraspinal muscles have not been delineated. We describe a 54-year-old woman treated by multibranched thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair who developed severe disabling exertional thoracic and lumbar back pain after the operation. Despite physical therapy, the patient remains with disabling symptoms at 2 years of follow-up. Transcutaneous oxygen pressures confirmed exercise-induced decrease in oxygen pressure, consistent with decreased muscle perfusion. We propose the term paraspinal muscle claudication to describe these symptoms.

The aim was to evaluate renal related outcomes in patients who had incorporation of a small (4.0 mm) renal artery (RA) during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR).A total of 215 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective F-BEVAR trial were reviewed. Computed tomography angiography centreline of flow reconstruction was used to measure mean RA diameter. Patients who had at least one4.0 mm main or accessory RA incorporated by fenestration or directional branch (study group) were compared with patients who had incorporation of two ≥5.0 mm RAs (control group). Endpoints were technical success of RA incorporation, RA rupture and kidney loss, primary and secondary RA patency, RA branch instability and re-interventions, and renal function deterioration.Twenty-four patients with 28 4.0 mm RAs (16 accessory and 12 main RAs) were compared with 144 patients with 288 ≥5.0 mm incorporated RAs. Study group patients were significantly younger than controls (72 ± 8 vs. 75 ± 8 years, p = .04) and more often females (46% vs. 21%, p = .018); there were no differences in cardiovascular risk factors and aneurysm extent. Technical success was 92% for4.0 mm and 99% for ≥5.0 mm RA incorporation (p = .05). Inadvertent RA rupture occurred in three patients in the study group (13%) and in one (1%) in the control group (p = .009) resulting in kidney loss in two study group patients (8%) and one (1%) control group patient (p = .05). At one year, primary patency was 79 ± 9% vs. 94 ± 1% (p .001) and secondary patency was 84 ± 8% vs. 97 ± 1% (p .001) for study vs. control group; freedom from branch instability was 79 ± 9% vs. 93 ± 2% (p = .005), respectively. There were no differences in re-intervention rates and renal function deterioration between the groups. The mean follow up time was 21 ± 14 months.Incorporation of4.0 mm RAs during F-BEVAR is associated with lower technical success, higher risk of arterial disruption and kidney loss, and lower patency rates at one year.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) using division branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zones. Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, 74 patients (mean age 74±7 years; 72 men) treated for aortoiliac or common iliac artery aneurysms had an IBE deployed with distal landing of the side branch within the main trunk (n=60) of the internal iliac artery (IIA) vs within a division branch (n=25). Thirteen (17%) patients received bilateral IBE implantations for a total of 85 vessels evaluated. Early endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, 30-day major adverse events (MAEs), and 30-day major access complications. Late endpoints were survival, primary and secondary IIA patency, freedom from IIA branch instability, freedom from new-onset buttock claudication, and aneurysm sac diameter changes. Time-dependent outcomes were reported as Kaplan-Meier curves with differences assessed using the log-rank test. Estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The overall technical success rate was 97%, with 1 technical failure per group (p=0.43). Two patients, one from each group, died within 30 days (p=0.43). No significant differences were seen in the rates of 30-day MAEs (7% vs 17%, p=0.35) or major access complications (9% vs 11%, p>0.99) for patients receiving distal landing in the main trunk vs a division branch, respectively. The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 19±12 months. The overall 1-year survival rate was 94% (95% CI 74% to 99%). The primary and secondary patency rates at 1 year were 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 95% (95% CI 72% to 99%, p=0.72) and 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 100% (p=0.41) for the main trunk vs division branch groups, respectively. Freedom from IIA branch instability estimates were also similar at 1-year follow-up [93% (95% CI 82% to 97%) vs 90% (95% CI 66% to 97%), p=0.29], as were the freedom from new-onset buttock claudication estimates [98% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI 67% to 99%), respectively; p=0.62]. Mean sac diameter change was 5.4±5.3 mm, not significantly different between the groups (p=0.85). Conclusion: Use of the posterior or anterior division of the IIA as a distal landing zone for the Gore Excluder IBE was safe and efficacious in the midterm. This technique may permit extending indications for endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Long-term assessment is needed to affirm the efficacy of this technique.

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.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.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).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.