Reinterventions after fenestrated and branched endografting for degenerative aortic aneurysms

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery 2021-12, Vol.74 (6), p.1808-1816.e4
• Main Authors: Gallitto, Enrico, Faggioli, Gianluca, Pini, Rodolfo, Logiacco, Antonino, Mascoli, Chiara, Fenelli, Cecillia, Abualhin, Mohammahad, Gargiulo, Mauro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - mortality; Complex aortic aneurysm; Complex endovascular treatment; Endograft complication; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects; Endovascular Procedures - instrumentation; Endovascular Procedures - mortality; Female; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging; Postoperative Complications - mortality; Postoperative Complications - therapy; Progression-Free Survival; Prosthesis Design; Registries; Retreatment; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.05.027

Fenestrated/branched endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is widely accepted technique to treat juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (J/P-AAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for patients at high-surgical risk. However, the follow-up results should be carefully evaluated, especially in terms of the reintervention rate. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to evaluate the early and mid-term reinterventions after FB-EVAR for J/P-AAAs and TAAAs and their effects on follow-up survival. From 2006 to 2019, all consecutive patients who had undergone F/B-EVAR for J/P-AAAs or TAAAs were prospectively enrolled. Cases requiring reinterventions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with aortic dissection were excluded from the present analysis. Reinterventions were classified as follows: access related, aortoiliac related, or target visceral vessel (TVV) related. Freedom from reintervention and survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the risk factors. Overall, 221 F/B-EVAR procedures were performed for 111 J/P-AAAs (50.3%) and 110 TAAAs (49.7%) in an elective (182; 82%) or urgent (39; 18%) setting. The median follow-up was 27 months (interquartile range, 13 months). Overall, 41 patients had undergone 52 reinterventions (single, 30 [14%]; multiple, 11 [5%]; access related, 17 [33%]; aortoiliac related, 6 [12%]; TVV related, 29 [55%]). Of the 52 reinterventions, 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) had occurred within and after 30 days, respectively. Eight reinterventions (15%) had been were performed in an urgent setting. Endovascular and open reinterventions were performed in 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) cases, respectively. Open reinterventions were frequently access related (access, 16; no access, 4; P ≤ .001). Technical success was 95% (39 patients); failures consisted of one splenic artery rupture and one renal artery loss. Patients undergoing reintervention had more frequently undergone a primary urgent F/B-EVAR (urgent, 12 of 39 [31%]; elective, 29 of 182 [16%]; P < .001) and had had TAAAs (TAAAs, 34 of 41 [83%]; J/P-AAAs, 7 of 41 [17%]; P < .001). The patients with TAAAs had had a greater incidence of TVV-related reintervention (TAAAs, 26 of 28 [93%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 28 [7%]; P < .001) and multiple reinterventions (TAAAs, 9 of 11 [82%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 11 [18%]; P = .03) compared with those with J/P-AAAs. Survival at 3 years was 75%. Freedom from reintervent