Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repair

Abstract

Purpose:

Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) is technically more challenging when performed after a failing EVAR procedure (FEVAR after EVAR). This study aims to assess the technical outcome of FEVAR after EVAR and to identify factors that may influence complication rates.

Methods:

A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single department of vascular and endovascular surgery. The rate of FEVAR after EVAR compared to primary FEVAR is reported. Complication and primary unconnected fenestration (PUF) rates as well as survival were assessed for the FEVAR after EVAR cohort. PUF rates and operating time were also compared to all primary FEVAR patients. Patient characteristics and technical factors such as number of fenestrations or use of a steerable sheath were assessed as possible influencers on technical success when performing FEVAR after EVAR.

Results:

Two hundred and nine fenestrated devices were implanted during the study period (2013 to April 2020). Thirty-five patients (16.7% of all FEVAR patients) had undergone FEVAR after EVAR and were included in the study. Overall survival at last follow-up (20.2±19.1 months) was 82.9% in FEVAR after EVAR patients. Rates of technical failure dropped significantly after 14 procedures (42.9% vs. 9.5%; p=0.03). Primary unconnected fenestrations were seen in 3 cases of FEVAR after EVAR (8.6%) and 14 of 174 primary FEVAR cases (8.0%; p>0.99). Operating time for FEVAR after EVAR was significantly higher than for primary FEVAR (301.1±110.5 minutes vs. 253.9±103.4 minutes; p=0.02). The availability of a steerable sheath was a significant predictor of reduced risk of PUFs, whereas age and gender, number of fenestrations or suprarenal fixation of the failed EVAR did not significantly influence PUF rates.

Conclusion:

Fewer technical complications were seen over the study period in FEVAR after EVAR patients. While rates of PUFs were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR can be a valuable and safe tool to treat patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR but may be more complex to achieve than primary FEVAR.

Clinical Impact

This retrospective study assesses the technical outcome of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fenestrated EVAR; FEVAR) after prior EVAR. While rates of primary unconnected fenestrations were not different from primary FEVAR, operating time was significantly longer in patients undergoing FEVAR for failed EVAR. Fenestrated EVAR after prior EVAR may be technically more challenging than primary FEVAR procedures, but could be performed with equally good results in this patient cohort. FEVAR offers a feasible treatment option for patients with progression of aortic disease or type Ia endoleak after EVAR.

Keywords

fenestrated stent-graft pararenal aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair endovascular treatment/therapy endoleak reintervention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dossabhoy

Simons

Flahive

, et al. Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using physician-modified endovascular grafts versus company-manufactured devices. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(6):1673–1683.

Taher

Falkensammer

McCarte

, et al. The influence of prototype testing in three-dimensional aortic models on fenestrated endograft design. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65:1591–1597.

Taher

Assadian

Strassegger

, et al. Pararenal aortic ulcer repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(4):504–510.

Dijkstra

Tielliu

Meerwaldt

, et al. Dutch experience with the fenestrated Anaconda endograft for short-neck infrarenal and juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(2):301–307.

Eagleton

Follansbee

Wolski

, et al. Fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair outcomes for type II and III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(4):930–942.

Kliewer

Pelanek-Volk

Plimon

, et al. Exclusion of complex aortic aneurysm with chimney endovascular aortic repair is applicable in a minority of patients treated with fenestrated endografts. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021;32(3):460–466.

Motta

Crowner

Kalbaugh

, et al. Outcomes and complications after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70(1):15–22.

Falkensammer

Taher

Uhlmann

, et al. Rescue of failed endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the fenestrated Anaconda device. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66(5):1334–1339.

Starnes

Caps

Arthurs

, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64(5):1219–1227.

10.

Sveinsson

Sobocinski

Resch

, et al. Early versus late experience in fenestrated endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(4):895–901.

11.

Taher

Falkensammer

Nguyen

, et al. Assessing the institutional learning curve for pararenal aortic repair using the fenestrated Anaconda endograft. Vascular. 2019;27(1):46–50.

12.

Chaikof

Blankensteijn

Harris

, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(5):1048–1060.

13.

Rylski

Pacini

Beyersdorf

, et al. Standards of reporting in open and endovascular aortic surgery (STORAGE guidelines). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(1):10–20.

14.

Gallitto

Faggioli

Bertoglio

, et al. Steerable sheath for cannulation and bridging stenting of challenging target visceral vessels in fenestrated and branched endografting. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;67:26–34.

15.

Schanzer

Beck

Eagleton

, et al. Results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair after failed infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(3):849–858.

16.

Rao

Lane

Franklin

, et al. Open repair versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair of juxtarenal aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(1):242–255.

17.

Martin

Greenberg

Mastracci

, et al. Late rescue of proximal endograft failure using fenestrated and branched devices. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(6):1479–1487.

18.

Jordan

Jr Mehta

Varnagy

, et al. Results of the ANCHOR prospective, multicenter registry of EndoAnchors for type Ia endoleaks and endograft migration in patients with challenging anatomy. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(4):885–892.e2.

19.

Avci

Vos

Kolvenbach

, et al. The use of endoanchors in repair EVAR cases to improve proximal endograft fixation. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2012;53(4):419–426.

20.

Donas

Telve

Torsello

, et al. Use of parallel grafts to save failed prior endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and type Ia endoleaks. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(3):578–584.

21.

Oderich

Ribeiro

Reis

Souza

, et al. Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated and branched endografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(2):S32–S41.e7.

22.

D’Oria

Oderich

Tenorio

, et al. Natural history of isolated type II endoleaks in patients treated by fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(1):44–54.

23.

Dossabhoy

Simons

Diamond

, et al. Reinterventions after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68(3):669–681.