Imaging Obtained Up To 12 Months Preoperatively Is Adequate for Planning Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients referred for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) often present with a previous computed tomography angiogram (CTA), but it is unknown how recent the CTA must be to ensure accurate F/BEVAR planning. We sought to determine whether anatomic planning parameters change significantly between a CTA used for F/BEVAR planning and a CTA obtained 6 to 12 months prior.

Methods:

Two blinded observers reviewed preoperative CTAs from 21 patients who underwent F/BEVAR. Each patient had a “recent” scan obtained 0 to 6 months before F/BEVAR planning and a “prior” scan obtained 6 to 12 months before the “recent” CTA. Standard measurements included (1) target vessel separation distances, (2) target vessel origin clock position, and (3) proximal F/BEVAR device diameter. Clinically significant differences for target vessel separation distance, target vessel origin clock position, and proximal F/BEVAR device diameter were predefined as >5 mm, >30 minutes, and >4 mm, respectively. Differences between “recent”/“prior” CTA scans were examined by paired t test.

Results:

Mean time interval between paired “recent”/“prior” CTAs was 8.0 months (standard deviation: ±1.7). Mean difference in paired “recent”/“prior” target vessel distance (relative to celiac artery [CA]) was 2.6 mm for the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), 2.5 mm for the right renal artery (RRA), and 3.3 mm for the left renal artery (LRA). Of the 21 paired “recent”/“prior” CTAs, clinically significant differences were observed in 2, 4, and 2 patients for SMA, RRA, and LRA target vessel distance, respectively. Target vessel clock position (SMA reference at 12:00) varied by 12 minutes for the CA, 13 minutes for the RRA, and 15 minutes for the LRA. One paired “recent”/“prior” CTA was found to have a clinically significant difference for the LRA. No clinically significant differences were observed for proximal device diameter.

Conclusions:

In patients who underwent successful F/BEVAR, measurement comparisons between CTAs obtained up to 1 year prior were minor and unlikely to yield clinically significant changes to F/BEVAR design.

Keywords

fenestrated endograft aortic repair branch endograft aortic repair endovascular aortic repair of complex aortic aneurysm FEVAR BEVAR

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adam

Berce

Hartley

Anderson

. Repair of juxtarenal para-anastomotic aortic aneurysms after previous open repair with fenestrated and branched endovascular stent grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(5):997–1001.

Anderson

Adam

Berce

Hartley

. Repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with fenestrated and branched endovascular stent grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(4):600–607.

Anderson

Berce

Hartley

. Endoluminal aortic grafting with renal and superior mesenteric artery incorporation by graft fenestration. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8(1):3–15.

Faruqi

Chuter

Reilly

et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm using a pararenal fenestrated stent-graft. J Endovasc Surg. 1999;6(4):354–358.

Greenberg

Haulon

O’Neill

Lyden

Ouriel

. Primary endovascular repair of juxtarenal aneurysms with fenestrated endovascular grafting. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;27(5):484–491.

Muhs

Verhoeven

Zeebregts

et al. Mid-term results of endovascular aneurysm repair with branched and fenestrated endografts. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(1):9–15.

Verhoeven

Zeebregts

Kapma

Tielliu

Prins

van den Dungen

. Fenestrated and branched endovascular techniques for thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2005;46(2):131–140.

Greenberg

Sternbergh

WC 3rd

Makaroun

et al. Intermediate results of a United States multicenter trial of fenestrated endograft repair for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(4):730–737 e1.

Chuter

Gordon

Reilly

Goodman

Messina

. An endovascular system for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8(1):25–33.

10.

Chuter

Rapp

Hiramoto

Schneider

Howell

Reilly

. Endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(1):6–16.

11.

Malkawi

Resch

Bown

et al. Sizing fenestrated aortic stent-grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(3):311–316.

12.

Banno

Kobeiter

Brossier

Marzelle

Presles

Becquemin

. Inter-observer variability in sizing fenestrated and/or branched aortic stent-grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47(1):45–52.

13.

Oshin

England

McWilliams

Brennan

Fisher

Vallabhaneni

. Intra- and interobserver variability of target vessel measurement for fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17(3):402–407.

14.

Dossabhoy

Simons

Diamond

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

15.

Schanzer

Simons

Flahive

et al. Outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66(3):687–694.

16.

Mastracci

Greenberg

Eagleton

Hernandez

. Durability of branches in branched and fenestrated endografts. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(4):926–933; discussion 933.

17.

Alkhorayef

Babikir

Alrushoud

Al-Mohammed

Sulieman

. Patient radiation biological risk in computed tomography angiography procedure. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2017;24(2):235–240.

18.

Aycock

Westafer

Boxen

Majlesi

Schoenfeld

Bannuru

. Acute kidney injury after computed tomography: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(1):44–53 e4.

19.

Brenner

Hall

. Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology. 2012;265(2):330–331.

20.

Brenner

Hall

. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277–2784.

21.

Jones

Badger

Boyd

Soong

. The impact of radiation dose exposure during endovascular aneurysm repair on patient safety. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(2):298–302.

22.

Monastiriotis

Comito

Labropoulos

. Radiation exposure in endovascular repair of abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(3):753–761.

23.

White

Macdonald

. Estimating risk associated with radiation exposure during follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2010;51(1):95–104.

24.

Bernstein

Dilley

Goldberger

Gosink

Leopold

. Growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Surgery. 1976;80(6):765–773.

25.

Conway

Greenberg

Mastracci

Hernandez

Coscas

. Renal artery implantation angles in thoracoabdominal aneurysms and their implications in the era of branched endografts. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17(3):380–387.

26.

Lederle

Johnson

Wilson

et al. The aneurysm detection and management study screening program: validation cohort and final results. Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(10):1425–1430.

27.

Lederle

Johnson

Wilson

et al. Relationship of age, gender, race, and body size to infrarenal aortic diameter. The Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26(4):595–601.

28.

MacSweeney

Ellis

Worrell

Greenhalgh

Powell

. Smoking and growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Lancet. 1994;344(8923):651–652.

29.

Vardulaki

Prevost

Walker

et al. Growth rates and risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br J Surg. 1998;85(12):1674–1680.

30.

Park

Hiramoto

Reilly

Sweet

Chuter

. Variation in the shape and length of the branches of a thoracoabdominal aortic stent graft: implications for the role of standard off-the-shelf components. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51(3):572–576.