CVIR Endovascular (Oct 2019)

Technical approach and outcomes of failed infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repairs rescued with fenestrated and branched endografts

  • Jesse Manunga,
  • Larissa I. Stanberry,
  • Peter Alden,
  • Jason Alexander,
  • Nedaa Skeik,
  • Elliot Stephenson,
  • Jessica Titus,
  • Joseph Karam,
  • Xiaoyi Teng,
  • Timothy Sullivan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-019-0075-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Endovascular rescue of failed infrarenal repair (EVAR) has emerged as an attractive option to stent graft explantation. The procedure, however, is underutilized due to limited devices accessibility and the challenges associated with their implantation in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report our outcomes and discuss our approach to rescuing previously failed infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with fenestrated/branched endografts (f/b-EVAR). Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients with failed EVAR rescued with f/b-EVAR at our institution from November 2013 to March 2019 was conducted. The study primary end point was technical success; defined as the implantation of the device with no type I a/b or type III endoleak or conversion to open repair. Secondary endpoints included major adverse events (MAEs), graft patency and reintervention rates. Results During this time, 202 patients with complex aortic aneurysms were treated with f/b-EVAR. Of these, 19 patients (Male: 17, mean age 79 ± 7 years) underwent repair for failed EVAR. The median time from failed repair to f/b-EVAR was 48 (30, 60) months. Treatment failure was attributed to stent graft migration in 9 (47.4%) patients, disease progression in 5 (26.3%), short initial neck in 3 (15.8%) and unable to be determined in 2 (10.5%). Three patients were treated urgently with surgeon modified stent graft. Technical success was achieved in 18 patients (95%), including two who had undergone emergent repair for rupture. Seventy-two targeted vessels (97.3%) were successfully incorporated. Sixteen (84.2%) patients required a thoracoabdominal repair to achieve a durable seal. Major adverse events (MAEs) occurred in 3 patients (15.7%) including paralysis and death in one (5.3%), compartment syndrome and temporary dialysis in another and laparotomy with snorkeling of one renal and bypass of the other in the third patient. Median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 3 (2, 4) days. Late reintervention, primary target vessel patency and primary assisted patency rates were 5.3%, 98.6% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion Implantation of f/b-EVAR in patients with failed previous EVAR is a challenging undertaking that can be performed safely with a high technical success and low reintervention rates.

Keywords