Outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Schanzer, AndresSimons, Jessica P.
Flahive, Julie
Durgin, Jonathan
Aiello, Francesco A.
Doucet, Danielle R.
Steppacher, Robert
Messina, Louis M.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of SurgeryDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2017-03-01Keywords
Surgery
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: More than 80% of infrarenal aortic aneurysms are treated by endovascular repair. However, adoption of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for complex aortic aneurysms has been limited, despite high morbidity and mortality associated with open repair. There are few published reports of consecutive outcomes, inclusive of all fenestrated and branched endovascular repairs, starting from the inception of a complex aortic aneurysm program. Therefore, we examined a single center's consecutive experience of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study evaluating 30-day and 1-year outcomes in all consecutive patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (definition: requiring one or more fenestrations or branches). Data were collected prospectively through an Institutional Review Board-approved registry and a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210). RESULTS: We performed 100 consecutive complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (November 2010 to March 2016) using 58 (58%) commercially manufactured custom-made devices and 42 (42%) physician-modified devices to treat 4 (4%) common iliac, 42 (42%) juxtarenal, 18 (18%) pararenal, and 36 (36%) thoracoabdominal aneurysms (type I, n = 1; type II, n = 4; type III, n = 12; type IV, n = 18; arch, n = 1). The repairs included 309 fenestrations, branches, and scallops (average of 3.1 branch arteries/case). All patients had 30-day follow-up for 30-day event rates: three (3%) deaths; six (6%) target artery occlusions; five (5%) progressions to dialysis; eight (8%) access complications; one (1%) paraparesis; one (1%) bowel ischemia; and no instances of myocardial infarction, paralysis, or stroke. Of 10 type I or type III endoleaks, 8 resolved (7 with secondary intervention, 1 without intervention). Mean follow-up time was 563 days (interquartile range, 156-862), with three (3%) patients lost to follow-up. On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 87%, freedom from type I or type III endoleak was 97%, target vessel patency was 92%, and freedom from aortic rupture was 100%. Average lengths of intensive care unit stay and inpatient stay were 1.4 days (standard deviation, 3.3) and 3.6 days (standard deviation, 3.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that complex aortic aneurysms can now be treated with minimally invasive fenestrated and branched endovascular repair. Endovascular technologies will likely continue to play an increasingly important role in the management of patients with complex aortic aneurysm disease.Source
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Mar 1. pii: S0741-5214(17)30101-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.12.111. [Epub ahead of print] Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/j.jvs.2016.12.111Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/29105PubMed ID
28259577Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.jvs.2016.12.111