Citations

Objective: To assess patient radiation exposure as reflected by cumulative air kerma (CAK) and dose area product (DAP) during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR). Background: Patient radiation exposure during FB-EVAR has been reported inconsistently. Methods: Data from 2,111 patients enrolled in 10 physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies (2012-2022) were analyzed from the United States Aortic Research Consortium database. Procedures were performed using seven fixed imaging systems (A to G). Patients were classified into three groups by imaging era: 2012-2015 (Group 1), 2016-2018 (Group 2), and 2019-2022 (Group 3). Primary endpoints were CAK and DAP risk factors, assessed using linear mixed-effect models. Secondary endpoints were diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for FB-EVAR. Results: Of the 2,111 patients (71% males; mean 74±9 years years-old) treated by FB-EVAR; 263 (12%) were in Group 1, 541 (26%) in Group 2, and 1,307 (62%) in Group 3. Use of ≥4 vessel stent-graft designs increased from 69% (Group 1) to 79% (Group 3) ( P <0.001). Median CAK decreased from 3,644 mGy (Group 1) to 1,753 mGy (Group 3), and DAP from 441 Gy.cm² to 208 Gy.cm² ( P <0.001). Higher BMI, iliac branch device (IBD) use, and longer fluoroscopy time (FT) were associated with increased CAK and DAP, while experienced operators and systems D, F, and G were protective ( P <0.05). DRLs for Group 3 were 2,800 mGy (CAK) and 340 Gy.cm² (DAP). Conclusions: Radiation exposure during FB-EVAR significantly decreased over time. Higher BMI, IBD use, and FT were linked to increased exposure, while experienced operator and System D, F or G were protective. Trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02043691 NCT00583817 NCT00483249 NCT01937949 NCT02050113 NCT02323581 NCT01874197 NCT01654133 NCT02266719.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has been used as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgical repair to treat patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The aim of this study was to evaluate aortic-related mortality (ARM) and aortic aneurysm rupture after FB-EVAR of TAAAs. METHODS: Patients enrolled in 8 prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 who underwent elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs were analyzed. Primary end points were ARM, defined as any early mortality (30 days or in hospital) or late mortality from aortic rupture, dissection, organ or limb malperfusion attributable to aortic disease, complications of reinterventions, or aortic rupture. Secondary end points were early major adverse events, TAAA life-altering events (defined as death, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, or stroke), all-cause mortality, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: A total of 1109 patients were analyzed; 589 (53.1%) had extent I–III and 520 (46.9%) had extent IV TAAAs. Median age was 73.4 years (interquartile range, 68.1–78.3 years); 368 (33.2%) were women. Early mortality was 2.7% (n=30); congestive heart failure was associated with early mortality (odds ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.22–8.02]; P =0.01). Incidence of early aortic rupture was 0.4% (n=4). Incidence of early major adverse events and TAAA life-altering events was 20.4% (n=226) and 7.7% (n=85), respectively. There were 30 late ARMs; 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.6%–5.4%); older age and extent I–III TAAAs were independently associated with late ARM (each P <0.05). Fourteen late aortic ruptures occurred; 5-year cumulative incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%–4.3%); extent I–III TAAAs were associated with late aortic rupture (hazard ratio, 5.85 [95% CI, 1.31–26.2]; P =0.02). Five-year all-cause mortality was 45.7% (95% CI, 41.7%–49.4%). Five-year cumulative incidence of secondary intervention was 40.3% (95% CI, 35.8%–44.5%). CONCLUSIONS: ARM and aortic rupture are uncommon after elective FB-EVAR of asymptomatic intact TAAAs. Half of the ARMs occurred early, and most of the late deaths were not aortic related. Late all-cause mortality rate and the need for secondary interventions were 46% and 40%, respectively, 5 years after FB-EVAR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT02089607, NCT02050113, NCT02266719, NCT02323581, NCT00583817, NCT01654133, NCT00483249, NCT02043691, and NCT01874197.

BACKGROUND: Physician modified endografts (PMEGs) have been widely used in the treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, however, previous data are limited to small single center studies and robust data on safety and effectiveness of PMEGs are lacking. We aimed to perform an international multicenter study analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An international multicenter single-arm cohort study was performed analyzing the outcomes of PMEGs in the treatment of elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Variables and outcomes were defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Device modification and procedure details were collected and analyzed. Efficacy outcomes included technical success and safety outcomes included major adverse events and 30-day mortality. Follow-up outcomes included reinterventions, endoleaks, target vessel patency rates and overall and aortic-related mortality. Multivariable analysis was performed aiming at identifying predictors of technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 1274 patients were included in the study from 19 centers. Median age was 74 (IQR, 68–79), and 75.7% were men; 45.7% were complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, and 54.3% were thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms; 65.5% patients presented electively, 24.6% were symptomatic, and 9.9% were ruptured. Most patients (83.1%) were submitted to a fenestrated repair, 3.6% to branched repair, and 13.4% to a combined fenestrated and branched repair. Most patients (85.8%) had ≥3 target vessels included. The overall technical success was 94% (94% in elective, 93.4% in symptomatic, and 95.1% in ruptured cases). Thirty-day mortality was 5.8% (4.1% in elective, 7.6% in symptomatic, and 12.7% in ruptured aneurysms). Major adverse events occurred in 25.2% of cases (23.1% in elective, 27.8% in symptomatic, and 30.3% in ruptured aneurysms). Median follow-up was 21 months (5.6–50.6). Freedom from reintervention was 73.8%, 61.8%, and 51.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years; primary target vessel patency was 96.9%, 93.6%, and 90.3%. Overall survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality was 82.4%/92.9%, 69.9%/91.6%, and 55.0%/89.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: PMEGs were a safe and effective treatment option for elective, symptomatic, and ruptured complex aortic aneurysms. Long-term data and future prospective studies are needed for more robust and detailed analysis.

Objective: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Background: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. Methods: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006–2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. Results: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P<0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P<0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7–37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50–2.44; P<0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63–3.62; P<0.001). Conclusions: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

Objective: To report mid-term outcomes of renal-mesenteric target arteries (TAs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Background: TA instability (TAI) is the most frequent indication for reintervention after FB-EVAR. Methods: Data from consecutive patients enrolled in 9 prospective nonrandomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies between 2005 and 2020 were reviewed. TA outcomes through 5 years of follow-up were analyzed for vessels incorporated by fenestrations or directional branches (DBs), including TA patency, endoleak, integrity failure, reintervention, and instability. Results: A total of 1681 patients had 6349 renal-mesenteric arteries were targeted using 3720 fenestrations (59%), 2435 DBs (38%), and 194 scallops (3%). Mean follow was 23 ± 21 months. At 5 years, TAs incorporated by fenestrations had higher primary (95 ± 1% vs 91 ± 1%, P < 0.001) and secondary patency (98 ± 1% vs 94 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and higher freedom from TAI (87 ± 2% vs 84 ± 2%, P = 0.002) compared with TAs incorporated by DBs, with no differences in other TA events. DBs targeted by balloon-expandable stent-grafts had significantly lower freedom from TAI (78 ± 4% vs 88 ± 1%, P = 0.006), TA endoleak (87 ± 3% vs 97 ± 1%, P < 0.001), and TA reintervention (83 ± 4% vs 95 ± 1%, P < 0.001) compared with those targeted by self-expandable stent-grafts Conclusions: Incorporation of renal and mesenteric TA during FB-EVAR is safe and durable with high 5-year patency rates and low freedom from TAI. DBs have lower patency rates and lower freedom from TAI than fenestrations, with better performance for self-expandable stent grafts as compared with balloon-expandable stent grafts.

Background: Hybrid debranching repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms was initially designed as a better alternative to standard open repair, addressing the limitations of endovascular repair involving the visceral aorta. We reviewed the collective outcomes of hybrid debranching repairs using extra-anatomic, open surgical debranching of the renal-mesenteric arteries, followed by endovascular aortic stenting. Methods: Data from patients who underwent hybrid repair in 14 North American institutions during 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. Society of Vascular Surgery scores were used to assess comorbidity risk. Early and late outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, reintervention, and patency were analyzed. Results: A total of 208 patients (118 male; mean age, 71±8 years old) were treated by hybrid repair with extraanatomic reconstruction of 657 renal and mesenteric arteries (mean 3.2 vessels/patient). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.6±1.3 cm. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were identified in 163 (78%) patients and pararenal aneurysms in 45 (22%). A single-stage repair was performed in 92 (44%) patients. The iliac arteries were the most common source of inflow (n=132; 63%), and most (n=150; 72%) had 3 or more bypasses. There were 30 (14%) early deaths, ranging widely across sites (0%–21%). A Society of Vascular Surgery comorbidity score >15 was the primary predictor of early mortality ( P <0.01), whereas mortality was 3% in a score ≤9. Early complications occurred in 140 (73%) patients and included respiratory complications in 45 patients (22%) and spinal cord ischemia in 22 (11%), of whom 10 (45%) fully recovered. At 5 years, survival was 61±5%, primary graft patency was 90±2%, and secondary patency was 93±2%. The most significant predictor of late mortality was renal insufficiency ( P <0.0001). Conclusions: Mortality after hybrid repair and visceral debranching is highly variable by center, but strongly affected by preoperative comorbidities and the centers’ experience with the technique. With excellent graft patency at 5 years, the outcomes of hybrid repair done at centers of excellence and in carefully selected patients may be comparable (or better) than traditional open or even totally endovascular approaches. However, in patients already considered as high-risk for surgery, it may not offer better outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of “anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).” Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups ( P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001). Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA. Clinical Impact The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.

Objective: To assess outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of Extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) without prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD). Background: Prophylactic CSFD has been routinely used during endovascular TAAA repair, but concerns about major drain-related complications have led to revising this paradigm. Methods: We reviewed a multicenter cohort of 541 patients treated for Extent I-III TAAAs by FB-EVAR without prophylactic CSFD. Spinal cord injury (SCI) was graded as ambulatory (paraparesis) or nonambulatory (paraplegia). Endpoints were any SCI, permanent paraplegia, response to rescue treatment, major drain-related complications, mortality, and patient survival. Results: There were 22 Extent I, 240 Extent II and 279 Extent III TAAAs. Thirty-day mortality was 3%. SCI occurred in 45 patients (8%), paraparesis occurring in 23 (4%) and paraplegia in 22 patients (4%). SCI was more common in patients with Extent I-II compared with Extent III TAAAs (12% vs. 5%, P=0.01). Rescue treatment included permissive hypertension in all patients, with CSFD in 22 (4%). Symptom improvement was noted in 73%. Twelve patients (2%) had permanent paraplegia. Two patients (0.4%) had major drain-related complications. Independent predictors for SCI by multivariate logistic regression were sustained perioperative hypotension [odds ratio (OR): 4.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.7–11.1], patent collateral network (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1–0.6), and total length of aortic coverage (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10). Patient survival at 3 years was 72%±3%. Conclusion: FB-EVAR of Extent I-III TAAAs without CSFD has low mortality and low rates of permanent paraplegia (2%). SCI occurred in 8% of patients, and rescue treatment improved symptoms in 73% of them.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial ( CREST ) is a multicenter randomized trial of stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. This study assesses management of vascular risk factors. Methods and Results Management was provided by the patient's physician, with biannual monitoring results collected by the local site. Therapeutic targets were low‐density lipoprotein, cholesterol <100 mg/dL, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, fasting blood glucose <126 mg/dL, and nonsmoking status. Optimal control was defined as achieving all 4 goals concurrently. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare risk factors at baseline with those observed in scheduled follow‐up visits for up to 48 months. In the analysis cohort of 2210, significant improvements in risk‐factor control were observed across risk factors for all follow‐up visits compared with baseline. At 48 months, achievement of the low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal improved from 59.1% to 73.6% ( P <0.001), achievement of the systolic blood pressure goal improved from 51.6% to 65.1% ( P <0.001), achievement of the glucose goal improved from 74.9% to 80.7% ( P =0.0101), and nonsmoking improved from 74.4% to 80.9% ( P <0.0001). The percentage with optimal risk‐factor control also improved significantly, from 16.7% to 36.2% ( P <0.001), but nearly 2 of 3 study participants did not achieve optimal control during the study. Conclusions Site‐based risk‐factor control improved significantly in the first 6 months and over the long term in CREST but was often suboptimal. Intensive medical management should be considered for future trials of carotid revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background and Purpose— Carotid artery stenosis causes up to 10% of all ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was introduced as a treatment to prevent stroke in the early 1950s. Carotid stenting (CAS) was introduced as a treatment to prevent stroke in 1994. Methods— The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) is a randomized trial with blinded end point adjudication. Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were randomized to CAS or CEA. The primary end point was the composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter, up to 4 years. Results— There was no significant difference in the rates of the primary end point between CAS and CEA (7.2% versus 6.8%; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.51; P =0.51). Symptomatic status and sex did not modify the treatment effect, but an interaction with age and treatment was detected ( P =0.02). Outcomes were slightly better after CAS for patients aged <70 years and better after CEA for patients aged >70 years. The periprocedural end point did not differ for CAS and CEA, but there were differences in the components, CAS versus CEA (stroke 4.1% versus 2.3%, P =0.012; and myocardial infarction 1.1% versus 2.3%, P =0.032). Conclusions— In CREST, CAS and CEA had similar short- and longer-term outcomes. During the periprocedural period, there was higher risk of stroke with CAS and higher risk of myocardial infarction with CEA. Clinical Trial Registration— www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.