Citations

Purpose: Familial history of aortic disease has been associated with increased risk of aneurysm-related complications after standard endovascular aortic repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for complex aortic aneurysms in patients with or without familial aortic aneurysms (FAAs). Materials and Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective non-randomized study to investigate outcomes after FB-EVAR for treatment of complex aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2022. Familial aortic aneurysm was defined as occurrence of an aortic aneurysm or dissections in a first- or second-degree relative and compared with patients with sporadic aortic aneurysms (SAAs). Endpoints included procedural metrics, 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), mid-term patient survival, freedom from reintervention and endoleak, and aneurysm sac shrinkage. Results: There were 499 patients treated with FB-EVAR (70% males, mean age was 74±7.7 years) including 66 (13%) patients with FAAs and 434 (87%) with SAAs. Both groups had similar demographics, clinical characteristics, aneurysm extent, and prior history of aortic dissection or aortic repair. Patients with FAAs had longer fluoroscopy time (82 vs 71 minutes) and radiation exposure (1856 vs 1213 mGy; each p<0.05), with no difference in technical success (FAA, 94% vs SAA, 97%; p=0.51). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 0.9%; p=1.00) and MAEs (23% vs 18%; p=0.44) among patients with FAA and SAA, respectively. Median follow-up was 28 months. At 3 years, patient survival, freedom from secondary interventions, and cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage were 76±2.5%, 74±2.5%, and 32±2.6% for all patients, respectively, with no difference between FAA and SAA groups. Conclusion: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and low incidence of MAEs regardless of the presence of FAA. There was no difference in mid-term patient survival, secondary interventions, and sac changes among patients with or without family history of aortic disease. Clinical Impact This study demonstrates that fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) can be performed with high technical success and comparable early and mid-term outcomes in patients with or without a familial history of aortic aneurysm, after exclusion of genetically triggered aortic diseases. These findings challenge the assumption that family history alone should preclude complex endovascular repair. Clinically, this supports broader use of FB-EVAR in carefully selected patients with familial aortic disease, emphasizing anatomical suitability rather than pedigree alone. The innovation lies in validating FB-EVAR as a safe alternative to open repair for this understudied population, informing patient selection, counseling, and surveillance strategies.

Purpose: Fenestrated stent-grafts with proximal bare-metal fixation stent (BMFS) may provide better rotational movement to facilitate vessel catheterization, but novel designs with covered fixation stents (CFSs) have been increasingly utilized with lower profile fabric. This study aimed to evaluate procedural metrics and outcomes of fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR) using BMFS and CFS devices. Methods: Clinical data of 502 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized investigational device exemption (IDE) study were reviewed. Patients with 4-vessel fenestrated stent-grafts with BMFS or CFS for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and Extent IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) were included. Patients with Extent I-III TAAAs and stent-grafts designed with <4 fenestrations or scallops were excluded. Endpoints were technical success, radiation exposure, major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival, freedom from secondary interventions, and target artery instability (TAI). Results: There were 147 patients (29%; 85% male, median 75 years old) treated by FEVAR using 4-vessel fenestrated stent-grafts with BMFS in 79 patients or CFS in 68 patients. Patients treated with BMFS designs had significantly (p<0.05) higher prevalence of cigarette smoking and peripheral artery disease and less often had Extent IV TAAAs. Use of BMFS designs decreased from 88% (64/73) to 20% (15/74) after 2018 (p<0.001). Technical success was similar in patients treated with or without BMFS designs (99% vs 100%, p=0.47), but total operating time and cumulative air karma were significantly lower (p<0.05) in patients with CFS designs. Overall 30-day mortality was 1%, with no difference in mortality and MAEs among patients treated with or without BMFS (1% vs 1%, p=1.0 and 15% vs 12%, p=0.59), respectively. Patient survival at 1 and 3 years was 95%±2%, and 85%±4% for all patients with no difference between groups (p=0.51). Freedom from secondary interventions was 88%±3.6% for patients with BMFS and 86%±4.6% for those with CFS at 1 year (p=0.71), with also no difference at 3 years (p=0.55). Conclusion: FEVAR for CAAAs and Extent IV TAAAs was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and MAEs, independent of the use of BMFS. There is no difference in patient survival and freedom from secondary interventions in patients treated with or without BMFS. Clinical Impact One hundred forty-seven patients were treated with bare-metal fixation-stent (79) or covered fixation stents (68). Technical success was similar (p=.47). Overall 30-day mortality was 1%, with no difference in major adverse events (MAEs; p=.59). At 1- and 3-year, there was no difference in patient survival (p=.51), freedom from secondary intervention (p=.71). In conclusion, FEVAR for CAAAs and Extent IV TAAAs was performed with high technical success, low mortality and MAEs, independent of the use of bare-metal fixation stent.

Objective: Target vessel stenosis or occlusion is a common indication for secondary intervention after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair requiring long-term imaging surveillance including duplex ultrasound (DUS). This study aimed to describe and compare longitudinal changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV) measurements for renal and mesenteric arteries targeted by directional branches (DBs) or reinforced fenestrations (RFs). Methods: Patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized study (2013-2020) had DUS of celiac axis, superior mesenteric artery, and renal arteries (RAs) obtained preoperatively, at 6 to 8 weeks, 6 months, and annually. Vessels with preprocedural stenosis were excluded. Outcomes were variations in PSV over time for target vessels incorporated by DBs or RFs, differences in balloon-expandable stent-grafts (BESGs) and self-expandable stent-grafts (SESGs), PSV measurements prior to secondary interventions related to vessel stenosis, and a predictive value of PSV for stenosis requiring secondary intervention. Results: A total of 419 patients (292 male, mean age 74 ± 8 years old) were enrolled, with 1,311 target vessels analyzed preoperatively, including 607 mesenteric and 704 RAs. Over a median follow-up of 23 months (interquartile range [IQR], 7-36), PSV measurements decreased in the first 6 to 8 weeks after DB incorporation, remained stable, followed by a nonsignificant increase at 5 years. PSV increased in the first 6 months using RFs with postoperative velocities significantly higher ( P < .05) for RFs compared to DBs. Branched mesenteric vessels stented with BESGs had higher velocities than SESGs ( P < .05). Of the 23 target vessels treated by secondary intervention for stenosis, 19 (83%) had velocities above the thresholds for native, nonstented vessels. Furthermore, in RAs (n = 20) PSV effectively predicted clinically relevant stenosis, AUC was 0.98, with a 231 cm/s threshold offering 84% sensitivity with 100% specificity. Conclusion: Longitudinal follow-up shows that velocity changes vary depending on the type of incorporation, vessel, and bridging stent. For DBs, PSV decreased initially, stabilized, and showed a nonsignificant increase at 5 years. In contrast, PSV increased with RFs and remained higher than DBs. Despite these variations, velocities remained below established thresholds for clinically significant stenosis in nonstented vessels. Criteria for in-stent stenosis may differ, and PSV alone should not be the sole indicator for reintervention. Clinical Impact This study provides new insight into duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance after fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR). Peak systolic velocity (PSV) trends differed between fenestrations and branches, and stent type influenced flow dynamics. Importantly, most vessels with secondary interventions had elevated PSVs, but many others exceeded native stenosis thresholds without clinical consequence. Despite these variations, velocities remained below established thresholds for clinically significant stenosis in non-stented vessels. Criteria for in-stent stenosis may differ, and PSV alone should not be the sole indicator for reintervention.The reported PSV measurements served as a benchmark for DUS surveillance following FB-EVAR.

Objective: To evaluate treatment trends and compare outcomes following fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). Background: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized as a less invasive alternative to OSR for treatment of TAAAs. Methods: We studied patients who underwent elective FB-EVAR or OSR of TAAAs (2008-2020), since the initiation of an Advanced Endovascular Aortic Program. Primary endpoints were early major adverse events (MAE) and early and late all-cause mortality. Propensity score overlap weighting analysis was performed to adjust for measured confounders between groups. Results: There were 357 (70.8%) patients treated by FB-EVAR and 147 (29.2%) with OSR. The use of FB-EVAR increased from 16.7% in 2008 to >80% since 2017 ( P <0.001). Incidences of early MAEs were 25.8% and 49.0%, respectively; early mortality rates for FB-EVAR and OSR were 2.5% and 6.8%, respectively. In the weighted cohort, FB-EVAR patients had decreased early MAEs (weight-adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.41; P <0.001) and mortality (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73; P =0.005) versus OSR patients. Five-year survival estimates were 52.2% (95% CI, 45.2-60.4%) and 78.0% (95% CI, 70.6-86.2%), respectively. In the weighted cohort, there was no significant difference in late survival between groups (weight-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.74-2.39; P =0.34). Conclusions: This study confirmed the change in practice from OSR to FB-EVAR for treatment of TAAAs over the past decade. Incidences of early MAEs and mortality were lower with FB-EVAR, with no significant difference in late survival in the weighted cohort.

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.

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: The BeatAML Master Trial (BAMT) began in 2016 with a goal of determining the feasibility of a precision-medicine approach in treating acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older adults ≥ 60 years of age where outcomes are poor. At the time, standard of care (SOC) for older patients with AML was intensive 7+3 chemotherapy (cytarabine + daunorubicin) if fit and hypomethylating agents (HMA: azacitidine or decitabine) if unfit. Besides confirming the feasibility, the early results (2019) from the Master Trial suggested that patients who received therapy on one of the sub-studies had a lower early death rate and superior overall survival compared to patients receiving off-protocol SOC, which was primarily single-agent HMA at the time. Since then, the 2019 approval of venetoclax (ven) + azacitidine for older unfit AML patients has been transformative and emerged as the SOC. Using data from the BAMT from 2016-2024, we suggest that knowing the comprehensive genomic profile of AML at the time of diagnosis is still beneficial in determining therapy that would lead to the optimal outcome and that development of targeted therapies and combination regimens with ven/HMA is still needed. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 1096 patients who consented and enrolled on the BAMT (NCT03013998) from Nov 2016 through Jun 2024. Patients ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed AML were included. Patients underwent therapy on a BeatAML sub-study based on their genetics (N=433) or treatment off-protocol (N=663). We divided the patients according to what therapy they received: (1) Non-Intensive (Off-Protocol, N=121), (2) Ven/HMA (Off-Protocol, N=234), (3) Non-Intensive (Sub-Study, N=407), (4) Intensive (Sub-Study, N=26), and (5) Intensive (Off-Protocol, N=155). 94 patients received no treatment and 59 were unknown. Non-intensive therapies included primarily targeted agents or non-ven combinations. We analyzed baseline characteristics and demographics, overall survival (OS), and the impact of allogenic stem cell transplant (SCT). OS, using Kaplan-Meier method, was measured from the start of therapy to all-cause death, censoring patients at last follow-up. Results: Characteristics and demographics were similar between Groups 1, 2 and 3. Group 4 and 5 were treated with intensive chemotherapy and their characteristics are reflective of younger/fit patients appropriate for the intensive regimen. Groups 4 and 5 also had the longest median OS (mOS) of 40.2 months (95% CI: 13.9-not reached (NR)) and 42.3 months (95% CI: 25.1-NR) respectively. Group 3, which included patients treated with a non-intensive, targeted therapy on a sub-study, had an mOS of 14.0 months (95% CI: 12.3-16.7), which was similar to Group 2, treated with Ven/HMA, that had an mOS of 13.2 months (95% CI: 10.9-16.3). Lastly, patients in Group 1, who were treated primarily with HMA monotherapy, did poorly in comparison, with an mOS of 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.3-10.1). Additionally, we looked at the cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of SCT. The CIR in 12 months of Group 1 was 9.8% (95% CI: 6.9-13.4), Group 2: 5.4% (95% CI: 2.2-10.7), Group 3 and 4 combined: 35.0% (95% CI: 628.1-42.1), and Group 5: 13.1% (95% CI: 6.9-13.4). In a multi-variable analysis, after adjusting for typical favorable risk factors like NPM1 mutations and core binding factor, SCT was highly significant (p&lt;0.0001) in improving OS with a hazard ratio of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16-0.32), and Group 3 performed similarly to Group 2 (p=0.20). Conclusions: First, our results suggest that it is clinically relevant to correctly identify whether an intensive chemotherapy, targeted-therapy, or ven/HMA regimen is best suited for older AML patients, for which a precision-medicine trial is ideal for. Secondly, in this group of patients, our results show that patients treated with a non-intensive targeted therapy (Group 3) has a similar mOS to those treated with ven/HMA (Group 2). Especially after controlling for patient characteristics, patients in Group 2 performed similar to those in Group 3 (p=0.20). Patients in Group 3 were treated on Beat AML sub-studies which included targeted therapy alone or with non-venetoclax combinations, which is a strong rationale for continued development of targeted agents to optimize toxicity and quality of life with similar survival. Lastly, this data also supports the need to improve the ven/HMA SOC by developing combination regimens with targeted agents to further improve outcomes.

Background: Mutations of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) are recurrent in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the prevalence increases with age. The prognostic impact of IDH1 and IDH2 mutations remains controversial. IDH inhibitors are small molecules that bind within the IDH enzymatic active site, blocking aberrant 2-hydroxyglutarate production and inducing myeloid differentiation. While they can lead to differentiation syndrome, they generally have a more favorable side-effect profile, making them an attractive option for older patients. We aimed to describe the prevalence and prognostic impact of IDH mutations in newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients ≥ 60 years in a large cohort of patients treated on a Leukemia and Lymphoma Society-sponsored trial. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational analysis including patients ≥ 60 years with ND AML who were enrolled on the Beat AML clinical trial (NCT03013998) before May 10, 2023. Patients were treated with a variety of treatment regimens. Cytogenetic analysis and next-generation sequencing (FoundationOne®Heme) were obtained. Mutations were considered present at any detectable VAF. Cox proportional hazard models were used to describe the relative risk of each variable on death over time from the date of trial inclusion. Results: A total of 1023 patients with ND AML were identified. Patients had a median age of 72 (range 60-92) years and the majority were non-Hispanic White (83.2%), and male (57.6%). Ninety-nine (9.7%) patients were IDH1MUT, 193 (18.9%) patients were IDH2MUT including 10 (1.0%) patients with a co-occurring IDH1 and IDH2 gene mutations. Both IDH1MUT and IDH2MUT were associated with 2022 ELN favorable-risk (26.3% and 22.3% for IDH1 and IDH2 respectively, vs 15.5% overall (P&lt;0.001)). IDH1MUT significantly co-occurred with DNMT3AMUT (42.4%), NPM1MUT (44.4%) and less frequently with TP53MUT (10.1%) (P&lt;0.001 for all). IDH2MUT was associated with DNMT3AMUT (35.8%), NPM1MUT (31.1%), SRSF2MUT (38.3%), and less frequently with TET2MUT (6.7%) and TP53MUT (9.3%) (P&lt;0.001 for all). Normal karyotype was higher in IDH1MUT (P&lt;0.001) and IDH2MUT (P&lt;0.001), whereas complex karyotype (P&lt;0.001 for both) and core-binding factor AML (P=0.047, P=0.015) were lower in IDH1MUT and IDH2MUT. To evaluate the impact of IDH mutations in patients ≥ 60 years, we focused on patients evaluable for outcome treated with lower-intensity therapy (LIT) (N=674), and intensive chemotherapy (IC) (N=178), separately. Among the LIT treated patients, 96 patients received treatment with an IDH inhibitor, and 237 patients received a hypomethylating agent (HMA) plus venetoclax. For patients treated with LIT, the hazard ratios (HRs) of death over time were 0.58 [95% CI 0.47-0.72; P&lt;0.002], 0.81 [95% CI 0.59-1.13; P=0.214] and 0.56 [95% CI 0.44-0.72; P&lt;0.001] for IDHMUT, IDH1MUT, IDH2MUT respectively. Among patients receiving IC, the HRs were 1.05 [95% CI 0.68-1.69; P=0.777], 0.70 [95% CI 0.31-1.61; P=0.406] and 1.27 [95% CI 0.77-2.1; P=0.352] for IDHMUT, IDH1MUT, and IDH2MUT respectively. The HR of death for IDH1MUT patients treated with LIT with the addition of an IDH1 inhibitor (N=24) was significantly lower (HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.24-0.92; P=0.027] vs IDH1MUT patients treated without an IDH1 inhibitor, while an IDH2 inhibitor did not change survivial outcomes in patients with IDH2MUT (N=71). Discussion: To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective study characterizing the prevalence of IDH mutations in patients ≥ 60 years with AML. We demonstrated that IDH mutations were detected in ~27% of older patients with AML. Although there could have been selection bias as the Beat AML study had separate IDHMUT study arms, these findings are concordant with other studies showing an increase in frequency of IDH mutations with age. IDH2MUT was associated with a lower HR of death among patients treated with LIT, which was not seen in patients receiving IC. The high prevalence of IDH mutations suggests that IDH inhibitors used as single agents or in combination with lower-intensity therapies are an important class of drugs for this older patient population as they are generally well tolerated, that need further investigation.