Objective: Proximal para-anastomotic aneurysms, or aneurysmal degeneration of the native aorta above a previous open abdominal aortic repair (Pr-AAAs), are challenging scenarios. The aim of this study was to report the early and mid term outcomes of endovascular repair of Pr-AAAs by fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR). Methods: From 2006 to 2017, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data from patients undergoing FB-EVAR for Pr-AAAs at two European vascular surgery units were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed. Early results were considered in terms of technical success (target visceral vessel cannulation and stenting, absence of type I – III endoleak, iliac limb occlusion and 24 h mortality); spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) and 30 day and in hospital mortality. Survival, target visceral vessel (TVV) patency, and freedom from re-interventions were also considered at the mid term follow up. Results: Five hundred and forty-four patients underwent FB-EVAR to treat juxta/pararenal or thoraco-abdominal aneurysms. Of these patients, 108 (19.8%) cases were Pr-AAAs (94% male; mean ± standard deviation [SD] age 71 ± 4 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists’ grade 3–4 in 74% and 26%, respectively). The previous open aortic repair (OR) was performed 10 ± 2 years before FB-EVAR. It was a tubular aorto-aortic repair in 63 (58.3%) cases, a bifurcated aortobi-iliac repair in 37 (34.2%) cases, and an aortobifemoral bypass repair in eight (7.4%) cases. A previous thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) had been performed in seven patients (6.5%). The aortic lesion at the time of FB-EVAR was, according to the Crawford classification, a type I – III in 69 (63.9%) or a type IV 39 (36.1%) thoraco-abdominal aneurysm. The mean ± SD aneurysm diameter was 64 ± 6 mm. Overall, 390 TVVs (3.6 ± 1 TVV/case) were revascularised by an endograft with fenestrations (n = 63 [58.3%]), with branches (n = 26 [24.1%]), or with both fenestrations and branches (n = 19 [17.6%]). Tubular, trimodular, or aorto-uni-iliac implants were planned in 68 (63.0%), 38 (35.2%), and two (1.8%) patients, respectively. Proximal TEVAR, carotid–subclavian bypass, and iliac branch devices were planned as adjunctive procedures in 41 (38.0%), five (4.6%), and three (2.8%) cases, respectively. Overall technical success was 93%, with technical failures including five TVV losses (coeliac trunk, n = 1; renal arteries, n = 4) and three deaths within 24 h. Post-operative SCI occurred in seven patients (6.5%), four of which (3.7%) were permanent. SCI was more frequent in category I – III TAAAs (p = .042) and in endografts incorporating both fenestrations and branches (p = .023). Cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications (reduction in glomerular filtration rate of ≥30% compared with baseline) occurred in 9%, 10%, and 20%, respectively. Bowel ischaemia was seen in three (2.8%) patients. Thirty day mortality was 4% and was associated with pre-operative chronic renal failure (p = .034), post-operative cardiac morbidity (p = .041), and bowel ischaemia (p = .003). Overall in hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 6). Mean ± SD follow up was 38 ± 18 months. Survival was 82%, 64%, and 54% at one, three, and five years, respectively, and target visceral vessel patency was 93%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. Permanent haemodialysis was needed in four patients (3.7%). There was no late aneurysm related mortality. Survival during follow up was statistically significantly affected by pre-operative chronic renal failure (p = .022), post-operative cardiac morbidity (p = .042), SCI (p = .044), and bowel ischaemia (p = .003). Freedom from re-intervention at one, three, and five years was 89%, 77%, and 74%, respectively. Conclusion: Endovascular treatment of aneurysmal aortic degeneration above a previous open abdominal repair with FB-EVAR is safe and effective. If those promising results are confirmed at later follow up, FB-EVAR should be considered a prominent therapeutic option, especially in high risk patients.

Fenestrated and Branched Thoraco-abdominal Endografting after Previous Open Abdominal Aortic Repair

Gallitto E.;Mascoli C.;Pini R.;Fenelli C.;Faggioli G.;Gargiulo M.
2020

Abstract

Objective: Proximal para-anastomotic aneurysms, or aneurysmal degeneration of the native aorta above a previous open abdominal aortic repair (Pr-AAAs), are challenging scenarios. The aim of this study was to report the early and mid term outcomes of endovascular repair of Pr-AAAs by fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR). Methods: From 2006 to 2017, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data from patients undergoing FB-EVAR for Pr-AAAs at two European vascular surgery units were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed. Early results were considered in terms of technical success (target visceral vessel cannulation and stenting, absence of type I – III endoleak, iliac limb occlusion and 24 h mortality); spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) and 30 day and in hospital mortality. Survival, target visceral vessel (TVV) patency, and freedom from re-interventions were also considered at the mid term follow up. Results: Five hundred and forty-four patients underwent FB-EVAR to treat juxta/pararenal or thoraco-abdominal aneurysms. Of these patients, 108 (19.8%) cases were Pr-AAAs (94% male; mean ± standard deviation [SD] age 71 ± 4 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists’ grade 3–4 in 74% and 26%, respectively). The previous open aortic repair (OR) was performed 10 ± 2 years before FB-EVAR. It was a tubular aorto-aortic repair in 63 (58.3%) cases, a bifurcated aortobi-iliac repair in 37 (34.2%) cases, and an aortobifemoral bypass repair in eight (7.4%) cases. A previous thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) had been performed in seven patients (6.5%). The aortic lesion at the time of FB-EVAR was, according to the Crawford classification, a type I – III in 69 (63.9%) or a type IV 39 (36.1%) thoraco-abdominal aneurysm. The mean ± SD aneurysm diameter was 64 ± 6 mm. Overall, 390 TVVs (3.6 ± 1 TVV/case) were revascularised by an endograft with fenestrations (n = 63 [58.3%]), with branches (n = 26 [24.1%]), or with both fenestrations and branches (n = 19 [17.6%]). Tubular, trimodular, or aorto-uni-iliac implants were planned in 68 (63.0%), 38 (35.2%), and two (1.8%) patients, respectively. Proximal TEVAR, carotid–subclavian bypass, and iliac branch devices were planned as adjunctive procedures in 41 (38.0%), five (4.6%), and three (2.8%) cases, respectively. Overall technical success was 93%, with technical failures including five TVV losses (coeliac trunk, n = 1; renal arteries, n = 4) and three deaths within 24 h. Post-operative SCI occurred in seven patients (6.5%), four of which (3.7%) were permanent. SCI was more frequent in category I – III TAAAs (p = .042) and in endografts incorporating both fenestrations and branches (p = .023). Cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications (reduction in glomerular filtration rate of ≥30% compared with baseline) occurred in 9%, 10%, and 20%, respectively. Bowel ischaemia was seen in three (2.8%) patients. Thirty day mortality was 4% and was associated with pre-operative chronic renal failure (p = .034), post-operative cardiac morbidity (p = .041), and bowel ischaemia (p = .003). Overall in hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 6). Mean ± SD follow up was 38 ± 18 months. Survival was 82%, 64%, and 54% at one, three, and five years, respectively, and target visceral vessel patency was 93%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. Permanent haemodialysis was needed in four patients (3.7%). There was no late aneurysm related mortality. Survival during follow up was statistically significantly affected by pre-operative chronic renal failure (p = .022), post-operative cardiac morbidity (p = .042), SCI (p = .044), and bowel ischaemia (p = .003). Freedom from re-intervention at one, three, and five years was 89%, 77%, and 74%, respectively. Conclusion: Endovascular treatment of aneurysmal aortic degeneration above a previous open abdominal repair with FB-EVAR is safe and effective. If those promising results are confirmed at later follow up, FB-EVAR should be considered a prominent therapeutic option, especially in high risk patients.
Gallitto E.; Sobocinski J.; Mascoli C.; Pini R.; Fenelli C.; Faggioli G.; Haulon S.; Gargiulo M.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/800067
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact