Transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy technique for chronic postdissection aortic aneurysms.

Aortic dissection often results in chronic aneurysmal degeneration due to progressive false lumen expansion. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair and other techniques of vessel incorporation such as fenestrated-branched or parallel grafts have been increasingly used to treat chronic postdissection aneurysms. True lumen compression or a vessel origin from the false lumen can present considerable technical challenges. In these cases, the limited true lumen space can result in inadequate stent graft expansion or restrict the ability to reposition the device or manipulate catheters. Reentrance techniques can be used selectively to assist with target vessel catheterization. Transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy is a novel technique that has evolved from the cardiology experience with transseptal or transcatheter aortic valve procedures. This technique has been applied in select patients with chronic dissection to create a proximal or distal landing zone, disrupt the septum in patients with an excessively compressed true lumen, or connect the true and false lumen in patients with vessels that have separate origins. In the present report, we summarize the indications and technical pitfalls of transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy in patients treated by endovascular repair for chronic postdissection aortic aneurysms.

How We Would Treat Our Own Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

This manuscript is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge on endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The management of these complex aneurysms requires an interdisciplinary and patient-specific approach in high-volume centers. An index case is used to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of a patient undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for a TAAA.

Prospective evaluation of upper extremity access and total transfemoral approach during fenestrated and branched endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVE: Total transfemoral (TF) access has been increasingly used during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR). However, it is unclear whether the potential decrease in the risk of cerebrovascular events is offset by increased procedural difficulties and other complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of FB-EVAR using a TF vs upper extremity (UE) approach for target artery incorporation. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial in two centers to investigate the use of FB-EVAR for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) between 2013 and 2022. Patients were classified into TF or UE access group with a subset analysis of patients treated using designs with directional branches. End points were technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day cerebrovascular events defined as stroke or transient ischemic attack, and any major adverse events (MAEs). RESULTS: There were 541 patients (70% males; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 2107 renal-mesenteric TAs incorporated. TF was used in175 patients (32%) and UE in 366 patients (68%) including 146 (83%) TF and 314 (86%) UE access patients who had four or more TAs incorporated. The use of a TF approach increased from 8% between 2013 and 2017 to 31% between 2018 and 2020 and 96% between 2021 and 2022. Compared with UE access patients, TF access patients were more likely to have CAAAs (37% vs 24%; P = .002) as opposed to TAAAs. Technical success rate was 96% in both groups (P = .96). The use of the TF approach was associated with reduced fluoroscopy time and procedural time (each P < .05). The 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% for TF and 1.4% for UE (P = .67). There was no early cerebrovascular event in the TF group, but the incidence was 2.7% for UE patients (P = .035). The incidence of MAEs was also lower in the TF group (9% vs 18%; P = .006). Among 237 patients treated using devices with directional branches, there were no significant differences in outcomes except for a reduced procedural time for TF compared with UE access patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TF access was associated with a decreased incidence of early cerebrovascular events and MAEs compared with UE access for target artery incorporation. Procedural time was decreased in TF access patients irrespective of the type of stent graft design.

Technical pitfalls and proposed modifications of instructions for use for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder conformable device in angulated and short landing zones.

We describe a case of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and angulated proximal neck treated with a Gore Excluder conformable endoprosthesis and show relevant technical pitfalls in the deployment of the graft main body. An 82-year-old man presented with a 71-mm asymptomatic AAA with an angulated infrarenal proximal neck (75°) and was referred to our unit. The patient was treated with a 26-mm Gore Excluder conformable device, which was deployed slightly above the renal arteries after precatheterization of the lowest renal artery. The graft was then repositioned with support of the introducer sheath and a stiff guide wire. The proximal sealing zone was ballooned before the endograft delivery system was retrieved to avoid distal migration. Technical success was achieved. The patient was discharged with no complications. No type Ia endoleak was present on the 6-month computed tomography scan. Endovascular treatment of an AAA with a severe angulated proximal neck can be effective with a conformable stent graft if technical measures are used during deployment of the main body to optimize the seal.

Outcomes of Elective and Non-elective Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair for Treatment of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

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.

Changes in renal-mesenteric duplex ultrasound velocities after fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Stenting of renal and mesenteric vessels may result in changes in velocity measurements due to arterial compliance, potentially giving rise to confusion about the presence of stenosis during follow-up. The aim of our study was to compare preoperative and postoperative changes in peak systolic velocity (PSV, cm/s) after placement of the celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and renal artery (RAs) bridging stent grafts during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized single-center study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of complex AAA and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2013 and 2020. Duplex ultrasound examination of renal-mesenteric vessels were obtained prospectively preoperatively and at 6 to 8 weeks after the procedure. Duplex ultrasound examination was performed by a single vascular laboratory team using a predefined protocol including PSV measurements obtained with <60° angles. All renal-mesenteric vessels incorporated by bridging stent grafts using fenestrations or directional branches were analyzed. Target vessels with significant stenosis in the preoperative exam were excluded from the analysis. The end point was variations in PSV poststent placement at the origin, proximal, and mid segments of the target vessels for fenestrations and branches. RESULTS: There were 419 patients (292 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) treated by FB-EVAR with 1411 renal-mesenteric targeted vessels, including 260 CAs, 409 SMAs, and 742 RAs. No significant variances in the mean PSVs of all segments of the CA, SMA, and RAs at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery were found as compared with the preoperative values (CA, 135 cm/s vs 141 cm/s [P = .06]; SMA, 128 cm/s vs 125 cm/s [P = .62]; RAs, 90 cm/s vs 83 cm/s [P = .65]). Compared with baseline preoperative values, the PSV of the targeted vessels showed no significant differences in the origin and proximal segment of all vessels. However, the PSV increased significantly in the mid segment of all target vessels after stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement in nonstenotic renal and mesenteric vessels during FB-EVAR is not associated with a significant increase in PSVs at the origin and proximal segments of the target vessels. Although there is a modest but significant increase in velocity measurements in the mid segment of the stented vessel, this difference is not clinically significant. Furthermore, PSVs in stented renal and mesenteric arteries were well below the threshold for significant stenosis in native vessels. These values provide a baseline or benchmark for expected PSVs after renal-mesenteric stenting during FB-EVAR.

Intraoperative complications during standard and complex endovascular aortic repair.

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common intraoperative adverse events that occur during standard endovascular repair and fenestrated-branched endovascular repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, and aortic arch aneurysms. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, sophisticated imaging and improved graft designs, intraoperative difficulties still occur, even in highly standardized procedures and high-volume centers. This study emphasized that with the increased adoption and complexity of endovascular aortic procedures, strategies to minimize intraoperative adverse events should be protocolized and standardized. There is a need for robust evidence on this topic, which could potentially optimize treatment outcomes and durability of the available techniques.

Outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in patients with or without prior history of abdominal endovascular or open surgical repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). METHODS: The clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis. RESULTS: There were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis.

Technical Pitfalls for Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Following PETTICOAT.

PURPOSE: The Provisional Extension to Induce Complete Attachment Technique (PETTICOAT) uses a bare-metal stent to scaffold the true lumen in patients with acute or subacute aortic dissections. While it is designed to facilitate remodeling, some patients with chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) require repair. This study describes the technical pitfalls of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) in patients who underwent prior PETTICOAT repair. TECHNIQUE: We report 3 patients with extent II TAAAs who had prior bare-metal dissection stents treated by FB-EVAR. Two patients required maneuvers to reroute the aortic guidewire, which was initially placed in-between stent struts. This was recognized before the deployment of the fenestrated-branched device. A third patient had difficult advancement of the celiac bridging stent due to a conflict of the tip of the stent delivery system into one of the stent struts, requiring to redo catheterization and pre-stenting with a balloon-expandable stent. There were no mortalities and target-related events after a follow-up of 12 to 27 months. CONCLUSION: FB-EVAR following the PETTICOAT is infrequent, but technical difficulties should be recognized to prevent complications from the inadvertent deployment of the fenestrated-branched stent-graft component in-between stent struts. CLINICAL IMPACT: The present study highlights a few maneuvers to prevent or overcome possible complications during endovascular repair of chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm following PETTICOAT. The main problem to be recognized is the placement of the aortic wire beyond one of the struts of the existing bare-metal stent. Moreover, encroachment of catheters or the bridging stent delivery system into the stent struts may potentially cause difficulties.

Comparison of single- and multistage strategies during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach. CONCLUSIONS: Staging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Cook Triple inner arch branch stent-graft.

Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for treatment for aortic arch diseases, but these operations can be associated with wide heterogeneity in outcomes and significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in elderly patients with severe comorbidities or those who had prior arch procedures via median sternotomy. Endovascular repair has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair. The technique evolved with new device designs using up to three inner branches for incorporation of the supra-aortic trunks. This manuscript summarizes technical tips and clinical experience with the triple inner arch branch stent graft for total endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis®.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been widely accepted as a treatment option in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections who have suitable anatomy. It is estimated that up to 60% of patients treated by TEVAR require extension of the repair into the distal aortic arch across Ishimaru zone 2. In these patients, coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) without revascularization has been associated with increased risk of arm ischemia, stroke, and spinal cord injury. The Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE, WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) is the first off-the-shelf thoracic branch stent-graft approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of distal aortic arch lesions requiring extension of the proximal seal into zone 2. This article summarizes the technical pitfalls and clinical outcomes of the TBE® device in zone 2.

Outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE). RESULTS: There were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: FB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure.

Timing of Intervention for Aortic Intramural Hematoma.

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is one of the acute aortic syndromes along with acute aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer. The three conditions can occur alone or in combination with overlapping presentation. Medical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment is tailored depending on clinical presentation, timing, and location within the aorta. Among patients who present with acute IMH affecting the ascending aorta (Type A), urgent open surgical repair is considered the primary line of treatment in patients who are suitable candidates and unstable. The management of IMH in the descending aorta and aortic arch (Type B) is similar to that applied to treat acute dissections in the same segment. Medical treatment with sequential imaging is recommended in patients with uncomplicated course, and endovascular repair is indicated in patients with rupture, persistent pain, end-organ ischemia, or rapid aortic enlargement. This review discusses the ideal timing for treatment of IMH.

Early Feasibility of Endovascular Repair of Distal Aortic Arch Aneurysms Using Patient-Specific Single Retrograde Left Subclavian Artery Branch Stent Graft.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility and outcomes of endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with a pre-loaded single retrograde left subclavian artery (LSA) branch stent graft. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective, non-randomized physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular aortic arch repair using patient-specific arch branch stent grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) between 2019 and 2022. All patients received a design with triple-wide scallop and a single retrograde LSA branch with a pre-loaded catheter. RESULTS: There were five male patients with median age of 77 years old (72-80) treated using the single LSA branch stent graft. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Median operating time, fluoroscopy time, and total radiation dose area product were 103 (78-134) minutes, 26 (19-39) minutes, and 123 (71-270) mGy.cm2, respectively. There were no 30-day or in-hospital mortality, neurological or other major adverse events (MAEs). During median follow-up of 21 (20-27) months, all patients were alive with patent LSA branches, except for one who died of COVID-19 complications. There was no branch instability or secondary interventions. CONCLUSION: This early feasibility study demonstrates successful endovascular repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms using a patient-specific stent graft with single retrograde LSA branch without technical failures, mortality or neurological events. Larger clinical experience and longer follow-up are needed to determined effectiveness of this approach in patients who need endovascular repair with proximal extension into Zone 2.

Total Transfemoral Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Inner Branch Stent-Graft.

Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. We illustrate total percutaneous transfemoral approach with a 3-vessel inner branch stent-graft to treat aortic arch aneurysm. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Single-Center Experience with the Femoral-to-Brachial Preloaded Delivery System for Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To assess technical aspects and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) using a femoral-to-brachial (FTB) preloaded delivery system (PDS) with two separate configurations. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective study to evaluate FB-EVAR for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs & TAAA) between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients treated with FTB-PDS were included. The two configurations included 4 trans-brachial preloaded wires (4BR) or 2 trans-brachial and 2 transfemoral preloaded wires (2BR-2FE). Outcome measures included technical success, procedural metrics, 30-day or in-hospital mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and target-vessel outcomes. RESULTS: There were 115 patients with a mean age of 73.8 ± 8 years, treated with FTB-PDS. Of these, 62 patients (54%) had 4BR and 53 patients (46%) had 2BR-2FE FTB-PDS. There were 106 TAAA (92%) and 9 CAAAs (8%). Technical success, defined as successful implantation of the stent-graft and all intended target-vessel stents without type I or III endoleak, was 97%, with no differences in total operating time, endovascular time, and radiation dose between groups. There were 3 deaths (3%) at 30 days. MAEs were noticed in 21 patients (18%) with no difference between groups, including new-onset dialysis (2% vs. 4%, P = 0.59), and paraplegia (7% vs. 11%, P = 0.51), for 4BR and 2BR-2FE, respectively. Patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality at 2-years were 79 ± 5% and 97 ± 1.7%, respectively, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of FTB-PDS for FB-EVAR is safe with high technical success and a reasonable rate of MAEs. Each configuration provides specific benefits based on patient anatomy, while having similar procedural metrics and clinical outcomes.

Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has gained widespread acceptance in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. It has evolved from an alternative to treat elderly and higher risk patients to the first line of treatment in most patients with suitable anatomy, independent of the clinical risk. Currently, these devices are available off-the-shelf (ready to use) and tailored to the patient anatomy with the options of fenestrated, branched and mixed fenestrated, and branched designs. Reports from single and multicenter experiences and systematic reviews have shown lower mortality and morbidity for FB-EVAR compared with historical results of open surgical repair. The main advantages are noted on mortality, respiratory complications, acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay. The purpose of this article is to review the advances in the endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms exploring the indications for treatment, preoperative evaluation, patient selection, device design, and implantation technique.

Lessons learned over 2 decades of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has been disseminated worldwide from a technique used to treat high-risk patients to a valid alternative in almost any patient who is anatomically suitable and has complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. As with any new procedure, there is a steep learning curve that goes beyond proficiency with deployment. Ultimately, patient selection, team performance, surgeon's ability to adapt to unexpected events, and the constant evolution of improvements in technical aspects all affect the early outcomes and durability of the repair. This article reviews the importance of the learning curve, evolution of complex endovascular techniques, and factors affecting outcomes of complex endovascular aneurysm repair.