Midterm Outcomes and Aneurysm Sac Dynamics Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair after Previous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is a feasible option for aortic repair after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), due to improved peri-operative outcomes compared with open conversion. However, little is known regarding the durability of FEVAR as a treatment for failed EVAR. Since aneurysm sac evolution is an important marker for success after aneurysm repair, the aim of the study was to examine midterm outcomes and aneurysm sac dynamics of FEVAR after prior EVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing FEVAR for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2008 to 2021 at two hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Patients were categorised into primary FEVAR and FEVAR after EVAR. Outcomes included five year mortality rate, one year aneurysm sac dynamics (regression, stable, expansion), sac dynamics over time, and five year aortic related procedures. Analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier methods, multivariable Cox regression analysis, chi square tests, and linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with FEVAR were identified, of whom 27% (n = 53) had had a prior EVAR. Patients with prior EVAR were significantly older (78 ± 6.7 years vs. 73 ± 5.9 years, p < .001). There were no significant differences in mortality rate. FEVAR after EVAR was associated with a higher risk of aortic related procedures within five years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 6.5, p = .037). Sac dynamics were assessed in 154 patients with available imaging. Patients with a prior EVAR showed lower rates of sac regression and higher rates of sac expansion at one year compared with primary FEVAR (sac expansion 48%, n = 21/44, vs. 8%, n = 9/110, p < .001). Sac dynamics over time showed similar results, sac growth for FEVAR after EVAR, and sac shrinkage for primary FEVAR (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There were high rates of sac expansion and a need for more secondary procedures in FEVAR after EVAR than primary FEVAR patients, although this did not affect midterm survival. Future studies will have to assess whether FEVAR after EVAR is a valid intervention, and the underlying process that drives aneurysm sac growth following successful FEVAR after EVAR.

Long-term results after standard endovascular aneurysm repair with the Endurant and Excluder stent grafts.

OBJECTIVE: Many endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts. METHODS: Patients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points. RESULTS: The study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (ß-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.