Snorkel/chimney and fenestrated endografts for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) involves extension of the proximal aortic seal zone with preservation of branch vessel patency, thereby expanding the applicability of endografting from the infrarenal to the suprarenal aorta. Snorkel/chimney (Sn-EVAR) and fenestrated EVAR (f-EVAR) serve as the two most commonly utilized advanced endovascular techniques to combat hostile proximal neck anatomy. The purpose of this article is to describe the principles and evolution of these advanced endovascular strategies, technical considerations, and results of sn- and f-EVAR in the management of challenging neck anatomy in abdominal aortic aneurysm disease.

EVAR deployment in anatomically challenging necks outside the IFU.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with high-risk anatomy (neck length <10-15 mm, neck angle >60°) using commercially available devices has become increasingly common with expanding institutional experience. We examined whether placement of approved devices in short angled necks provides acceptable durability at early and intermediate time points. METHODS: A total of 218 patients (197 men, 21 women) at a single academic center underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a commercially available device between January 2004 and December 2007. Available medical records, pre- and postoperative imaging, and clinical follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those with suitable anatomy (instructions for use, IFU) for EVAR and those with high-risk anatomic aneurysm characteristics (non-IFU). RESULTS: IFU (n = 143) patients underwent repair with Excluder (40%), AneuRx (34%), and Zenith (26%) devices, whereas non-IFU (n = 75) were preferentially treated with Zenith (57%) over Excluder (25%) and AneuRx (17%). Demographics and medical comorbidities between the groups were similar. Operative mortality was 1.4% (2.1% IFU, 0% non-IFU) with mean follow-up of 35 months (range 12-72). Non-IFU patients tended to have larger sac diameters (46.7% ≥60 mm) with shorter (30.7% ≤10 mm), conical (49.3%), and more angled (68% >60°) necks (all p < .05 compared with IFU patients). Operative characteristics revealed that the non-IFU patients were more likely to be treated utilizing suprarenal fixation devices, to require placement of proximal cuffs (13.3% vs. 2.1%, p = .003), and needed increased fluoroscopy time (31 vs. 25 minutes, p = .02). Contrast dose was similar between groups (IFU = 118 mL, non-IFU = 119 mL, p = .95). There were no early or late surgical conversions. Rates of migration, endoleak, need for reintervention, sac regression, and freedom from aneurysm-related death were similar between the groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR may be performed safely in high-risk patients with unfavorable neck anatomy using particular commercially available endografts. In our experience, the preferential use of active suprarenal fixation and aggressive use of proximal cuffs is associated with optimal results in these settings. Mid-term outcomes are comparable with those achieved in patients with suitable anatomy using a similar range of EVAR devices. Careful and mandatory long-term follow-up will be necessary to confirm the benefit of treating these high-risk anatomic patients.