European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry.

Budtz-Lilly, Jacob; D'Oria, Mario; Gallitto, Enrico; Bertoglio, Luca; Kölbel, Tilo; Lindström, David; Dias, Nuno; Lundberg, Goran; Böckler, Dittmar; Parlani, Gianbattista; Antonello, Michele; Veraldi, Gian F; Tsilimparis, Nikolaos; Kotelis, Drosos; Dueppers, Philip; Tinelli, Giovanni; Ippoliti, Arnaldo; Spath, Paolo; Logiacco, Antonino; Schurink, Geert Willem H; ... (2023). European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry. Annals of surgery, 278(2), e389-e395. Wolters Kluwer Health 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005577

[img] Text
european_multicentric_experience_with.47-1.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (332kB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVE

To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm.

BACKGROUND

Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Heart Surgery

UniBE Contributor:

Kotelis, Drosos, Chaikhouni, Basel

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1528-1140

Publisher:

Wolters Kluwer Health

Language:

English

Submitter:

Anja Ebeling

Date Deposited:

23 Nov 2023 10:44

Last Modified:

27 Feb 2024 14:27

Publisher DOI:

10.1097/SLA.0000000000005577

PubMed ID:

35837956

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/189314

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/189314

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback