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

Titia A L Sulzer; Jorg L de Bruin; Vinamr Rastogi; Gert Jan Boer; Thomas Mesnard; Bram Fioole; Marie Josee van Rijn; Marc L Schermerhorn; Gustavo S Oderich; Hence J M Verhagen

doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.01.070

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

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2024 Feb 1:S1078-5884(24)00097-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.01.070. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; The University of Texas Health Science Centre at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: titiasulzer@gmail.com.
² Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Department of Vascular Surgery, Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
⁴ The University of Texas Health Science Centre at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA.
⁵ Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 38301871
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.01.070

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Failed endovascular aneurysm repair; Failure to rescue; Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair; Five year aortic related procedures; Sac dynamics.