Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using a Supraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone Versus an Infraceliac Aortic Proximal Seal Zone.

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) achieves more extensive proximal seal than conventional infrarenal devices, thereby increasing aneurysm exclusion durability. Optimal seal zone length remains undefined. We assessed relative risks and benefits of extending the proximal seal above the celiac artery.

METHODS

The prospective database of all complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs at a single institution (institutional review board-approved, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial, 10/2010-6/2017) was used to classify repairs according to the number of target visceral-renal arteries incorporated: 4-vessel versus <4-vessel. Comparisons of aneurysm characteristics, perioperative details, and postoperative complications were performed, stratified by repair type. One-year survival, target artery patency, freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak, and freedom from reintervention were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Among 175 F/B-EVARs, 38% (n = 67) were 4-vessel and 62% (n = 108) were <4-vessel. Intraoperatively, there was no difference in mean contrast use (76 mL vs. 74 mL, P = non significant [NS]) or dose area product (63,428 mGy cm vs. 96,015 mGy cm), but there was increased median procedure time (4.8 hr, interquartile range [IQR] = 4.1-5.8 versus 3.6 hr, IQR = 2.9-4.1, P < 0.0001) and mean operating room direct costs ($52,532, standard deviation [SD] = 18,640 versus $40,128, SD = 15,135, P < 0.0001) in 4-vessel repairs. There were no differences in mortality (1.9% vs. 4.5%), paraparesis (0% vs. 3.0%), or paralysis (0.9% vs. 0%), all P = NS. There were no differences in one-year survival, target artery patency, or freedom from reintervention. There was a lower 1-year freedom from type 1 or 3 endoleak with 4-vessel repairs (82% vs. 94%, log-rank P = 0.02), driven by an increased rate of type 3 endoleaks. Endoleak resolution after treatment was equivalent in both groups (4-vessel, 10 of 12, 83% resolved; <4-vessel, 7 of 7, 100% resolved, P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

With F/B-EVAR, utilization of a supraceliac seal zone, compared with an infraceliac seal zone, is associated with statistical differences in operative characteristics/resource utilization, but with negligible clinical significance. Further innovation to eliminate type 3 endoleaks at fenestrations/branches remains an unmet need. To achieve adequate F/B-EVAR proximal seal zone length, one should have a low threshold to incorporate the celiac artery.