Early and Mid-Term Durability of Surgeon-Modified and Custom-Made Fenestrated Devices for the Treatment of Complex Aortic Pathology.

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) has allowed successful treatment of patients with complex aortic aneurysms. Custom-made devices (CMDs) are manufactured by companies and tailored to the patient's anatomy to incorporate target vessels, while there is also the "off label" alternative with the devices modified by a surgeon in the operating room: surgeon-modified FEVAR (sm-FEVAR). This study aims to present and compare technical durability of CMDs- and sm-FEVAR for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken including all consecutive patients treated with sm- or CMD-FEVAR during a 3-year period in a single center. Only cases with at least 3 reno-visceral target vessels were included. Primary outcomes were technical success, and freedom from endoleak (EL) (Ia or III; all branch related) and re-intervention during follow-up period. Mortality and morbidity were also recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-two sm-FEVAR patients (81,3% male) and 79 CMD-FEVAR patients (77,2% male) were included. Indication for sm-FEVAR was exclusively urgent, while all CMD- FEVAR were elective. Technical success was similar in sm-FEVAR (100%) and CMD-FEVAR (98,7%) (P = 0.523). Mean follow-up was 16.3 ± 13 and 20 ± 17.3 months for sm-FEVAR and CMD- FEVAR, respectively (P = 0.28). The freedom from EL Ia rate was 91.7% [standard error (SE) 5.7%] at 12 months in sm-FEVAR, while it was 97.7% (SE 2.2%) and 92.3% (SE 4.3%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.69). The freedom from EL III rate was 95.5% (SE 4.4%) and 88% (SE 8.2%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 92.1% (SE 3.8%) and 89.2% (SE 4.7%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.68). The freedom from re-intervention rate was 91.6% (SE 5.7%) and 84.6% (SE 8.6%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 91.7% (SE 4%) and 83.4% (SE 5.9%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.90). The survival rate was 87.5% (5.8%) and 76.3% (7.9%) at 1 and 12 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 93.7% (2.7%) at 1 month in CMD-FEVAR without any other death during FU period. No bridging stent occlusions were noted during follow-up period in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Sm-FEVAR offers good technical success and mid-term clinical outcomes in urgent cases of complex aortic pathologies. Its durability is acceptable and comparable to CMD-FEVAR with a relatively low re-intervention rate.