Division of Vascular Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Complex Aortic Team, Division of Vascular Surgery, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022 Oct;64(4):321-330. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.06.015. Epub 2022 Jun 25.
During fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR), mesenteric vessels may be incorporated with a scallop or fenestration. The benefits/harms of techniques to incorporate the coeliac axis (CA) have not been assessed for their impact on procedural complexity vs. peri-operative and longer term outcomes; this assessment may instruct a balanced operative strategy for the CA and complex FEVAR, minimising adverse intra- or peri-operative events, and maximising durability.
This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing fenestrated or scalloped CA incorporation during FEVAR for a juxtarenal/pararenal/suprarenal aortic aneurysm (January 2015 - December 2019) were reviewed (n = 159) for demographics, intra-procedural/peri-operative outcomes, and re-interventions to five years. Mean follow up for all groups was 3.28 years. The primary outcome of CA instability (occlusion/stenosis/endoleak/re-intervention) was assessed. CA specific re-intervention, re-intervention free survival, and all cause mortality were assessed against incorporation strategy. Secondarily, the harm of CA stenting, comprising intra-operative harms and peri-operative adverse outcomes was interrogated.
The CA was incorporated with a stented fenestration (n = 74), an unstented fenestration (n = 59), and a minority with scallop (n = 26). There were no between group differences in operative indication, or anatomical aneurysm/CA features. Fenestrated stented and unstented patients had longer aortic coverage but the same primary technical success. At follow up, three CA endoleaks occurred in stented fenestrated patients, although scallop patients more often had type 3 endoleaks at the SMA and renal fenestrations (23%). Elevated CA instability in fenestrated unstented patients was driven by CA occlusion (16.9%), but not associated with CA re-intervention, worse re-intervention free survival, or all cause mortality. Regression analysis for visceral branch instability revealed predictors of CA non-stenting and diminished aortic coverage.
In the present authors' experience, the practice of not stenting a CA fenestration does not pose peri-operative or long term clinical harm. At follow up, not stenting the CA is associated with CA instability; however, both fenestration groups are preferable to a shorter (scalloped) endograft as increasing aortic coverage reduces non-CA branch vessel instability.
在腔内血管修复术(FEVAR)中,肠系膜血管可能会与扇贝或窗孔融合。尚未评估将腹腔动脉(CA)纳入技术的益处/危害,以评估其对手术复杂性与围手术期和长期结果的影响;这种评估可能会为 CA 和复杂的 FEVAR 制定一个平衡的手术策略,以减少围手术期内或围手术期的不良事件,并最大限度地提高耐久性。
这是一项回顾性队列研究。对 2015 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间因肾周/肾旁/肾上腹主动脉瘤而行 FEVAR 并融合 CA 扇贝或窗孔的患者(n=159)进行了回顾性分析,评估了患者的人口统计学、术中/围手术期结局和五年内的再次干预情况。所有组别的平均随访时间为 3.28 年。评估了 CA 不稳定性(闭塞/狭窄/内漏/再干预)的主要结局。根据纳入策略评估 CA 特定的再干预、再干预无失败生存率和全因死亡率。其次,研究了 CA 支架置入的危害,包括术中危害和围手术期不良结局。
CA 与支架置入的窗孔(n=74)、非支架置入的窗孔(n=59)和少数扇贝(n=26)融合。各组之间在手术适应证或解剖学动脉瘤/CA 特征方面无差异。支架置入的窗孔和非支架置入的窗孔患者的主动脉覆盖范围较长,但主要技术成功率相同。在随访时,支架置入的窗孔患者有 3 例 CA 内漏,但扇贝患者在 SMA 和肾窗处更常见 3 型内漏(23%)。非支架置入的窗孔患者 CA 不稳定性升高是由 CA 闭塞引起的(16.9%),但与 CA 再干预、再干预无失败生存率或全因死亡率无关。内脏分支不稳定性的回归分析显示,CA 不支架置入和主动脉覆盖范围缩小的预测因素。
在本研究作者的经验中,不支架置入 CA 窗孔不会造成围手术期或长期临床危害。在随访时,不支架置入 CA 与 CA 不稳定性相关;然而,与较短的(扇贝)移植物相比,两个窗孔组都更可取,因为增加主动脉覆盖范围可降低非 CA 分支血管的不稳定性。