Fate of primary determinate and indeterminate target vessel endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of primary determinate and indeterminate target vessel endoleaks (TVELs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR).

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study (2014-2023) on F-BEVAR for thoracoabdominal (TAAAs) or pararenal aortic aneurysms (PRAAs). TVELs were classified as "primary" if present at the first postoperative computed tomography angiogram. Endoleaks were defined "determinate" (dELs) if the cause (type Ic or IIIc) and implicated target vessel were identifiable and "indeterminate" (iELs) if contrast enhancement was detectable at the level of fenestrations/branches without any evident source. Endoleaks involving multiple inflows (type II and target vessels) were defined as "complex" (cELs). Endpoints were endoleak spontaneous resolution, 1-year aneurysm sac failure to regress (>5 mm diameter decrease), and 4-year endoleak-related secondary interventions. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression were used for the analysis.

RESULTS

There were 142 patients with JRAAs/PRAAs (n = 85; 60%) or TAAAs (n = 57; 40%), with 513 target arteries incorporated through a fenestration (n = 294; 57%) or directional branch (n = 219; 43%). Fifty-nine primary TVELs (12%) were identified in 35 patients (25%), a dEL in 20 patients (14%) and iEL in 15 (11%); 22 (15%) had a determinate or indeterminate cEL. Overall spontaneous resolution rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-87%) at 4 years. cELs (odds ratio [OR], 5.00; 95% CI, 1.10-49.4; P < .001) and iELs after BEVAR (OR, 9.43; 95% CI, 3.41-56.4; P = .002) were more likely to persist >6 months, and persistent forms were associated with sac failure to regress at 1 year (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.03-12.59; P = .040). Overall freedom from endoleak-related reinterventions was 85% (95% CI, 79%-92%) at 4 years, 92% (95% CI, 87%-97%) for those without primary TVELs and 62% (95% CI, 46%-84%) for those with any primary TVEL (P < .001). In particular, cELs (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.4-18.81; P = .020) were associated with an increased need for reintervention. In case a secondary intervention was needed, iEL or cEL had an increased risk for multiple secondary procedures (hazard ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.22-10.34; P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary TVELs are frequent after F-BEVAR, and a clear characterization of the endoleak source by computed tomography angiogram is not possible in 40% of patients. Most primary TVELs spontaneously resolve, but during follow-up, patients with any primary TVEL experience a worsened freedom from endoleak-related reinterventions that is mostly driven by persistence of cELs and post-BEVAR iELs. Multiple secondary procedures may be required in case of iELs or cELs.