Patient-specific computational flow simulation reveals significant differences in paravisceral aortic hemodynamics between fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair with four-vessel fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (bEVAR) currently represent the forefront of minimally invasive complex aortic aneurysm repair. This study sought to use patient-specific computational flow simulation (CFS) to assess differences in postoperative hemodynamic effects associated with fEVAR vs bEVAR.

METHODS

Patients from two institutions who underwent four-vessel fEVAR with the Cook Zenith Fenestrated platform and bEVAR with the Jotec E-xtra Design platform were retrospectively selected. Patients in both cohorts were treated for paravisceral and extent II, II, and V thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Three-dimensional finite element volume meshes were created from preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans. Boundary conditions were adjusted for body surface area, heart rate, and blood pressure. Pulsatile flow simulations were performed with equivalent boundary conditions between preoperative and postoperative states. Postoperative changes in hemodynamic parameters were compared between the fEVAR and bEVAR groups.

RESULTS

Patient-specific CFS was performed on 20 patients (10 bEVAR, 10 fEVAR) with a total of 80 target vessels (40 renal, 20 celiac, 20 superior mesenteric artery stents). bEVAR was associated with a decrease in renal artery peak flow rate (-5.2% vs +2.0%;  < .0001) and peak pressure (-3.4 vs +0.1%;  < .0001) compared with fEVAR. Almost all renal arteries treated with bEVAR had a reduction in renal artery perfusion (n = 19 [95%]), compared with 35% (n = 7) treated with fEVAR. There were no significant differences in celiac or superior mesenteric artery perfusion metrics ( = .10-.27) between groups. Time-averaged wall shear stress in the paravisceral aorta and branches also varied significantly depending on endograft configuration, with bEVAR associated with large postoperative increases in renal artery (+47.5 vs +13.5%;  = .002) and aortic time-averaged wall shear stress (+200.1% vs -31.3%;  = .001) compared with fEVAR. Streamline analysis revealed areas of hemodynamic abnormalities associated with branched renal grafts which adopt a U-shaped geometry, which may explain the observed differences in postoperative changes in renal perfusion between bEVAR and fEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

bEVAR may be associated with subtle decreases in renal perfusion and a large increase in aortic wall shear stress compared with fEVAR. CFS is a novel tool for quantifying and visualizing the unique patient-specific hemodynamic effect of different complex EVAR strategies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study used patient-specific CFS to compare postoperative hemodynamic effects of four-vessel fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (fEVAR) and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (bEVAR) in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. The findings indicate that bEVAR may result in subtle reductions in renal artery perfusion and a significant increase in aortic wall shear stress compared with fEVAR. These differences are clinically relevant, providing insights for clinicians choosing between these approaches. Understanding the patient-specific hemodynamic effects of complex EVAR strategies, as revealed by CFS, can aid in future personalized treatment decisions, and potentially reduce postoperative complications in aortic aneurysm repair.