Reinterventions after fenestrated and branched endografting for degenerative aortic aneurysms

Objective: Fenestrated/branched endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is widely accepted technique to treat juxta/pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (J/P-AAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for patients at high-surgical risk. However, the follow-up results should be carefully evaluated, especially in terms of the reintervention rate. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to evaluate the early and mid-term reinterventions after FB-EVAR for J/P-AAAs and TAAAs and their effects on follow-up survival. Methods: From 2006 to 2019, all consecutive patients who had undergone F/B-EVAR for J/P-AAAs or TAAAs were prospectively enrolled. Cases requiring reinterventions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with aortic dissection were excluded from the present analysis. Reinterventions were classified as follows: access related, aortoiliac related, or target visceral vessel (TVV) related. Freedom from reintervention and survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the risk factors. Results: Overall, 221 F/B-EVAR procedures were performed for 111 J/P-AAAs (50.3%) and 110 TAAAs (49.7%) in an elective (182; 82%) or urgent (39; 18%) setting. The median follow-up was 27 months (interquartile range, 13 months). Overall, 41 patients had undergone 52 reinterventions (single, 30 [14%]; multiple, 11 [5%]; access related, 17 [33%]; aortoiliac related, 6 [12%]; TVV related, 29 [55%]). Of the 52 reinterventions, 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) had occurred within and after 30 days, respectively. Eight reinterventions (15%) had been were performed in an urgent setting. Endovascular and open reinterventions were performed in 32 (62%) and 20 (38%) cases, respectively. Open reinterventions were frequently access related (access, 16; no access, 4; P <= .001). Technical success was 95% (39 patients); failures consisted of one splenic artery rupture and one renal artery loss. Patients undergoing reintervention had more frequently undergone a primary urgent F/B-EVAR (urgent, 12 of 39 [31%]; elective, 29 of 182 [16%]; P <.001) and had had TAAAs (TAAAs, 34 of 41 [83%]; J/P-AAAs, 7 of 41 [17%]; P <.001). The patients with TAAAs had had a greater incidence of TVV-related reintervention (TAAAs, 26 of 28 [93%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 28 [7%]; P <.001) and multiple reinterventions (TAAAs, 9 of 11 [82%]; J/P-AAAs, 2 of 11 [18%]; P = .03) compared with those with J/P-AAAs. Survival at 3 years was 75%. Freedom from reintervention was 81% at 3 years. Patients who had undergone reinterventions had lower 3-year survival (reintervention, 61%; no reintervention, 77%; P = .02). Preoperative chronic renal failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.6; P = .02), TAAAs (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .03), and urgent primary F/B-EVAR procedures (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P = .01) were independent predictors of late mortality. Conclusions: Reinterventions after F/B-EVAR are not uncommon and were related to TVVs in only one half of cases. Most of them can be performed in an elective setting using endovascular techniques. The technical success rate was excellent. Reinterventions were more frequent after TAAAs and urgent F/B-EVAR procedures and had a significant effect on overall survival in these situations.