Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

Objective: Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms involving renal-mesenteric arteries, especially in the setting of prior failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) typically requires fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with a custom-made device (CMD). CMDs are limited to select centers, and physician-modified endografts are an alternative treatment platform. Currently, there is no data on the outcomes of physician-modified F/BEVAR (PM-F/BEVAR) in the setting of failed prior EVAR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of PM-F/BEVAR in patients with prior failed EVAR.

Methods: A prospective database of consecutive patients treated at a single center with PM-F/BEVAR between March 2021 and November 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. The cohort was stratified by presence of a failed EVAR (type Ia endoleak or aneurysm development proximal to a prior EVAR) prior to PM-F/BEVAR. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were compared between the groups using univariate analysis. One-year survival and freedom from reintervention were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 103 patients underwent PM-F/BEVAR during the study period; 27 (26%) were in the setting of prior EVAR. Patients with prior failed EVAR had similar age (75.2 ± 7.7 vs 71.5 ± 8.8 years; P = .058), male gender (n = 24 ; 89% vs n = 57 ; 75%; P = .130), and comorbid conditions except higher incidence of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 7 ; 26% vs n = 7 ; 9%; P = .047). Overall, aneurysm diameter was 65.5 ± 13.9 mm with aneurysms categorized as juxta-/pararenal in 43% and thoracoabdominal in 57%, with no differences between the groups. Twelve patients (14%) presented with symptomatic/ruptured aneurysms. The average number of target arteries incorporated per patient was 3.8. Four different aortic devices were modified with a greater proportion of Terumo TREO devices used in the failed EVAR group (P = .03). There was no difference in procedure time, radiation dose, or iodinated contrast use between groups. Overall technical success was 99%. Rates of 30-day mortality (n = 0 ; 0% vs n = 3 ; 4%; P = .565) and major adverse events (n = 6 ; 22% vs n = 16 ; 21%; P = 1.0) were similar between groups. For the overall cohort, rates of type 1 or 3 endoleak, branch vessel stenosis/occlusion, and reintervention were 2%, 1%, and 8%, respectively, with no difference between groups. One-year survival (failed EVAR 94% vs no EVAR 82%; P = .756) was similar between groups.

Conclusions: PM-F/BEVAR is a safe and effective treatment for patients with aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries in the setting of prior failed EVAR where additional technical challenges may be present. Additional follow-up is warranted to demonstrate long-term efficacy, but early results are encouraging and similar to those using CMDs.