European Multicentric Experience with Fenestrated-Branched ENDOvascular Stent-grafting after Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: the EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry

Jacob Budtz-Lilly*, Mario D'Oria, Enrico Gallitto, Luca Bertoglio, Tilo Kölbel, David Lindström, Nuno Dias, Goran Lundberg, Dittmar Böckler, Gianbattista Parlani, Michele Antonello, Gian Franco Veraldi, Nikolaos Tsilimparis, Drosos Kotelis, Philip Dueppers, Giovanni Tinelli, Arnaldo Ippoliti, Paolo Spath, Antonino Logiacco, Geert Willem H SchurinkRoberto Chiesa, Alessandro Grandi, Giuseppe Panuccio, Fiona Rohlffs, Anders Wanhainen, Kevin Mani, Angelos Karelis, Björn Sonesson, Magnus Jonsson, Alina-Marilena Bresler, Gioele Simonte, Giacomo Isernia, Andrea Xodo, Luca Mezzetto, Davide Mastrorilli, Carlota Fernandez Prendes, Basel Chaikouni, Alexander Zimmermann, Sandro Lepidi, Mauro Gargiulo, Barend Mees, Jon Unosson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR). Methods: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm. Background: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes. Results: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P<0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P=0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P=0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P=0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P=0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%). Conclusions: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E389-E395
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume278
Issue number2
Early online date15 Jul 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'European Multicentric Experience with Fenestrated-Branched ENDOvascular Stent-grafting after Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: the EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this