Objective: We evaluated the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair using three-vessel inner branch stentgrafts for aneurysms and chronic dissections.Methods: We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients treated by total endovascular aortic arch repair at eight academic centers using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) from 2016 to 2019. All patients received three-vessel designs with two antegrade and one retrograde inner branch, which was used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches were accessed via a carotid or an upper extremity approach. A preloaded catheter was used for access to the retrograde left subclavian artery branch via a transfemoral approach. The endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events, any stroke (minor or major) or transient ischemia attack, secondary interventions, target vessel patency, target vessel instability, aneurysm-related mortality, and patient survival.Results: A total of 39 patients (31 men [79%]; mean age, 70 6 7 years) had undergone treatment of 14 degenerative (36%) and 25 chronic (64%) postdissection arch aneurysms. The clinical characteristics included American Society of Anesthesiologists class $III in 28 patients (95%) and previous median sternotomy for ascending aortic repair in 28 patients (72%). The technical success rate was 100%. Two patients had died in-hospital or within 30 days (5%), and two patients had experienced a stroke (one minor). The combined mortality and any stroke rate was 8% (n ¼ 3). Major adverse events occurred in 10 patients (26%), including respiratory failure in 4 (10%) and estimated blood loss >1 L, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury in 2 patients each (5%). The median follow-up was 3.2 months (interquartile range, 1-14 months). Of the 39 patients, 12 (31%) required secondary interventions to treat vascular access complications in 5, endoleak in 6 (three type II, one type Ic, one type Ia/Ib, one type IIIa), and target vessel stenosis in 1 patient. At 1 year, the primary and secondary patency rates and freedom from target vessel instability were 95% 6 5%, 100%, and 91% 6 5%, respectively. Freedom from aortic-related mortality and patient survival was 94% 6 4% and 90% 6 6%, respectively. Conclusions:The findings from the present multicenter global experience have demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair for aneurysms and chronic dissections using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts. The mortality and stroke rates compare favorably with those after open surgical repair in a higher risk group From the Department of cardiothoracic and vascular surgery, McGovern Med-

No abstract

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSThis study describes the promising feasibility and outcomes of proximal extension with new fenestrated/ branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR/BEVAR) inside a previous failing FEVAR in many experienced aortic centres. Some of the technical challenges determined the technical success and further re-interventions were needed, but clinical success was high with no aneurysm related mortality. This establishes a baseline for comparison with other therapeutic options.Objective: To report the outcomes of redo fenestrated and/or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR in FEVAR) to rescue previous failed FEVAR. Methods: Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing F/BEVAR in FEVAR at eight aortic centres including pre-, intra-, and post-operative data according to a pre-established protocol. Follow up consisted of at least yearly computed tomography angiography. Values are presented as median and interquartile range, and survival as estimate AE standard error in percentage. Results: 18 male patients (76 years old; range 69 e 78 years) receiving FEVAR involving two (two or three) target vessels between 2006 and 2016 underwent F/BEVAR in FEVAR between 2012 and 2019 (aneurysm diameter of 63 mm; range 56 e 69 mm). Median interval between the procedures was 53 (29 e 103) months. The indication for F/BEVAR in FEVAR was type Ia endoleak in 16 cases (eight isolated and eight combined with graft migration), one graft migration without endoleak and one migration with significant proximal aortic expansion. F/BEVAR in FEVAR involved all patent renovisceral arteries and had an operating time of 260 (204 e 344) minutes. Technical success was achieved in 15 (83%) cases. There was a failure to bridge one renal artery, one renal capsular bleed with the subsequent need for renal artery embolisation within 24 hours and one persistent type Ib endoleak despite iliac extension. There was no peri-or in hospital death. Two patients developed spinal cord ischaemia, one transient paraparesis and one permanent paraplegia. The latter occurred in a non-staged procedure where spinal drainage was used. During a follow up of 27 (7 e 39) months, three (17%) patients underwent late re-interventions. Overall survival at 24 months was 70 AE 11% with no aneurysm related death and a secondary clinical success at 24 months of 84 AE 11%. Conclusion: F/BEVAR in FEVAR is a technically challenging but feasible solution to rescue failed FEVAR. The outcomes are promising in many aortic centres but need to be confirmed by further studies with longer follow up.

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.