Outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2023

Authors

Dias-Neto M (Author) FMUP; Marcondes G. (Author) Other; Tenorio E.R. (Author) Other; Barbosa Lima G.B. (Author) Other; Baghbani-Oskouei A. (Author) Other; Vacirca A. (Author) Other; Mendes B.C. (Author) Other; Saqib N. (Author) Other; Mirza A.K. (Author) Other; Oderich G.S. (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Journal of Vascular Surgery

Vol. 77

Initial page: 712

ISSN: 0741-5214

Publisher: Elsevier

Indexing

Scopus - 6 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-010-SCT

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.10.050

Abstract (EN): Objective: To describe the technical pitfalls and outcomes of iliofemoral conduits during fenestrated-branched endovascular repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 466 consecutive patients enrolled in a previous prospective nonrandomized study to investigate FB-EVAR for CAAAs/TAAAs (2013-2021). Iliofemoral conduits were performed through open surgical technique (temporary or permanent) in patients with patent internal iliac arteries or endovascular technique among those with occluded internal iliac arteries. End points were assessed in patients who had any iliac conduit or no conduits, and in patients who had conduits performed prior or during the index FB-EVAR, including procedural metrics, technical success, and major adverse events (MAE). Results: There were 138 CAAAs, 141 extent IV, and 187 extent I-III TAAAs treated by FB-EVAR with an average of 3.89 ± 0.52 vessels incorporated per patient. Any iliac conduit was required in 35 patients (7.5%), including 24 patients (10.4%) treated between 2013 and 2017 and 11 (4.7%) who had procedures between 2018 and 2021 (P = .019). Nineteen patients had permanent conduits using iliofemoral bypass, 11 had temporary iliac conduits, and 5 had endoconduits. Iliofemoral conduits were necessary in 12% of patients with extent I to III TAAA, in 6% with extent IV TAAA, and in 3% with CAAA (P = .009). The use of iliofemoral conduit was more frequent among women (74% vs 27%; P < .001) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49% vs 28%; P = .013), peripheral artery disease (31% vs 15%; P = .009), and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or higher (74% vs 51%; P = .009). There were no inadvertent iliac artery disruptions in the entire study. The 30-day mortality and MAE were 1% and 19%, respectively, for all patients. An iliofemoral conduit using retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR was associated with longer operative time (322 ± 97 minutes vs 323 ± 110 minutes vs 215 ± 90 minutes; P < .001), higher estimated blood loss (425 ± 620 mL vs 580 ± 1050 mL vs 250 ± 400 mL; P < .001), and rate of red blood transfusion (92% vs 78% vs 32%; P < .001) and lower technical success (83% vs 87% vs 98%; P < .001), but no difference in intraoperative access complications and MAEs, compared with iliofemoral conduits without retroperitoneal exposure during the index FB-EVAR and control patients who had FB-EVAR without iliofemoral conduits, respectively. There were no differences in mortality or in other specific MAE among the three groups. Conclusions: FB-EVAR with selective use of iliofemoral conduits was safe with low mortality and no occurrence of inadvertent iliac artery disruption or conversion. A staged approach is associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss, and lower transfusion requirements in the index procedure.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 6498