Key result
F-BEVAR for failed pEVAR linked to ~18-point lower 5-year freedom from reintervention vs pOAR.
Why the study?
Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) is an increasingly attractive option for failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, but comparative data on associated risk factors, treatment indications, and mid-term outcomes following failed previous endovascular versus open repair are limited.
Cohort (n=526)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
F-BEVAR after failed pEVAR was associated with more reinterventions than after pOAR; leaves open optimal strategy for failed endovascular repairs.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budtz-Lilly et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n=526). F-BEVAR after failed previous EVAR (pEVAR) vs. F-BEVAR after failed previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR) was evaluated on Technical success, 30-day mortality, and 5-year freedom from reintervention (p=0.58). F-BEVAR for failed pEVAR vs pOAR had similar technical success and 30-day mortality, but lower 5-year freedom from reintervention.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: