Superior mesenteric artery outcomes after large fenestration strut relocation with the Zenith Fenestrated endoprosthesis.
Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR)
Large fenestration
Physician-modified endograft (PMEG)
Stent strut relocation
Superior mesenteric artery (SMA)
Type I/IIIc endoleak
Zenith Fenestrated AAA Endovascular® (ZFen)
Journal
CVIR endovascular
ISSN: 2520-8934
Titre abrégé: CVIR Endovasc
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101738484
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2020
25 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
30
06
2020
accepted:
06
08
2020
entrez:
5
9
2020
pubmed:
5
9
2020
medline:
5
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Zenith® Fenestrated (ZFen) stent-graft is frequently configured with a strut-spanning large fenestration for superior mesenteric artery (SMA) incorporation. This has led some to relocate struts to create a strut-free fenestration and place a bridging stent. The aim of this study was to compare SMA outcomes with and without large fenestration strut relocation. We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients undergoing fenestrated endovascular repair with ZFen between 2013 and 2019. Those with SMA incorporation using large fenestrations were included and separated into strut relocation (SR) and no relocation (NR) groups. Endpoints included procedural metrics, technical success, major adverse events, and target-vessel instability. A total of 121 patients (77% male; mean age 76.1 ± 7.1 years) met inclusion criteria, including 94 with SR (78%) and 27 with NR (22%). A total of 369 target-vessels were incorporated, with a mean of 3.0 ± 0.2 per patient, and no differences between groups. Mean operative time, contrast volume, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were lower (p < 0.001) with SR, attributed to increased experience with time. Overall technical success (SR: 100%, NR: 96%, p = 0.22) was 99%. At a mean follow-up of 32 months, there were two endovascular interventions for mesenteric ischemia. One resulted in SMA dissection requiring bypass in the NR group, the other was successful ballooning of the bridging stent with symptom resolution in the SR group. Relocating the spanning struts does not negatively impact procedural metrics or midterm outcomes. It may facilitate future endovascular interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Zenith® Fenestrated (ZFen) stent-graft is frequently configured with a strut-spanning large fenestration for superior mesenteric artery (SMA) incorporation. This has led some to relocate struts to create a strut-free fenestration and place a bridging stent. The aim of this study was to compare SMA outcomes with and without large fenestration strut relocation.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients undergoing fenestrated endovascular repair with ZFen between 2013 and 2019. Those with SMA incorporation using large fenestrations were included and separated into strut relocation (SR) and no relocation (NR) groups. Endpoints included procedural metrics, technical success, major adverse events, and target-vessel instability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 121 patients (77% male; mean age 76.1 ± 7.1 years) met inclusion criteria, including 94 with SR (78%) and 27 with NR (22%). A total of 369 target-vessels were incorporated, with a mean of 3.0 ± 0.2 per patient, and no differences between groups. Mean operative time, contrast volume, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were lower (p < 0.001) with SR, attributed to increased experience with time. Overall technical success (SR: 100%, NR: 96%, p = 0.22) was 99%. At a mean follow-up of 32 months, there were two endovascular interventions for mesenteric ischemia. One resulted in SMA dissection requiring bypass in the NR group, the other was successful ballooning of the bridging stent with symptom resolution in the SR group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Relocating the spanning struts does not negatively impact procedural metrics or midterm outcomes. It may facilitate future endovascular interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32886245
doi: 10.1186/s42155-020-00148-9
pii: 10.1186/s42155-020-00148-9
pmc: PMC7474034
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
54Références
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Dec;60(6):1420-8.e1-5
pubmed: 25195145
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2014 Apr;55(2 Suppl 1):115-21
pubmed: 24796904
Semin Vasc Surg. 2007 Jun;20(2):90-6
pubmed: 17580246
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2019 Feb;60(1):23-34
pubmed: 30221895
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jan;69(1):47-52
pubmed: 29960791
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Aug;72(2):423-434.e1
pubmed: 32081482
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Sep;70(3):691-701
pubmed: 30837181
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Feb;153(2):S32-S41.e7
pubmed: 27866781
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Aug;68(2):337-347
pubmed: 29510915
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Nov;68(5):1297-1307
pubmed: 29706473
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Sep;64(3):692-7
pubmed: 27288103
J Vasc Surg. 2020 May;71(5):1489-1502.e6
pubmed: 31611106
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Nov;64(5):1219-1227
pubmed: 27575815
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Oct;60(4):900-7
pubmed: 24865786
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Sep;56(3):601-7
pubmed: 22554425
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Aug;58(2):291-300
pubmed: 23611709
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Feb;65(2):294-302
pubmed: 27687323
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Apr;61(4):895-901
pubmed: 25595398
J Vasc Surg. 2014 May;59(5):1456-61
pubmed: 24767275
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Aug;60(2):295-300
pubmed: 24680241
J Vasc Surg. 2017 May;65(5):1249-1259.e10
pubmed: 27986479
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2013 Feb;54(1 Suppl 1):27-33
pubmed: 23443587