Outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of infrarenal aortic aneurysms are treated by endovascular repair. However, adoption of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for complex aortic aneurysms has been limited, despite high morbidity and mortality associated with open repair. There are few published reports of consecutive outcomes, inclusive of all fenestrated and branched endovascular repairs, starting from the inception of a complex aortic aneurysm program. Therefore, we examined a single center\u27s consecutive experience of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study evaluating 30-day and 1-year outcomes in all consecutive patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (definition: requiring one or more fenestrations or branches). Data were collected prospectively through an Institutional Review Board-approved registry and a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption clinical trial (G130210). RESULTS: We performed 100 consecutive complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (November 2010 to March 2016) using 58 (58%) commercially manufactured custom-made devices and 42 (42%) physician-modified devices to treat 4 (4%) common iliac, 42 (42%) juxtarenal, 18 (18%) pararenal, and 36 (36%) thoracoabdominal aneurysms (type I, n = 1; type II, n = 4; type III, n = 12; type IV, n = 18; arch, n = 1). The repairs included 309 fenestrations, branches, and scallops (average of 3.1 branch arteries/case). All patients had 30-day follow-up for 30-day event rates: three (3%) deaths; six (6%) target artery occlusions; five (5%) progressions to dialysis; eight (8%) access complications; one (1%) paraparesis; one (1%) bowel ischemia; and no instances of myocardial infarction, paralysis, or stroke. Of 10 type I or type III endoleaks, 8 resolved (7 with secondary intervention, 1 without intervention). Mean follow-up time was 563 days (interquartile range, 156-862), with three (3%) patients lost to follow-up. On 1-year Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was 87%, freedom from type I or type III endoleak was 97%, target vessel patency was 92%, and freedom from aortic rupture was 100%. Average lengths of intensive care unit stay and inpatient stay were 1.4 days (standard deviation, 3.3) and 3.6 days (standard deviation, 3.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that complex aortic aneurysms can now be treated with minimally invasive fenestrated and branched endovascular repair. Endovascular technologies will likely continue to play an increasingly important role in the management of patients with complex aortic aneurysm disease

Trends in use of the only Food and Drug Administration-approved commercially available fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair device in the United States

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endografts are customized, patient-specific, endovascular devices with potential to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality of short-neck infrarenal and juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft (ZFEN) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), Food and Drug Administration-approved in 2012, remains the only fenestrated device available in the United States. This technology is among the most technically complex catheter-based procedures and, therefore, inherently associated with serious risk for device-related complications. We sought to define patterns of physician and hospital adoption of ZFEN. METHODS: Deidentified datasets containing numbers of physicians trained, orders by physicians and hospitals, and designs (fenestration/scallop configuration) was provided for U.S. ZFEN devices ordered (April 2012-August 2015). We evaluated the number of physicians trained, the number of devices ordered, hospital characteristics, and fenestration/scallop design configurations. Cook Medical assembled the datasets but played no role in study design, analysis, or interpretation of data. RESULTS: Between April 2012 and August 2015, 553 physicians attended formal ZFEN training sessions, 388 (70%) of whom ordered a total of 2669 devices. An increase in orders per month (nine in June 2012 and 91 in August 2015, 911% growth; P \u3c .001) and in number of physicians ordering per month (eight in June 2012 and 62 in August 2015, 675% growth; P \u3c .001) was observed. Teaching hospitals, representing all U.S. regions (Midwest 927, 35%; South 799, 30%; Northeast 547, 20%; West 396, 15%), accounted for 1703 (64%) ZFEN orders. Of 553 trained physicians, 165 (30%) ordered no devices, 116 (21%) ordered 1 device, 144 (26%) ordered 2-5 devices, 61 (11%) ordered 6-10 devices, 39 (7%) ordered 11-20, and 28 (5%) ordered \u3e 20 devices. For physicians contributing \u3e 6 months of data (n = 336), the average number of devices ordered per year was three (standard deviation, 4); 272 (81%) ordered \u3c /= 5 devices/year, 15 (4.5%) ordered 11-20 devices/year, and 3 (0.9%) ordered \u3e 20 devices/year. Of devices with design details available (2618 of 2669; 98%), most common designs were 2 small fenestrations/1 scallop (1443; 55%), 2 small fenestrations/1 large fenestration (568; 22%), 1 small fenestration/1 scallop (173, 6.6%), and 2 small fenestrations (169; 6.5%). The average number of target vessels incorporated in each design was 2.7/device; 2071 (79%) incorporated three, 398 (15%) incorporated two. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2012, ZFEN has demonstrated a ninefold increase in monthly orders, with 553 physicians trained. Unlike the experience of rapid dissemination seen with infrarenal endografts, only 28 (5%) physicians have ordered \u3e 20, whereas 165 (30%) have ordered none, and 272 (81%) ordered \u3c /= 5 devices/year. Assuming that volume, in general, correlates with outcomes, this adoption pattern raises questions whether fenestrated technology should be regionalized to high-volume centers