Outcomes of using endovascular aneurysm repair with active fixation in complex aneurysm morphology.

OBJECTIVE: The ideal treatment option for patients with complex aneurysm morphology remains highly debated. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with active fixation on outcomes in patients with complex aneurysm morphology.

METHODS: There were 340 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR using active fixation devices, 234 with active infrarenal fixation (AIF; Gore Excluder; W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) and 106 with active suprarenal fixation (ASF; 85 Medtronic Endurant [Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif] and 21 Cook Zenith [Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind]). Demographics, comorbidities, anatomic features, and outcomes were analyzed for patients receiving devices with active fixation. Outcomes of using active fixation in necks with <15-mm neck lengths, >60-degree infrarenal neck angle (β), >30-mm infrarenal neck diameter, severe aortic neck calcification or thrombus, and nonstraight neck morphology were evaluated.

RESULTS: Of the 340 patients, 106 (78 men; mean age, 74.5 ± 9.3 years at the time of surgery) received implants with ASF and 234 (191 men; mean age, 74.6 ± 8.9 years at the time of surgery) received implants with AIF. In comparing AIF and ASF devices, patients in the suprarenal fixation group had significantly shorter follow-up time (25 ± 17 months vs 44.3 ± 32 months; P < .0001). Patients in the ASF group had shorter aortic neck lengths (25.5 ± 15.1 mm vs 28.6 ± 14.9 mm; P = NS) and significantly larger infrarenal neck diameters (25.9 ± 6.3 mm vs 23.4 ± 3.2 mm; P < .0001) and aneurysm diameters (59.9 ± 11.6 mm v. 55.9 ± 10.0 mm; P = .002). Outcomes were similar between groups, with no significant differences in reintervention, proximal endoleak, sac growth, abdominal aortic aneurysm-related death, or rupture. Of the complex anatomic neck features investigated, neck diameter >30 mm and nonstraight neck morphology had the highest rates of reintervention in ASF devices.

CONCLUSIONS: In cases of hostile infrarenal neck morphology, ASF appears to be used more frequently. Our data suggest that ASF may be useful for certain patients but may be unfavorable for others, such as those with wide necks or several difficult neck features. Nevertheless, further research is needed to evaluate more optimal treatment options, such as fenestrated EVAR, branched EVAR, and endovascular adjuncts such as EndoAnchors (Aptus Endosystems, Sunnyvale, Calif), in dealing with high-risk anatomic characteristics that may not be optimally managed with standard EVAR devices with active fixation.