Reinterventions after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

UMMS Affiliation

Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery; School of Medicine; Senior Scholars Program

Faculty Mentor

Andres Schanzer

Publication Date


Document Type



Cardiovascular Diseases | Medical Education | Surgery | Surgical Procedures, Operative


OBJECTIVE: Reinterventions after fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) are sometimes necessary to maintain aneurysm exclusion or endograft and target artery patency. These reinterventions are nontrivial, potentially associated with morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. Whereas rates, types, and outcomes of reintervention after infrarenal EVAR have been well described, they have not been well described for F/B-EVAR. We sought to characterize the morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization due to reinterventions after F/B-EVAR.

METHODS: All F/B-EVAR variables collected prospectively through a single-institution, Institutional Review Board-approved registry, which included patients enrolled in a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trial (G130210), were reviewed (November 2010-December 2016). Reinterventions were defined as any procedure that was aneurysm related, device related, or target artery related. For patients with more than one reintervention, each intervention occurrence was treated as a discrete event. Reintervention type, indication, timing (perioperative, days 0-30; short term, days 31-180; midterm, > 180 days), inpatient/outpatient, length of stay, and morbidity/mortality were recorded. Reintervention success was defined as resolution of the indication.

RESULTS: Among 123 consecutive F/B-EVARs (mean follow-up, 25 months), 32 patients (25%) underwent 54 reinterventions (one reintervention, 20 (63%) patients; two reinterventions, 6 (19%) patients; three reinterventions, 4 (13%) patients; four reinterventions, 1 (3.1%) patient; and six reinterventions, 1 (3.1%) patient). The most frequent indications were type III endoleaks (n = 15 [28%]), target artery occlusions (n = 7 [13%]), and stenoses (n = 6 [11%]). These were performed in the perioperative, short-term, and midterm time frames 17%, 41%, and 43% of the time, respectively. Reinterventions were percutaneous (67%), inpatient procedures (61%), with median length of stay of 5 days. Of the 32 reintervention patients, 4 experienced access site complications and 4 died < 30 days after reintervention (3 were adjudicated as not aneurysm related/not reintervention related). In 31 of 32 (97%) patients, reintervention success was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS: Reinterventions after F/B-EVAR were necessary in 26% of patients, most commonly for type III endoleaks and target artery complications. Whereas all but one reintervention was successful, many of these required complex procedures with significant morbidity and mortality. Development of strategies to eliminate type III endoleaks by improving component junction integrity and to ensure target artery primary patency are key next steps in the evolution of F/B-EVAR.

DOI of Published Version



Dossabhoy SS, Simons JP, Flahive JM, Aiello FA, Sheth P, Arous EJ, Messina LM, Schanzer A. Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using physician-modified endovascular grafts versus company-manufactured devices. J Vasc Surg. 2018 Jun;67(6):1673-1683. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.055. Epub 2017 Dec 8. PMID: 29224942. Link to article on publisher's site

Journal/Book/Conference Title

Journal of vascular surgery


Shernaz Dossabhoy participated in this study as a medical student in the Senior Scholars research program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Related Resources

Link to Article in PubMed

PubMed ID