Cardiovascular Surgery Early Results of Fenestrated Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms in the United Kingdom On behalf of the British Society for Endovascular Therapy and the Global Collaborators on Advanced Stent-Graft Techniques for Aneurysm Repair (GLOBALSTAR) Registry

Background—Fenestrated endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for juxtarenal and pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. At present, the evidence base for this procedure is predominantly limited to single-center or single-operator series. The aim of this study was to present nationwide early results of fenestrated endovascular repair in the United Kingdom. Methods and Results—All patients who underwent fenestrated endovascular repair between January 2007 and December 2010 at experienced institutions in the United Kingdom( 10 procedures) were retrospectively studied by use of the GLOBALSTAR database. Site-reported data relating to patient demographics, aneurysm morphology, procedural details, and outcome were recorded. Data from 318 patients were obtained from 14 centers. Primary procedural success was achieved in 99% (316/318); perioperative mortality was 4.1%, and intraoperative target vessel loss was observed in 5 of 889 target vessels (0.6%). The early reintervention ( 30 days) rate was 7% (22/318). There were 11 deaths during follow-up; none were aneurysm-related. Survival by Kaplan–Meier analysis was 94% (SE 0.01), 91% (0.02), and 89% (0.02) at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Freedom from target vessel loss was 93% (0.02), 91% (0.02), and 85% (0.06), and freedom from late secondary intervention ( 30 days) was 90% (0.02), 86% (0.03), and 70% (0.08) at 1, 2, and 3 years. Conclusions—In this national sample, fenestrated endovascular repair has been performed with a high degree of technical and clinical success. Late survival and target vessel patency are satisfactory. These results support continued use and evaluation of this technique for juxtarenal aneurysms, but illustrate the need for a more robust evidence base. (Circulation. 2012;125:2707-2715.)