This study aimed to compare two commercially available off the shelf branched endografts for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair, namely the E-nside (Artivion) and Zenith t-Branch (Cook Medical) devices. This multicentre retrospective study (2020 - 2023) included patients treated by branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR) for TAAA using the inner branched E-nside or the outer branched t-Branch. Endpoints were 30 day technical success and major adverse events (MAEs) as well as 1 year freedom from target vessel instability and main endograft instability. The study included 163 patients: 79 (307 target vessels) treated with E-nside and 84 (325 target vessels) with t-branch. Aneurysm extent was I - III in 91 patients (55.8%; 47% of E-nside and 66% of t-Branch) and IV in 72 patients (44.2%; 53% of E-nside and 34% of t-Branch) (p = .011). An adjunctive proximal thoracic endograft was used in 43% of E-nside vs. 69% of t-Branch (p < .001), with less frequent thoracic endografting (14% vs. 76%; p < .001) and shorter length of coverage (p = .024) in extent IV TAAA treated by E-nside. E-nside cases had shorter bridging length of renal arteries (66 ± 17 mm vs. 76 ± 20 mm; p < .010) and less frequent use of a distal bifurcated endograft (53% vs. 80%; p < .001). Comparing 30 day results, mortality was 1% vs. 2% (p = .62), any MAE occurred in 18% vs. 21% (p = .55), the stroke rate was 3% vs. 0% (p = .23), and the elective spinal cord ischaemia rate was 5% vs. 8% (p = .40) for E-nside and t-Branch, respectively. At 1 year, freedom from target vessel instability was 96 ± 3% for E-nside and 95 ± 3% for t-Branch (p = .58), and freedom from endograft instability was 98 ± 2% vs. 97 ± 3% (p = .46) respectively. Both off the shelf devices provided excellent early and 1 year results. The E-nside may require shorter thoracic aorta coverage and bridging length for the renal arteries, and less frequent implantation of concomitant proximal thoracic or distal abdominal bifurcated endograft. However, these aspects did not determine significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Hypogastric artery (HA) revascularization during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is still open to debate. Moreover, exclusion-related complication rates reported in literature are not negligible. The aim of this study is to present and analyze the outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR with exclusion of 1 or both HAs at our academic center. We retrospectively reviewed our results in patients submitted to EVAR and needing HA exclusion, in terms of perioperative (30-day) and follow-up rates of intestinal and spinal cord ischemia, buttock claudication, buttock skin necrosis, and sexual dysfunction. From January 2008 to December 2014, a total of 527 patients underwent elective standard infrarenal EVAR; among those 104 (19.7%) had iliac involvement needing HA exclusion. In 73 patients with unilateral iliac involvement (70.1%, group UH), many single HAs were excluded. Thirty-one patients (29.9%) had bilateral iliac involvement (group BH), of which 16 (51.6%) had 1 HA excluded with revascularization of the contralateral one (group BHR); in the remaining 15 patients (48.4%) both HAs were excluded (group BHE). No 30-day or follow-up aneurysm-related mortality, intestinal, or spinal cord ischemia were recorded. At 30 days, skin necrosis was observed in 2 patients. Buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates were significantly greater in group BHE than in group BHR (P < .05). At a mean 18.6 months follow-up (range: 4-47), buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates in group BHE were persistently higher than that in groups UH and BHR (P < .05); HA coil embolization was significantly associated with buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction (P < .05). Whenever anatomically feasible, at least 1 HA should be salvaged in case of bilateral involvement. In case of unilateral HA exclusion, the rate of complications is not negligible. Coil embolization is related to a higher complication rate.

Introduction: A type 2 endoleak (EL2) remains the most prevalent complication of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis, including patients who underwent embolization for an isolated EL2 after EVAR. The study population was stratified into two groups: Group A, consisting of patients whose EL2 resolved after the first embolization procedure, and Group B, consisting of those with refractory EL2 (rEL2). The indication for EL2 treatment was aneurysmal sac growth amounting to >10 mm from the index EVAR. The indications for endograft explantation were the absence of high comorbidities and persisting aneurysmal sac expansion. Those with high comorbidities were subjected to another endovascular procedure or a conservative approach, the latter being preferred. The primary endpoint was EL2 resolution. The secondary endpoints were mid-term outcomes in terms of aneurysmal sac shrinkage, stability and expansion rates, and aneurysm-related complications. Results: Among 57 patients, 19 patients (33.3%) showed signs of EL2 after the first embolization, whereas 38 (66.6%) presented rEL2. Of these, 14 (36.8%) presented significant aneurysmal sac expansion: 8 patients underwent a secondary embolization, while an open conversion was performed in the remaining 6 patients (42.8%), 4 of whom, in an elective setting, showed a complete resolution of EL2, while 2 patients treated in an urgent setting died from a ruptured aneurysm. Among the patients treated with a secondary embolization, only 2 patients presented EL2 resolution, while the other 6 patients (75%) showed rEL2. Out of the 38 patients with rEL2, 24 patients did not undergo further interventions; of these, 11 (45.8%) presented sac expansion, and 16% developed type IA EL. Conclusions: A strict follow-up and possibly a more aggressive treatment should be considered in an elective setting for patients with rEL2.