Early outcome following endovascular repair of XXXX : triple- versus double- or single-fenestrated stent-grafts.

@entity1 @entity439 @entity449 @entity1070
PURPOSE: To review the early outcome following endovascular repair of @entity449 using fenestrated stent-grafts and to determine if the number of fenestrations required is predicative of outcome. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 20 consecutive @entity1 (18 @entity1 ; mean age of 75    7 years) treated with stent-grafts containing either  <= 2 fenestrations (n = 10, group 1) or 3 fenestrations (n = 10, group 2). Target vessels also included those accommodated by a scallop (renal artery or superior mesenteric artery in group 1 and the celiac artery in group 2). RESULTS: Comorbidities were similar in both groups. @entity439 size [median 6.9 (IQR 6.7-8.3) versus 6.0 cm (IQR 5.8-6.6), p = 0.03], procedure time (mean 6.6    2.1 versus 4.6    1.7 hours, p = 0.04), and intensive care stay [median 4.5 (IQR 2-14) versus 2 (IQR 1-3) days, p = 0.07] were greater in group 2. There were 2 postoperative deaths, both in group 2. Morbidity was significant and similar in both groups (4 @entity1 in group 1 and 3 @entity1 in group 2), including 1 @entity1 requiring long-term hemodialysis. Target vessel preservation was similar in both groups (96% overall). There were 2 @entity1070 (one in each group) and no type I or III endoleak. CONCLUSION: Triple-fenestrated stent-grafts allow @entity1 with extensive @entity439 and significant comorbidity to be treated by endovascular means. Although the number of @entity1 treated was small, which limited the validity of the comparison, longer procedures and greater early morbidity and mortality were seen in the triple-fenestrated group. At present, the procedures are technically more demanding and associated with increased risk compared with double or single fenestrations, but the technology continues to evolve.
