Editor's Choice – Comparison of Renal Outcomes in Patients Treated by Zenith® Fenestrated and Zenith® Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Stent grafts in US Prospective Pivotal Trials. (May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de Souza, L.R.; Oderich, G.S.; Farber, M.A.; Haulon, S.; Banga, P.V.; Pereira, A.H.; Gloviczki, P.; Textor, S.C.; Jia, F.
• Is Part Of: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery. Volume 53:Number 5(2017)
• Page Start: 648
• Page End: 655
• Publication Date: 2017-05
• Subjects: Acute kidney injury -- Aortic aneurysm -- Chronic kidney disease -- FEVAR; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Blood-vessels -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- methods -- Periodicals; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie endoscopique -- Périodiques; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery; Blood-vessels -- Surgery; Endoscopy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.413005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.02.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-5884

Abstract

Abstract : Objective/Background: Fenestrated endovascular repair (FEVAR) has been used to treat complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The risk of renal function deterioration compared with infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has not been determined. Methods: Patients with preserved renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] > 45 mL/minute) enrolled in two prospective, non-randomised studies evaluating Zenith fenestrated and AAA stent grafts were matched (1:2) by propensity scores for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, and pre-operative eGFR. Sixty-seven patients were treated by FEVAR and 134 matched controls treated by EVAR. Mean follow-up was 30 ± 20 months. Outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI) defined by RIFLE and changes in serum creatinine (sCr), eGFR, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) staging up to 5 years. Results: AKI at 1 month was similar between groups, with > 25% decline in eGFR observed in 5% of FEVAR and 9% of EVAR patients ( p = .39). There were no significant differences in > 25% decline in eGFR at 2 years (FEVAR 20% vs. EVAR 20%; p > .99) or 5 years (FEVAR 27% vs. EVAR 50%; p = .50). Progression to stage IV–V CKD was similar at 2 years (FEVAR 2% vs. EVAR 3%; p > .99) and 5 years (FEVAR 7% vs. EVAR 8%; p > .99), with similar sCr and eGFR up to 5 years. During follow-up, there were more renal artery stenosis/occlusions (15/67 [22%] vs. 3/134 [2%]; p < .001) and renal related re-interventions (12/67 [18%] vs. 4/134 [3%]; p < .001) in patients treated by FEVAR. Rate of progression to renal failure requiring dialysis was low and identical in both groups (1.5% vs. 1.5%; p > .99). Conclusion: Aortic repair with FEVAR and EVAR was associated with similar rates of renal function deterioration in patients with preserved pre-operative renal function. Renal related re-interventions were higher following FEVAR, although net changes in renal function were similar in both groups.