Fenestrated endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with increased morbidity but comparable mortality with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair

Natalia O. Glebova, Shalini Selvarajah, Kristine C. Orion, James H. Black, Mahmoud B. Malas, Bruce A. Perler, Christopher J. Abularrage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective: A recent prospective study found that fenestrated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (FEVAR) was safe and effective in appropriately selected patients at experienced centers. As this new technology is disseminated to the community, it will be important to understand how this technology compares with standard endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of FEVAR vs EVAR of AAAs. Methods: The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2012 was queried for AAAs (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 441.4). Patients were stratified according to procedure (FEVAR vs EVAR). A bivariate analysis was done to assess preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for postoperative outcomes. Thirty-day postoperative mortality and complication rates were described for each procedure type. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the type of procedure and the risk of postoperative complications. Results: A total of 458 patients underwent FEVAR and 19,060 patients underwent EVAR for AAA. Patients undergoing FEVAR were older (P =.02) and less likely to have a bleeding disorder (P =.046). Otherwise, the incidence of comorbidities in both groups was similar. FEVAR was associated with increased median operative time (156 vs 137 minutes; P <.001), and average postoperative length of stay (3.3 vs 2.8 days; P =.03). There was a statistically significant increase in overall complications (23.6% vs 14.3%; P <.001) and postoperative transfusions (15.3% vs 6.1%, P <.001) and trends toward increased cardiac complications (2.2% vs 1.3%; P =.09) and the need for dialysis (1.5% vs 0.8%; P =.08) in the FEVAR group. Mortality (2.4% vs 1.5%; P =.12) was not statistically different. On multivariable analysis, FEVAR remained independently associated with the need for postoperative transfusions when operative time was <75th percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.72; P =.02) as well as when operative time was >75th percentile for respective procedures (adjusted odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-8.00; P <.001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing FEVAR are more likely than patients undergoing EVAR to receive blood transfusions postoperatively and are more likely to sustain postoperative complications. Although mortality was similar, trends toward increased cardiac and renal complications may suggest the need for judicious dissemination of this new technology. Future research with larger number of FEVAR cases will be necessary to determine if these associations remain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)604-610
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Fenestrated endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with increased morbidity but comparable mortality with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this