Outcomes of target vessel endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

Jussi M. Kärkkäinen, Emanuel R. Tenorio, Akhilesh Jain, Bernardo C. Mendes, Thanila A. Macedo, Keouna Pather, Peter Gloviczki, Gustavo S. Oderich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence rate, outcomes, and risk factors of target vessel-related endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for pararenal aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Methods: We reviewed consecutive patients treated by F-BEVAR between 2007 and 2017. Target vessel endoleaks were identified by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Follow-up included CTA and duplex ultrasound before discharge, at 2 months, at 6 months, and annually thereafter. Primary endoleaks were detected by predismissal CTA; secondary endoleaks were absent on the first CTA and were identified during follow-up. End points were spontaneous resolution of primary endoleaks, secondary interventions, and aneurysm rupture. Multivariable analyses were performed for risk factors of target vessel endoleaks and predictors of spontaneous resolution. Results: A total of 382 patients (mean age, 75 ± 8 years; 75% male) underwent F-BEVAR for 195 pararenal aneurysms and 187 TAAAs with 1204 renal-mesenteric arteries targeted by 981 fenestrations and 223 directional branches. Fifty-two target vessel endoleaks were identified in 41 patients; 41 were type IIIC (interattachment), 10 were type IC (distal bridging stent sealing zone), and 1 was type IIIB (bridging stent fabric tear). Thirty-three patients (9%) had primary target vessel endoleaks in 41 target vessels (3%). Eight patients (2%) developed 11 secondary target vessel endoleaks. Directional branches were more prone to primary endoleaks (13/223 [6%]) in comparison to fenestrations (28/981 [3%]; P =.03). However, branch endoleaks resolved more often spontaneously (11/14 [79%]) compared with fenestration endoleaks (14/38 [37%]; P =.008). Other risk factors for target vessel endoleaks included inner aortic diameter ≥30 mm at the target vessel origin, four or more targeted vessels, TAAA (for primary endoleaks), and physician-modified endograft (for secondary endoleaks). Four patients with primary endoleaks underwent successful reintervention before discharge, and 29 were observed with a mean follow-up of 24 ± 21 months. Of the 41 primary endoleaks, 25 resolved spontaneously in 20 patients (61%) at first follow-up with no recurrences. Of the observed endoleaks, 11 persisted in 9 patients, and 8 of those endoleaks were treated in 7 patients. All secondary target vessel endoleaks required reintervention. There was one possible aneurysm rupture attributed to persistent secondary target vessel endoleak. Conclusions: Target vessel endoleak on CTA at discharge occurs in 1 of 10 patients treated by F-BEVAR. Of these, two-thirds resolve spontaneously, especially those affecting directional branches. Among patients with a persistent endoleak, endovascular reintervention is usually successful and aneurysm rupture is rare.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)445-455
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number2
StatePublished - Aug 2020


  • Endoleak
  • Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair
  • Natural history
  • Target vessel
  • Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of target vessel endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this