Impact of intentional accessory renal artery coverage on renal outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

Emanuel R. Tenorio, Jussi M. Kärkkäinen, Giulianna B. Marcondes, Guilherme B.B. Lima, Bernardo C. Mendes, Randall R. DeMartino, Thanila A. Macedo, Gustavo S. Oderich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of intentional coverage of accessory renal arteries (ARAs) on renal outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for pararenal aortic aneurysms or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data of 296 patients enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to evaluate outcomes of FB-EVAR between 2013 and 2018. Patients with solitary kidneys, intraoperative loss of main renal arteries, or pre-existing stage V chronic kidney disease were excluded. Two groups were analyzed: patients with intentional ARA coverage; and controls, who had complete preservation. End points included 30-day mortality; major adverse events; acute kidney injury (AKI), defined by RIFLE criteria (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal disease); renal function deterioration (RFD), defined by >30% decline in baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate; and presence of renal infarcts. Results: There were 254 patients (184 male; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) included in the study, 56 (22%) with intentional ARA coverage and 198 controls, of whom 16 had ARA preservation. ARA diameter was smaller in patients who had intentional coverage vs preservation (2.7 ± 0.9 mm vs 3.4 ± 0.2 mm; P <.001). There was no difference in demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent. All ARAs intended to be incorporated were successfully stented. Patients with ARA coverage had a higher frequency of kidney infarction (75% vs 25%; P <.001). There were two (1%) deaths within 30 days, both among controls. Patients with ARA coverage had more major adverse events (32% vs 19%; P =.04) because of higher incidence of AKI (21% vs 9%; P =.02). None of the 16 patients who had ARA preservation developed AKI. At 3 years, freedom from RFD was lower for patients who had ARA coverage compared with controls (55% ± 9% vs 76% ± 5%; log-rank, P =.02). By multivariate analysis, predictors of AKI were ARA coverage (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-6.2; P =.01) and estimated blood loss >1 L (odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.2-12.3; P =.03). Postoperative AKI (hazard ratio [HR], 4.4; 95% CI, 2.4-8.1; P <.001), renal reintervention for stenosis (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6-6.7; P =.002), aneurysm diameter (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P <.001), and ARA coverage (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 2.4-8.1; P =.02) were predictors of RFD. Conclusions: Intentional ARA coverage during FB-EVAR was associated with a threefold increase in AKI and with lower freedom from RFD. Factors associated with RFD included postoperative AKI, renal reinterventions for stenosis, and ARA coverage. Incorporation of ARAs during FB-EVAR, when it is technically feasible, helps decrease risk of AKI and RFD.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2020

Keywords

  • Accessory renal artery
  • Acute kidney injury
  • Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair
  • Renal function deterioration
  • Renal infarcts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of intentional accessory renal artery coverage on renal outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this