ArticleAnnals of vascular surgery2025
Salvage of Failing Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repairs with Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair.
Article in Annals of vascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) can be used for salvage of failing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs. We describe our experience with the commercially available Zenith fenestrated (ZFEN) platform to salvage failing AAA repairs.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of all FEVARs performed from January 2012 until August 2019 at a tertiary academic medical center. The study compared primary FEVAR against reoperative FEVARs (RFEVAR) done for salvage of prior infrarenal aneurysm repairs with 60 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and complications.
resultsThere were 153 patients meeting inclusion criteria, with 133 primary repairs and 20 RFEVARs. Indications for repair included proximal disease progression (55%) and type IA endoleak (45%). Primary FEVARs were associated with decreased case complexity, with shorter operative time (217.6 vs. 265.6 minutes, P = 0.018) and number of visceral arteries stented (2.2 vs. 2.6, P = 0.021). Technical success was 97.7% in the primary FEVAR group, versus 95.0% in the RFEVAR group (P = 0.43). At 60 months, estimated survival and freedom from reintervention did not differ between groups and were 68.8% (P = 0.38) and 76.0% (P = 0.80), respectively, in the RFEVAR group.
conclusionRFEVAR using ZFEN is effective to salvage failing AAA repairs, with 60-month outcomes comparable to primary repair of AAA using FEVAR. RFEVAR is attractive over traditional open approaches as it avoids significant morbidity. These results support the long-term efficacy of ZFEN to salvage failing aortic repairs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.