Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the demographic and anatomic characteristics, as well as perioperative and follow-up results of fenestration and parallel techniques for the endovascular repair of complex aortic diseases. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 67 consecutive patients underwent endovascular treatment for complex aortic diseases including abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), thoracoabdominal aneurysm (TAAA), aortic dissection, or prior endovascular repair with either fenestrated and parallel endovascular aortic repair (f-EVAR or ch-EVAR) at a single institute from 2013 to 2021. Choices of intervention were made by the disease’ emergency, patients’ general condition, the anatomic characteristics, as well as following the recommendation from the devices’ guidelines. Patients’ clinical demographics, aortic disease characteristics, perioperative details, and disease courses were discussed. Short- and mid-term follow-up results were obtained and analyzed. Endpoints were aneurysm-related and unrelated mortality, branch instability, and renal function deterioration. Results: Totally, 34 and 27 patients received f-EVAR and ch-EVAR, while 6 patients received a combination of both. Fenestrated endovascular aortic repair was conducted mainly in AAA affecting visceral branches and TAAA, whereas ch-EVAR was normally utilized for infrarenal AAA. Regarding the average number of reconstructed arteries per patient, there was a significant difference among f-EVAR, ch-EVAR, and the combination group (mean = 2.3 ± 0.9, 1.4 ± 0.6, 3.5 ± 0.5, p<0.001). Primary technical success was achieved in 28 (82.4%), 22 (81.5%), and 3 (50.0%) patients for each group. Besides operational time (5.77 ± 2.58, 4.47 ± 1.44, p=0.033), no significant difference was observed for blood transfusion, intensive care unit (ICU) or hospital stay, blood creatinine level, 30-day complications, or follow-up complications between patients undergoing f-EVAR or ch-EVAR. Patients receiving combination of both techniques had a higher rate of blood transfusion (p=0.044), longer operational time (p=0.008) or hospital stay (p=0.017), as well as more stent occlusion (p=0.001), endoleak (p=0.004) at short-term and a higher rate of endoleak (p=0.023) at mid-term follow-up. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study demonstrated that f-EVAR and ch-EVAR techniques had acceptable perioperative and follow-up results and should be considered viable alternatives when encountering complex aortic diseases. Clinical impact This study sought to investigate the baseline and pathological characteristics, as well as perioperative and follow-up results of f-EVAR and ch-EVAR at a single Chinese institution. F-EVAR (mostly physician-modified f-EVAR) was applied in patients with a wide range of etiologies and disease types, while ch-EVAR was preferred for AAA in older patients with an average higher ASA grade. Our experience suggested acceptable safety and efficacy both for techniques, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding any short or mid-term adverse events.
