Branched versus fenestrated endografts for endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions

Endovascular Treatment of Post Type A Chronic Aortic Arch Dissection With a Branched Endograft: Early Results From a Retrospective International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aortic arch repair for chronic dissection with a custom-made branched endograft.

BACKGROUND

Acute type A aortic dissections are often treated with prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta. During follow-up, repair of an aneurysmal evolution of the false lumen distal to the ascending prosthesis can be a challenge both for the surgeon and the patient.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive patients from 14 vascular units treated with a custom-made, inner-branched device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for chronic aortic arch dissection. Rates of in-hospital mortality and stroke, technical success, early and late complications, reinterventions, and mortality during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy consecutive patients were treated between 2011 and 2018. All patients were considered unfit for conventional surgery. In-hospital combined mortality and stroke rate was 4% (n = 3), including 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke causing death, and 1 death following multiorgan failure. Technical success rate was 94.3%. Twelve (17.1%) patients required early reinterventions: 8 for vascular access complication, 2 for endoleak correction, and 2 for pericardial effusion drainage. Median follow-up was 301 (138-642) days. During follow-up, 20 (29%) patients underwent secondary interventions: 9 endoleak corrections, 1 open repair for prosthetic kink, and 10 distal extensions of the graft to the thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta. Eight patients (11%) died during follow-up because of nonaortic-related cause in 7 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of aortic arch chronic dissections with a branched endograft is associated with low mortality and stroke rates but has a high reintervention rate. Further follow-up is required to confirm the benefits of this novel approach.

Four-year results of the Bolton relay proximal scallop endograft in the management of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathology with unfavorable proximal landing zone

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a scallop design (scallop-TEVAR) is a useful treatment strategy to extend the proximal landing zone (PLZ), while maintaining perfusion to one or more of the supra-aortic trunks (SATs) when treating aortic pathology with an unfavorable PLZ. The durability of this approach with the Bolton Relay scallop endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Fla) has not been established.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients that received scallop-TEVAR in zones 0 to 2 at a tertiary aortic unit was undertaken. The main outcome was durability, characterized by survival estimates, freedom from reintervention to the thoracic aorta and PLZ, migration and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2019, 38 patients (71% male; median age, 70 years) underwent scallop-TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology (n = 28, 74%) or as a part of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair (n = 10 [26%]). The use of scallop-TEVAR significantly extended the PLZ (median, 5 mm preoperative PLZ vs 26 mm extended PLZ; P = .0001). A total of 41 SATs were perfused with a scallop, including the left subclavian artery (n = 25), left common carotid artery (n = 6), neo/innominate artery (n = 4), left subclavian artery, and vertebral artery (n = 1), innominate artery, and left common carotid artery (n = 2) in conjunction with 15 extra-anatomical bypasses. The PLZ was at Ishimaru zone 0 and 1 in 6 cases (16%), respectively, and zone 2 in 26 cases (68%). Technical success was 98%. The 30-day mortality was 5% (2/38; 1 death from myocardial infarction and 1 from multiorgan failure). A minor stroke occurred in three patients (8%) and temporary spinal cord ischemia in two patients (5%). The median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-10.53 years) during which two patients (5%) developed type Ia endoleak and required intervention to the PLZ (one from device-related migration and one from disease progression). All-cause and aorta-related survival were 72% and 85% and freedom from thoracic and PLZ reintervention was 92% and 97%, respectively. There were no cases of early or late thoracic aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection or SAT occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scallop-TEVAR offers a less invasive treatment option to extend the seal zone in selected patients with an unfavorable PLZ, allowing for a durable repair in terms of overall survival and reintervention. Periprocedural stroke remains a principle concern.

Technical Aspects of Fenestrated Arch TEVAR With Preloaded Fenestration

Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) has expanded the possibilities of endovascular arch repair, allowing treatment of pathologies involving the aortic arch that require sealing in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2. The growing number of implantations has increased physician experience and helped identify critical procedural points, mainly wire entanglement and device malrotation. Herein we describe a step-by-step approach to a f-TEVAR procedure with the Zenith fenestrated preloaded thoracic endograft, identifying potential pitfalls and suggesting problem-solving solutions.

Endovascular Repair for Acute Type B Aortic Dissection With Unfavorable Proximal Landing Zone

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between fenestrated technique with or without chimney stent and single-branched stent graft for isolated left subclavian artery revascularization during endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection with unfavorable proximal landing zone.

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2019, 65 acute type B aortic dissection patients with unfavorable proximal landing zone were treated with either the fenestrated technique (n = 34, group A) or single-branched stent graft (n = 31, group B). Type I endoleak, retrograde type A dissection, stroke, left subclavian artery patency, 30-day mortality, and aortic remodeling were systematically recorded and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Technical success rates for groups A and group B were 94.12% and 100%, respectively. Left subclavian artery primary patency was achieved for all enrolled patients. The incidence of type I endoleak, retrograde type A dissection, stroke, and 30-day mortality was 5.9%, 5.9%, 2.9%, and 2.9% in group A, respectively, but none were encountered in group B. Left subclavian artery occlusion was observed in 3 patients in group A and 2 patients in group B during a mean follow-up of 16.18 ± 2.08 months and 15.19 ± 2.68 months, respectively. After the procedure, significant aortic remodeling was detected in both groups during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques are feasible and safe for isolated left subclavian artery revascularization during endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection. Apart from the associated perioperative risks of complications and mortality for the fenestrated technique, both procedures contributed to favorable aortic remodeling.

Hybrid Repair versus Conventional Open Repair Approaches for Aortic Arch Disease: a Comprehensive Review

Objective

To investigate whether hybrid repair has supremacy over conventional open repair in aortic arch diseases.

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken in two major databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) to identify all studies comparing the two surgical techniques in five years, up to December 2018, that met the established criteria in this study. The search returned 310 papers, and 305 were selected after removing duplicates. The abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed, resulting in 15 studies that went to full-text analysis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers remained for the final revision.

Results

Eight studies met the criteria, with the inclusion of 1,837 patients. From a short-term perspective, hybrid repair and conventional open repair had similar outcomes in terms of postoperative mortality and acute neurological events. Hybrid repair was associated with less respiratory complications and risk of new intervention, as well as reduced hospital length of stay. Conventional open repair showed better mid- and long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Hybrid repair should be used in selected patients, with a high risk or very high-risk profile for conventional surgery. Finally, since most of the current data were obtained from limited to large samples, with narrow follow-up and had great heterogeneity, the best approach to the aortic arch is still variable. Therefore, the decision of the approach should be individualized and evaluated by the whole Heart Team, considering the expertise of the surgical team.

Aortic Remodeling After Custom-Made Candy-Plug for Distal False Lumen Occlusion in Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

To report a single-center experience with the use of a custom-made Candy-Plug (CP) for distal false-lumen (FL) occlusion in subacute and chronic aortic dissection (AD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was conducted on consecutive patients with subacute and chronic AD who were treated with a custom-made CP for distal FL occlusion using 3 design generations (CP I to CP III) from October 2013 to September 2019.

RESULTS

A custom-made CP was used in 57 patients. Of these, 34 patients (29 males, mean age 62±10 years) were treated with a CP I vs 23 patients (16 males, mean age 59±17 years) with CP II/III. Technical success was achieved in 57 (100%) patients. Clinical success was achieved in 54 (95%) patients; 33 (97%) in CP I group vs 21 (91%) patients in CP II/III group, p=0.116. The mean hospital stay was 10±8 days (9±5 days in CP I group vs 13±9 days in CP II/III, p=0.102). The 30-day computed tomography angiography (CTA) confirmed successful CP placement at the intended level in all patients within both groups. Early complete FL occlusion was achieved in 50 (88%) patients; 30 (88%) patients in CP I group vs 20 (87%) in CP II/III group, p=0.894. Follow up CTA was available in 44 (77%) patients. Of these; 30/34 (88%) patients in CP I group with mean follow-up 29±17 months) vs. 14/23 (61%) patients with mean follow-up 14±5 months in CP II/III group. Thoracic aortic remodeling was achieved in 34/44 (77%) patients; 25/30 (83%) patients in CP I group vs 9/14 (64%) patients in CP II/III group, p=0.197. The aneurysm size remained stable in 9/44 (20%) patients; 5/30 (17%) patients in CP I group vs 4/14 (29%) patients in CP II/III group, p=0.741. The thoracic aneurysm increased size was seen in 1/44 (2%) patient. This patient was in CPII/III group.

CONCLUSION

CP technique using custom-made devices is technically feasible with a low mortality and morbidity, and a high rate of aortic remodeling. Both, the original design (CP I) and newer designs with a self-closing central sleeve (CP II and CP III) showed similar excellent outcomes.

Narrative review on endovascular techniques for left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and risk factors for postoperative stroke

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures.

METHODS

Non-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010-1 August 2020.

RESULTS

Current general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.

Endovascular In Situ Fenestration Technique of Aortic Arch Pathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, applicability and outcomes of the endovascular in situ fenestration (ISF) technique for patients with aortic arch pathologies by performing a systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify English language articles between January 2004 and March 2019 on the management of aortic arch pathologies using an in situ fenestration technique. Two independent observers selected studies for inclusion in the study, assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The studies included all investigated the clinical outcomes and postprocedural complications of using ISF techniques.

RESULTS

Seven studies reported on a total of 117 aortic arch pathologies patients. Including 52 dissection patients, 47 aneurysm patients, 18 intramural hematomas and penetrating ulcers patients. Needle fenestration and laser fenestration were performed in 62 and 45 patients respectively, and the rest 10 patients received radiofrequency fenestration. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 55 months. The pooled technical success rates were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79-98%). The stroke rate was 6% (95% CI: 3-13%). The 30-day MAE was 11% (95% CI: 6-18%).

CONCLUSION

The results of the study showed that using the in-situ fenestration technique for treating patients with aortic arch pathologies produced encouraging mid-outcomes. Long-term outcomes remain undefined.

Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions

BACKGROUND

Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques.

METHODS

The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid-subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.

Endovascular treatment of chronic aortic dissection with fenestrated and branched stent grafts

OBJECTIVE

Chronic aortic dissection with aneurysm development that includes the aortic arch and/or thoracoabdominal aorta (TAAA) is traditionally treated with open or hybrid surgery. Total endovascular treatment with fenestrated and branched aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) has recently been introduced as a less invasive alternative. The aim was to report the short- and midterm outcomes from a single tertiary vascular center.

METHODS

All patients with chronic aortic dissection treated with F/B-EVAR from 2010 to 2019 at Uppsala University Hospital were identified. Perioperative and postoperative parameters were analyzed, with focus on short- (<30 days) and midterm survival, complication, and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

F/B-EVAR was performed on 26 patients (median age, 63 years; range, 33-87 years; 18 men; median aortic diameter, 70 mm; range, 50-98 mm); with a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 0.5-118.0 months). One patient underwent both arch and TAAA repair. Overall, 13 arch repairs (arch group) after type A (n = 8) and type B (n = 5) dissection (all elective) were performed, and 14 TAAA repairs (TAAA group) after type A (n = 5) and type B (n = 9) dissection (one rupture). A total of 72 aortic branches were targeted (22 arch, 50 TAAA). Short-term technical success was achieved in 24 of 27 procedures (89%). Failures were related to one intraoperative retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) requiring open conversion (arch group), one persistent type IC endoleak on completion angiography (arch group), and one persistent type III endoleak (TAAA group). Mortality was 4% (n = 1) at 30 days and related to a second RTAD that occurred after discharge and was found on autopsy. Both RTADs occurred in patients with chronic type B dissection undergoing fenestrated arch repair. Paraplegia occurred in three cases (two arch, one TAAA) (11%), none permanent, and stroke in three cases (one arch, one TAAA) (11%); one was permanent. In the midterm, endoleaks were detected in 12 patients (44%); persistent false lumen flow (n = 3), type IB (n = 1), type IC (n = 3), type II (n = 7), and type IIIC (n = 2). The 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier) of the arch repair was 75% and for the TAAA, 93%. Freedom from reintervention at 3 years were 100% for arch repairs and 48% for TAAA. In patients with a follow-up of more than 6 months (n = 23), all had stable or decreased aortic diameters and complete false lumen thrombosis at the level of stent graft was present in 65% (n = 15).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of postdissection aneurysms is feasible, with acceptable short-term and midterm outcomes. RTAD after fenestrated and branched endovascular arch repair warrants caution when performed on patients with native ascending aortas, and reinterventions are frequent in TAAA repair.

Early and midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a branched endograft for aortic arch pathologies: A retrospective single-center study

Background

Zone 0 landing hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) includes a few moderately invasive surgical procedures. To reduce invasiveness, TEVAR with a branched aortic arch stent-graft can be considered. This study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of performing TEVAR using a Bolton (Bolton Medical, Inc, Sunrise, Fla) branched endograft by analyzing early and midterm results.

Methods

We enrolled 28 patients (mean age, 78.4 years) who underwent TEVAR with the Bolton branched endograft in Osaka University Hospital between October 2012 and June 2018 with a mean follow-up period of 4.0 years. Double-side and single-side branched devices were used in 24 (85.7%) and 4 (14.3%) patients, respectively.

Results

All procedures were successful; no cases of endoleak or conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The perioperative stroke rate was 14.3% (4 out of 28); midterm stroke was not detected. All patients with perioperative stroke had atheroma grade ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery. No type 1a endoleak was reported during the early or midterm results. The cumulative survival rate, aorta-related death-free rate, and aortic event-free survival rate at 5 years were 80.8%, 95.8%, and 81.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

We achieved satisfactory early and midterm results by using a Bolton branched endograft for high-risk patients with arch pathologies except for high postoperative stroke. Although this treatment method is associated with postoperative stroke, performing strict evaluation of atheroma may prevent such complication. By preventing intraoperative stroke, TEVAR with this custom-made Bolton branched endograft may be considered a less-invasive treatment.

Current status on aortic endografts

Endovascular treatment has become widespread to treat aneurysmal disease, especially located in the aorta. The modern era of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair started between 1986 and 1991, and in the last 30 years, Endovascular Treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms evolved both due to the development of new materials and devices and the increasing appeal and effectiveness of the endovascular therapy itself. Vascular surgeons are using nowadays different solutions of Endovascular Treatment to treat all the expressions of aortic pathology (aneurysms, dissections and trauma) both in the acute and elective setting. Despite its use in every location of the aorta (the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, the thoracic aorta, thoraco-abdominal aorta, pararenal, iuxtarenal and infrarenal aortic aneurysms and iliac aneurysms), its safety and efficiency, endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms presents some drawbacks: despite a lower short-term morbi-mortality, reinterventions and long-term patency are higher compared to open repair. In this review, we detail the most used types of endografts according to location, their performances and durability for each device. We conclude by discussing options to overcome ET limitations. Therefore, an obvious question arises: what we need in the future? What can the technological progress gives to physicians to further improve this new way of treating aorta?

In Situ Laser Stent Graft Fenestration of the Left Subclavian Artery during Thoracic Endovascular Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection with Limited Proximal Landing Zones: 5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess safety and feasibility of in situ laser stent graft fenestration to revascularize the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) of type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with limited proximal landing zones with 5 years of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a single-center retrospective study, 130 patients with TBAD with limited proximal landing zones (≤ 1.5 cm) underwent in situ laser stent graft fenestration revascularizing the LSA during TEVAR from April 2014 to April 2019. Outcomes were assessed by CT angiography and clinic visits, including technical success rate, operative time, LSA patency, ischemic events, and late aorta-related complications during follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 53 y (range, 33-73 y). Primary technical success rate was 96.9% (126/130). Three chimney stents were placed instead of fenestration, and 1 LSA fenestration was combined with a left common carotid artery (LCCA) chimney stent. Mean operative time was 53 min ± 28 with fluoroscopy time of 40 min ± 15. There were no neurologic complications and no deaths, with a mean duration of hospital stay of 9 d (range, 5-21 d). At a mean follow-up of 42 mo (range, 5-60 mo), there was a 97% primary LSA patency. Four patients had a type I endoleak, which disappeared during follow-up. One LCCA became occluded after 6 months. No type II or III endoleaks were found. Retrograde type A aortic dissection and stent graft-induced new distal entry were not found during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser fenestration to revascularize the LSA during TEVAR of TBAD with limited proximal landing zones was efficient, safe, and feasible based on 5-year follow-up.

[Aortic Aneurysm: Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) and Fenestrated/Branched Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). Is Total Endovascular Repair Already Here?]

Five years after the first endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), Park et al. reported the first implantation of a fenestrated endoprosthesis. In the meantime, advanced generations of new fenestrated and branched endografts evolved. Endografts for complex pathologies are either so-called "off-the-shelf" grafts with predetermined length, width, diameter and clock position of the branches and fenestrations, predetermined by the manufacturer, "custom-made" grafts which need to be sized and planned individually for patients with specific thoracoabdominal anatomy. Open aortic repair in the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) still remains challenging and is associated with high morbidity and mortality, even in the elective setting. The ongoing development of endovascular treatment modalities, such as fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR, B-EVAR), enables less invasive procedures for more challenging aortic pathologies. In recent years, extensive endovascular treatment of the aortic arch to the thoracoabdominal segment has become more and more important, but its outcomes have not been completely evaluated. The aim of this is article is to provide an overview of the currently available endovascular treatment options for complex aortic aneurysms requiring extensive coverage from the aortic arch to the infrarenal aorta.

Use of a Steerable Sheath for Antegrade Catheterization of a Supra-aortic Branch of an Inner-Branched Arch Endograft via a Percutaneous Femoral Access

Purpose: To describe the use of a steerable sheath from a femoral access for antegrade catheterization of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) in an inner-branched arch endograft. Technique: This technique is demonstrated in a patient with residual aortic dissection after replacement of the ascending aorta for acute type A aortic dissection. He presented 4 years later with aneurysmal degeneration of the thoracoabdominal aorta and a proximal tear located in the aortic arch. A 2-stage hybrid approach was devised to treat the patient. An axilloaxillary crossover graft (left to right) with plug occlusion of the innominate artery was performed initially. Later, a dual-branched custom-made device was implanted. To avoid an additional LCCA cutdown for retrograde branch access, an 18-F steerable sheath was used through a percutaneous femoral access. Two wires were delivered within the steerable sheath: the first one was directed into the left subclavian artery to stabilize the sheath position in the ascending aorta; the second wire was used to catheterize the first inner branch and the LCCA to deploy the covered bridging stent. Conclusion: Transfemoral access to catheterize antegrade branches for supra-aortic vessels is feasible using a large steerable sheath in branched endovascular arch repair.

Brain Protection in the Endo-Management of Proximal Aortic Aneurysms

Neurological brain injury (NBI) remains the most feared complication following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and can manifest as clinically overt stroke and/or more covert injury, detected only on explicit neuropsychological testing. Microembolic signals (MES) detected on transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring of the cerebral arteries during TEVAR and the high prevalence and incidence of new ischaemic infarcts on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) suggests procedure-related solid and gaseous cerebral microembolisation to be an important cause of NBI. Any intervention that can reduce the embolic burden during TEVAR may, therefore, help mitigate the risk of stroke and the covert impact of ischaemic infarcts to the function of the brain. This perspective article provides an understanding of the mechanism of stroke and reviews the available evidence regarding potential neuroprotective strategies that target high-risk procedural steps of TEVAR to reduce periprocedural cerebral embolisation.

Anatomical Analysis and Feasibility Study of Next-Generation Fenestrated or Branched Stent-Grafts for the Treatment of Arch Aneurysms

Purpose: To analyze the anatomical characteristics of arch aneurysms and evaluate the anatomical feasibility of 4 next-generation stent-grafts with either branched or fenestrated configurations. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 213 patients (mean age 75.0±7.1 years; 179 men) with arch aneurysms treated using total arch replacement or zone 0 or 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from 2007 to 2017 at 2 Japanese hospitals. Anatomical analyses were performed using the centerline of flow technique on a 3-dimensional workstation. The anatomical feasibility of the Zenith A-branch, TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE), Terumo Aortic Relay Plus Double Branched (DB), and fenestrated Najuta stent-grafts were evaluated based on the instructions for use (IFU). Results: The mean lengths from the sinotubular junction (STJ) to the innominate artery (IA) and from the IA to the left common carotid artery were 114.9±15.9 and 12.8±5.6 mm, respectively. The mean aortic diameters at the STJ and IA were 31.3±3.4 and 34.1±5.3 mm, respectively. In terms of feasibility, 5.2% of patients were within the Zenith A-branch IFU, 40.8% for the TAG TBE, 24.9% for the Relay Plus DB, and 13.6% for the Najuta. Significant (>50% circumference) thrombus/calcification at the sealing zone affected nearly half of the patients, but there is currently no standardized definition or evaluation method for "significant" thrombus/calcification. Conclusion: Only 5% to 41% of arch aneurysm patients are anatomically suitable for TEVAR using any one of the next-generation branched or fenestrated stent-grafts. Furthermore, a definitive method of evaluating the thrombus/calcification burden needs to be established in future IFU.

Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysm with a New Modular Double Inner Branch Stent Graft

Endovascular repair of an aortic arch aneurysm has made great progress in the last 10 years. Custom-made branched stent grafts have been used, and preliminary results have been promising. To reduce the effect of aortic arch anatomical variations on indications, we designed a new off-the-shelf modular double inner branch stent-graft system. This case is the "First-in-Man" study for the device. A 74-year-old man presented with an asymptomatic saccular aneurysm and an ulcer lesion of the aortic arch. Left common carotid artery (LCCA) and left subclavian artery bypass was performed before endovascular repair. The modular stents reconstructed the innominate artery and LCCA. A follow-up on the computed tomography angiography 6-month results showed that the new device is safe and feasible for patients who are unfit for conventional surgery.

Endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch

This article reviews endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch. Therapeutic strategies intended for this complex aortic condition are evolving rapidly to allow the treatment of various hostile aortic anatomy and frail patients. Principles, technical considerations, devices and outcomes of each technique are reviewed and summarized. Hybrid repair offer similar early mortality and stroke rates compared to open conventional surgery. Arch chimney and other parallel graft techniques present poor long term outcome, and should be limited to emergency situations where no other option is available. Fenestrated stent-grafting is subjected to many technical challenges in aortic arch due to difficulties in stent-graft orientation and fenestration positioning. In situ fenestration is an off-label technique that should only be used as an emergency bailout maneuver, considering that temporary coverage of supra aortic trunk vessel and its long-term durability raise concern. Finally, in experienced hands and appropriate anatomic conditions, arch branched graft technology has shown itself to be a safe and effective alternative to open conventional surgery. No randomized controlled trials have yet compared total endovascular aortic arch repair with hybrid techniques and open arch repair. The management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch is challenging, decision-making and interventions should continue to be performed in high-volume centers with a dedicated aortic team with an expertise in both open and endovascular repairs.

Thoracic aortic surgery: status and upcoming novelties

Several novel technological developments and surgical approaches have characterized the field of aortic surgery in the recent decade. The progressive introduction of endovascular procedures, minimally invasive surgical techniques and hybrid approaches have changed the practice in aortic surgery and generated new trends and questions. Also, the advancements in the manufacturing of tissue engineered vascular grafts as substitutes for aortic replacements are enlightening new avenues in the treatment of aortic disease. This review will provide an overview of the current novel perspectives, debates and trends in major thoracic aortic surgery.

Off-the-Shelf Devices for Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases: Midterm Follow-up of TEVAR With Chimneys or Physician-Made Fenestrations

Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using chimney grafts (ch-TEVAR) or thoracic stent-grafts with fenestrations made on the back table (f-TEVAR) to treat thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 474 consecutive patients (mean age 62.3±10.7 years; 346 men) treated with either f-TEVAR (n=110) or ch-TEVAR (n=364) for 352 TADs (81 f-TEVAR and 271 ch-TEVAR) or 122 TAAs (29 f-TEVAR and 93 ch-TEVAR) from 2008 to 2016. The primary endpoints at 30 days and during follow-up were overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications. The secondary endpoints were endoleak and reintervention. The patency of the target branches, cost of hospitalization, and the use of antiplatelet drugs were also analyzed. Results: Intraoperative type I endoleaks were treated in 69 (14.6%) cases (4 f-TEVAR and 65 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01) to achieve 100% technical success. Four (0.8%) patients died within 30 days [1 (0.9%) f-TEVAR and 3 (0.8%) ch-TEVAR]. Perioperative cerebral ischemia (1 fatal stroke) occurred in 9 (1.9%) patients: (1 f-TEVAR and 8 ch-TEVAR, p=0.39). During the mean follow-up of 50.6±20.0 months (49.5±18.3 months in f-TEVAR and 50.9±20.6 months in ch-TEVAR), 11 (2.3%) patients died of an aorta-related event. Type I endoleak was present in 40 (8.4%) patients (1 f-TEVAR and 39 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01). Eleven (2.3%) patients experienced stent-graft migration and 13 (2.7%) had a retrograde dissection. One hundred (16.9%) of the 593 branch stents occluded (4/75 in the f-TEVAR group and 96/518 in the ch-TEVAR group, p<0.01). The branch reintervention rate was 7.2% (34/474). The f-TEVAR group had a significantly higher probability of freedom from branch occlusion (92%) than the ch-TEVAR group (83%, p=0.007). Conclusion: Off-the-shelf techniques employing chimney grafts and homemade fenestrations are both suitable options for TAD and TAA involving the supra-aortic branches, with a low incidence of reintervention. Fenestrated TEVAR seems to have more favorable short- and midterm outcomes. Further study of these off-the-shelf techniques for aortic arch repair is warranted.

Endovascular Repair of the Ascending Aorta for an Anastomotic Saphenous Vein Graft Aneurysm

The ascending aorta is the final segment of the aorta to be explored with endovascular stent grafts. With a patient population of increasingly advanced age and disease, there are situations where traditional open repair for ascending aneurysms or dissections may be prohibitive. However, the ascending aorta has multiple hostile characteristics that make endovascular treatment challenging. There is also a lack of approved specialized devices in the United States for this aortic territory. We demonstrate the feasibility of adapting an abdominal aortic graft to the ascending aorta for the treatment of a saphenous vein graft aneurysm with a discussion of the technical considerations for the operation.

Outcomes Of Chimney Technique For Aortic Arch Diseases: A Single-Center Experience With 226 Cases

Purpose

The goal of present study is to document our single-center experience with chimney technique for aortic arch diseases.

Patients and methods

From August 2012 to October 2017, 226 patients (mean age 54±12 years; 197 men) with aortic arch diseases underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with chimney stents. The aortic stent-grafts were deployed in zone 0 (n=22), zone 1 (n=13), or zone 2 (n=191).

Results

The technical success rate was 84% (189/226) and immediate type Ia endoleak (ELIa) happened in 37 (16%) patients. The 30-day mortality and morbidity rates were 2% (4/226) and 4% (8/226), respectively. Major adverse events include four major strokes, three spinal cord ischemia and one aortic rupture in the early-term. The clinical and imaging follow-up rates were 98% (218/222) and 78% (173/222), respectively. The average lengths of clinical and imaging follow-up were 22±16 months and 20±15 months, respectively. Chimney stent obstructions in left subclavian arteries were recorded in six (3%) patients. During follow-up, five patients died (2%) and two major strokes occurred (1%). One patient (0.5%) underwent reintervention.

Conclusion

The current study documented that the chimney technique is effective and safe for treating aortic arch diseases in different aortic zones. Cautions are needed to assess the permanency of chimney stent and to reduce the immediate ELIa rate.

Candy-Plug Generation II for False Lumen Occlusion in Chronic Aortic Dissection: Feasibility and Early Results

Purpose: To present the early results of false lumen (FL) occlusion in chronic aortic dissection using the Candy-Plug generation II (CP II), which has a self-closing fabric channel that obviates the need for separate occlusion of its center. Materials and Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients (mean age 60±11 years; 10 men) with persistent FL backflow and aneurysm formation at the thoracic segment in chronic aortic dissection underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with FL occlusion using the refined CP II. Primary endpoints were technical success (successful deployment) and clinical success (no FL backflow at the CP II level). Secondary endpoints included 30-day mortality and morbidity and aortic remodeling during follow-up. Results: Technical success was 100%. One patient required additional intraprocedural FL embolization at the CP II level due to persistent FL backflow on final angiography (clinical success 93%), though there was no flow through the CP II center. There were no intraprocedural complications. Immediate complete FL occlusion was achieved in 12 patients; the other 2 required reintervention. One had contrast enhancement in the distal FL proximal to the CP II and was treated with coil embolization. The other patient had persistent type I endoleak at the level of the left subclavian artery (LSA) and underwent left carotid–LSA bypass and proximal stent-graft extension. One patient died due to retrograde type A aortic dissection that was not related to CP II placement. Over a mean 8-month follow-up (range 3–12), 9 patients had computed tomography angiography; 8 patients had evidence of aortic remodeling, while 1 aneurysm sac was stable. Conclusion: The CP II reduces the number of procedural steps and offers good seal, with minimal morbidity and mortality and a high rate of aortic remodeling.

A Shorter Aortic Arch Sealing Ring (< 10 mm) Distal to the Most Distal Chimney Seems to Be an Additional Important Factor Contributing to a Gutter Endoleak in Aortic Arch TEVAR

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to define the possible anatomical and technical parameter that might predict the occurrence of gutter endoleak or type Ia endoleak (EL Ia) in patients treated with the chimney graft (CG) technique for the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) and left common carotid artery (LCCA) due to aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

We reviewed our institutional endovascular aortic database of patients, who between 2010 and 2018 had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with chimney graft technique (ChTEVAR) as a debranching method of the supraaortic arteries.

RESULTS

ChTEVAR was performed in 45 patients of whom a chimney in both the LCCA and the BCT was used in 32 patients, only in the LCCA in twelve patients, and only in the BCT in one patient. Eight patients (17.8%) had an EL Ia (based on postoperative computed tomography angiography). No late EL Ia was detected during the follow-up period. All patients with a postoperative EL Ia received 2 CGs with one each for the BCT, and LCCA had either no or a sealing ring distal to the most distal chimney of less than 10 mm versus patients with a longer sealing zone (P = 0.043). Patients with an endoleak did not differ from those without endoleak with respect to stent-graft oversizing, the diameter of the proximal and distal landing zones, or the aortic diameter directly proximal to the pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

A sealing ring distal to the most distal chimney of more than 10 mm seems to be associated with a reduced risk of an EL Ia. The relatively few patients and the single-center nature require larger studies to verify the present results.

A Stopped Pilot Study of the ProGlide Closure Device After Transbrachial Endovascular Interventions

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of distal brachial arteries >4 mm in diameter. In an interim analysis, the results were compared to a matched control group taken from a 60-patient historical cohort who underwent brachial artery access and manual compression to achieve hemostasis between 2014 and 2017. The primary outcome was access-related reintervention and the secondary outcome was the incidence of access-site complications. Results: Seven patients (mean age 67.9 years; 6 men) were enrolled in the study before it was stopped in 2017. Four patients experienced 6 access-site complications (neuropathy, hematoma, occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm). These resulted in 3 access-related reinterventions: surgical evacuation of a hematoma, thrombectomy of the occluded brachial artery, and surgical repair of the pseudoaneurysm. In the interim comparison to the 19 matched patients (mean age 61.9 years; 6 men), the ProGlide group had proportionally more patients experiencing access-related complications (57% vs 16% for manual compression, p=0.035) and resultant reinterventions (43% vs 11%, p=0.064). Based on this data the trial was stopped. Conclusion: Considering this experience, it is not advisable to use the ProGlide in transbrachial endovascular interventions due to the high incidence of complications and access-related reinterventions.

Emergent Use of a Branched Arch Device to Treat an Ascending Aortic Rupture: A Branch-to-Branch Through-and-Through Wire Technique to Compensate for Rotation Error

Purpose: To present a novel means of overcoming a rotation error when treating a ruptured ascending aorta with a branched arch endograft. Technique: The technique is demonstrated in an 83-year-old patient with cardiac and respiratory comorbidities and a contained rupture of the ascending aorta who was referred for endovascular therapy. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed progressive pseudoaneurysm and mediastinal hematoma, but the limited landing zone required the use of an inner branched arch endograft that was designed for another patient. The device became malrotated clockwise during deployment, so cannulation of the first inner branch was done using a branch-to-branch through-and-through wire from the second inner branch. The final angiogram showed a good result, with patency of the supra-aortic vessels and exclusion of the rupture. The patient was discharged 2 weeks later without complications. The 1-month CTA was free from endoleak. The patient returned to his normal activity 3 months later. Conclusion: The use of a branched arch stent-graft for emergent repair of a ruptured ascending aorta is feasible.

Initial results of thoracic endovascular repair for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection involving the arch vessels using a semicustom-made thoracic fenestrated stent graft

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for selected type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a standard treatment; however, TBAD involving the aortic arch is difficult to treat because of the need for arch vessel reconstruction. We report our initial results of TEVAR for uncomplicated TBAD involving the arch vessels using a semicustom-made fenestrated stent graft.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 24 patients treated by fenestrated (F group) or debranching (D group) TEVAR from August 2011 to July 2017. The patients in the F group received the Najuta semicustom-made fenestrated stent graft (Kawasumi Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan). The fenestrated graft ensures sufficient sealing at the proximal healthy aorta without the need for arch vessel reconstruction. The primary end point was aorta-related mortality; the secondary end points were technical success and major adverse events (stroke, type IA endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and secondary intervention).

RESULTS

During the study period, we treated 65 TBAD cases by TEVAR, including 17 complicated cases. Of the 48 uncomplicated cases, 24 underwent TEVAR with arch vessel involvement (13 in the F group and 11 in the D group). The technical success rates in the F and D groups were 92.3% and 100.0%, respectively (P > .99, NS). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the F group (158 minutes) than in the D group (202 minutes; P = .0426), and the mean postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the F group (7 days) than in the D group (22 days; P = .0168). The primary patency rate of the reconstructed branch vessel was 100%, and there were no aorta-related deaths or retrograde type A aortic dissection in either group. One patient had a type IA endoleak in the F group. In the D group, one patient had a postoperative stroke and two patients required secondary interventions for stent graft-induced new entry at the descending aorta. The median follow-up period was 14.1 months (range, 1-37 months). The rate of freedom from aorta-related death was 100% in both groups (P > .99, NS); the rate of freedom from major adverse events at 24 months was 92.3% in the F group and 72.7% in the D group (P = .749, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The initial results of TEVAR with aortic arch vessel reconstruction for uncomplicated TBAD were acceptable. The fenestrated graft may be a less invasive option for the treatment of TBAD involving the aortic arch.

Two Wire System and Modified Olive Tip to Facilitate Implantation of Fenestrated TEVAR in Patient with Proximal Descending Aortic Pathology: First Two Cases

Introduction

Although Fenestrated TEVAR (F-TEVAR) has been considered to be a more physiologic approach to treat proximal descending aortic pathology, its application is still limited due to availability, cost and technical difficulties. We introduce a new design of fenestrated stent graft with a new delivery system and successfully performed first in human implantation in two patients, one with an aortic aneurysm and one with an acute aortic dissection.

Materials and Methods

The design of these two wires fenestrated stent graft include creation of an additional lumen at the side of the olive tip during manufacture, from which an additional wire can be introduced for a side branch passing into the fenestration, running inside the stent graft and exit the delivery sheath through additional hub. The two wires will facilitate delivery and deployment of the stent graft. One patient with descending aortic aneurysm and another with Stanford B aortic dissection is included in this first in human study.

Results

The aneurysm and dissection were completely excluded immediately after the TEVAR. Six month follow up CT showed good position of the stent graft and patent LSA in both patients. In the patient with aortic dissection, expansion of the true lumen and partial thrombosis of the false lumen was seen.

Conclusions

This is a report of a two wire system in 2 patients with distal aortic arch pathology demonstrating a good technical and clinical success using pre-cannulated fenestrations through a modified nose cone olive.

Level of Evidence

Level 4, report of two cases.

Single-center experience with an inner branched arch endograft

OBJECTIVE

Whereas open repair is the "gold standard" for most aortic arch diseases, a subgroup of patients might benefit from an endovascular approach. The introduction of branched stent grafts with dedicated design to address the challenges of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has opened an entirely new area of treatment for these patients. We investigated the early outcomes of branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (b-TEVAR) in various types of disease of the aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of prospectively collected data from a single center of all consecutive patients treated with b-TEVAR. The indication for elective endovascular repair was consented in an interdisciplinary case conference. All patients were treated with a custom-made inner branched arch endograft with two internal branches (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and left-sided carotid-subclavian bypass. Study end points were technical success, 30-day mortality, and complications as well as late complications and reinterventions.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2017, there were 54 patients (38 male; median age, 71 years) treated with diseases of the aortic arch. Indications for therapy involved degenerative aortic arch or proximal descending aortic aneurysms requiring arch repair (n = 24), dissection with or without false lumen aneurysms (n = 26), and penetrating aortic ulcers (n = 4). Forty-three cases (80%) were performed electively and 11 urgently for contained ruptures (n = 3) or symptomatic aneurysms (n = 8) with endografts already available for the patient or with grafts of other patients with similar anatomy. Technical success was achieved in 53 cases (98%). The 30-day mortality and major stroke incidence were 5.5% (3/54) and 5.5% (3/54), respectively; in-hospital mortality was 7.4% (n = 4), and minor strokes (including asymptomatic new cerebral lesions) occurred in 5.5% (n = 3). There were two cases of transient spinal cord ischemia with complete recovery and one of paraplegia. No retrograde type A dissections or cardiac injuries were observed. Three early stent graft-related reinterventions were necessary to correct proximal endograft kinking with type IA endoleak in one patient, a bridging stent graft stenosis in another patient, and false lumen persistent perfusion from dissected supra-aortic vessels in the last patient. Mean in-hospital stay was 14 ± 8 days. During a mean follow-up of 12 ± 9 months, three nonaorta-related deaths and one aorta-related death distal to the arch repair were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of aortic arch diseases with b-TEVAR is feasible and safe with acceptable mortality and stroke rates.

Fenestrated Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Physician-Modified Stent Grafts (PMSGs) in Zone 0 and Zone 1 for Aortic Arch Diseases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) using physician-modified stent grafts (PMSGs) in zone 0 and zone 1 for aortic arch diseases.

METHODS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 was performed on ten high-risk patients for open surgery from November 2015 to September 2017. Indications were complicated acute type B dissection (ABAD) with retrograde dissection involving the mid-arch (n = 1), distal arch aneurysms (n = 3), mid-arch aneurysms of the inner arch curvature (n = 3) and penetrating aortic ulcer located in the mid- or proximal arch (n = 3). Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data were recorded.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 61 (range 45-81) years, and 9 (90%) patients were men. Ten PMSGs (Medtronic Valiant stent grafts, n = 1; Relay thoracic stent grafts, n = 4; Cook TX2 device, n = 5) were deployed. PMSGs were deployed from Z0 and Z1 in 5 and 5 patients, respectively. Double small fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the left common carotid artery (LCCA), respectively, were created in 3 patients. Triple small fenestrations for the innominate artery (IA), the LCCA and the LSA, respectively, were created in 2 patients. One large fenestration for both the IA and the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 3 patients. One large fenestration for the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 2 patients. Posterior diameter-reducing ties were added to all the devices except to one Valiant stent graft. All but 2 patients underwent elective procedure. Median duration for stent graft modifications was 105 (range 90-125) min. The technical success rate was 90%. Overall mortality was 10% (1/10). One patient died of sudden cardiac arrest intraoperatively after the deployment of the PMSG and all the supra-aortic branch stents. Mean operative time was 106.0 ± 43.0 min, and fluoroscopy time was 30.6 ± 22.9 min. There were no type I or type III endoleaks, perioperative neurological complications or spinal cord ischemia. Median length of stay was 8 (range 4-35) days. Nine patients survived at mean 13.3 (range 6.0-19.0) months follow-up. Retrograde dissection occurred in one patient of Z0 group 40 days post-f-TEVAR and resolved after open repair. During follow-up, all target vessels remained patent without fenestration-related type I or III endoleaks.

CONCLUSIONS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients is feasible in the hands of experienced operators.

Outcomes of Chimney Technique for Preservation of the Left Subclavian Artery in Type B Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes of the chimney technique for preservation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively maintained database from August 2012 to October 2017. Primary endpoints were 30 day and overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were technical success, type Ia endoleak, chimney stent occlusion, aortic rupture, stroke, spinal cord ischaemia, and re-intervention rate.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (mean age 54 ± 11 years; 141 men) with TBAD were treated using the chimney technique for LSA revascularisation. Acute, subacute, and chronic TBAD accounted for 64%, 28%, and 8% of cases, respectively. One hundred and six cases (67%) were complicated TBAD. One hundred and fifty-six patients (98%) were treated electively, while three (2%) were treated urgently because of intestinal or lower extremity ischaemia. The 30 day mortality and morbidity rates were 2% (3/159) and 4% (7/159), respectively. The technical success rate was 81% (129/159) and immediate type Ia endoleak occurred in 30 (19%) patients. Three major strokes, two spinal cord ischaemia and one aortic rupture, occurred early on. During a mean follow up of 23 ± 16 months (range 1-65 months), three more patients died: from aortic rupture, cerebral haemorrhage, and rectal cancer, respectively. Chimney stent occlusions were observed in four patients and all these chimney stents were self expanding. During follow up, two major strokes, one late type Ia endoleak and one re-intervention, occurred. According to the Kaplan-Meier curve, the estimated one and three year survival rates were 98.1 ± 1.1% and 94.4 ± 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Short and mid-term outcomes in the present study demonstrate that the chimney technique is safe and feasible for preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD, but the durability of chimney stent needs to be evaluated carefully and immediate type Ia endoleak is a concern.

Fenestrated Endovascular Repair of Zones 1 and 2 Aortic Arch Pathologies

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of aortic arch pathologies is complex, and endovascular developments have now enabled total or hybrid endovascular aortic arch repair. We present our early experience with fenestrated aortic arch repairs in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2 pathologies.

METHODS

In a single tertiary institution, all consecutive endovascular aortic arch repairs were reviewed. A preoperative computed tomography aortogram was performed to assess anatomic suitability, which we defined as having a proximal sealing zone with a maximum diameter of 38 mm and minimum length of 20 mm, absence of significant aortic tortuosity, and suitable sealing zones in target vessels.

RESULTS

From September 2015 to February 2018, 5 cases of fenestrated aortic arch endovascular repairs were performed. There were 3 male patients. The patients were between 57 and 83 years old, all of whom were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II or III. Indications for surgery included aortic arch aneurysms (n = 3), a symptomatic aortic dissection, and a left subclavian artery aneurysm. Three patients had a scallop to the innominate artery, and one patient had a scallop to the left common carotid artery. Fenestrations were made to 3 left common carotid arteries and 3 left subclavian arteries. In 2 patients, a left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed, and the left subclavian artery origin occluded with a vascular plug. Technical success was 100%. One patient developed a right occipital infarct and acute myocardial infarction. The mean duration of surgery was 164 min, and the mean length of stay was 4.2 days. The mean follow-up period was 14.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fenestrated grafts in the aortic arch is a feasible treatment option. However, certain limitations still exist, and preoperative planning is important in ensuring clinical success. Although this procedure appears feasible in the short term, long-term results and durability remain to be seen.

Branched endografts in the aortic arch following open repair for DeBakey Type I aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

DeBakey Type I aortic dissections are frequently treated by an ascending aortic tube graft or hemiarch replacement with the residual dissection remaining untreated. We investigated the outcomes of branched thoracic endovascular repair for post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-centre evaluation of 20 consecutive patients with a false-lumen aneurysm after a DeBakey I aortic dissection treated with branched thoracic endovascular repair. The indication for endovascular repair was agreed on in an interdisciplinary case conference. Study end points were technical success, 30-day mortality rate, complications and late complications and reinterventions.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 20 patients (14 men, age 65 ± 9 years) were treated for false-lumen aneurysm formation after a DeBakey Type I aortic dissection. All patients had undergone open ascending aortic repair either isolated (n = 16) or with partial arch repair (n = 4). Technical success was achieved in 19 of 20 cases. The 30-day mortality rate and incidence of stroke were each 5% (1/20). Simultaneous procedures to exclude false-lumen perfusion included implantation of a Knickerbocker graft in 3 (15%) patients and a candy-plug graft in 7 (35%) patients. Early postoperative computed tomography angiography revealed persistent false-lumen perfusion in 10 cases that required secondary interventions in 6 cases. During 17 ± 14 months of mean follow-up, there was 1 aortic-related death and 2 deaths of non-aortic reasons. The estimated overall survival was 89 ± 7% and 75 ± 15% at 12 and 36 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of residual aortic arch dissections with branched thoracic endovascular repair appears feasible and safe with few deaths and low stroke rates. A high rate of secondary procedures is required to achieve thoracic false-lumen occlusion.

Arch branch endografts for arch aneurysms associated with bovine anomaly

Bovine aortic arch is known to be associated with an increased rate of aortic arch expansion. The most frequently observed human variant of bovine aortic arch is a common origin of the innominate trunk and left common carotid artery. This is a report of two patients who had successful custom-made arch branch endograft treatment for an arch aneurysm associated with bovine arch anomaly. Modular endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using an inner-branched device adds to the armamentarium of treatment options, and is a minimally invasive management modality without the need for sternotomy or intraoperative extracorporeal bypass.

Endovascular repair of aortic arch intramural hematoma and penetrating ulcers with 810 nm in situ laser-assisted fenestration: Preliminary results of a single-center

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to report the clinical outcomes of the use of 810 nm in situ laser-generated fenestration (ISLF) for the treatment of aortic aneurysms (AAs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs) located in the aortic arch.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Between April 2014 and September 2017, 23 patients (15 men, mean age 66.0 years) with AAs (n = 12) or IMHs (n = 11) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with 810 nm ISLF of the arch. The primary outcomes of the safety assessment were the presence of endoleaks, mortality and morbidity, including adverse in situ fenestration-related, cardiovascular, and cerebral events.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all cases. Urgent intervention was performed in 15 (65.2%) cases. Left subclavian artery (LSA) ISLF was applied in six patients, LSA and left common carotid artery (LCCA) ISLF in three patients, and total aortic arch vessel ISLF in two patients. One patient suffered minimal stroke after the procedure and recovered without permanent disability to the extremities in 2 weeks. There were no fenestration-related complications except in one patient with brachial artery access who suffered a hematoma and underwent incision repair at the puncture site. All fenestrations remained patent, and there were no endoleaks during a mean follow-up of 10.5 ± 5.7 (range: 2-21) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete or incomplete endovascular arch reconstruction by ISLF in arch diseases (AAs and IMHs) is feasible and reproducible with safe, effective, and favorable primary results and no need for customized endografts. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:837-843, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.