Methods and clinical outcomes of in situ fenestration for aortic arch revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Despite endovascular advances in fenestrated and branched devices, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for arch pathologies remains challenging. The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary review on the current evidence for in situ fenestration during TEVAR and to evaluate its short- and mid-term clinical outcome in the management of arch pathology.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on in situ fenestration of thoracic aortic stent-graft from January 2003 to September 2018 was performed under the instruction of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 169 studies, of which 21 articles were relevant to the topic and were finally included. One hundred and forty-five in situ fenestration procedures in 99 patients were reviewed, involving 25 innominate arteries (17%), 33 left common carotid arteries (23%) and 87 left subclavian arteries (60%). Twelve patients (12/99, 12%) had two-vessel fenestration and three-vessel fenestration was performed in 17 patients (17/99, 17%). Technical success was achieved in 136 arteries (136/145, 93%). Talent/Valiant with monofilament twill woven polyester fabric was the most common (50/99, 51%) stent-graft used for fenestration. Three methods reported for in situ fenestration were needle, laser and radiofrequency. Needle was the most frequently used device for fenestration, which was performed in 60 patients (60/99, 61%). Three patients (3/99, 3%) died with 30 days, none were in situ fenestration TEVAR procedure-related. Perioperative complications including one (1%) retrograde type A aortic dissection, two (2%) type II endoleaks, and three (3%) strokes were reported. The pooled estimate for overall technical success, perioperative mortality and stroke was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.6%-93.9%), 5.9% (95% CI, 2.5%-13.4%) and 9.5% (95% CI, 4.1%-20.6%), respectively. Four patients (4/96, 4%) died during follow-up, none were aortic-related. All the fenestration bridging stents were reportedly patent, with only 1 (1/96, 1%) asymptomatic left subclavian stent stenosis. Two patients (2/96, 2%) with type II endoleak from left subclavian artery required secondary intervention.

CONCLUSION

In situ fenestration appeared to be a feasible and effective method to extend proximal landing zone during TEVAR. It had an acceptable short-term result with high technical success and low fenestration related morbidity. Long-term durability data were lacking, and there was no high level evidence to recommend the routine use of in situ fenestration TEVAR for the management of arch pathology.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair in penetrating aortic ulcer combined with isolated left vertebral artery: A case report

RATIONALE

Penetrating aorta ulcer (PAU) with isolated left vertebral artery (ILVA) is a rare condition, accounting for no more than 1% of all kinds of aorta diseases. And traditional treatment was open surgery with total arch replacement by elephant trunk. Here, we report a case of PAU combined with ILVA managed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) technique.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 65-year-old male with chronic hypertension and Nicotine abuse underwent intermittent back pain for 2 years and aggravated a bit for 1 week.

DIAGNOSES

Preoperative computed tomography angiogram (CTA) indicated PAU combined with ILVA.

INTERVENTIONS

TEVAR was performed for PAU following with retrograde in situ fenestration and chimney technique for revascularization of ILVA and left subclavian artery (LSA), respectively.

OUTCOMES

The operation was successfully and the patient was discharged from hospital after 1 week of treatment. Postoperatively, the images of CTA illustrated the patency of aorta, ILVA, and LSA without obvious endoleak. Besides, no ischemia attack or other relative syndromes were detected at 6-months follow-up.

LESSONS

This case demonstrates that TEVAR is an alternative to elephant trunk especially for PAU with ILVA. And it also showed the precise exposure of ILVA and necessity to reconstruct ILVA during TEVAR operation in order to reduce the occurrence of ischemia attack.

A Comprehensive Review of In Situ Fenestration of Aortic Endografts

OBJECTIVE

Despite technical advances of fenestrated and branched endografts, endovascular exclusion of aneurysms involving renal, visceral, and/or supra-aortic branches remains a challenge. In situ fenestration (ISF) of standard endografts represents another endovascular means to maintain perfusion to such branches. This study aimed to review current indications, technical descriptions, and results of ISF.

METHOD

A review of the English language literature was performed in Medline databases, Cochrane Database, Web of Science, and Scopus using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Sixty-seven relevant papers were selected. Thirty-three papers were excluded, leaving 34 articles as the basis of the present review.

RESULTS

Most experimental papers evaluated ISF feasibility and assessed the consequences of ISF on graft fabric. Regarding clinical papers, 73 ISF procedures have been attempted in 58 patients, including 26 (45%) emergent and three (5%) bailout cases. Sixty-five (89%) ISF were located at the level of the arch, and eight (11%) in the abdominal aorta. Graft perforation was performed by physical, mechanical, or unspecified means in 33 (45%), 38 (52%), and two vessels (3%), respectively. ISF was technically successful in 68/73 (93%) arteries. At 30 days, two (3.4%) patients died in the setting of an aorto-bronchial fistula and an aorto-oesophageal fistula, respectively. No post-operative death, major complication, or endoleak was described as secondary to the ISF procedure. With follow-up between 0 and 72 months, four (6.9%) late deaths were noted, unrelated to the aorta. One (1.7%) LSA stent was stenosed without symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there may be publication bias, multiple techniques were described to perform ISF with satisfactory short-term results. Long-term data remain scarce. Aortic endograft ISF is an off-label procedure that should not be used outside emergent bailout techniques or investigational studies. A comparison with alternative techniques of preserving aortic side branches is needed.