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

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Midterm Outcomes of Multicenter Castor Single-Branch Stent Graft Use in the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the midterm efficacy and safety of a single-branch Castor stent graft in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of 106 patients with thoracic aortic disease treated with Castor single-branch stent graft at 3 centers were collected between May 2018 and June 2023. The indicators included technical success, stent-related complication, reintervention, retrograde dissection, endoleak, distal stent graft-induced entry (dSINE), branch patency, and mortality. The outcomes of the Castor stent graft for multibranch reconstruction above the arch was also analyzed.

RESULTS

The technical success was 98.1% (104/106), while the surgical success was 93.4% (99/106). The reintervention was 2.8% (3/106), consisting of a case of retrograde type A dissection, an endoleak, and a dSINE. The retrograde dissection was 1.9% (2/106), while type I endoleak was 1.9% (2/106). The new dSINE was 2.8% (3/106), and the branch patency rate was 100%. The mortality was 1.9% (2/106). The mean follow-up time was 29.1±17.7 months. The 2-year post-surgery cumulative survival rate was 91.0%±3.1%, while the cumulative branch patency rate was 96.2%±2.2%. In addition, the cumulative freedom from stent-related reintervention rate was 93.2%±2.8%. A comparison showed no significant difference in the stent-related complication, branch patency, endoleak, reintervention, and mortality when the proximal end of the Castor stent graft was anchored to zones 1 or 2 of the aorta.

CONCLUSION

Castor single-branch stent graft showed favorable early and midterm outcomes in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease. In addition, it was feasible to combine Castor stent graft with other advanced techniques for multibranch aortic arch reconstruction.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The Castor single-branch stent graft was approval by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration in 2017. However, there were few studies on the mid-term outcomes for thoracic aortic disease after launching, which mainly focused on small single-center retrospective study. In the study, we assessed the mid-term outcomes of Castor stent graft through multi-center cases, Castor stent graft combined with other advanced techniques (such as fenestration and hybrid) for multi-branch reconstruction of aortic arch were also conducted. We found Castor single-branch stent graft showed favorable early and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease. Additionally, it was feasible to combine Castor stent graft with other advanced technique for multi-branch aortic arch reconstruction. As an off-the-shelf branched stent graft with a wide range of models, it could be also used in most emergent situation. The Castor stent graft was expected to become more widely used in the future.

Penetrating aortic ulcer and aortic intramural hematoma: Treatment strategy

OBJECTIVES

The indication, timing, and choice of the treatment modality for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematoma (IMH) are frequently challenging. This article reviews these pathologies and their relation to aortic dissection and proposes a diagnostic and treatment algorithm.

METHODS

A review of literature on diagnosis and treatment of PAU and IMH was conducted. The PubMed database was searched using the terms "penetrating aortic ulcer" and "aortic intramural hematoma". Articles were reviewed and the studies involving diagnosis and management of PAU and IMH were included. We subsequently proposed a management algorithm for PAU and IMH based on available evidence.

RESULTS

PAU and IMH are distinct entities from aortic dissection, although they carry a significant risk of progression into dissection, aneurysm, and rupture. PAU and IMH originating in zone 0 of the aorta generally require surgical treatment. When the origin is beyond zone 0, a trial of medical therapy is recommended. Progression of disease on imaging studies, persistent uncontrolled pain, and certain high-risk features warrant surgery. High-risk features signaling risk of disease progression include PAU with IMH, PAU depth more than 10 mm, PAU diameter more than 20 mm, IMH thickness more than 10 mm, and maximum initial aortic diameter more than 40 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence regarding the treatment of PAU and IMH is lacking. These entities can have a malignant course when they are present with associated symptoms and/or when they have associated high-risk features on imaging. An aggressive surgical approach is necessary in that group of patients.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of laser, needle, and "quick fenestrater" in in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background

Special instruments are needed for the revascularization of aortic branches in in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This prospective study compared the effectiveness and safety of three currently used fenestraters: laser, needle, and Quick Fenestrater (QF).

Methods

In all, 101 patients who underwent TEVAR for aortic disease (dissection, n = 62; aneurysm, n = 16, or ulcer, n = 23) were enrolled. All patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 34 were assigned to laser fenestration, 36 to needle fenestration, and 31 to QF fenestration. The epidemiological data, treatment, imaging findings, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed using data from the medical records.

Results

The technical success rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 94.1%, 94.4%, and 100% (p > 0.05). After correction of mixed factors such as age and gender, it was showed the average operative time (Laser group: 130.01 ± 9.36 min/ Needle group: 149.80 ± 10.18 min vs. QF group: 101.10 ± 6.75 min, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (Laser group: 30.16 ± 9.81 min/ Needle group: 40.20 ± 9.91 min vs. QF group: 19.91 ± 5.42 min, p < 0.001), fenestration time (Laser group 5.50 ± 3.10 min / Needle group 3.50 ± 1.50 min vs. QF group 0.67 ± 0.06 min, p < 0.001), and guide wire passage time after fenestration (Laser group 5.10 ± 1.70 min / Needle group 4.28 ± 1.60 min vs. QF group 0.07 ± 0.01 min, p < 0.001) were all shorter with QF fenestration than with the other two tools. The overall perioperative complication rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 5.9%, 5.6%, and 0% (p > 0.05): One case of sheath thermal injury and one case of vertebral artery ischemia occurred in the laser fenestration group; one case each of access site hematoma and brachial artery thrombosis were reported in the needle fenestration group. 89 (88.1%, 89/101) patients were followed for a median of 12.6 ± 1.6 months. The overall postoperative complication rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 3.3%, 6.5%, and 0% (p > 0.05): In the laser fenestration group, there was one death due to postoperative ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; in the needle fenestration group, one patient developed occlusion of the bridge stent; no complications occurred in the QF group.

Conclusion

All three fenestration methods were effective in reconstructing supra-arch artery during TEVAR. QF fenestration required less contrast agent, with a shorter surgery duration and fewer complications than laser and needle fenestration.

Physician-Modified Endovascular Graft for Left Subclavian Artery Fenestration during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of physician-modified endovascular graft for preservation of left subclavian artery during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

From June 2019 to October 2022, 66 patients with a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified endovascular graft left subclavian artery fenestration to achieve adequate proximal landing zone. The details of surgical techniques were described. The perioperative morbidity, mortality, and the outcomes of mid-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients (men: women, 53:13; age, 55.18 [55.18 ± 10.62] years), 53 (80.30%) presented with type B aortic dissection, 10 (15.15%) with thoracic penetrating aortic ulcer, 2 (3.03%) with thoracic aortic aneurysm, and 1 (1.52%) with left subclavian artery aneurysm. All of them underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified endovascular graft left subclavian artery fenestration on the sterile back table. The technique success rate was 96.97% (n = 64). Total operation time was 92 min (interquartile range, 86-118), graft modification time was 19 min (interquartile range, 17-21), fluoroscopy time was 49 min (interquartile range, 41-62), and contrast agent dosage was 165 mL (interquartile range, 155-185). 30-day perioperative morbidities were 3 (4.55%) strokes, 1 (1.52%) retrograde type A aortic dissection, 1 (1.52%) aortic intimal intussusception, 1 (1.52%) left arm ischemia, and 3 (4.55%) type Ia endoleaks. Postoperative 30-day mortality and reintervention rates were 1.52% and 4.55%, respectively. Among the 63 patients included in the follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range, 7.75-18.25), the primary patency of left subclavian artery fenestration stents was 100%. Late complications were 1 (1.59%) distal stent graft-induced new entry and 1 (1.59%) death due to retrograde type A aortic dissection during the follow-up. The stent graft-induced new entry patient was observed with stable false lumen.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endovascular graft for left subclavian artery revascularization is a safe, feasible, and efficacious technique associated with high success rate. Further study is needed for long-term outcome investigation.

A Systematic Review of Contemporary Outcomes from Aortic Arch In Situ Laser Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting. Outcomes of this technique, however, are poorly reported. We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of L-FEVAR in aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Cochrane guidelines. A search was conducted using Google, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies evaluating L-FEVAR. Two independent reviewers determined study inclusion. Case reports and series including < 10 patients were excluded. Reviewers also assessed the methodological quality and extracted data regarding outcomes. A meta-analysis of endoleak event rates was conducted using a fixed-effect model due to small sample size.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria between 2013 and 2021. Most studies were retrospective (87.5%) with median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range 10-42). There were 440 patients included (range 15-148), mostly men (64%). Mean age was 61 years (range 53-68). Included patients were all symptomatic with L-FEVAR being technically successful in 93.3% of cases. The main indication for aortic arch intervention was aortic dissection. Single fenestrations occurred most frequently (68%), followed by triple (22%) then double fenestrations (9%). Meta-analysis of 8 studies (n = 440) demonstrated an endoleak event rate of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.09, P < 0.001) with no observed statistically significant heterogeneity of effects (Q = 7.91, P = 0.34). The median operative time was 162 min (range 53-252) with median length of stay of 10 days (range 7-17). Primary branch patency was 96.6%. Secondary patency rate was 97%. Pooled complication rates such as endoleak occurred in 4.8%, stroke in 2.0%, spinal cord ischemia in 0.2%, retrograde dissection in 0.9%, and 30-day death in 2.0%. Access complications occurred in 0.4%. Antiplatelet regimen was poorly reported in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, safe, and effective approach to treat aortic arch disease in patients who are unsuitable for open or custom-made endovascular means. High technical success and excellent short-term branch patency can be achieved. These single-institution series exhibit promising short-term outcomes. In a similar paradigm to investigational device exemptions studies for custom-made and physician modified endografts, these preliminary data make a persuasive argument for larger long-term multi-institutional prospective study of this promising technique.

Systematic Review on In Situ Laser Fenestrated Repair for the Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Pathologies

Background: In situ laser-fenestrated thoracic aortic endovascular repair (FTEVAR) has emerged as a valuable alternative for aortic arch management. This review assessed the early and follow-up outcomes of in situ laser-FTEVAR in aortic arch pathologies. Methods: The PRISMA statement was followed. The English literature was searched, via Ovid, until 15 October 2022. Observational studies, published after 2000, reporting on early and follow-up outcomes for the in situ laser-FTEVAR were eligible. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were the technical success, stroke, and mortality at 30-days, and the secondary were the mortality and reintervention during follow-up. Results: Six retrospective studies from 591 and 247 patients were included. Fifty-nine (23.9%) patients were managed for aortic arch aneurysms and 146 (59.1%) for dissections; 22.6% of them for type A. Technical success was at 98% (range 90–100%). Eight patients died (3.2%) and 11 cases presented any type of stroke (4.5%) during the 30-day follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months (1–40 months). Ten deaths were reported (4.2%); one was aortic-related (10%). Thirteen re-interventions (6.0%) were performed. Conclusions: In situ laser-FTEVAR for aortic arch repair may be performed with high technical success and low 30-day and midterm follow-up mortality, stroke, and re-intervention rates when applied in well selected patients and performed by experienced teams.

Technical details of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with fenestrations for thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch: A Chinese expert consensus

Thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch are a great challenge for vascular surgeons. Maintaining the patency of supra-aortic branches while excluding the aortic lesion remains difficult. Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) with fenestrations provides a feasible and effective approach for this type of disease. The devices needed in the procedure are off-the-shelf, with promising results reported in many medical centers. Up until now, there have been no guidelines focusing exclusively on the details of the TEVAR technique with fenestrations. Experts from China have discussed the technical parts of both in situ fenestrations (needle and laser) and fenestrations in vitro (direction inversion strategy and guidewire-assisted strategy), providing a technical reference to standardize the procedure and improve its results.

Transbrachial Access Site Complications in Endovascular Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The transfemoral approach (TFA) or transradial approach (TRA) serves as the primary technique for most endovascular cases; however, the transbrachial (TBA) route is an alternative access site used when TFA and TRA are contraindicated. Although TBA has advantages over TRA, such as the ability to accommodate large guide catheters and devices, there is some apprehension in implementing TBA due to perceived access site complication rates. This article aims to glean the rate of access site complication from current literature. Relevant studies were identified using the following search terms: ((access site complications) AND ((endovascular AND brachial) OR (percutaneous brachial access) OR (brachial))) OR (endovascular AND (percutaneous brachial access)); endovascular + brachial artery; endovascular + brachial artery + access site; and endovascular + brachial artery + access site complications. Articles published after 2008 addressing major complication rates from percutaneous TBA interventions were included. Fifteen studies out of 992 total articles met the inclusion criteria. The major access site complication rate was 75/1,424 (5.27%). Patients who underwent hemostasis with a vascular closure device (VCD) had a major complication rate of 13/309 (4.21%) compared to a major complication rate of 65/1122 (5.79%) for patients who underwent hemostasis with manual compression (MC). The major access site complication rate associated with TBA was 5.27%, which is relatively high compared to the complication rate in TFA or TRA. More prospective trials are needed to fully understand the access site complication rate in TBA interventions.

A systematic review of experimental and clinical studies reporting on in situ laser fenestration of aortic endografts

OBJECTIVE

To summarize available in-situ laser fenestration (ISLF) literature, including experimental studies with their subsequent recommendations regarding optimal fenestration technique and fabric; as well as the short and mid-term results of clinical studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database and EMBASE, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines by two researchers. The search period was without starting date until the 31^st August 2020, and search terms included were in situ, laser, fenestration, and endograft. Quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale by two other independent researchers.

RESULTS

A total of 19 clinical studies were included, with a total of 428 patients (390 supra-aortic trunk ISLF, 38 visceral vessel ISLF). The technical success was 96.9% and 95.6% supra-aortic and visceral vessel ISLF, respectively. Most studies have less than 12-month follow-up, and the longest available follow-up (in one study) was 5-years for left-subclavian fenestration and 17-months for visceral vessel ISLF. Overall, the quality of the evaluated clinical studies was low. Six experimental studies were included, with the highest level of evidence suggesting fenestration of multifilament polyethylene terephthalate grafts, followed by dilation with either a 6- or 8-mm non-compliant balloon.

CONCLUSION

Experimental studies favour the use of multifilament polyethylene terephthalate , followed by dilation with non-compliant balloons as the most durable "in-vitro" technique for ISLF. Short-term outcomes for arch and visceral vessel revascularization are promising, with low rates of in-hospital mortality, stroke, and end-organ ischemia. Nonetheless, the long-term durability of ISLF is yet to be determined and they should be limited to selected symptomatic or urgent cases.

Physician-modified Endograft with Left Subclavian Artery Fenestration for Ruptured Type B Aortic Dissection

A 56-year-old male patient was transferred to our institution with acute chest and back pain and deteriorating vital signs for 3 days. Emergent computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed ruptured type B aortic dissection with large left hemothorax. The dissection extended into the left subclavian artery (LSA). Immediate endovascular aortic repair with LSA coverage to extend the proximal landing zone was planned. Fenestrated thoracic endovascular repair (fTEVAR) was performed using a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) to maintain LSA perfusion. The thoracic endograft was modified on a back table while anesthesia was given, and arterial accesses were acquired. FTEVAR was performed smoothly without any complication. Completion angiogram showed no evidence of endoleak or active bleeding. Chest tube was then placed, and the left lung gradually expanded. Postoperative hospital courses were uneventful. Follow-up CTA showed the thoracic endograft and the LSA stent were in good position, and the rupture thoracic aorta was completely sealed. Chest tube was removed on postoperative day (POD) 7. He was discharged home on POD 20 without any complications. Detailed techniques of PMEG for LSA fenestration are described.

Laser in situ Fenestration in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laser in situ fenestration (LISF) is an expanding technique for arch vessel revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present a single center's early and midterm outcomes using adjunctive LISF with TEVAR for treatment of various arch pathologies.

METHODS

24 patients underwent TEVAR with LISF (2017-2020). Patients were evaluated by an Aortic Team consisting of cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons and were deemed unfit for open surgical repair. Informed consent emphasized the procedure's off-label nature. Thoracic stent-grafts were sized by preoperative Computed Tomography Angiogram and intraoperative Intravascular Ultrasound, with oversizing determined by pathology. Extra-anatomic debranching was performed in staged or concurrent fashion based on urgency of repair and access site options for branch fenestration. A 2.3 mm Spectranetics laser was used, with access site determined at surgeon discretion. Covered balloon expandable stent-grafts were deployed with 0-10% oversizing.

RESULTS

In 24 patients, a total of 30 fenestrations were created (LSA N = 19, LCCA N = 3, Innominate N = 7, RSA N = 1) with 1 (N = 18) or 2 (N = 6) fenestrations/patient. Indications included aneurysm (8), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (8), acute dissection (4), intramural hematoma (2), and pseudoaneurysm (2). 13 cases were elective, and 11 were emergent. Technical success was 100%. 12 patients underwent concurrent (N = 8) or staged (N = 4) extra-anatomic bypass. The major complication rate was 21%, including stroke (N = 3) and 30-day mortality (N = 2). The overall complication rate was 58%. Over a mean follow up of 261 days (15-864 days), 7 patients (32%) have required reinterventions.

CONCLUSIONS

LISF for branch revascularization in TEVAR is technically feasible for treating various aortic arch pathologies, demonstrating practicality in both elective and emergent settings. With a morbidity and mortality profile that is favorable compared to that of open repair, LISF with TEVAR is a promising potential option for patients with complex arch pathology and prohibitive open surgical risk.

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.

Optimal In Situ Fenestration Technique With Laser Perforation and Balloon Dilation for Aortic Stent-Grafts

PURPOSE

To evaluate the response of various stent-grafts after laser fenestration and dilation with noncompliant balloons to determine the optimal therapeutic combination for this treatment technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five aortic stent-grafts were evaluated ex vivo: the Bolton RelayPlus, Jotec E-vita Thoracic 3G, Medtronic Valiant, Cook Zenith Alpha, and Vascutek Anaconda. Small holes were created using an excimer laser with the grafts submerged in saline. Five rows of 5 fenestrations were created, 4 holes in each row were dilated once with a 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-mm-diameter noncompliant balloon to the specified nominal pressure (one hole served as the control). The saline solution from each stent-graft was collected and qualitatively analyzed for debris. The fenestrations were evaluated under light and scanning electron microscopes. The maximum diameter and area for each fenestration were measured. The direction and length of tears were assessed.

RESULTS

The fenestration was feasible and reproducible in all the stent-grafts. The mean area of fenestration ranged from 7.63±1.63 to 14.75±0.73 mm² when using balloons of 6- and 8-mm diameter, respectively. The 10- and 12-mm-diameter balloons caused a significant increase in area, variability, and tearing. The Anaconda graft tended to tear in the weft direction, while the other devices tore in the warp direction when using the 10- and 12-mm-diameter balloons. Dilation of the RelayPlus and Anaconda grafts with 6- and 8-mm-diameter balloons provided minimal tearing and precise fenestrations. Melted fiber remnants were observed after filtration of the saline solution for all devices.

CONCLUSION

Laser fenestration and dilation with noncompliant balloons is a relatively simple and reproducible option for revascularization in urgent, complex aortic endovascular repairs. In our model, large balloons (ie, >10 mm) increased the destruction and tearing of the fabric. The maximum dilation recommended is 6 to 8 mm to avoid significant tears. Development of stent-grafts or novel fabrics designed explicitly for fenestration is needed to reduce potential complications.

Laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts for endovascular treatment of retrograde type A dissection

OBJECTIVES

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a rare but life-threatening event following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and its total endovascular treatment is a huge challenge. This research aimed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, technical success, and medical outcomes of in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR of RTAD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 15 patients with RTAD who received in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR between Mar 2016 and Dec 2019. All patients were subjected to intraoperative extracorporeal brain perfusion. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative medical data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 15 patients was 64 ± 8 years, 8 of whom were male. The immediate overall technical success rates, including aortic stent deployment were 100% and primary fenestration success was achieved in 13 (86.7%) patients. The mean postoperative length of stay was 10 ± 4 days. Stroke occurred in 1 case. No in-hospital/30-day death nor permanent paraplegia/paresis was observed. The mean follow-up time was 13 ± 5 months. Two type Ia endoleaks were found, but no late occlusion and migration of the supra-aortic branch arteries stents during the follow-up were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR of RTAD is a potential total endovascular therapy of RTAD for patients unsuitable for direct surgical repair.

Off-Label Treatment With Transfemoral Bare Stents for Isolated Aortic Arch Dissection

BACKGROUND

Aortic arch dissection is a catastrophic acute event involving the aorta. Its accurate diagnosis and treatment are mandatory to optimize patient outcome. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment with transfemoral bare stents of isolated aortic arch dissection as a valid alternative in patients unsuitable for conventional surgery.

METHODS

In this case series, we report our experience with 3 patients affected by isolated aortic arch dissection treated with endovascular surgery from February 2019 to May 2019. All patients were associated with severe comorbidities emergently referred at our center. Vascular access was achieved by surgical exposure of the right common femoral artery performed under general anesthesia. All patients were observed for at least 3 months.

RESULTS

All patients were treated in a hybrid operative room with transfemoral implantation of a bare metal Jotec E-XL stent released in the aortic arch. The postoperative period was uneventful, and all 3 patients were discharged or transferred on the fourth postoperative day. At follow-up, computed tomography scans showed good results in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A purely endovascular approach to located aortic arch dissections, with bare stents, remains challenging, although it has been proven to be a valid alternative treatment in some off-label cases.

Experimental Analysis of the Quality of Needle-Assisted Fenestration in Aortic Stent-Grafts and the Differences Between Gradual and Rapid Balloon Dilation

Purpose: To report the findings of an in vitro experiment to evaluate the quality of needle fenestrations dilated by different size balloons in various stent-grafts and to investigate the differences between gradual and rapid dilation. Materials and Methods: Fenestrations were made using an 18-G needle in 5 different polyester or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) stent-grafts: Relay, Valiant, Hercules, TAG, and Ankura. Each stent-graft received 2 groups of fenestrations: one was followed by gradual sequential dilation (4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-mm balloons) and the other by rapid dilation (4- and 10-mm balloons). The pressure was increased to 10 atmospheres or until the balloon was fully inflated with no waist. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations, including fenestration diameter, area, shape, and margins were conducted using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Results: Relay had the strongest resistance to dilation and Ankura the slightest. The maximum length and area of holes expanded as the balloon diameter increased. The fenestrations in polyester devices were mostly elliptical or slit-like, with limited tears but extensive fibers visible in the margin, while ePTFE stent-grafts showed larger fenestration areas with clearer margins. Ankura showed the best quality of fenestrations, which were always circular or square without fabric tears, while the holes in the TAG were square or elliptical but sometimes had a slit after large balloon dilation (≥6 mm). The Relay, Valiant, Hercules, and Ankura devices showed no difference in maximum diameter, fenestration area, or scores of shape and margin (p>0.05). Rapid dilation in the TAG increased the rate of uncontrolled fabric tear, resulting in a larger final diameter (12.90 vs 10.82 mm, p=0.047), smaller area (30.46 vs 41.09 mm2, p=0.028), worse shape (0.75 vs 1.20, p=0.268), and worse margin (0.40 vs 1.00, p=0.174). Though the decreased fenestration shape and margin scores did not reach statistical significance, the trend for decline was more obvious than with the other devices. Conclusion: Materials and structures of the stent-grafts determine the quality of fenestrations dilated by different size balloons. The use of sequential vs rapid balloon dilation is also crucial for fashioning high-quality fenestrations and should be selected judiciously.

Surgery for type A intramural hematoma: a systematic review of clinical outcomes

Background

Management of type A intramural hematoma (IMH) remains controversial, with opinions divided as to whether patients should be treated with early aggressive surgery or a more conservative approach. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the mortality and morbidities following surgery for type A IMH.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed on five databases from dates of inception to December 2018. All studies with surgical outcomes for type A intramural hematoma were identified by two independent researchers and relevant data extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions or meta-analysis of means were performed to aggregate the data. Survival data were pooled using reconstructed individual patient data derived from Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

Fifteen studies with 744 patients were identified. Ten studies were from Asian countries (73% of patients). Overall mortality was 8.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-13.9%]. Mortality from Asian centers was 5.3% (95% CI: 3.6-7.7%) and 18.9% (95% CI: 7.0-40.4%) in Western centers. Postoperative complications were poorly reported and hence not analyzable. Overall pooled survival of 343 patients from four studies at 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year was 91.8%, 90.2%, 89.2%, 87.7%, and 71.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

There is an acceptable level of risk of death after surgery for type A IMH, though significant variations exist between results from Asian and Western centers. More detailed studies are required to clarify the controversies surrounding management of type A IMH.

Outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration (ISLF)-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery.

METHODS

Twenty patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection who were found to be unfit for open surgery, underwent emergency ISLF-assisted TEVAR in our center between March 2016 and December 2018. Anatomic criteria for endovascular repair: coronary artery and aortic valve was not involved, proximal landing zone diameter of 45 mm or less, and proximal landing zone length of 20 mm or greater. Their clinical outcomes were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Twenty patients achieved a procedural success of 100.0%. The 30-day mortality was 10%; two patients died, one of severe pneumonia and the other from cerebral hemorrhage after the operation. Rate of stroke at 30 days was 5%. The average follow-up time was 16 months (range, 3-26 months). One death owing to heart failure occurred at 23 months postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis revealed that the 24-month survival rate was 77.1%. Two patients had type Ia endoleaks and one had a type II endoleak. There was no stent graft migration or fenestration-related endoleak and all patients had a thrombosed false lumen in the covered section of the stent grafts. No reintervention, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attacks, cerebral infarction, or other complications occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency ISLF-assisted TEVAR is a safe and effective alternative method for treating acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery.