Case Series of Aortic Arch Aneurysm in Patients with Bovine Arch Treated with Proximal Scalloped and Fenestrated Stent Graft

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.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch

PURPOSE

Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

What is the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone of the Stent Graft in Treatment of Aortic Type B Dissection?

PURPOSE

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) represents a serious complication of endovascular treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To avoid RTAD, it is recommended to land the proximal end of the stent graft in a non-dissected aortic segment. In this study, we investigated whether landing in the dissection area increased the number of events at the proximal site.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of endovascular treatments for TBAD at a single institution between 2009 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: group A, with a proximal landing zone entirely within the dissected area, and group B, with the proximal extent of the seal zone in the non-dissected area. We evaluated the occurrence of proximal events, including RTAD, and examined long-term outcomes to assess the validity of landing in the dissection area.

RESULTS

The study included eighty-nine patients who underwent endovascular treatment for TBAD. New intimal tears in the proximal landing site occurred in 3 cases (3.4%), with 1 case (2%) in group A and 2 cases (5.1%) in group B, showing no significant difference. Among the three cases, one (1.1%) in group B with zone 2 landing resulted in RTAD. At 60 months, the overall survival was 85%, and freedom from aorta-related mortality was 88%, with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Even if the proximal landing is in a dissected area, a treatment strategy performed in zone 3 without proximal landing in zone 2, seeking a non-dissected area, can still provide sufficient therapeutic effects. Level of Evidence 3 Retrospective single-center cohort analysis.

Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up.

RESULTS

Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.

CONCLUSION

F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.

Clinical outcomes of Najuta thoracic stent graft system for arch aneurysms

Objectives

We aimed to elucidate the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system with fenestrations for supra-aortic vessels.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of 20 patients treated for arch or distal arch aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system during the period from May 2019 to February 2023.

Results

The technical success rate of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system was 95%. Of the 20 patients, 17 patients (85.0%) underwent concomitant extra-anatomical supra-aortic bypass. Postoperative CT revealed type Ia (n = 2) and type II (n = 3) endoleaks which disappeared on follow-up. The postoperative complications were stroke (n = 2, 10.0%), paraplegia (n = 1, 5.0%), and paraparesis (n = 1, 5.0%). In a very old patient, a blood transfusion was performed from the common iliac artery using the retroperitoneal approach. There were no aorta-related complications such as retrograde type A dissection or distal stent graft-induced new entry.

Conclusions

We treated arch or distal arch thoracic aneurysms by inserting a tube-type stent graft as a scaffold on the peripheral site and placing the Najuta thoracic stent graft on the proximal site. By extending the landing zone to Zone 0 and using a low radial force, which is a feature of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system, postoperative bird-beak and aorta-related complications were avoided. The treatment of arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system showed acceptable perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system may be a potential treatment option for arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms, warranting further studies.

A technical review of bail-out procedures to place Najuta stent-graft into the ascending aorta

BACKGROUND

The Najuta stent-graft (Kawasumi Laboratories Inc., Tokyo, Japan) is usually easily advanced to the correct deployment position in the ascending aorta thanks to the pre-curved delivery J-sheath with all fenestrations automatically oriented towards the supra-aortic vessels. Aortic arch anatomy and delivery system stiffness could however represent limitations for proper endograft advancement, especially when the aortic arch bends sharply. The aim of this technical note is to report a series of bail-out procedures that could be useful to overcome the difficulties encountered during the Najuta stent-graft advancement up to the ascending aorta.

MAIN BODY

The insertion, positioning and deployment of a Najuta stent-graft requires a through-and-through guidewire technique using a .035″ 400 cm hydrophilic nitinol guidewire (Radifocus™ Guidewire M Non-Vascular, Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with right brachial and both femoral accesses. When standard maneuver to put the endograft tip into the aortic arch, some bail-out procedures can be applied to obtain proper positioning. Five techniques are described into the text: positioning of a coaxial extra-stiff guidewire; positioning of a long introducer sheath down to the aortic root from the right brachial access; inflation of a balloon inside the ostia of the supra-aortic vessels; inflation of a balloon inside the aortic arch (coaxial to the device); and transapical access technique. This is a troubleshooting guide for allowing physicians to overcome various difficulties with the Najuta endograft as well as for other similar devices.

SHORT CONCLUSION

Technical issues in advancing the delivery system of Najuta stent-graft could occur. Therefore, the rescue procedures described in this technical note could be useful to guarantee the correct positioning and deployment of the stent-graft.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone 0

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model.

Results

Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.

An autopsy case of retrograde in situ branched stent grafting for a complex aortic arch aneurysm

Although retrograde in situ branched stent grafting (RIBS) is one possible treatment option for thoracic aortic aneurysms, concerns exist regarding the durability of the stent graft (SG) at the junction between the main SG and the branched SG. We report on the autopsy results of a patient treated with RIBS for a complex aortic arch aneurysm. The patient had died of a nonaortic cause 14 months after the RIBS procedure. On computed tomography analysis and a leak test, the harvested SG was intact without any stent fracture, stenosis, or junctional leak at 1 atm water pressure (760 mm Hg).

Complete neck vessel preservation using a fenestrated stent graft for the treatment of proximal anastomotic leakage after open frozen elephant trunk graft aortic arch repair

We have reported a case of proximal anastomotic leakage excluded with the Najuta fenestrated stent graft after a surgeon-modified frozen elephant trunk aortic arch graft. The fenestrated stent graft was deployed at the zone 0 proximal site, preserving the cervical branches. Complete neck vessel preservation during endovascular repair using a Najuta fenestrated stent graft appears to be safe and effective for anastomotic leakage after aortic arch aneurysm repair.

Fenestrated and Scalloped Endovascular Grafts in Zone 0 and Zone 1 for Aortic Arch Disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to present midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using scalloped or fenestrated custom-made endovascular grafts (CMEGs) in aortic arch Zones 0 and 1.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data involving consecutive patients with aortic arch disease treated by scalloped or fenestrated Relay Plus stent grafts (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) landed in Zones 0 and 1. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between February 2014 and February 2020, 14 patients (9 male and 5 female) with a median age of 66 years (range 48-84) underwent scalloped or fenestrated TEVAR to preserve flow to the supra-aortic trunks (SATs). In 6 cases the landing zone was Zone 0 and in 8, Zone 1. Target vessels for the scallops were left common carotid artery in 8 cases (Zone 1) and innominate artery (IA) in 1 (Zone 0). All 5 fenestrations were designed to preserve the IA (Zone 0). Technical success was 100% with no endoleaks on completion angiography. One fatal perioperative stroke (7%) occurred in a patient with a fenestration for the IA and atherosclerotic plaques in the arch. During median follow-up of 37.5 (3-72) months, no other patient died, and all the target vessels and cervical revascularizations remained patent. There was no paraplegia, no retrograde dissection, and no other complication. Two patients (14%) with scallops in Zone 1 developed late endoleak: 1 type Ib at 6 months and 1 type Ia endoleak at 12 months. There were no endoleaks at all in the group of fenestrated endografts (Zone 0).

CONCLUSIONS

When anatomy allows, endovascular treatment using scalloped or fenestrated CMEGs in Zones 0 and 1 is a feasible technique to treat patients with aortic arch disease involving the SATs.