European Multicenter Registry for the Performance of the Chimney/Snorkel Technique in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologic Conditions

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.

In vitro quantification of stent-graft behaviour during chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To quantify dynamic gutter phenomena and endograft deformations during double chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (ch-TEVAR) in a physiological model of the thoracic aorta subjected to pulsatile haemodynamic conditions.

METHODS

Two in vitro procedures revascularizing the brachiocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery were performed representing both balloon-expandable (BE, Ankura-BeGraft) and self-expandable (SE, Ankura-Viabahn) double ch-TEVAR configurations. Retrospectively gated computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate endograft behaviour. Device interactions were characterised according to gutter volume, gutter surface deviation, and endograft deformation (D-ratio) at end-diastolic and peak-systolic aortic pressure.

RESULTS

Use of BE chimney grafts resulted in three times total gutter volume compared to SE chimney grafts. Gutter volumes were observed to vary dynamically between the end-diastolic and peak-systolic phases of the cardiac cycle, with the most substantial change associated with the BE configuration. Chimney graft deformations were dependent on device type, with SE devices exhibiting up to twice the deformation as BE devices. When adjacent, SE chimney grafts were observed to support each other, and thus tended towards a more consistently circular shape.

CONCLUSION

Gutter and chimney graft behaviour were dependent on device type, and exhibited both spatial and temporal variability. This study emphasises notable differences between BE and SE double ch-TEVAR configurations which should be considered when evaluating risk of endoleak. The findings reported here also support the use of gated CT to better identify device-related complications with ch-TEVAR, and can be used in the design of next generation devices.

Hemodynamics of different configurations of the left subclavian artery parallel stent graft for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Parallel (chimney and periscope) graft technique is an effective approach for left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction in patients treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the inadequate landing zone. However, certain stent graft (SG) configurations may promote thrombosis and reduce distal blood flow, increasing risks of cerebral infarction and reintervention.

METHODS

In this paper, we first attempt to systematically evaluate the hemodynamic performances of different parallel graft techniques as potential determinants of complication risks. Based on the patient-specific 3D aortic geometry undergoing parallel graft technique, fifteen models in total for five kinds of LSA branched SG configurations (Forward, Backward, Extended, Elliptical and Periscopic) were designed virtually, and the hemodynamic discrepancies between them were analyzed by computational fluid dynamics.

RESULTS

Results show that flow rate of patients undergoing periscope technique reduces by half compared with chimney technique, suggesting that periscope SG may cause more serious flow obstruction to LSA, leading to stroke. For chimney stent structure, the extension length 0has little influence on energy loss and other parameters. Conversely, hemodynamic differences between the retrograde curvature and the antegrade curvature are significant (time average WSS: 47.07%), so the retrograde curvature might prompt SG displacement. Furthermore, the flatter chimney SG induces more aggressive hemodynamic forces, among which the difference of the maximum WSS between the flatter SG and nearly round SG reaches 65.56%, leading to the greater risk of vascular wall damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Results obtained might provide suggestions for physicians to formulate appropriate parallel graft technique schemes in TEVAR.

Anatomical feasibility of a 'semi-custom' unibody single-branch endograft in previous zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of a subclavian unibody single-branch endograft among patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in landing zone 2 (LZ2).

METHODS

This is a pre-clinical, single-centre, real-world, all-comers, retrospective cohort study. Patients treated with TEVAR in LZ2 with an available preoperative computed tomography angiography were included. The primary outcome was the anatomical feasibility of the Castor endograft in patients receiving endovascular treatment in LZ2 between 1999 and 2022. Secondary outcomes were: a comparison of feasible and unfeasible patients; frequencies and description of exclusion causes; non-feasibility risk factor analysis; and analysis of the stent graft configurations necessary to treat 75% of the patients. A logistic regression model was used to find associations between baseline morphological data and non-feasibility.

RESULTS

A total of 473 procedures were performed and 72 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. The mean distance between the left carotid artery and left subclavian artery (or between innominate artery and bovine trunk) was 12.4 ± 5.2 mm and its average diameter was 33.0 ± 10.6 mm. The pre-vertebral left subclavian artery's diameter and length were 11.3 ± 2.5 and 38.7 ± 10.8 mm. Forty-nine (68.1%) patients were suitable for Castor implantation. Twenty-one configurations were required to treat 75% of feasible patients and might be lowered to 12 configurations applying less strict criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Castor endograft was anatomically feasible in several patients requiring TEVAR in LZ2. Three-quarters of feasible patients could be treated with a reasonable number of configurations, paving the path for future off-the-shelf applications.

Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency.

RESULTS

24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0 min vs. 90.8 min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0 min vs. 33.4 min p = 0.614).

CONCLUSIONS

The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

Hybrid Treatment of Complex Diseases of the Aortic Arch and Descending Thoracic Aorta by Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique

The surgical management of acute and chronic complex diseases involving the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta remains challenging. Hybrid procedures associating total open arch replacement and stent-grafting of the proximal descending aorta were developed to allow a potential single-stage treatment, promote remodeling of the downstream aorta, and facilitate a potential second-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair by providing an ideal landing zone. While these approaches initially used various homemade combinations of available conventional prostheses and stent-grafts, the so-called frozen elephant trunk technique emerged with the development of several custom-made hybrid prostheses. The aim of this study was to review the contemporary outcomes of this technique in the management of complex aortic diseases, with a special focus on procedural planning, organ protection and monitoring, refinements in surgical techniques, and long-term follow-up.

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.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of the total endovascular aortic repair in aortic arch

Background: The total endovascular repair of the aortic arch is becoming more and more an acceptable alternative to the open repair in selected patients. The aim of the present study is to perform a meta-analysis of the available data on the outcomes of the various endovascular techniques used to treat the pathologies in this challenging anatomical area. Patients and methods: An extensive electronic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct Databases, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. All papers published up to January 2022 on the endovascular techniques in the aortic arch (chimney-thoracic endovascular aortic repair (ChTEVAR), fenestrated/branched grafts as custom made devices (CMD) and surgeon modified TEVAR (SM TEVAR) providing information about at least one of the essential outcomes defined in the inclusion criteria. Results: Out of the 5078 studies found through the search in the databases and registers, 26 studies with a total number of patients of 2327 with 3497 target vessels were included in the analysis. The studies reported a high technical success rate with an estimated proportion of 95.8% (95% CI, 93-97.6%). Moreover, the pooled estimation of the early type Ia/III endoleak was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.4-12.1%). The pooled mortality was 4.6% (95 CI, 3.2-6.6%) with a significant heterogeneity and the stroke had an estimated proportion (major and minor combined) of 4.8% (95% CI, 3.5-6.6%). A meta-regression analysis showed no significant variation between the groups in mortality (P=.324) showed however a significant difference between the therapeutic methods regarding stroke P<.001 (lower rate in ChTEVAR and SM vs. CMD). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis could demonstrate good short- and long-term outcomes of the multiple total endovascular repair methods used in the aortic arch.

How to Treat Type B Aortic Dissections in the Presence of an Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery: A Systematic Review

An aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA) is the most common congenital variant of the aortic arch. Usually, this variation is largely asymptomatic, but sometimes it may be involved in aortic dissection (AD). Surgical management of this condition is challenging. The therapeutic options have been enriched in recent decades by establishing individualized endovascular or hybrid procedures. Whether these less invasive approaches bear advantages, and how they have changed the treatment of this rare pathology, is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review. We performed a review of literature from the past 20 years (from January 2000 until February 2021) complying with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. All reported patients treated for Type B AD in the presence of an ARSA were identified and classified into three groups according to the received therapy (open, hybrid, and total endovascular). Patient characteristics, as well as in-hospital mortality, and major and minor complications were determined and statistically analyzed. We identified 32 relevant publications comprising 85 patients. Open arch repair has been offered to younger patients, but significantly less often in symptomatic patients needing urgent repair. Therefore, the maximum aortic diameter was also significantly larger in the open repair group compared with that in the hybrid or total endovascular repair group. Regarding the endpoints, we did not find significant differences. The literature review revealed that open surgical therapies are preferred in patients presenting with chronic dissections and larger aortic diameters, most likely because they are unsuitable for endovascular aortic repair. Hybrid and total endovascular approaches are more often applied in emergency situations, where aortic diameters remain smaller. All therapies demonstrated good, early, and midterm outcomes. But, these therapies carry potential risks in the long term. Therefore, long-term follow-up data are urgently needed to validate that these therapies are sustainable.

NEXUS Arch: A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Initial Experience With a Novel Aortic Arch Stent Graft System

OBJECTIVE

To assess the initial clinical experience with a novel endograft system (NEXUS Aortic Arch Stent Graft System) designed to treat aortic arch pathologies and address the morphology and hemodynamic challenges of the aortic arch.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The aortic arch remains the most challenging part of the aorta for both open and endovascular repair. Transcatheter aortic arch repair has the potential to significantly reduce surgical risks.

METHODS

Patients underwent transcatheter aortic arch repair with a single branch, 2 stent graft system, implanted over a through-and-through guidewire from the brachiocephalic trunk, to the descending aorta with an ascending aorta stent graft. The ascending aorta stent graft is deployed into a designated docking sleeve to connect the 2 stent grafts and isolate the aortic arch pathology. Proximal landing zone in all cases was in Zone 0. Anatomical inclusion criteria included adequate landing zone in the ascending aorta, brachiocephalic trunk, and descending thoracic aorta. Preparatory debranching procedure was performed in all patients with carotid-carotid crossover bypass and left carotid to left subclavian bypass, or parallel graft from descending aorta to left subclavian artery. Safety and performance were evaluated through 1 year. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients, 79% males, with a mean age of 72.2 ± 6.2 years were treated with 100% procedural success. Isolated aortic arch aneurysm was the principle pathology in 17 (60.7%) of patients, while chronic aortic dissection was the principle pathology in 6 (21.4%) of patients. The remaining 5 (17.8%) had combined or other pathologies. At 1 month, the vascular pathology was excluded in 25 of 26 alive patients (96.1%). The 30 days mortality rate was 7.1%, stroke rate was 3.6% (all nondisabling), and combined mortality/stroke rate was 10.7%. One-year mortality was 10.7%, without device or aneurysm-related death. Two patients (7.1%) reported stroke or transient ischemic attack at 1 year that recovered completely. One year combined mortality/stroke rate was 17.8%. There were 3 patients (10.7%) that had device-related unplanned reinterventions through 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The NEXUS Aortic Arch Stent Graft System, a novel single branch, 2 stent graft system used for endovascular aortic arch repair that requires landing in the ascending aorta, demonstrates a high success rate with excellent 1 year safety and performance.

Chimney Stenting Versus Surgical Debranching for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies-A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions requires revascularization of epiaortic vessels in case of coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical bypass versus endovascular reconstruction with a chimney graft.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a multicenter register between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 127 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: thoracic endovascular aortic repair + surgical debranching (n = 72) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair + chimney stenting (n = 55). The main end points were major neurologic sequelae and type IA endoleak. Propensity score matching was performed to analyse baseline variables related to these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 35.6 months for the debranching group and 34.1 for the chimney group (P = 0.65). The incidence of stroke was higher in the chimney group although not statistically significant (7.3% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.46); for both groups, a wide angle between the ostium of the target vessel and the aorta and landing in Ishimaru Zone 0 was found to be the main predictors for major neurologic sequelae (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). During follow-up, 9 (12.5%) type IA endoleaks occurred in the debranching group and 12 (21.8%) in the chimney group (P = 0.14). Aortic diameter larger than 66 mm and arch angle >46° had a strong association with proximal endoleak incidence (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: Surgical debranching showed better results than chimney stenting in terms of major neurologic events incidence and type IA endoleak, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to establish the indications for these procedures.

Anaesthesia for vascular emergencies - a state of the art review

In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the presenting symptoms and management strategies for vascular emergencies. Although vascular emergencies are best treated at a vascular surgical centre, patients may present to any emergency department and may require both immediate management and safe transport to a vascular centre. We describe the surgical and anaesthetic considerations for management of aortic dissection, aortic rupture, carotid endarterectomy, acute limb ischaemia and mesenteric ischaemia. Important issues to consider in aortic dissection are extent of the dissection and surgical need for bypasses in addition to endovascular repair. From an anaesthetist's perspective, aortic dissection requires infrastructure for massive transfusion, smooth management should an endovascular procedure require conversion to an open procedure, haemodynamic manipulation during stent deployment and prevention of spinal cord ischaemia. Principles in management of aortic rupture, whether open or endovascular treatment is chosen, include immediate transfer to a vascular care centre; minimising haemodynamic changes to reduce aortic shear stress; permissive hypotension in the pre-operative period; and initiation of massive transfusion protocol. Carotid endarterectomy for carotid stenosis is managed with general or regional techniques, and anaesthetists must be prepared to manage haemodynamic, neurological and airway issues peri-operatively. Acute limb ischaemia is a result of embolism, thrombosis, dissection or trauma, and may be treated with open repair or embolectomy, under either general or local anaesthesia. Due to hypercoagulability, there may be higher numbers of acutely ischaemic limbs among patients with COVID-19, which is important to consider in the current pandemic. Mesenteric ischaemia is a rare vascular emergency, but it is challenging to diagnose and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several peri-operative issues are common to all vascular emergencies: acute renal injury; management of transfusion; need for heparinisation and reversal; and challenging postoperative care. Finally, the important development of endovascular techniques for repair in many vascular emergencies has improved care, and the availability of transoesophageal echocardiography has improved monitoring as well as aids in surgical placement of endovascular grafts and for post-procedural evaluation.

Tratamiento endovascular con técnica de chimenea para patologías del arco aórtico

Introducción. La patología del arco aórtico se ha tratado principalmente con cirugía por vía abierta, pero con una alta morbimortalidad. Las técnicas endovasculares híbridas y las reconstrucciones en “chimenea” son una técnica válida y segura para disminuir el riesgo y la mortalidad. Métodos. Se presentan dos pacientes con patología del arco aórtico y contraindicación de manejo quirúrgico abierto, atendidos en el Servicio de Cirugía Vascular, Hospital Universitario Clínica de San Rafael, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Resultados. Se realizaron dos procedimientos endovasculares del arco aórtico para tratar un aneurisma torácico roto y una úlcera aórtica sintomática, con cubrimiento de los troncos supra aórticos con una endoprótesis y canalización de los vasos supra aórticos con prótesis cubiertas y uso de la “técnica de chimenea”, de manera exitosa. Discusión. La patología del arco aórtico es de alta complejidad y se asocia con una morbimortalidad elevada por lo que, en los últimos 20 años se han desarrollado diferentes técnicas utilizando procedimientos percutáneos. Conclusión. La “técnica de chimenea” se puede realizar de una manera mínimamente invasiva en pacientes con patología del arco aórtico, no candidatos para cirugía abierta, con resultados exitosos.

Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with chimney technique for aortic arch diseases

Objective

This study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.

Methods

From November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28–83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

Results

Among the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1–108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).

Conclusion

TEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.

[Update on thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair : New stent graft designs]

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, new stent graft designs have evolved to tackle challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. A specific focus on access vessel issues has led to the introduction of new low-profile endograft designs for most of the major products.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available publications on new stent graft designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessing recent publications on the major reiterations of thoracic endografts, benefits and drawbacks are discussed.

RESULTS

Recent reiterations of major endografts for thoracic aortic endovascular repair have focused mainly on the development of low-profile devices. Through alterations on graft fabric as well as stent material and design, delivery systems were reduced in profile, thus, reducing access vessel complications or enabling an endovascular procedure altogether. Long-term data are already available for one endoprosthesis. Other refinements include in situ adaptation of the stent graft to the aortic arch curvature as well as the option of staged deployment to allow more precision and reduce manipulation close to supra-aortic branches.

CONCLUSIONS

Especially in the case of low-profile endografts, preliminary and long-term results of access vessel complications are promising. In order to draw final conclusions as to how durable the results of aneurysm exclusion are, more long-term studies are warranted.

Mid-term Comparison of One-Piece Branched Stent-Graft and Chimney Technique Treating Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

We compared the mid-term outcomes of a one-piece branched stent-graft with the chimney technique in the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between August 2012 and December 2017, a retrospective analysis of 279 patients with thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) or aneurysm (TAA) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with b-TEVAR (n = 69, 58 TAD and 11 TAA) or c-TEVAR (n = 210, 151 TAD and 59 TAA) was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five double-chimney for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and left common carotid artery LCCA and 165 single-chimney for the LSA were performed in chimney-TEVAR (c-TEVAR) and 69 branched-TEVAR (b-TEVAR) with 36 single-branched stent-grafts and 33 branched stent-grafts combined with fenestration technique. The c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital complications than the b-TEVAR group (19.5 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.017), primarily because the c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital cerebral ischemia events (6.2 vs. 0%, p = 0.043) and intra-operative type I endoleaks (31.9 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01). There were significantly more follow-up type I endoleaks (21.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.002), cerebral ischemia events (11.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.042), and re-interventions (12.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.048) in the c-TEVAR group than in the b-TEVAR group. However, follow-up mortality was not significantly different between the c-TEVAR and b-TEVAR groups (5.2 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.638).

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic pathologies involving the arch branches, customized b-TEVAR may result in fewer cerebral ischemia events and endoleaks than c-TEVAR. However, c-TEVAR should be considered an off-the-shelf treatment option for patients in need of emergency treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

A Novel Solution for Distal Dilation of Chronic Dissection After Repair Involving Visceral Branches: The Road Block Strategy

Aim

Notwithstanding that unprecedented endovascular progress has been achieved in recent years, it remains unclear what is the best strategy to preserve the blood perfusion of abdominal visceral arteries and promote positive aortic remodeling in patients with distal dilatation of chronic aortic dissection in abdominal visceral part (CADAV) after aortic repair. The present study developed a Road Block Strategy (RBS) to solve this conundrum.

Methods and Results

This prospective single-center clinical study included patients suffering from symptomatic distal dilatation of CADAV after aortic repair treated with RBS from January 2015 to December 2019 and followed up regularly for at least 2 years. Stent grafts were implanted first to cover distal tears and expand the true lumen. Device embolization was performed to induce proximal and distal segmental false lumen thrombosis (FLT) apart from the level of the ostia of vital branches. Successful RBS was performed in 13 patients. Significant differences were found in maximum true lumen diameter (p < 0.05), blood flow area in false lumen (FL) (p < 0.001), and the ratio of blood lumen to FL area (p < 0.05) between the pre-procedure and the latest follow-up results. No aortic rupture, vital branches occlusion, thoracic and abdominal pain, or death occurred during hospitalization and follow-up.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that RBS is feasible in treating distal dilatation of chronic aortic dissection after prior proximal repair, inducing false lumen thrombosis, preventing deterioration of aortic dissection, and maintaining the patency of abdominal visceral arteries.

Management of penetrating aortic ulcer and intramural hematoma in the thoracic aorta

Acute aortic syndrome is a broad clinical entity that encompasses several pathologies. Aortic dissection is a well-studied disorder, but the other most prominent disorders within the scope of acute aortic syndrome, penetrating aortic ulcer and intramural hematoma, are more nebulous in terms of their pathophysiology and treatment strategies. While patient risk factors, presenting symptoms, and medical and surgical management strategies are similar to those of aortic dissection, there are indeed nuanced differences unique to penetrating aortic ulcer and intramural hematoma that surgeons and acute care providers must consider while managing patients with these diagnoses. The aim of this review is to summarize patient demographics, pathophysiology, workup, and treatment strategies that are unique to penetrating aortic ulcer and intramural hematoma.

Current state of hybrid solutions for aortic arch aneurysms

Since its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from a novel approach to a well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. HAR procedures have been proposed as a means to circumvent the perioperative morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch replacement. These procedures, all of which remain off-label applications of approved endograft technology, combine more conventional open surgical techniques, to create endograft landing zones, with thoracic endovascular aortic repair to exclude the aortic pathology from the circulation. The current classification system for HAR was proposed in 2013 and consists of three types, designated by the Roman numerals I, II and III. The current system has become outdated, however, with the advent of newer technologies, and herein we propose a new, updated classification system that is more encompassing with regards to the broad array of options available to treat aortic arch disease. Likewise, an institutional algorithm to guide patient and operative selection for HAR is presented. Patients are considered for HAR if they have either high-risk comorbidities or high-risk anatomy, with an important feature of the algorithm being that any decisions about repair strategy should be made by a surgical team with expertise in both open and endovascular techniques. Despite being performed for nearly two decades, the evidence around HAR consists mainly of single center series (level B-C evidence) with no randomized controlled trials. The data suggest HAR to be a safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short and mid-term results. As we as aortic surgeons continue to move towards less invasive approaches, both conventional open and hybrid techniques will remain important tools in the toolbox for arch repair, although the advent of multi-branched arch endografts will almost certainly reduce the extent of open or hybrid repair in many patients and eliminate it altogether in others.

Chimney Graft Technique Combined With Embolization for Treating Ruptured Aortic Arch Lesions

Background: This study aimed to share the experience in applying the chimney graft technique combined with embolization for treating aortic arch rupture under emergency conditions and evaluating early-term results in these patients. Methods: This study retrospectively included patients with ruptured aortic arch lesions who received the chimney graft technique combined with embolization between March 2016 and March 2021. The primary endpoint was a technical success, deemed as successful stent graft deployment to the planned location, patency of the target branch vessel, and absence of significant type I endoleak. The secondary endpoint was clinical success defined with the size of false lumen in follow-up remaining unchanged or decreasing over time, 30-day mortality, complication, and primary patency of chimney graft. Results: This study included 12 patients (age, 61 ± 12 years; male, 83%). Five patients (42%) received single chimney, one patient (8%) received double chimney, and six patients (50%) received triple chimney. Intraoperative type I endoleak occurred in six patients (50%) who underwent endovascular embolization in the primary operation. Post-operative type I endoleak, evaluated by computed tomography angiography examination following the primary operation, occurred in seven patients (58%), including one patient who received endovascular embolization two times. All patients with post-operative type I endoleak were successfully re-treated using coil and Onyx glue within 1 week, and the median length of stay was 22 ± 11 days (range: 7-44 days). Overall technical success was 100%. Eleven patients had completed their follow-up (median, 12 months, range: 1-34 months), and one patient was out of contact. The 30-day mortality was 9% (1/11, post-operative death of a patient with cerebral hemorrhage). No major complications and no chimney compression, migration, occlusion, or stenosis were recorded during follow-up. Seven patients (58%) have ≥6 months of clinical follow-up time with appropriate imaging. In four (57%) of these patients, diameter stabilization was detected, whereas three (43%) experienced significant reduction (≥5 mm). Conclusion: The patients in this study had satisfactory early-term outcomes. The chimney graft technique combined with coil and Onyx glue embolization may be a safe and effective treatment for ruptured aortic arch lesions under emergency conditions.

Long-term results of total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies using parallel grafts for supra-aortic debranching

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the long-term morphologic and clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with parallel grafts (PG-TEVAR) for arch-involving aortic pathologies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of perioperative and follow-up data of patients who had undergone PG-TEVAR at a single vascular surgery center from November 2010 to April 2018. Patients with prior or simultaneous open chest or cervical debranching procedures or arch repair were excluded. The primary endpoint was freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention. The secondary endpoints were parallel graft sealing zone failure (presence of gutter-related type I or Ic endoleak), PG failure (occlusion or reintervention), stroke, and 30-day and overall PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the freedom from reintervention and survival. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to find the optimal cutoff to prevent type Ia endoleak-related reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients, including 8 women, with a median age of 74 years (interquartile range, 67-79 years) had undergone PG-TEVAR (chimney, periscope, and sandwich in 20, 15, and 13 patients, respectively) with proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 0, 1, or 2 in 4, 5, and 24 patients, respectively. The aortic pathologies included type B aortic dissection (acute and chronic, eight and six, respectively), degenerative aneurysm (n = 10), type Ia endoleak (n = 3), para-anastomotic/patch aneurysm (n = 4), left subclavian artery aneurysm (n = 1), and traumatic rupture (n = 1). The perioperative stroke rate and 30-day mortality was 6% and 9%, respectively. Direct postoperative computed tomography revealed 28 endoleaks (gutter-related type Ia, 12; gutter-related type Ib, 9; type Ia, 2; type Ic, 2; type III, 1; undetermined, 2) in 27 patients. The technical and clinical success rate was 37% and 30%, respectively. The mean follow-up for survival was 48 ± 31 months. The latest radiologic follow-up demonstrated 12 remaining and 1 new endoleak. The early and overall PG sealing zone failure and PG failure was 73% and 36% and 9% and 18%, respectively. The overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention rate was 33% (n = 11). The estimated freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention was 68% at 60 months. The main graft oversizing and length oversizing rates were not significantly associated statistically with the type Ia endoleak-related reintervention rate. The PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality were 18% and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PG-TEVAR for total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies resulted in a high rate of type I endoleaks and the need for long-term reintervention. Gutter-related endoleaks might be more frequent than reported and should not be underestimated because they can lead to sac enlargement and reintervention. Frequent radiologic surveillance is mandatory. Further studies comparing PG-TEVAR to other total endovascular alternatives are required to confirm these findings.

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using the Terumo Aortic triple-branch arch endograft

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of total endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using a novel triple-branch arch endograft.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the clinical data and outcomes of 3 patients with arch aneurysms treated at a single institution using a custom-made triple-branch aortic endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) between 2015 and 2020. The device has 3 internal branches corresponding to the principal branches of the standard aortic arch, obviating the need for any surgical revascularization. This initial experience represents the first three cases ever performed in the world using this endograft.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically successful. There were no strokes, in-hospital, or 1 year mortality. All 3 patients required secondary re-interventions. One patient died 14 months after the index procedure due to endocarditis unrelated to the arch repair.

CONCLUSION

The initial experience with the Terumo Aortic triple-branch endograft for treatment aortic arch aneurysms showed that, while the procedure is technically feasible, there remain significant anatomic and mechanical challenges in the endovascular repair of this segment of the thoracic aorta. Further refinements of endograft design and identification of optimal bridging stent technology are needed.

Bail-Out Pull-Through Pull-Back Technique for Accidental Coverage of the Left Common Carotid Artery During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

We describe a pull-through pull-back technique to revascularize the left common carotid artery (LCCA) that was unintentionally covered during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

CASE REPORT

A 69-year-old man presented with back pain secondary to acute type B aortic dissection with an intimal tear in the proximal descending aorta. Serial computed tomography (CT) revealed an enlarged descending aorta and proximal progression of the aortic dissection. He underwent left carotid-subclavian artery bypass and TEVAR, 10 days after admission. The Valiant Navion stent graft without a bare stent was deployed proximally; however, the LCCA was unintentionally covered by the stent graft during this procedure. A pull-through form was created between the left axillary and femoral arteries using a 0.035-inch guide wire. The pull-through guide wire was gently pulled, and the greater curvature of the proximal end of the stent graft was displaced distally. Angiography confirmed restoration of antegrade blood flow into the LCCA. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. Follow-up CT performed 6 months postoperatively confirmed preserved blood flow into the LCCA without endoleak nor stent migration.

CONCLUSION

The pull-through pull-back technique is a feasible troubleshooting strategy for accidental coverage of supra-aortic vessels during TEVAR.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed.

RESULTS

Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.

Endovascular Outcomes in Aortic Arch Repair with Double and Triple Parallel Stent Grafts

PURPOSE

To report early and midterm outcomes of treating thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and aortic dissection (AD) involving zone 1 and zone 0 with multiple parallel stent grafts (PSGs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2011 to August 2018, 31 of 1,806 patients (1.7%) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with double PSGs (DPSGs) (n = 20) or triple PSGs (TPSGs) (n = 11) were retrospectively reviewed. Procedures were performed in high-risk patients who had TAA or AD involving zone 1 or zone 0.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (48.4%) who presented with symptomatic or impending rupture underwent urgent or emergent TEVAR with DPSGs or TPSGs. Nineteen patients (61.3%) were treated for zone 0 disease. Technical and clinical success rates were 70.0% for DPSG cohort and 45.5% for TPSG cohort. Intraoperative type Ia endoleak was observed in 30% of DPSG cohort and 45.5% of TPSG cohort. One patient in the DPSG cohort died of aortic sinus rupture intraoperatively. Minor stroke during the 30-day postoperative period was more frequent in the TPSG cohort (P = .042). Mean duration of follow-up was 28.9 months ± 17.7. The TPSG cohort had a higher incidence of major adverse events (72.7% vs 25.0%, P = .021). The most common adverse events were endoleaks (12.9%), endograft migration (9.7%), PSG stenosis or occlusion (6.5%), retrograde dissection (6.5%), and stroke (3.2%). Endograft migrations were more common in TPSG cohort (27.3%, P = .037). Overall mortality rate was 16.1% (5/31) perioperatively and during follow-up. There were no statistical differences in overall survival and reintervention-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of TEVAR with multiple PSGs for aortic arch repair, TPSGs may have a high risk of major complications.

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?

Long-Term Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Chimney Grafts for Aortic Arch Pathologies: 10 Years of Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the early- and long-term outcomes of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Chimney-Graft technique (ChTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, patients who underwent aortic ChTEVAR technique in our institution were included. Early, mid, and long-term outcomes in this group of patients were evaluated. Patient follow-up data were obtained by imaging follow-up that are routinely performed after 3-6 months following initial surgery and then at yearly intervals.

RESULTS

Aortic arch repair with a ChTEVAR was performed in 54 patients. The 30-day mortality was 18.5% (n = 10). All-cause 30-day mortality was higher in the subgroup of patients operated urgently (33% vs. 14%) without a significant difference (P = 0.141). Permanent neurological deficit (PND) was observed in 15% (8/54 patients); stroke in 11% (6/54), and paraplegia 4% (2/54). During follow-up the primary and primary-assisted chimney-graft patency was 96.8% and 97.8%, respectively. The multivariate analysis identified the age >70 years and the aortic diameter as independent risk factors for elevated mortality during the follow-up (P = 0.015 and 0.001, respectively). The PND was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality (P = 0.014, hazard ratio 13.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7-106.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The ChTEVAR has noninferior results to other open and endovascular aortic arch repair methods with an acceptable long-term survival especially in elective procedures.

Role of Endoluminal Techniques in the Management of Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

In recent guidelines of international societies, the most frequent indication for treatment after chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD) is aneurysmal dilatation. Endovascular repair is recommended in patients with moderate to high surgical risk or with contraindications to open repair. During the last decade, many advances have been made in the field of endovascular techniques and devices. The aim of this article is to address the current status of endoluminal techniques for the management of cTBAD including standard thoracic endovascular repair, new devices, fenestrated and branched abdominal aortic devices and false lumen occlusion techniques.

Various Endoluminal Approaches Available for Treating Pathologies of the Aortic Arch

Open surgical repair of the aortic arch for degenerative aortic disease in an unfit patient is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal techniques have advanced over the last decade. Contemporary endovascular options including a hybrid approach (supra-aortic debranching and aortic stent graft), inner branched endograft, chimney stents, and scallop or fenestrated endografts are being used frequently as an alternative to open surgical arch repair. Understanding of the available endoluminal technology along with careful planning and effective teamwork is required to minimise complications associated with the endoluminal techniques, particularly neurological ones. Custom made techniques are superior to chimney or parallel technology in terms of their complications and durability. Integration of the protective devices such as embolic protection filters into stent design may reduce the risk of poor neurological sequelae. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of these devices.

The Management of Penetrating Aortic Ulcer

Penetrating aortic ulceration (PAU) is part of the spectrum of acute aortic syndromes (AAS), and is defined as an ulcerated intimal disruption due to atherosclerotic disease. PAU may be simple, isolated and asymptomatic, or it may be symptomatic, aneurysmal and extensive; these may progress and lead to rupture. This review aims to evaluate the treatment options for PAU. Treatment options range from radiological surveillance, risk factor modification, best medical therapy and open or endovascular surgical repair. Patients with PAU are frequently older and comorbid with relatively damaged aortic tissue; this can make open surgical repair more challenging. Endovascular repairs for larger, symptomatic, aneurysmal PAU may be performed with acceptable outcomes. Complex endovascular repairs may be required depending on the pathology. Patients with small, asymptomatic, uncomplicated PAU may be safely followed up with surveillance. PAU with concomitant intramural haematoma (IMH) should be closely monitored to observe for resolution or progression following conservative and medical management strategies. PAU is a unique entity and its natural history should be studied independently to better understand appropriate management strategies. This research is currently lacking, and larger studies or registries may be helpful in optimising PAU management.

Endovascular aortic repairs combined with looping-chimney technique for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) combined with looping chimney technique (LCT) for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery.

Methods

Total of 14 patients (mean age 52.86±14.46 years; range, 27–79; 10 men, 4 women) were included in the study from December 2016 to December 2018. Aortic arch pathologies of all patients with insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) were repaired by TEVAR under local anesthesia, before TEVAR, the left common carotid artery (LCCA) was protected by the guiding sheath from the retrograde brachial access, after aortic stent graft deployed, chimney graft was implanted to restore LCCA by LCT if necessary. All patients underwent computed tomography angiograph (CTA) 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery.

Results

Pathology results of 14 patients included: type B aortic dissection (n=8), penetrating aortic ulcers (n=1), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=1), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=2), and thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm (n=2). In all patients, aortic arch lesions were repaired by TEVAR; while LCCA were successfully reconstructed by the LCT. In one case, the innominate artery (IA) was simultaneously reconstructed through the same percutaneous right brachial artery (RBA) access. Coiling eliminated type Ia endoleak in 3 patients, and type II endoleak vanished by plugging left subclavian artery (LSA) in 2 patients. In four patients, the chimney stent (CG) of LCCA was partially compressed and then another bare stent was implanted to restore patency rate. The mean follow-up duration was 9.77±6.64 months (range, 0–24) and no combinations were observed in 13 patients; except in one patient who died of cerebral hemorrhage due to abnormal coagulation function.

Conclusions

TEVAR combined with LCT has shown to be suitable surgical approach for aortic arch lesions. Either covered intentionally or inadvertently, the LCCA could be safely and effectively reconstructed via percutaneous RBA access. Short-term follow-up demonstrated satisfactory morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients; however, longer follow-up is required to assess the effectiveness and durability of this innovative endovascular procedure.

Long-Term Outcome of Chimney Technique Using a Balloon-Expandable Bare-Metal Stent to Preserve Supra-Arch Branches in Type B Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

This study was performed to investigate the long-term effect of chimney technique using balloon-expandable bare-metal stents (BMSs) to preserve the supra-arch branches in type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Fifty patients with TBAD treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the chimney technique (chTEVAR) using balloon-expandable BMSs from July 2009 to December 2013 were retrospectively assessed. Follow-up computed tomography angiography was performed to assess the postoperative outcomes. The primary end point was a persistent type Ia endoleak (ELIa). The secondary endpoints were chimney stent (CS)-based complications (stenosis, occlusion, fracture, or transposition), all-cause mortality, reintervention, and stroke.

RESULTS

Fifty supra-arch branches (left common carotid artery, n = 11; left subclavian artery, n = 39) were preserved via the chimney technique with 50 balloon-expandable BMSs. The technical success rate was 100%. An immediate ELIa was discovered in 9 (18%) patients. The median survival duration during follow-up was 77.3 months. Five (10%) patients had a persistent ELIa; 3 of these patients had an immediate ELIa. Asymptomatic CS-based complications were found in 3 (6%) patients. The all-cause mortality rate was 8% (4/50); 2 deaths were aortic-related deaths. Five (10%) patients underwent a reintervention. During the estimated 36-month survival period, the survival rate, the rate of freedom from persistent ELIa, and the rate of freedom from reintervention were 93.87%, 89.48%, and 95.56%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term outcomes showed that chTEVAR using balloon-expandable BMSs was safe and feasible for preservation of the supra-arch branches. Evaluation of more patients with a longer follow-up period is needed.

Endovascular treatment for aortic arch pathologies: chimney, on-the-table fenestration, and in-situ fenestration techniques

Background

Revascularization of the supra-aortic major branches in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is challenging owing to the complex anatomic configuration of aortic arch pathologies. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of three major techniques—chimney, fenestrated, and in-situ fenestration—for patients with aortic arch pathologies.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed involving 234 patients with aortic arch lesions, who underwent TEVAR with adaptations in technique (chimney, fenestrated, or in-situ fenestration) between January 2016 and December 2017.

Results

One hundred and twenty-six patients underwent the chimney technique (98 single chimneys, 24 double chimneys, and four triple chimneys); one hundred and two patients (102/234) were treated with on-the-table fenestration technique (92 single fenestrations, nine double fenestrations, and one double fenestration plus innominate artery chimney); and the remaining six patients underwent in-situ needle fenestration technique. Overall, indications included aortic dissections (99/234), aortic arch aneurysms (60/234), penetrating aortic ulcers (72/234), and re-interventions (3/234). The technical success rates were 99.6%. There were five cases of early all-cause mortality. The patency rates of overall branches were 99.6%. There were 15 cases with type Ia endoleak—14 in the chimney group (11.1%) and one in the on-the-table fenestration group (1%). Five patients underwent re-interventions. The median follow-up time for all patients was 28 (range, 16–41) months.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that chimney, on-the-table fenestration, and in-situ needle fenestration techniques are feasible, effective, and safe treatment options for aortic arch pathologies with encouraging mid-term results. Long-term durability concerns require further evaluation.

Rescue Snorkel Technique in a Giant Ruptured Aortic Aneurysm With Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Failure

A 67-year-old man was sent to our center because of progressively worsening chest pain. A giant ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm was documented. We performed a successfully rescue snorkel technique for thoracic endovascular aortic repair failure because of type IA endoleak after the first endoprosthesis implantation. The patient was discharged after 6 weeks. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

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.

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.

Mid- and Long-Term Effects of Endovascular Surgery and Hybrid Procedures for Complex Aortic Diseases

Objective

To assess the efficacy and short- and mid-term results of endovascular surgery and hybrid surgical procedures in treatment of complex aortic dissection.

Methods

Clinical data of 90 patients with complex aortic dissection admitted from June 2012 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Among the patients, 60 cases were male and 30 cases were female, and their ages were ranged from 32 to 79, with an average age of 55 years old; different endovascular techniques and/or hybrid procedures were performed in these patients.

Results

Technical success rate was 100% for the entire group of patients. Type I endoleak occurred in 8 patients immediately after stent-graft placement, which in 2 cases disappeared after a proximal Cuff placement, and the other cases received no special treatment. Follow-up was conducted from 1 month to 72 months, with an average of 36.3 months, and no stent-graft migration or organ ischemia was noted. In the follow-up patients, no type I endoleak occurred but type II endoleak was found in 2 cases, which were cured without treatment; no patient had paraplegia.

Conclusion

Endovascular surgery and hybrid procedures have demonstrable mid- and long-term efficacy in treatment of complex aortic diseases. However, this conclusion still requires multicenter, large-sample studies to further confirm.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection with Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with an aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2012 to July 2018, 15 patients (13 male, 2 female) who had TBAD with ARSA underwent total endovascular repair, including thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), left subclavian artery (LSA) chimney technique, LSA fenestration technique, and double chimney technique (LSA chimney and ARSA periscope). The mean age was 55 years. Kommerell diverticulum (KD) occurred in 2 patients, which were covered by means of oversized aortic stents. All patients had preoperative imaging examinations for assessing cerebral blood flow and the dominant vertebral arteries.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed successfully. There was no in-hospital mortality. The mean procedural time was 98 ± 40 minutes (range 50-190). The mean preoperative diameters of the maximum descending aorta, false lumen, and true lumen in the descending aorta versus postoperative were 37 ± 10 mm (range 28-67), 18 ± 9 mm (range 9-41), and 19 ± 6 mm (range 10-35) versus 34 ± 9 mm (range 25-64), 5 ± 8 mm (range 0-28), and 28 ± 5 mm (range 19-37), respectively. Right upper extremity weakness was observed in 2 patients, which recovered gradually during follow-up. Immediate type Ia endoleak was detected in 1 patient. The mean follow-up time was 33 ± 20 months. During follow-up, no ARSA steal syndrome, spinal cord ischemia, or strokes were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment for TBAD with ARSA was feasible and safe with a satisfactory midterm follow-up outcome.

Hybrid Aortic Arch Repairs

Hybrid aortic arch repair (HAAR) consists of thoracic stent-graft repair and procedures to maintain cerebral blood flow. Several hybrid techniques have been used, including arch artery debranching, parallel graft technique, fenestration or branching of endograft, or a combination of these. We provided an overview of HAAR by presenting literature reviews as well as our clinical experience. The experience consisted of 172 patients who had undergone HAAR. The 30-day mortality was 3% (5/172). Persistent neurologic deficits occurred in 7 patients (4%), respiratory failure in 5 (3%), de novo aortic dissection in 3 and spinal cord injury in 2. 17% of the patients experienced type Ia endoleak. Seventeen patients required redo thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Fifty-six late deaths occurred during the follow-up period, including aortic-related death in 9 patients. In conclusion, hybrid arch debranching repair should be performed for elderly or high-surgical-risk patients. However, refining techniques and device technology is likely to reduce late endograft-related events. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2018; 27: 385-391.).

Chimney parallel grafts and thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Whilst the management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury has seen a paradigm shift to an 'endovascular first' approach, the limitations of thoracic endovascular aortic repair remain. An inadequate proximal landing zone limits the use of thoracic aortic stent grafts and in an emergent polytrauma setting, aortic arch debranching via open surgery may not be practical or feasible. A wholly endovascular approach to debranching utilising 'off-the-shelf' stents and parallel graft techniques may represent a possible solution. Hence, we sought to perform a systematic review investigating the use of chimney graft techniques alongside thoracic aortic stenting in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury.

METHODS

We performed the systematic review in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Searches were performed on Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus to identify articles describing the use of chimney grafts in traumatic aortic transection (PROSPERO: CRD42017082549).

RESULTS

The systematic search revealed 172 papers, of which 88 duplicates were removed resulting in 84 papers to screen. Based on title, abstract and full text review, six articles were included for final analysis. There were nine patients in total with an average age of 41 (three females, five males, one unspecified), all with significant polytrauma, secondary to the mechanism of injury. A variety of stents were used between centres, with techniques showing a predominance to stenting of the left subclavian artery (77%, n = 7). The technical success rate was 82%, with two (18%) cases of type 1 endoleaks, of which one resolved spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the encouraging results, this by no means provides for a firm conclusion given the small sample size. Patients should still be judiciously selected on a case-by-case basis when employing the chimney graft technique. Larger cohort studies are needed to establish these findings.