Postoperative Outcomes of Hybrid Repair in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Aneurysms

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Zone 1-Landing Hybrid TEVAR by Comparing Its Outcomes with Those of Zone 2-Landing Hybrid TEVAR

Background: Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) without median sternotomy is increasingly being performed in high-risk patients with aortic arch disease. The outcomes of hybrid TEVAR were reported to be worse with a more proximal landing zone. This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR by comparing the outcomes of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. Methods: From April 2008 to October 2020, 213 patients (zone 1: zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 82, 38.5%; zone 2: zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 131, 61.5%) were enrolled (median age, 72 years; interquartile range [IQR], 65-78 years), with a median follow-up period of 6.0 years (IQR, 2.8-9.7 years). Results: The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 20.9 ± 14.8%: the logistic EuroSCORE of the zone 1 group (23.3 ± 16.1) was significantly higher than that of the zone 2 group (19.3 ± 12.4%, p = 0.045). The operative time and hospital stay of the zone 1 group were significantly longer than those of the zone 2 group. On the other hand, the in-hospital and late outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. There were no significant differences in cumulative survival (66.8% vs. 78.0% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.074), aorta-related death-free rates (97.6% vs. 99.2% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.312), and aortic event-free rates (81.4% vs. 87.9% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.257). Conclusions: Zone 1- and 2-landing hybrid TEVAR outcomes were satisfactory. Despite the high procedural difficulty and surgical risk, the outcomes of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR were equal to those of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. If the surgical risk is high, zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR should not be avoided.

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.

Effectiveness and Minimal-Invasiveness of Zone 0 Landing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Branched Endograft

Background: Zone 0 landing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch diseases has become a topic of interest. This study aimed to verify whether branced TEVAR (bTEVAR) is an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment by comparing the outcomes of bTEVAR and hybrid TEVAR (hTEVAR) in landing zone 0. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included 54 patients (bTEVAR, n = 25; hTEVAR, n = 29; median age, 78 years; median follow-up period, 5.4 years) from October 2012 to June 2018. The logistic Euro-SCORE was significantly higher in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group (38% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Results: There was no significant difference the in-hospital mortality between the bTEVAR and hTEVAR groups (0% vs. 3.4%, p = 1.00). The operative time (220 vs. 279 min, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days, p = 0.013) were significantly shorter in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group. The 7-year free rates of aorta-related deaths (bTEVAR [95.5%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.390) and aortic reintervention (bTEVAR [86.3%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.638) were not significantly different. Conclusions: The early and mid-term outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. bTEVAR might be superior to hTEVAR in that it is less invasive. Therefore, bTEVAR may be considered an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing

PURPOSE

Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch with zone zero endografting-Case series with review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We present single-institution results of types I and II hybrid procedures for aortic arch disease with 30-day and long-term results and review of the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients that underwent zone 0 endografting and open bypass from ascending aorta to the arch vessels at our institution between January 2013 and 2020. The following data for the systematic review were extracted from eligible studies: 30-day/in-hospital mortality, stroke rate, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate, renal failure requiring dialysis, development of retrograde dissection, early (<30 days) types I and III endoleak, follow-up length, late (>30 days) endoleak, and late (>30 days) mortality.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent hybrid aortic arch treatment in our institution. The most common aortic arch pathology was degenerative aortic aneurysm. The rate of retrograde dissection and SCI was 8.33%. Regarding the literature data, a total of 768 patients undergoing types I and II hybrid aortic arch debranching procedure. The pooled rate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 10.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.21-14.06), SCI pooled rate was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.76%-4.33%), and retrograde dissection pooled rate was 3.22% (95% CI, 1.99-4.72).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid arch techniques provide safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and midterm results.

Long-term results of hybrid aortic arch repair using landing zone 0: a single-centre study

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been gradually extended to the aortic arch region, with improved results. However, the rates of strokes and endoleaks in a hybrid TEVAR remain high. The goal of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing using our treatment strategy.

METHODS

From April 2008 to March 2020, a total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 3.2 years. The procedures included total debranching TEVAR with graft replacement of the ascending aorta in 62 patients, total debranching TEVAR with ascending aorta banding in 19 patients and total debranching TEVAR without ascending aorta banding in 21 patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality and hospital deaths were 1.0% (n = 1) and 3.9% (n = 4), respectively. The rates of aortic complications and endoleaks during the first 30 days postoperatively were 8.8% (n = 9) and 4.9% (n = 5), respectively. There was no type 1a endoleak, whereas retrograde type A dissection occurred in 2 (2.0%) patients. The rate of late aortic events was 3.9% (n = 4); there were no late endoleaks or aneurysm ruptures. The 10-year survival rate was 73.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3-83.8%]. The 10-year rates of aorta-related deaths and aortic events when performing a competitive-risk analysis were 29.4% (95% CI 16.3-42.5%) and 7.2 (95% CI 23.0-51.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory early and long-term results of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing were achieved using our treatment strategy. When performing hybrid TEVAR in zone 0, postoperative aortic events may be reduced by accurate preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysms with the Najuta Thoracic Stent-Graft System

Objective: The treatment for arch aneurysms by endovascular repair is often difficult. This study evaluated the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch aneurysms treated with the Najuta stent-graft system.

Materials and Methods: From January 2009 to December 2019, 37 patients underwent treatment for aortic aneurysms with the Najuta stent graft system at two institutes, including our hospital. We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

Results: Of all 37 cases, the technical success rate was 97.3% (36 of 37). The mean proximal neck length was 20.1±5.3 mm. The postoperative results revealed 10 patients with type Ia endoleaks (27.8%), 6 with stroke (16.7%), and one with paraplegia (2.8%). In the chronic phase, the overall survival rates and the rates of freedom from aorta-related events at 7 years were 71.3% and 50.7%, respectively. Between two groups divided based on the proximal neck diameter of 20 mm, the <20-mm group had significantly higher rates of aorta-related events in terms of freedom from aortic events (P=0.046).

Conclusion: The fenestrated stent graft can be a less invasive option for the treatment of high-risk patients with aortic aneurysms.

Follow-up results of aortic arch cervical debranching performed with the help of a temporary crossover external carotid artery bypass for cerebral protection followed by endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

Treating aortic arch aneurysms with conventional open surgical and endovascular stent graft procedures is challenging due to the complex anatomy of the arch and the arteries arising from it that nourish the brain. Cerebral protection is of the utmost importance during the treatment of thoracic aneurysms involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

Between May 2014 and November 2018, 7 patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms involving the aortic arch who underwent aortic arch cervical debranching with our technique were reviewed retrospectively. Because all the patients being considered for conventional surgical aortic arch replacement had serious comorbidities, they were selected to receive hybrid therapy. The mean age of the patients was 71.2 ± 9.4 years. One patient was a woman and 6 patients were men. One patient was given general anaesthesia; the remaining 6 patients had a regional block. A crossover temporary bypass was performed between the external carotid arteries with a 6-mm polytetrafluoroethylene graft for cerebral protection in all patients. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was successfully performed in all patients except 1 following debranching.

RESULTS

Neurological complications did not occur during the procedures. Patients were followed for a mean of 18.3 ± 4.9 months. One female patient died of exacerbating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease within the first follow-up year. Three other patients died: 1 died of natural causes; 1 died of pneumonia followed by multiorgan failure; and 1 died of myocardial infarction during the mid-term follow-up period. The remaining patients are still being followed and are event free.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic diseases involving the aortic arch is facilitated when the aortic arch is debranched. Our cerebral protection method with a temporary crossover bypass between the external carotid arteries provides continuous pulsatile blood flow to the brain; hence, neurologically, it is a reliable procedure. The follow-up results of the patients who underwent aortic arch cervical debranching followed by TEVAR depended on their comorbidities.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Anaesthetic management in endovascular total aortic arch repair via needle-based in situ fenestration: a case series of 14 patients

Objective

Endovascular total aortic arch repair (ETAAR) via needle-based in situ fenestration (ISF) is a major challenge for anaesthesiologists because of haemodynamic instability and the risk of cerebral hypoxia. We herein summarise our experience with anaesthetic management of patients who underwent this procedure.

Methods

Fourteen patients who underwent ETAAR via ISF for arch pathologies involving the major supra-arch branches were included. Regional cerebral oxygen saturation was measured to monitor cerebral perfusion. Partial extracorporeal circulation (EC) support from the right common femoral vein to the right axillary artery was introduced to provide cerebral perfusion.

Results

During ISF, vessel rupture occurred in three patients and ventricular fibrillation occurred in one patient. The regional cerebral oxygen saturation significantly decreased during the potential risk period for cerebral ischaemia. Establishment of EC effectively prevented cerebral ischaemia.

Conclusions

During ETAAR, the risks of haemodynamic instability caused by the procedure and vessel rupture during ISF need to be overcome. Partial EC ensured good cerebral protection in our study, and regional cerebral oxygen saturation monitoring may help to reduce the rate of desaturation.

Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair Using a Ministernotomy

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair with surgical arch debranching is an accepted method for total arch reconstruction. Although off-pump arch debranching is increasingly used as a prophylactic adjunct to endovascular arch repair extending into landing zone 0, this technique is seldom performed with a ministernotomy due to a steep learning curve among surgeons. Herein, we report our standard technique for off-pump hybrid total aortic arch repair using a ministernotomy.

Transapical Deployment of Thoracic Stent Graft for Ascending Aorta Coronary Bypass Pseudoaneurysm in a Patient with Prosthetic Aortic Valve

The authors describe the transapical deployment of a thoracic endograft to exclude a saphenous vein graft proximal anastomotic pseudoaneurysm following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a 63-year-old male with a prosthetic aortic valve. A standard thoracic endograft has been deployed via transapical access after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of the native vessel perfused by the patent CABG. The procedure was uneventful; an 8-month computed tomography scan showed complete exclusion of the pseudoaneurysm with patency of supra-aortic trunks.

Quantitative evaluation of blood flow in each cerebral branch associated with zone 1-2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

Optimal methods to quantitatively evaluate the blood flow in each cerebral artery after zone 1-2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the differences between preoperative and postoperative cerebral artery blood flows after zone 1-2 debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR).

METHODS

Between January 2016 and August 2018, a prospective analysis of the blood flow in both the internal carotid artery and the vertebral artery in 16 patients before and after zone 1-2 dTEVAR was conducted. Zone 1 dTEVAR with right axillary artery-left common carotid artery-left axillary artery (RAxA-LCCA-LAxA) bypass was performed on 7 patients. Zone 2 dTEVAR was performed on 9 patients: 4 underwent RAxA-LAxA bypass and 5 underwent LCCA-LAxA bypass. Quantitative magnetic resonance angiography was performed before and after zone 1-2 dTEVAR.

RESULTS

Total intracranial blood flow was preserved postoperatively [The median (interquartile range) preoperatively vs postoperatively: 621 (549-686) vs 638 (539-703) ml/min, not significant]. The anterior [469 (400-504) vs 475 (404-510) ml/min, not significant] and posterior cerebral blood flows [157 (121-199) vs 163 (123-210) ml/min, not significant] were also maintained postoperatively. In the 3 debranching procedures, the postoperative anterior and posterior cerebral blood flows were maintained at rates similar to preoperative rates, with the proportion of anterior and posterior cerebral circulations reaching almost 75% and 25%, respectively. No significant differences between preoperative and postoperative distributions of internal carotid artery blood flows were observed. Regarding vertebral artery blood flows, the distribution of blood flow through the left vertebral artery was significantly lower postoperatively than preoperatively; however, the postoperative right vertebral artery blood flow distribution significantly increased compared with the preoperative flow.

CONCLUSIONS

In zone 1-2 dTEVAR, total intracranial blood flow was preserved postoperatively, and the postoperative anterior and posterior cerebral circulations were maintained at rates similar to their preoperative rates.

Long-term stroke incidence in proximal thoracic aorta aneurysm survivors

BACKGROUND

Aneurysm of proximal thoracic aorta (pTAA) is an often indolent, yet fatal disease. Although advancements in aneurysmal repair techniques have increased long-term survival rates, studies have proven that there are increases in perioperative risk for stroke incidence after pTAA surgery. Conversely, there is little evidence regarding the long-term stroke incidence in pTAA individuals, which strongly influences the morbidity, mortality, and usage of antithrombotic agents.

METHODS

Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, a nationwide population-based cohort, we recruited 3013 pTAA survivors hospitalized from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2012. To ensure study cohort quality, only patients aged 20 years and above who underwent aneurysmal repair surgery are included. The control cohort is identified by matching background features (comorbidities, age, gender) at a 1:4 ratio through the use of frequency matching. The primary outcomes include incidence of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage one month after aneurysmal repair surgery.

RESULTS

The mortality of pTAA survivors is nearly twice of the matched controls despite aneurysmal repair (28.5 % vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001). Long-term follow-up of participants indicated that pTAA survivors had a higher risk for hemorrhage stroke (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.47-2.53), but no significant increase in risk for ischemic stroke (aHR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.25). Hemorrhagic stroke occurrence was found to be associated with age and diabetes mellitus. Comparison on hemorrhagic stroke subtypes between study and matched cohorts showed no statistical differences in intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the advancement of aneurysmal repair surgery, this study suggests that pTAA patients may still face an increased risk of hemorrhage stroke. Further investigation is warranted to provide better long-term care for the pTAA population.

Endovascular Treatment Options for the Aortic Arch

Endovascular aortic repair to treat aortic arch abnormality has rapidly expanded in the last 2 decades, and surgeons now have options to treat patients who are poor candidates for open surgery. The devices and techniques should be tailored to the extension of the aortic abnormality and anatomy of the individual. Recent studies demonstrate promising results with branched endografts, but one of the major drawbacks of the devices is that considerable time is required to prepare the custom-made graft, which may not be available for emergent or urgent cases. Introduction of commercially available devices is forthcoming.

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Zone zero hybrid arch exclusion versus open total arch replacement

Open total aortic arch replacement is one of the most technically demanding operations in cardiothoracic surgery, requiring operator expertise and intraoperative and postoperative teamwork. Despite current advancements in the field of open aortic surgery with regard to intraoperative brain protection and postoperative care, the morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch operations varies. Endovascular and hybrid procedures involving the use of zone 0 as a landing zone allow fair comparison between open total arch and hybrid operations. Hybrid procedures involving all of the other landing zones [1-4] should not be compared with open total arch replacement, as the extent of the pathology is different.

Debranching aortic surgery

Conventional open surgery still remains as the gold standard of care for aortic arch and thoracoabdominal pathology. In centers of excellence, open repair of the arch has been performed with 5% immediate mortality and a low rate of complications; however overall mortality rates are around 15%, being up to 40% of all patients rejected for treatment due to their age or comorbidities. For thoracoabdominal aortic pathology, data reported from centers of excellence show immediate mortality rates from 5% to 19%, spinal cord ischemia from 2.7% to 13.2%, and renal failure needing dialysis from 4.6% to 5.6%. For these reasons, different alternatives that use endovascular techniques, including debranching procedures, have been developed. The reported results for hybrid debranching procedures are controversial and difficult to interpret because series are retrospective, heterogenic and including a small number of patients. Clearly, an important selection bias exists: debranching procedures are performed in elderly patients with more comorbidities and with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms that have more complex and extensive disease. Considering this fact, debranching procedures still remain a useful alternative: for aortic arch pathology debranching techniques can avoid or reduce the time of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) or cardiac arrest which may be beneficial in high-risk patients that otherwise would be rejected for treatment. And compared to pure endovascular techniques, they can be used in emergency cases with applicability in a wide range of anatomies. For thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, they are mainly useful when other lesser invasive endovascular options are not feasible due to anatomical limitations or when they are not available in cases where delaying the intervention is not an option.