Back-table Modified Aortic Endograft Deployed via "Innominate Bounce" Technique for Management of a Zone 0 Ascending Aortic Pseudoaneurysm

Minimally Invasive Endovascular Repair for Nondissected Ascending Aortic Disease: A Systematic Review

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of endovascular treatment for nondissected diseases of the ascending aorta. Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, and SciELO. Review Methods. In this study, we conducted a search on the PubMed, Embase, and SciELO databases for all cases of ascending aortic endovascular repair included in the literature published between January 2007 and July 2023, excluding type A aortic dissection. We reviewed 56 case reports and 7 observational studies included in this study, assessing the techniques, equipment, procedural steps, and results. We summarized the age, complications, follow-up time, and access route.

Results

This study includes 63 articles reporting 105 patients (mean age: 64.96 ± 17.08 years) who received endovascular repair for nondissected ascending aortic disease. The types of disease include aneurysm (N = 16), pseudoaneurysm (N = 71), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 10), intramural hematoma (N = 2), thrombosis (N = 2), iatrogenic coarctation (N = 1), and rupture of the aorta (N = 3). The success rate of surgery is 99.05% (104/105). Complications include endoleak (10.48%, 11/105), stroke (5.71%, 6/105), postoperative infection (1.91%, 2/105), acute renal failure (0.95%, 1/105), aortic rupture (0.95%, 1/105), thrombosis (0.95%, 1/105), and splenic infarction (0.95%, 1/105). Five patients required conversion to open surgery, two patients underwent endovascular reintervention, and four of these five patients underwent surgery due to endoleak. Early mortality was 2.86% (3/105).

Conclusion

While the viability and results of endovascular repair for the treatment of ascending aortic disease are acknowledged in some circumstances, further research is needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for ascending aortic disease.

Single-Barrel, Double-Barrel, and Fenestrated Endografts to Facilitate Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Large RVOT

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that narrowing the landing zone using commercially available endografts would enable transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) using commercially available transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND

TPVR is challenging in an outsized native or patch-repaired right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). Downsizing the RVOT for TPVR is currently possible only using investigational devices. In patients ineligible because of excessive RVOT size, TPVR landing zones were created using commercially available endografts.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with native or patch-repaired RVOTs and high or prohibitive surgical risk were reviewed, and this report describes the authors' experience with endograft-facilitated TPVR (EF-TPVR) offered to patients ineligible for investigational or commercial devices. All EF-TPVR patients were surgery ineligible, with symptomatic, severe pulmonary insufficiency, enlarged RVOTs, and severe right ventricular (RV) enlargement (>150 ml/m²). TPVR and surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR) were compared in patients with less severe RV enlargement.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients had large RVOTs unsuitable for conventional TPVR; 6 patients (1 surgery ineligible) received investigational devices, and 8 otherwise ineligible patients underwent compassionate EF-TPVR (n = 5 with tetralogy of Fallot). Three strategies were applied on the basis of progressively larger RVOT size: single-barrel, in situ fenestrated, and double-barrel endografts as required to anchor 1 (single-barrel and fenestrated) or 2 (double-barrel) transcatheter heart valves. All were technically successful, without procedure-related, 30-day, or in-hospital deaths. Two late complications (stent obstruction and embolization) were treated percutaneously. One patient died of ventricular tachycardia 36 days after EF-TPVR. Compared with 48 SPVRs, RV enlargement was greater, but 30-day and 1-year mortality and readmission were no different. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was lower after EF-TPVR (3.8 ± 0.8 mm Hg vs. 10.7 ± 4.1 mm Hg; p < 0.001; 30 days). More than mild pulmonary insufficiency was equivalent in both (EF-TPVR 0.0% [n = 0 of 8] vs. SPVR 4.3% [n = 1 of 43]; p = 1.00; 30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

EF-TPVR may be an alternative for patients with pulmonic insufficiency and enlarged RVOTs ineligible for other therapies.