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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.