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

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.

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.

Feasibility of Total Endovascular Repair of the Aorta in Patients with Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Morphological Analysis of 119 Patients

(1) Background: This study aimed to morphologically analyze acute type A aortic dissection (aTAAD) patients for potential endovascular treatment candidates. The objective was to specify requirements for aTAAD endovascular devices. (2) Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis included aTAAD patients who underwent open surgical repair between November 2005 and December 2020. Preoperative CTA scans were used for morphological analysis, assessing endovascular repair eligibility. Statistical tests were performed. (3) Results: A total of 129 patients with aTAAD were studied, with 119 included. Entry tear (ET) locations were identified, mainly in the aortic root, 20 mm above the sinotubular junction (STJ) and within the ascending aorta (20 mm above STJ to -20 mm before the brachiocephalic trunk). Endovascular treatment was deemed feasible for 36 patients, with suggested solutions for the aortic arch and descending aorta. Significant differences were observed between eligible and noneligible groups for aortic diameter, false lumen diameter, distance between STJ and entry tear, and more. Dissection extension showed no significant difference. (4) Conclusions: Morphological analysis identified potential aTAAD candidates for endovascular treatment, highlighting differences between eligible and noneligible morphologies. This study offers insights for implementing endovascular approaches in aTAAD treatment and emphasizes the need for research and standardized protocols.

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.

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.

First-in-Human Implantation of Gutter-Free Design Stent-Graft in in situ Fenestration TEVAR for Aortic Arch Pathology

Purpose

To report the technology and preliminary result of gutter-free design stent-grafted in in situ fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Description

The gutter-free stent-graft has a nickel-titanium self-expanding skeleton, double polytetrafluoroethylene coating, and an outer-skirt fabric structure (named C-skirt endograft). The outer skirt fabric prevents endoleak from the gutter around the stent graft fenestration. Further, the skirt structure right under the fenestration in the aortic stent graft can function as a fixation of the side-branch artery endograft. These designs have the following advantages, such as: 1) prevention of endoleak; and 2) fixation tightly between the branch and aorta endograft pieces.

Evaluation

A patient who was diagnosed with an aortic arch aneurysm, combined with localized dissection, has successfully implanted the aortic stent graft and C-skirt endograft for the left subclavian artery. The 6-month follow-up result of the C-skirt in situ fenestration TEVAR is satisfactory without obvious endoleak.

Conclusions

The new gutter-free C-skirt stent graft is being safely and effectively used for aortic arch TEVAR. Long-term evaluation of safety, effectivity, and durability needs to be proven by future multi-center studies.

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.