A Systematic Review of Contemporary Outcomes from Aortic Arch In Situ Laser Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Clinical impact of proximal fixation augmentation using the Najuta thoracic fenestrated stent graft during endovascular treatment for distal aortic arch aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Prevention of late type Ia endoleaks is the main concern in thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm. Since 2017, we have performed zone 0 TEVAR with proximal fixation augmentation using a Najuta thoracic fenestrated stent graft in addition to zone 2 TEVAR for distal arch aneurysms. We report the early and midterm outcomes of TEVAR performed using this strategy.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study enrolled 386 cases of TEVAR for thoracic aortic disease between January 2013 and December 2020. Patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm treated by TEVAR landing at zone 2 was referred to as the standard group, whereas those treated by TEVAR landing at zone 0 using a Najuta fenestrated stent graft in addition to zone 2 TEVAR was referred to as the augmentation group. We retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes between the two groups. The primary end point was secondary intervention for postoperative type Ia endoleaks. Secondary end points were technical success, aneurysm-related death, and major adverse events (MAEs), including stroke, paraplegia, endoleaks, and secondary interventions.

RESULTS

We performed TEVAR in 41 and 30 cases in the standard and augmentation groups, respectively. The mean aneurysm sizes in the standard and augmentation groups were 54.5 and 57.3 mm (P = .23), and the proximal neck lengths were 16.8 and 17.4 mm (P = .65), respectively. The anatomical characteristics seemed to be similar in both groups. The technical success rate in both groups was 100%. Three cases in the standard group had MAEs, including two stroke and one brachial artery pseudoaneurysm; whereas two cases had MAEs in the augmentation group, including one stroke and one paraplegia. There was no 30-day mortality or retrograde type A dissection in both groups. The mean observation periods in the standard and augmentation groups were 46 months (range, 1-123 months) and 35 months (range, 1-73 months), respectively. At 36 and 60 months after the procedure, the freedom from aneurysm-related death was 97.6% and 97.6% in the standard group, 100.0% and 100.0% in the augmentation group (P = .39); and the freedom from reintervention for type Ia endoleaks was 79.2% and 65.2% in the standard group, 100.0% and 100.0% in the augmentation group (P = .0087). A statistically significant decrease in reinterventions for type Ia endoleaks was observed in the augmentation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal fixation augmentation using the Najuta fenestrated stent graft during TEVAR for distal arch aneurysm is effective in preventing the postoperative late type Ia endoleaks.

Predictors of Late Adverse Events in Patients with Surgically Treated Type I Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVE

Residual aortic dissection (AD) following DeBakey type I AD repair is associated with a high rate of adverse events that need additional intervention or surgery. This study aimed to identify clinical and early post-operative computed tomography (CT) imaging factors associated with adverse events in patients with type I AD after ascending aorta replacement.

METHODS

This single centre, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with type I AD who underwent ascending aorta replacement from January 2011 to December 2017 and post-operative CT within three months. The primary outcome was AD related adverse events, defined as AD related death and re-operation due to aortic aneurysm or impending rupture. The location and size of the primary intimal tears, aortic diameter, and false lumen status were evaluated. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with AD related adverse events. A decision tree model was used to classify patients as high or low risk.

RESULTS

Of 103 participants (55.43 ± 13.94 years; 49.5% male), 24 (23.3%) experienced AD related adverse events. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, connective tissue disease (hazard ratio [HR] 15.33; p < .001), maximum aortic diameter ≥ 40 mm (HR 4.90; p < .001), and multiple (three or more) intimal tears (HR 7.12; p < .001) were associated with AD related adverse events. The three year cumulative survival free from AD related events was lower in the high risk group with aortic diameter ≥ 40 mm and multiple intimal tears (41.7% vs. 90.9%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Early post-operative CT findings indicating a maximum aortic diameter ≥ 40 mm and multiple intimal tears may predict a higher risk of adverse events. These findings suggest the need for careful monitoring and more vigilant management approaches in these cases.

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts, at least 3-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total aortic arch repair with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic arch repair combined with a homemade double-fenestrated stent graft from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

74 patients were treated for pathological arch conditions with a double-fenestrated PMEG. Of these, 81% were male, the mean age was 69.9 years, and 59% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiology 3 or 4. Thirty-five percent were treated for a postdissection aneurysm, 36% for a degenerative aneurysm, and 14% for acute type B dissection. Fifteen percent had supra-aortic trunk dissection. Fenestration on the subclavian artery was performed in 96%; if not, a carotid-subclavian bypass was carried out. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone is consistently in zone 0. Early outcomes revealed a 3% occurrence of type 1 endoleak, which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. One retrograde dissection occurred, and one patient died from hemorrhage on an iliac conduit. A 5% stroke rate was reported. During long-term follow-up (mean time 40.7 months), one type 1 endoleak appeared and was successfully treated; no type 2 or type 3 endoleak requiring intervention occurred. No stent fractures or migrations were reported. Four percent of patients required reintervention, but no surgical conversion to open surgical repair was needed on the aortic arch. No patient died from a cause related to the main procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for the main aortic pathologies. Moreover, it is easily available for emergency situations.

The Call for the "Interventional/Hybrid" Aortic Surgeon: Open, Endovascular, and Hybrid Therapies of the Aortic Arch

Aortic arch pathology is relatively rare but potentially highly fatal and associated with considerable comorbidity. Operative mortality and complication rates have improved over time but remain high. In response, aortic arch surgery is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of cardiac surgery in terms of surgical volume and improved outcomes. Moreover, there has been a surge in novel devices and techniques, many of which have been developed by or codeveloped with vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Nevertheless, the extent of arch surgery, the choice of nadir temperature, cannulation, and perfusion strategies, and the use of open, endovascular, or hybrid options vary according to country, centre, and surgeon. In this review article, we provide a technical overview of the surgical, total endovascular, and hybrid repair options for aortic arch pathology through historical developments and contemporary results. We highlight key information for surgeons, cardiologists, and trainees to understand the management of patients with aortic arch pathology. We conclude by discussing training paradigms, the role of aortic teams, and gaps in knowledge, arguing for the need for wire skills for the future "interventional aortic surgeon" and increased research into techniques and novel devices to continue improving outcomes for aortic arch surgery.

Zone 2 Aortic Arch Repair With Single-Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endografts, at Least 3 Years of Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to report the efficiency and safety of single-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in zone 2 aortic arch pathologies with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic repair combined with homemade single-fenestrated stent-graft from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed. The patients with a target vessel different from the left subclavian artery (LSA) were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were treated for a pathological arch in zone 2 with a single-fenestrated PMEG. 73% were male, and the mean age was 65 years old. 25% were treated for a degenerative aneurysm, 19% for a post dissection aneurysm and 24% for an acute type B dissection. 52% of the patients were treated as an emergency and half of those for an aortic rupture. The LSA fenestration was stented in 70%. During 30 days of follow-up, 2 strokes (3%) were reported, 6 patients (10%) died with 4 of those treated for aortic rupture and 1 had a retrograde aortic dissection. During at least 3 years of follow-up (median 49 months), no reintervention was needed for endoleaks, there was no stent fracture or stent migration. No patient died from an aortic cause. Subgroup analysis comparing the endovascular treatment for various aortic pathologies did not find significant differences in death rate or comorbidity including stroke. When comparing emergent and elective aortic repair, operating time was similar (64 vs 65 minutes), and the LSA fenestration was less frequently stented (52%) in the emergency group. There was no difference in stroke frequency. There was a higher rate of death in the emergency group at 30 days of follow-up, but no patient died from aortic cause in the long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch repair with single-fenestrated PMEGs for zone 2 pathological arch disease is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for emergency situations.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Single-fenestrated PMEG for the left subclavian artery is a safe and efficient option in the short and medium term for the treatment of the aortic arch in zone 2 with 98% technical success. It allows for aortic repair and subclavian artery revascularization in a single step for all patients. It is suitable for a range of main pathologies, including degenerative, dissection-related, isthmus rupture, and embolic pathologies. Additionally, it is always available and easily utilized in emergency cases.

Aortic arch endovascular branch and fenestrated repair: Initial Canadian experience with novel technology

Objective

The objective is to describe the initial Canadian experience using novel aortic arch branched endograft technologies.

Methods

We performed a retrospective consecutive case series of all patients undergoing aortic arch branched repair with newly available endograft technology since 2020 at our site. We describe the patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

Eleven patients received arch branched endografts, indicated for penetrating aortic ulcer in seven patients (64%), arch degeneration after prior aortic dissection repair in three (27%), and acute aortobronchial fistula in one patient (9%). Their average age was 72 ± 7 years. Complete arch repair from zone 0 to 4 was performed in six cases (55%); the remaining repairs landed proximally in zones 1 or 2. Seven repairs used a single retrograde facing inner branch (thoracic branch endoprosthesis; W.L. Gore & Associates), three used double antegrade inner branch (Bolton Relay; Terumo Interventional Systems), and one emergent case used double in situ fenestrations. Seven repairs (64%) used an adjunctive extra-anatomic bypass to complete great vessel perfusion, two of which were created during a prior aortic repair. Inferior vena cava balloon inflow occlusion during deployment was used in all cases. No mortalities, transient or permanent spinal cord paralysis, myocardial infarction, dialysis dependence, venous thromboembolism, or bleeding requiring reintervention occurred. No patient undergoing elective arch branch repair experienced a stroke. The one patient undergoing emergent repair did suffer a stroke. The median length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2-8 days). Two endoleaks developed: a type Ia endoleak successfully treated with a Palmaz stent (Cordis) during the index admission, and a type II endoleak with ongoing sac regression on postoperative follow-up. Postoperatively, one patient suffered a suspected aortic graft infection that was treated with lifelong antibiotics. During a mean radiographic follow-up of 7.2 months, no cases of branch vessel instability (ie, no migration, reintervention, arterial rupture, intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, stenosis, or kinking of the branch grafts) developed. Three patients experienced sac regression of >5 mm, and no patient experienced continued postoperative dilation.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported Canadian volume of aortic arch repair using novel branched or fenestrated technology. The series demonstrates that a multidisciplinary program and properly selected patients can yield excellent results using endovascular repair for complex aortic arch pathology.

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.

Left carotid chimney and left subclavian artery laser fenestration for zone 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has become an increasingly used option for treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. Pathology involving the proximal thoracic aorta is more complex and requires revascularization of the subclavian and carotid arteries. We report a case of an arch thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm repaired via a complete endovascular approach using a left carotid chimney and left subclavian artery laser fenestration.

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.