Editor's Choice – Subsequent Results for Arch Aneurysm Repair with Inner Branched Endografts,

Deep Circulatory Arrest and Left Thoracotomy Approach Allow Open Repair of Chronic IIIb Dissection Associated to a Large Aortic Arch: A Case Series

Thoracic aortic aneurysms evolving within a type IIIb chronic aortic dissection are mostly treated with the deployment of an endograft. However, several cases of dissecting aneurysms are associated with a significant dilatation of the aortic arch. These cases are usually managed in 2 steps: arch reconstruction or supra-aortic trunk debranching at first and a secondary graft deployment for the descending thoracic aorta. We present through this case series an alternative approach for this severe condition which consists in the replacement of the thoracic aorta from its hemi-arch to the distal thoracic or visceral aorta using a left thoracotomy. We deliberately neglected the remaining dissecting aorta if its diameter was below 45 mm, hypothesizing its nonevolution after repair. From 2012 to 2021, 9 patients have been treated for a thoracic aneurysm evolving after a IIIb chronic aortic dissection using a left thoracotomy and a 19°C circulatory arrest. Immediate postoperative results show no mortality or neurological disorders, and the 7 years follow-up for all of these 9 cases enlightened the absence of aneurysmal evolution especially for the distal anastomosis and the remaining dissected aorta. This work suggests that this direct approach strategy can definitively treat a thoracic dissecting aneurysm unsuitable for a simple endovascular treatment.

What is the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone of the Stent Graft in Treatment of Aortic Type B Dissection?

PURPOSE

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) represents a serious complication of endovascular treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To avoid RTAD, it is recommended to land the proximal end of the stent graft in a non-dissected aortic segment. In this study, we investigated whether landing in the dissection area increased the number of events at the proximal site.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of endovascular treatments for TBAD at a single institution between 2009 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: group A, with a proximal landing zone entirely within the dissected area, and group B, with the proximal extent of the seal zone in the non-dissected area. We evaluated the occurrence of proximal events, including RTAD, and examined long-term outcomes to assess the validity of landing in the dissection area.

RESULTS

The study included eighty-nine patients who underwent endovascular treatment for TBAD. New intimal tears in the proximal landing site occurred in 3 cases (3.4%), with 1 case (2%) in group A and 2 cases (5.1%) in group B, showing no significant difference. Among the three cases, one (1.1%) in group B with zone 2 landing resulted in RTAD. At 60 months, the overall survival was 85%, and freedom from aorta-related mortality was 88%, with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Even if the proximal landing is in a dissected area, a treatment strategy performed in zone 3 without proximal landing in zone 2, seeking a non-dissected area, can still provide sufficient therapeutic effects. Level of Evidence 3 Retrospective single-center cohort analysis.

Physician Modified Fenestrated Endografts for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair in Zone 0

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study aimed to assess the early and midterm outcomes of physician modified fenestrated endografts (PMEGs) for endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2022, a retrospective study was conducted in three centres of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0 with PMEGs. Endpoints included technical success, 30 day mortality rate, major adverse events, secondary interventions, stent stability, target vessel patency, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients (mean age 63 years; 45 males) with aortic arch pathology were included, comprising aortic dissections (n = 32; 59%) and aortic arch aneurysms (n = 22; 41%). Technical success was 98%. One patient died from stroke within 30 days. Major adverse events included stroke (n = 4; 7%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (n = 3; 6%), and acute kidney injury (n = 2; 4%). During a median follow up of 12 months, there were two deaths (4%) of unknown cause at one month and 1.5 months, and no aortic related death. Type Ia, type Ic, and type IIIc endoleaks were observed in two (4%), three (6%), and two (4%) patients, respectively. No vessel stenosis was observed. Re-intervention was required in 10 patients (19%). Estimates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at one year were 94.2% (standard error [SE] 3.3%), 81.8% (SE 6.0%), and 92.0% (SE 4.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the efficacy of PMEGs for zone 0 endovascular aortic arch repair, with acceptable technical success and mortality rates. Stroke, RTAD, and re-intervention rates remain a concern for endovascular therapy. A larger population and long term outcomes are required to assess the safety and durability of this technique as a beneficial choice for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialised centres.

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.

Proximal sealing in the aortic arch for inner curve disease using the Custom Relay scalloped and fenestrated stent graft

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc.) in 10 Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary end points were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events, deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (ELs) and retrograde aortic dissection.

RESULTS

During the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The proximal landing zone was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) owing to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III EL were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, or retrograde dissection. Three minor strokes (6.1%) (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 ± 21.3 months the rate of types I to III ELs and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) from nonaortic causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

Endovascular reconstruction of the aortic arch with new-generation dual-branch and triple-branch endograft: design, applicability, indications, outcomes, and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Repair of aortic arch pathologies such as degenerative aneurysms and dissections still represents a significant challenge for vascular and cardiac surgeons. We focused on the design, evolution, implementation, and prospects of endovascular dual branch technology for treatment of pathologies in the aortic arch.

AREAS COVERED

The literature search was conducted in a non-systematic fashion through the PubMed and Scopus databases; articles deemed relevant to the scope of the work and fully published in English language from January 12,000 until December 2023 were considered for inclusion. Two companies so far have developed and launched in market a dedicated arch dual branch platform: Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical.

EXPERT OPINION

A common limitation to the available technology is represented by the fact that urgent cases (i.e. large or rapidly growing aneurysms, symptomatic patients) cannot be treated because the customization process generally takes between 6 and 8 weeks, and there is an inherent risk for aorta-related adverse events to happen during the waiting time. While the future holds much promise, several technical hurdles still exist and further developments (in device design, operators' skills, patients' selection, and outcomes assessment) are needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of treatment particularly over the long-run.

Selective cerebral extracorporeal circulation-enhanced total endovascular arch replacement using in situ fenestration

In this article, we present a newly designed cerebral perfusion technique during the in situ fenestration procedure with three covered stent placement in an endovascular total aortic arch repair of a 68-year-old male patient. This technique enables the endovascular repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch pathologies with commonly available thoracic aorta stent grafts in a safer and more effective manner.

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.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using In Situ Laser Fenestration

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to present single-center outcomes in patients treated with in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair (LFTEVAR) for various aortic arch pathologies and assess the impact of increasing experience.

METHODS

The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected single aortic center data was conducted, including baseline information and peri- and post-operative outcomes of consecutive patients managed with LFTEVAR for aortic arch pathologies. Patients were enrolled from April 1, 2017 to January 31, 2023. The cohort was dichotomized to compare early (2017-2019) and late experience (2020-2023). Primary outcomes were peri-operative mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included (63.3% males, mean age 69.8±9.6 years); 21.4% presented with aortic ruptures. Aortic aneurysm involving the aortic arch was the most frequent pathology (53.3%). Forty target vessels (TVs) were revascularized, including 19 left subclavian arteries (47.5%) and 17 left common carotid arteries (42.5%). Double fenestrations were performed in 10 patients. The proximal landing zone was Ishimaru zone 0 in 5 patients (16.7%) and zone 1 in 13 patients (43.3%). Technical success was 93%. No spinal cord ischemia was recorded, and 3 patients (10%) suffered a post-operative stroke, of which 1 was major (3.3%). The median follow-up was 12 months (range=1-48 months). Thirty-day and follow-up mortality rates were 13.5% and 15.3%, respectively. Target vessel instability was 10%, of which 3.8% required reintervention. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the early and late experience groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the aortic arch performed in experienced aortic centers is associated with low early mortality and stroke rates. It is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Custom-made devices for arch pathologies requiring urgent repair are not an option because of manufacturing delays. Off-the-shelf devices with single branch arch prostheses, and outside IFU techniques such as parallel-grafts and surgeon-modified endografts have been proposed in this setting. Another off-the-shelf alternative is in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular repair (LFTEVAR), which addresses many limitations of the other off-the-shelf options. Our study reports the outcomes of 30 patients treated with LFTEVAR, showing that it is a viable therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair acknowledging that sufficient experience with complex endovascular aortic repair is mandatory to achieve acceptable outcomes in these high-risk patients with challenging aortic anatomies.

Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up.

RESULTS

Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.

CONCLUSION

F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.

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.

Assessment of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Relay Proximal Scallop: Results of a French Prospective Multicentre Study

OBJECTIVE

A proximal scallop design allows aortic arch repair without complex endovascular manipulation in the aortic arch. The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy at one year of the Relay proximal scallop stent graft.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study evaluated consecutive patients treated with the Relay proximal scallop stent graft in 10 French aortic centres. All consecutive patients eligible for elective thoracic endovascular repair with proximal scallop in the 10 participating centres between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Primary endpoints were 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) rates. Outcomes including safety and efficacy, technical and clinical success, all cause death, neurological events, vessel patency, and device specific complications were analysed. Survival and survival without severe complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Ten aortic centres treated 40 patients for thoracic aortic aneurysm (45%), penetrating atherosclerotic aneurysm (30%), and dissection (25%). Half of the procedures (50%) targeted zone 0 of the aortic arch (zone 0 in 17.5% and zones 0/1 in 32.5%), 37.5% targeted zone 2 (35% zone 2 alone; 2.5% zones 1/2), and 15% targeted zone 1 (12.5% zone 1 alone). Median follow up was one year. Thirty day mortality, stroke, and SCI rates were 10%, 5%, and 0% respectively. Primary technical success was 95%. Type Ia, Ib, and III endoleaks rates were 5.4%, 0%, and 0% respectively at one month. The overall mortality rate at one year was 17.5%. Aneurysm expansion was > 5 mm in one case at one year associated with type Ia endoleak (3%). There was no supra-aortic trunk thrombosis, one (2%) graft kink, and no migration.

CONCLUSION

One year outcomes showed that the Relay proximal scallop stent graft is an acceptable answer to thoracic aortic disease to deal with short proximal landing zones.

Urgent endovascular mycotic aortic arch aneurysm repair using in situ laser fenestration and selective arterial perfusion with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

In recent years, mycotic aortic aneurysms have been increasingly treated successfully by endovascular means. The introduction of custom-made fenestrated and branched devices, parallel graft techniques, and in situ fenestration has enabled total endovascular treatment also for arch pathologies. We describe a total endovascular repair of a mycotic arch aneurysm with in situ laser fenestration using venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to preserve flow to vital organs.

Physician-Modified Endografts for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Pathologies Involving the Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive patients with thoracic aortic pathologies treated by PMEGs between February 2018 and May 2022. Data on baseline characteristics, operative procedure, and follow-up information were collected. The endpoints included technical success, complications, mortality, overall survival, re-intervention, and target vessel instability.

RESULTS

This study comprised 173 patients (mean age=58±13, range=28-83, 148 men) with thoracic aortic pathologies, including 44 thoracic aortic aneurysms, 113 aortic dissections (9 type A, 4 residual type A, 75 type B, 32 non-A non-B), 3 aortic intramural hematomas, and 13 penetrating aortic ulcers. Thirty-five of the patients had PMEGs with 3 fenestrations, 32 had 2 fenestrations, and 106 had 1 single fenestration. Technical success was 98% (170/173), and the 30-day mortality was 2% (3/173). Perioperative complications included stroke (n=3, 2%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD; n=3, 2%) and renal injury (n=3, 2%). Seven deaths (4%) were noted during a median follow-up of 11 (range=1-52) months. Eleven cases of re-intervention were stent-related. There were 5 type Ia endoleaks (3%), 2 type III endoleaks (1%) from the innominate artery (IA), and 3 type Ic endoleaks (2%) from the left subclavian arteries. One case of IA stent-graft (SG) stenosis was noted because of mural thrombus. Estimate rates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at 2 years were 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=88.7%-98.1%), 80.7% (95% CI=73.3%-88.1%), and 89.0% (95% CI=80.4%-97.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-modified endografts showed promising immediate therapeutic results in the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch. Our study demonstrates that the technique is feasible and produces acceptable results. Long-term outcomes are required for further refinement of this technical approach to confirm technical success and durability over time as a valuable option for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialized centers.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Our short- and mid-term outcomes of physician-modified endografts in 173 patients showed promising results compared to other branched/fenestrated techniques and backed up the endovascular repair of the aortic arch. Meanwhile, the technical expertise pointed out in our manuscript, including preloaded guidewire, diameter-reducing wire and inner mini-cuffs, provided reference and technical guidance for our peers. Most importantly, it demonstrated that the PMEG, as a device whose components were all commercially available, might be a better option for emergency surgery and for centers who had no access to custom-made devices.

Hybrid Technique Outcomes for High-Risk Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection With Landing Zone 1

In this report, we analyzed the outcomes of the hybrid technique for high-risk uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with landing zone 1. We enrolled 80 patients from January 2016 to January 2020 and retrospectively analyzed their outcomes, including mortality, aortic-related adverse events, and aortic remodeling. The mean age was 51.6 ± 9.9 years, and 68.0% (54 of 80) were men. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases (80 of 80), and 30-day mortality was 4% of patients (n = 3), including 2 dissection-related deaths. Immediate endoleaks occurred in 16 patients, including 11 type Ia and 5 type II. Four patients (5%) developed minor strokes postoperatively, and no short-term spinal cord ischemia and re-intervention occurred. The average length of stay was 20 ± 8 days. The overall mortality was 8% after a median follow-up of 44 months (38 to 52). Five patients (7%) developed strokes, and 11 (16%) had late endoleaks, including 1 type Ia, 5 type Ib, and 3 type II. Four re-interventions (5%) were necessary, 3 for endoleaks and 1 for retrograde type A dissection. Three bypass graft occlusions (5%) and 5 stoma stenoses (8%) were observed in the latest follow-up computed tomography. In conclusion, the hybrid technique with landing zone 1 might be a viable alternative to open aortic arch replacement in patients at high risk with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with acceptable early and late outcomes. However, stroke and endoleak complications should be further addressed.

Endovascular arch repair of anastomotic aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm in patients after open repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch: a case series

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate the outcomes of branched endovascular arch repair (b-TEVAR) with a custom-made double- or triple-branched arch endograft in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients with anastomotic aneurysms after open surgical repair involving the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch treated with b-TEVAR. All patients were treated with a custom-made double or triple inner-branched arch endograft. Study end points were technical success, 30-day and follow-up mortality/morbidity and re-interventions.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 10 patients were treated with custom-made double- or triple-branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending aorta and/or proximal aortic arch replacement. Eight patients received a triple and 2 a double arch-branched endograft. Eight cases were performed electively and 2 urgently for contained rupture. Technical success was achieved in 9 cases (90%). All elective patients survived. Two patients treated due to contained ruptures expired. Within 30 postoperative days, 1 transient ischaemic attack occurred. No early endograft-related re-interventions were necessary. The median follow-up was 20 months. One patient died 2 months after discharge due to sepsis caused by pneumonia. No further deaths or endograft-related re-interventions were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch repair with double or triple inner-branched arch endograft for anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending and/or proximal arch replacement is technically feasible and a promising alternative in a patient cohort unfit for surgery.

Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter heart interventions

Stroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with the incidence of clinically apparent stroke seemingly fixed at around 3% despite TAVR's significant evolution during the past decade. Embolic showers of debris (calcium, atheroma, valve material, foreign material) are captured in the majority of patients who have TAVR using a filter-based cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD). Additionally, in systematic brain imaging studies, the majority of patients receiving TAVR exhibit new cerebral lesions. Mechanistic studies have shown reductions in the volume of new cerebral lesions using CEPDs, yet the first randomised trial powered for periprocedural stroke within 72 hours of a transfemoral TAVR failed to meet its primary endpoint of showing superiority of the SENTINEL CEPD. The present review summarises the clinicopathological rationale for the development of CEPDs, the evidence behind these devices to date and the emerging recognition of cerebral embolisation in many non-TAVR transcatheter procedures. Given the uniqueness of each of the various CEPDs under development, specific trials tailored to their designs will need to be undertaken to broaden the CEPD field, in addition to evaluating the role of CEPD in non-TAVR transcatheter heart interventions. Importantly, the cost-effectiveness of these devices will require assessment to broaden the adoption of CEPDs globally.

Endovascular aortic arch repair: A comparison of outcomes and current trends

OBJECTIVE

Application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to the aortic arch has been met with the development of purpose-made endoprostheses for on-label use in the aortic arch. An appraisal of the clinical efficacy of each major device is therefore useful towards informing clinical decision making for patients eligible for endovascular arch repair (EAR) rather than open surgical reconstruction.

METHODS

A literature review of publications outlining clinical experience with the RELAY™ Branched and Zenith™ devices was undertaken, and the results therefrom analysed to evaluate the clinical efficacies of each device.

RESULTS

Early- and long-term mortality rates associated with EAR appear favourable, especially compared against open surgical repair. EAR is also associated with good neurological outcomes and target vessel patency rates. However, EAR continues to be associated with substantial reintervention rates.

CONCLUSIONS

At the present stage, EAR represents a promising alternative option to open surgical reconstruction in patients that meet its eligibility criteria. Though there remains a substantial learning curve associated with EAR, its favourable outcome profile is likely to increase its applicability in the future.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.

CONCLUSION

Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

Avoiding Stroke in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: JACC Review Topic of the Week

As the bottleneck of endovascular aortic arch repair, early postoperative stroke remains a devastating complication in high-risk patients and a critical concern for the development of optimal endovascular techniques and devices. The incidence of early postoperative stroke varies widely among currently available endovascular techniques and devices, with reported rates ranging from 0.0% to 42.9%, and is significantly influenced by the severity of the patient's preexisting aortic atherosclerotic burden, air released from the endovascular device, and a variety of factors leading to cerebral perfusion insufficiency. Currently, preidentification of high-risk patients and careful perioperative management appear to play a critical role in reducing stroke incidence. Specific intraoperative prevention methods are still lacking, but embolic protection devices and carbon dioxide or high-volume saline flushing of endovascular devices appear promising. Detailed preoperative stroke risk stratification and screening for optimal endovascular techniques and devices for aortic arch treatment are unmet clinical needs.

Endovascular Options for the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - A Scoping Review

The gold standard for aneurysmal repair of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has been open surgery with an established track record of good results in suitable patients. In recent years, with innovations in the endovascular field alternative endovascular solutions for pathologies of the aortic arch and ascending aorta became available. At first reserved only for highly selected patients unfit for open surgery, endovascular aortic arch repair is now being offered to patients with suitable anatomy in high volume referral centers after discussion in an interdisciplinary team. The present scoping review aims at providing an overview on indications, available devices, technical aspects and feasibility studies of endovascular arch repair both in elective and emergent situations, including also experiences and considerations from our center.

Common Designs of Custom-Made Fenestrated Arch Devices and Applicability of an Off-the-Shelf Design

OBJECTIVES

To analyze device designs, similarities and overlaps of custom-made fenestrated arch endografts intended for mid/distal arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study analyzing custom-made anonymized graft plans was performed. Graft plans were included from a cohort of mid/distal aortic arch repairs using custom-made fenestrated aortic endografts treated at 8 centers. Grafts targeting >2 arteries were excluded. No patient/clinical data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed followed by an analysis of overlap of the designs to reach a common design in which the greatest number of grafts would overlap.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one graft plans were included. All grafts were custom-made grafts from the COOK Medical Fenestrated arch platform. Ninety-four (71.8%) had a scallop-and-single-fenestration design, 33 (25.2%) had a single fenestration and 4 (4.3%) a single scallop. For analysis purposes, these latter 4 grafts were excluded. Two main graft plans (Plans 1 and 2) were proposed after analysis with similar configuration (1 scallop with 30 mm width, 20 mm height, 12:00 position; 1 preloaded fenestration with 8 mm diameter, 26 mm from the top of the graft and 12:00 position; tapered, with a 193 mm length and 32 mm distal diameter) but with 2 different proximal diameters of 38 mm (Plan 1) and 44 mm (Plan 2), reaching an overall feasibility of 85.8% (n=109), being 47.2% (n=60) and 38.6% (n=49) for each design, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) graft designs was high. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In a multicenter study analyzing 127 fenestrated aortic arch endograft plans from 9 aortic centers, we found that the degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped arch graft designs was high and that 2 proposed graft designs would be theoretically applicable in 85.8% of cases. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

Mid-term outcomes of left subclavian artery revascularization with Castor stent graft in treatment of type B aortic dissection in left subclavian artery

Background

Here we analyzed mid-term data of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) surgery with Castor single-branched stent graft placement for the management of Stanford type B aortic dissection (STBAD) involving the left subclavian artery (LSA).

Methods

Between April 2014 and February 2019, 32 patients with STBAD involving a Castor single-branched stent graft were included. We analyzed their outcomes, including technical success rate (TSR), surgical duration (SD), presence of ischemia, perioperative complications, LSA patency, and survival rate (SR), using computed tomography angiography and clinical evaluation during mid-term follow-up.

Results

The mean patient age was 54.63 ​± ​12.37 years (range, 36-83 years). The TSR was 96.88% (n ​= ​31/32). The mean SD was 87.44 ​± ​10.89 with a mean contrast volume of 125.31 ​± ​19.30 ​mL. No neurological complications or deaths occurred during the study period. The patients had a mean hospital stay of 7.84 ​± ​3.20 days. At a mean follow-up of 68.78 ​± ​11.26 months, four non-aortic deaths (12.5%) were observed. The LSA patency rate was 100% (n ​= ​28/28). There was only one case of type I endoleak immediately after surgery (3.12%) (type I from LSA). However, none of the patients experienced type II endoleaks, and there were no cases of retrograde type A aortic dissection or stent graft-driven new distal entry. Finally, all patients exhibited good LSA patency.

Conclusion

TEVAR using a Castor single-branched stent graft may be a highly feasible and efficient procedure for the management of STBAD involving the LSA.

Anatomical feasibility of an endovascular aortic arch repair with the NEXUS endograft in patients treated with a frozen elephant trunk procedure for aortic arch pathology

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an endovascular repair, using the NEXUS™ Aortic Arch Stent Graft System, in a real-world cohort of patients, treated with a Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) procedure for pathology involving the aortic arch.

RESULTS

The preoperative computed tomography angiography scans of 37 patients were retrospectively analyzed using a dedicated workstation. In total, seven patients (N = 7/37; 18.9%) were eligible for endovascular repair. This number increased to eleven patients (N = 11/37; 29.7%) if an additional relining of the distal aorta would be performed. Device suitability was 47.1% in patients (N = 8/17; 47.1%) with aortic arch aneurysm, 12.5% (N = 1/8; 12.5%) in patients with an acute Stanford type A dissection and 50% (N = 2/4; 50%) in patients with Crawford type II thoraco-abdominal aneurysm. The stent graft was not suitable for any of the two patients with chronic type B dissection (N = 0/2; 0%). In 22 patients (N = 22/37; 59.5%) an endovascular repair with this type of stent graft was not feasible due to an inadequate proximal sealing zone. There was no suitable brachiocephalic trunk landing zone in 13 patients (N = 13/37; 35.1%). There was no suitable distal landing zone distal in 14 patients (N = 14/37; 36.8%). This number decreased to ten patients (N = 10/37; 27.0%) when considering an additional relining of the distal aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair with the NEXUS single branch stent graft is feasible in a minority of this real-world cohort that underwent a Frozen Elephant Trunk procedure. However, the applicability of this device probably improves in cases with isolated aortic arch aneurysms.

Driving Technology for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: An International Analysis of Single-versus Double-Branch RELAY Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The introduction of endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) represents a paradigm shift in the management of complex arch pathologies usually treated with open surgical repair (OSR). This shift in treatment of aortic arch disease has also been accompanied with a rise in commercial interest in EAR resulting in the development of several endografts. However, the RELAY™ Branched by Terumo Aortic can be considered the prime endograft choice. In this international original study, a retrospective comparative analysis of international prospective outcomes data on the single- and double-branch RELAY stent grafts is provided.

METHODS

International data on EAR procedures carried out from January 2019 to January 2022 using the single- and double-branch RELAY endograft configurations were collected prospectively. Follow-up data were collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were included, out of which 17 (13.6%) received the single-branch RELAY and 108 the double-branch device. In the single-branch group, no mortalities, strokes, or reinterventions were recoded over 24 months of follow-up. The rates of these outcomes were higher in the other group; however, the differences did not reach significance. Target vessel patency was maintained at 100% throughout the study period with the single-branched RELAY. Overall, our Kaplan-Meier analyses proved that both configurations of RELAY Branched yield excellent short- and mid-term survival and freedom from reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our series has clearly demonstrated that EAR using RELAY Branched is a highly efficacious strategy that yields very favorable results which can be considered superior to other EAR devices as well as OSR. Nevertheless, it seems that clinical outcomes with the single-branch RELAY are more optimal than with the double-branch device.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Cook Triple inner arch branch stent-graft

Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for treatment for aortic arch diseases, but these operations can be associated with wide heterogeneity in outcomes and significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in elderly patients with severe comorbidities or those who had prior arch procedures via median sternotomy. Endovascular repair has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair. The technique evolved with new device designs using up to three inner branches for incorporation of the supra-aortic trunks. This manuscript summarizes technical tips and clinical experience with the triple inner arch branch stent graft for total endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Patient-Specific Numerical Simulations of Endovascular Procedures in Complex Aortic Pathologies: Review and Clinical Perspectives

The endovascular technique is used in the first line treatment in many complex aortic pathologies. Its clinical outcome is mostly determined by the appropriate selection of a stent-graft for a specific patient and the operator's experience. New tools are still needed to assist practitioners with decision making before and during procedures. For this purpose, numerical simulation enables the digital reproduction of an endovascular intervention with various degrees of accuracy. In this review, we introduce the basic principles and discuss the current literature regarding the use of numerical simulation for endovascular management of complex aortic diseases. Further, we give the future direction of everyday clinical applications, showing that numerical simulation is about to revolutionize how we plan and carry out endovascular interventions.

Surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft for urgent an aortic arch aneurysm: case report

We report the case of an endovascular repair of an aortic arch aneurysm by a surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft with a single fenestration in a high-risk patient unfit for open surgery. A patient of 84 years, chronic ischemic cardiopathic, suffering from prostate adenocarcinoma in chemotherapy treatment, came to our hospital for post-traumatic fracture of the right femur. During the hospitalization, the patient exhibited dysphonia and respiratory disorders for several days, therefore, the patient performed Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) that found the presence of voluminous aneurysm of the aortic arch with a maximum diameter of about 74 mm. The patient was treated with a hybrid-staged procedure; in the first instance, with a carotid-carotid-succlavium bypass to preserve the cerebral and upper limb vascularization and then, the procedure was completed by implanting the surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft with stent delivery to the patient with a fenestration on the anonymous trunk. This surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft was created by modifying a standard endograft by a single fenestration following the three-dimensional reconstructions of the CTA images. The procedure was successfully completed and postoperative course was uneventful. Computed Tomography Angiography demonstrated the exclusion of the aneurysm, patency of the implanted endograft modules, and absence of signs of endoleaks and / or cerebral or medullary ischemic complications.

A Systematic Review of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: A Promising Technology

BACKGROUND

Total endovascular aortic arch repair (TEAAR) represents an emerging alternative for the treatment of aortic arch disease in patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery. A systematic review of TEAAR was performed to delineate early outcomes with this new technology.

METHODS

All studies (excluding single-patient case reports) of CE-certified "custom made" or "off-the-shelf" zone 0 stent graft deployments were included. The primary search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL registry was supplemented with searches of Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts (within last 3 years), and a hand search of citations within relevant articles. Articles underwent 2-stage screening by 2 independent reviewers before inclusion.

RESULTS

Fifteen relevant investigations were identified. Indications for TEAAR were chronic arch dissection with degenerative aneurysmal disease (54%, 148/273), pure arch aneurysm (41%, 112/273), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (2%, 5/273), and type IA endoleak from a zone 2 thoracic endograft (1%, 3/273). Double-branch (70%, 192/273), triple-branch (19%, 53/273), and single-branch (into innominate artery; 10%, 28/273) devices were used. Adjunct left carotid-subclavian bypass occurred in 90% of double- and single-branch procedures. Procedural success with TEAAR was 93% (95% CI 85.8%-96.3%). The proportion of all-cause mortality was 16% (95% CI 8%-26%), stroke 14% (8%-24%), peripheral vascular events 7% (1%-33%), and myocardial infarction 4% (2%-7%). Endoleaks were identified in 13% (7%-25%) of the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

TEAAR represents an emerging option for the management of aortic arch disease wth high procedural success rates and acceptable early outcomes in a high-risk patient population.

Three-year follow-up of aortic arch endovascular stent grafting with the Nexus device: results from a prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aortic arch stent grafting with branched devices has shown initial promising results. The aim of this prospective, multicentre study was to evaluate 3-year outcomes of aortic arch stent grafting with NEXUS® Aortic Arch Stent Graft System (Nexus), a single-branch, bi-modular, off-the-shelf aortic arch stent graft system in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients treated with Nexus, either under the feasibility clinical study or as compassionate use procedures in 5 centres, were included in this study. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the incidence of procedure-related unplanned intervention, stroke, paraplegia and endoleak. Clinical and radiologic follow-up was performed at each study site at 30 days, 6 months and on a yearly basis thereafter up to 3 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

We analysed data from a total of 28 patients. The overall median follow-up was 1132 (interquartile range: 809-1537). There were no device or procedure-related deaths between 1 and 3 years. Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 89% and 71%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of unplanned reintervention at 1 and 3 years was 11% and 29%, respectively. There were no reports of stroke, paraplegia, aneurysm rupture, myocardial infarction or new aortic valve insufficiency. In this study's 1-3 year follow-up period, 1 type Ib (4%), 1 type II (4%) and 2 type III (8%; between Nexus' distal end and Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) extensions) endoleak were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch exclusion with the single-branch, off-the-shelf Nexus system provides promising clinical and radiologic results at 3-year follow-up in a high-risk patient cohort.

Protocol for Guo's aortIc Arch recoNstrucTion: a prospective, multicentre and single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the WeFlow-Arch modular inner branch stent-graft system for aortic arch lesions (GIANT study)

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of the entire aortic arch provides treatment opportunities for patients with aortic arch lesions who are intolerant to open surgery. However, the complex anatomical configuration, high-speed blood flow and long access from the femoral artery increase the difficulty of endovascular aortic arch repair. On the basis of our earlier studies, a new modular inner branch stent-graft system was developed specifically for lesions located in the aortic arch and part of the ascending aorta. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system in patients with aortic arch lesions who are unsuitable for open aortic arch replacement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective, multicentre, single-arm, clinical trial will enrol 80 patients with aortic arch lesions requiring intervention, namely, true aortic arch aneurysms, pseudo-aortic arch aneurysms and penetrating ulcers involving the aortic arch. Clinical information and CT angiography (CTA) images will be collected and analysed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system. Patients will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality and severe stroke within 12 months after the procedure. In addition, this trial will evaluate mid-term to long-term clinical and imaging outcomes through the annual clinical and CTA follow-up for 2-5 years postoperatively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We have registered the study on a registry website (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, physician newsletters, conferences and the mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04765592.

Timing of Intervention for Aortic Intramural Hematoma

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is one of the acute aortic syndromes along with acute aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer. The three conditions can occur alone or in combination with overlapping presentation. Medical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment is tailored depending on clinical presentation, timing, and location within the aorta. Among patients who present with acute IMH affecting the ascending aorta (Type A), urgent open surgical repair is considered the primary line of treatment in patients who are suitable candidates and unstable. The management of IMH in the descending aorta and aortic arch (Type B) is similar to that applied to treat acute dissections in the same segment. Medical treatment with sequential imaging is recommended in patients with uncomplicated course, and endovascular repair is indicated in patients with rupture, persistent pain, end-organ ischemia, or rapid aortic enlargement. This review discusses the ideal timing for treatment of IMH.

A review: Single and multi-branch devices for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with proximal sealing in Ishimaru Zone 0

Recently published experience has shown that endovascular management of the aortic arch, including sealing in the proximal zones, can be a viable option for patients considered unfit for conventional open repair. Endograft designs vary and include single or multibranch devices, with or without the addition of surgical debranching. Initial reports show that both techniques can be performed with high technical success and acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates in high volume centers. Single branch devices, available off-the-shelf, may provide a treatment option for emergent presentations where patients cannot wait for the design and manufacture of a customized endograft. Double or triple branched endografts are now increasingly implanted in high-volume aortic centers. The purpose of this review is to describe the single and multibranched endovascular devices currently available for aortic arch repair, their associated published outcomes, and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.

An autopsy case of retrograde in situ branched stent grafting for a complex aortic arch aneurysm

Although retrograde in situ branched stent grafting (RIBS) is one possible treatment option for thoracic aortic aneurysms, concerns exist regarding the durability of the stent graft (SG) at the junction between the main SG and the branched SG. We report on the autopsy results of a patient treated with RIBS for a complex aortic arch aneurysm. The patient had died of a nonaortic cause 14 months after the RIBS procedure. On computed tomography analysis and a leak test, the harvested SG was intact without any stent fracture, stenosis, or junctional leak at 1 atm water pressure (760 mm Hg).

Hemodynamic numerical simulation of aortic arch modular inner branched stent-graft in eight early patients from the first-in-human case series

Background

The modular inner branched stent-graft (MIBSG) (WeFlow-Arch™) is an emerging device for challenging aortic arch pathologies. Hemodynamic numerical simulation is conducive to predicting long-term outcomes as well as optimizing the stent-graft design.

Objective

This study aims to analyze the hemodynamic characteristics of the MIBSG devices based on numerical simulation analyses.

Methods

From June 2019 to June 2021, MIBSGs were utilized in eight cases. Numerical simulation analyses of branch perfusion and indicators including the time-averaged wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index, and relative residence time were performed.

Results

Lesions involved Zone 1 (n = 2), Zone 2 (n = 4), and Zone 3 (n = 2). Branched stent-grafts were deployed in the innominate artery and left common carotid artery (n = 5) or in the innominate artery and left subclavian artery (n = 3). The hemodynamic change in common was increased perfusion in the descending aorta and left common carotid artery. Half of the patients had increased cerebral perfusion of 8.7% at most, and the other half of the patients showed a reduction of 5.3% or less. Case 3 was considered to have acquired the greatest improvement in hemodynamic features.

Conclusion

The MIBSG showed improved hemodynamic features in most cases. The design of the MIBSG could be partly modified to acquire better hemodynamic performance.

Does endovascular duration impact clinical outcomes in aortic arch repair? The RELAY™ branched international stance

Background

The high mortality and morbidity rates in surgical aortic arch repair are a barrier to therapy for a considerable proportion of patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. There is hence a demand for the development and adoption of a minimally invasive alternative to aortic arch repair, such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Procedural duration is a key factor in the pathogenesis of complications in surgical aortic arch repair. Herein, we evaluate whether endovascular duration impacts neurological outcomes, target vessel patency, and reintervention rates in aortic arch TEVAR with RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK), which is specifically developed for on-label use within the aortic arch.

Methods

Prospective data was collected between January 2019 and January 2022 on the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for aortic arch dissection and aneurysm with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe. They were then retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data on the incidence of disabling stroke (DS), target vessel patency, and reintervention from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperative was included in the analysis.

Results

147 (99.3%) of all 148 cases were successful. Over the 24 month follow-up period, in total 6 (4.1%) patients suffered DS, 24 (16.3%) required reintervention, and target vessel patency was exhibited in 118 (80.2%) patients. The modal endovascular duration was 100-150 min (in 64.6%, n = 95 cases). Analysis revealed that endovascular duration was associated with a lower likelihood of reintervention at 30 days, 6-, and 12 months (P = 0.011, P = 0.019, P = 0.037), a greater likelihood of target vessel patency at 6- and 24 months (P = 0.032, P = 0.035). No relationship between endovascular duration and DS was revealed.

Discussion

The data demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with promising clinical outcomes for on-label aortic arch TEVAR. The underlying mechanism linking endovascular duration and reintervention rates, or target vessel patency is likely multifactorial and complex. Given that TEVAR is carried out under general anesthetic only, it is unlikely that prolonged procedural duration has any major effect over neurological outcomes for arch TEVAR.

[Update on thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair : New stent graft designs]

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, new stent graft designs have evolved to tackle challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. A specific focus on access vessel issues has led to the introduction of new low-profile endograft designs for most of the major products.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available publications on new stent graft designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessing recent publications on the major reiterations of thoracic endografts, benefits and drawbacks are discussed.

RESULTS

Recent reiterations of major endografts for thoracic aortic endovascular repair have focused mainly on the development of low-profile devices. Through alterations on graft fabric as well as stent material and design, delivery systems were reduced in profile, thus, reducing access vessel complications or enabling an endovascular procedure altogether. Long-term data are already available for one endoprosthesis. Other refinements include in situ adaptation of the stent graft to the aortic arch curvature as well as the option of staged deployment to allow more precision and reduce manipulation close to supra-aortic branches.

CONCLUSIONS

Especially in the case of low-profile endografts, preliminary and long-term results of access vessel complications are promising. In order to draw final conclusions as to how durable the results of aneurysm exclusion are, more long-term studies are warranted.

Preclinical Evaluation of a Non-Customized Modular Inner Branched Stent Graft for Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair in a Porcine Model

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a non-customized modular inner branched stent graft for total endovascular aortic arch repair in a porcine model.

METHODS

The modular inner branched stent graft system with a split main body design included 1 proximal main component, 1 distal main component, and 1 branched covered stent. The gutter in the proximal main component was sealed with sutured membrane. Fatigue testing was performed to evaluate the durability of the stent graft. Fifteen pigs were used in this study. In each pig, a stent graft was delivered and deployed to the aortic arch through the femoral arterial access and right carotid arterial access. Angiography and computed tomography angiography were used to evaluate the morphological features before euthanasia. After euthanasia, the implanted device, surrounding tissue, and major organs were harvested for gross and histological examination.

RESULTS

There were no collapses and no stent graft fractures detected after fatigue testing. The technical success rate was 14/15, and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2/15. Angiography performed at the end of follow-up revealed no endoleaks and no device migration. Histological examination demonstrated excellent biocompatibility of the stent graft.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-customized modular inner branched stent graft system is safe and feasible for the endovascular reconstruction of the aortic arch in a porcine model.

"First in Man" Total Percutaneous Aortic Arch Repair With 3-Inner-branch Endografts: A Report of Two Cases

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Aneurysms of the arch are a complex clinical problem and a technical challenge. Currently, over 40% of patients are considered unfit for conventional open surgery, requiring a cardiopulmonary bypass and hypothermic circulatory arrest. In experienced hands and appropriate anatomic conditions, arch-branched graft technology has shown to be a safe and effective alternative to open conventional surgery to patients that historically have had no surgical options.

OBJECTIVES

This report summarizes the first in man implant of a three-vessel arch branch stent graft using a total percutaneous approach without the need for exposure of the cervical arteries-a surgical step with inherent problems and risks.

METHODS

This approach was performed in two consecutive patients, a 66-year-old woman with a chronic post type A dissection 60 mm diameter aneurysm of the aortic arch, and a 72-year-old man with a 70 mm saccular degenerative atheromatous aortic arch aneurysm.

RESULTS

Technical success was obtained in both cases. The patients were extubated in the operating theatre. Neither suffered any pre- or postoperative neurological deficits. Both were discharged home after remarkably uneventful hospital stays. There were no access complications. Postoperative computerized tomography scans and ultra-sound confirmed patent supra-aortic branches and completely excluded aneurysms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our new truly minimally invasive approach demonstrates that it is possible to manage one of the most challenging treatments of aortic pathologies without any surgical incision. Further, evaluation and experience are required to confirm these promising results.

Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Retrograde In-Situ Branched Stent Grafting for Complex Aortic Arch Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the early outcomes of retrograde in-situ branched stent grafting (RIBS) using the gutter balloon technique for complex aortic arch aneurysms (CAAs).

METHODS

The RIBS technique is an in-situ needle fenestration procedure during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with the reconstruction of cervical branches. The Double-RIBS (D-RIBS) for the reconstruction of the left common carotid artery and the brachiocephalic artery using the gutter balloon technique was performed in 30 high-risk patients. We describe the early clinical results of the D-RIBS technique for CAAs. Primary endpoints were technical success and 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, rates of endoleaks, overall survival, aneurysm-related death, and re-interventions.

RESULTS

The mean age was 77.1±6.6 years and the mean maximum minor-axis aneurysmal diameter was 65.9±8.9 mm. Twenty six patients underwent D-RIBS for elective arch aortic aneurysm and four patients were for reintervention after Zone 2 TEVAR failure. Stent graft puncture was performed 60 times from the common carotid arteries and technical success was achieved in all cases (100%). Postoperative complications included cerebral infarction in 2 patients (6.7%), recurrent nerve palsy in one patient (3.3%). The 30-day mortality was 0%. During the median follow-up period of 14 months (6-56), overall survival at 12 months was 92.3% without any aneurysm-related death. Type 1b and type 2 endoleaks were observed in one each and no reintervention was encountered.

CONCLUSION

Early clinical outcomes of the D-RIBS for high-risk patients with CAAs are acceptable. The gutter balloon method enables safe and reliable fenestration. Further studies and dedicated devices are warranted.

[Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - Endovascular Therapy Today and in the Future]

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.