Extra-Thoracic Supra-aortic Bypass Surgery Is Safe in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Arterial Occlusive Disease Treatment

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR.

RESULTS

Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

In Situ Fenestration and Carotid-Subclavian Bypass for Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization techniques during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)-the in situ needle fenestration (ISNF) technique and the carotid-subclavian bypass (CS-Bp)-for complicated aortic pathologies.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center observational study was conducted to identify all patients with thoracic aortic pathologies who underwent TEVAR with LSA revascularization using either CS-Bp or ISNFs from January 2014 to December 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve consecutive patients who received TEVAR with LSA revascularization were included. Among them, 69 received CS-Bp and 43 received ISNF (29 using the Futhrough adjustable puncture needles, 14 using the binding stent-graft puncture systems). Technical success, defined as achieving aortic arch pathology exclusion and LSA preservation, was attained in 99.1% patients. Early mortality was 0.9%. Major adverse events within 30 days, including one cerebral hemorrhage, one cervical incision hemorrhage, one stroke and two paraplegia, were exclusively observed in the CS-Bp group. Immediate type I, II and III endoleaks occurred in 0%, 4.7% and 2.3% in the ISNF group, respectively, compared to 0%, 2.9% and 0% in the CS-Bp group.One hundred and eight (97.2%) patients were available for follow-up at a median 50 (maiximum of 103) months, revealing a LSA patency rates of 99.1%. Six patients died during follow-ups-five in the CS-Bp group and one in the ISNF group. Cause of death include one aortic-related stent-graft infection, three non-related and two with unknow causes. The survival exhibited no significantly different between the ISNF (97.7%) and CS-Bp (89.9%) groups (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Both CS-Bp and ISNF are feasible techniques for LSA reconstruction in TEVAR. ISNF, whether using Futhrough or BPS, seems to be competitive with CS-Bp.

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

BACKGROUND

In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting. Outcomes of this technique, however, are poorly reported. We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of L-FEVAR in aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Cochrane guidelines. A search was conducted using Google, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies evaluating L-FEVAR. Two independent reviewers determined study inclusion. Case reports and series including < 10 patients were excluded. Reviewers also assessed the methodological quality and extracted data regarding outcomes. A meta-analysis of endoleak event rates was conducted using a fixed-effect model due to small sample size.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria between 2013 and 2021. Most studies were retrospective (87.5%) with median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range 10-42). There were 440 patients included (range 15-148), mostly men (64%). Mean age was 61 years (range 53-68). Included patients were all symptomatic with L-FEVAR being technically successful in 93.3% of cases. The main indication for aortic arch intervention was aortic dissection. Single fenestrations occurred most frequently (68%), followed by triple (22%) then double fenestrations (9%). Meta-analysis of 8 studies (n = 440) demonstrated an endoleak event rate of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.09, P < 0.001) with no observed statistically significant heterogeneity of effects (Q = 7.91, P = 0.34). The median operative time was 162 min (range 53-252) with median length of stay of 10 days (range 7-17). Primary branch patency was 96.6%. Secondary patency rate was 97%. Pooled complication rates such as endoleak occurred in 4.8%, stroke in 2.0%, spinal cord ischemia in 0.2%, retrograde dissection in 0.9%, and 30-day death in 2.0%. Access complications occurred in 0.4%. Antiplatelet regimen was poorly reported in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, safe, and effective approach to treat aortic arch disease in patients who are unsuitable for open or custom-made endovascular means. High technical success and excellent short-term branch patency can be achieved. These single-institution series exhibit promising short-term outcomes. In a similar paradigm to investigational device exemptions studies for custom-made and physician modified endografts, these preliminary data make a persuasive argument for larger long-term multi-institutional prospective study of this promising technique.

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.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms with the Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis

OBJECTIVE

Aortic aneurysms involving aortic arch vessels are anatomically unsuitable for standard thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) without cervical debranching of the arch vessels. Three year outcomes of a single branched thoracic endograft following previous publication of peri-operative and one year outcomes are reported.

METHODS

This was a multicentre feasibility trial of the GORE TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE), a thoracic endovascular graft incorporating a single retrograde branch for aortic arch vessel perfusion. The first study arm enrolled patients with an intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysm extending to the distal arch with left subclavian artery (LSA) incorporation (zone 2). The second arm enrolled patients with arch aneurysms requiring incorporation of the left carotid or innominate artery (zone 0/1) and extra-anatomic surgical revascularisation of the remaining aortic arch vessels. Outcomes at three years are reported.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 40 patients (31 zone 2, nine zone 0/1). The majority were male (52%). Mean follow up was 1 408 ± 552 days in the zone 2 and 1 187 ± 766 days in the zone 0/1 cohort. During three year follow up there was no device migration, fracture, or aortic rupture in either arm. In the zone 2 arm, freedom from re-intervention was 97% at one and three years but there were two side branch occlusions. Two patients had aneurysm enlargement > 5 mm without documented endoleak or re-intervention. Freedom from death at one and three years was 90% and 84%. In the zone 0/1 arm there were no re-interventions, loss of branch patency, or aneurysm enlargement at three years. Cerebrovascular events occurred in three patients during follow up: two unrelated to the device or procedure, and one of unknown relationship. Two patients in this arm died during the follow up period, both unrelated to the procedure or the aneurysm.

CONCLUSION

Initial three year results of the TBE device for endovascular repair of arch aneurysms show favourable patency and durability with low rates of graft related complications.

"Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy (ciNPT) reduces abdominal donor site surgical wound dehiscence in Deep Internal Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstructions: DEhiscence PREvention Study II (DEPRES II) - a Randomized Clinical Trial"

BACKGROUND

In breast reconstruction surgeries, surgical wound dehiscence is a serious complication which generates a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems. There are indications that postoperative treatment with closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been associated with reduced wound dehiscence rates. This randomized clinical trial examines the effect of ciNPT application on abdominal donor site surgical wound dehiscence in low- and high-risk patients undergoing a breast reconstruction with a deep internal epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap.

METHODS

Eighty eligible women, stratified as low- or high-risk patients, were included and were randomized for treatment with either ciNPT or adhesive strips (AS) by drawing sealed, opaque envelopes. All surgeons were kept blind for allocation. Primary outcomes were surgical wound dehiscence and surgical site infection at the abdominal donor site upon follow-up after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were seroma and hematoma formation. Five patients were excluded from the study due to non-sufficient exposure to the study treatment (n=4) or major protocol deviation (n=1).

RESULTS

A total of 75 women, low-risk (n=38) and high-risk (n=37), received either ciNPT (n=36) or AS (n=39). Patients' demographics did not differ significantly. Donor-site surgical wound dehiscence occurred in 23 patients; the Absolute Risk Reduction was statistically significant (21.6%, 95% Confidence Interval [1.5-41.7]). No statistically significant differences were found in surgical site infection or secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized clinical trial, postoperative treatment with ciNPT decreased the incidence of surgical wound dehiscence at the abdominal donor site in low- and high-risk DIEP flap breast reconstruction patients.

Endovascular exclusion of the entire aortic arch with branched stent-grafts after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection

Background

The treatment of residual pathology of the aortic arch after surgical repair for type A acute dissection (AAD) represents a therapeutic challenge. Recently, new branched endovascular devices have expanded the possibility of aortic arch stent-grafting (ASG) with proximal landing in zone 0. The aim of this retrospective, single-center study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with a history of surgical repair for AAD undergoing ASG with branched devices.

Methods

We analyzed patients undergoing ASG after treatment for type AAD with 2 different branched devices: Nexus (dual-module, single branch, off-the-shelf) and RelayBranch (single-module, dual branch, custom-made). Before ASG, surgical bypass of supra-aortic vessels was performed according to patient's anatomy and to the selected device. All patients underwent clinical and computed tomography scan evaluation before hospital discharge, at 6 months, and on a yearly basis thereafter.

Results

From March 2017 to April 2019, 4 consecutive patients underwent ASG after surgery for AAD at our institution. Mean time from surgery for AAD to ASG was 20 months. Mean age at the time of ASG was 72 years. Nexus and Relay were implanted in 2 patients each. All patients survived and were successfully discharged. Mean intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were 3 and 19 days, respectively. We did not observe any major adverse events. At a mean follow-up of 28 months, all patients are alive and computed tomography scans showed good anatomic results with no endoleaks.

Conclusions

This preliminary experience shows that ASG after surgery for AAD is feasible and provides encouraging clinical and anatomic early results.

Art of operative techniques: treatment options in arch penetrating aortic ulcer

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) of the arch has a focal extent which often represents an adequate anatomic target for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, the anatomic constraints represented by the supra-aortic vessels pose either clinical or technical challenges that increase when the PAU develops proximally in the arch. Currently, different types of endografts are commercially available and have been used to treat aortic arch lesions. These include branched/fenestrated endografts for a total endovascular approach, and standard devices that can be used in combination with open/hybrid surgical operations, with the aim to exploit the minimally invasive nature of TEVAR by extending the proximal landing zone when necessary. We describe several current techniques adopted in such settings.