Laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts for endovascular treatment of retrograde type A dissection

Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

OBJECTIVE

The undisputed gold standard of treatment for type A aortic dissections (TAAD) is open surgery. Anecdotal reports have assessed thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a last resort for highly selected candidates. The present study aims to evaluate endovascular outcomes in TAAD patients who are unsuitable for open surgery whilst having TEVAR-compatible aortic anatomy.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed up to 19 May 2022. Time-to-event data were reconstructed using Kaplan-Meier curves from the source literature.

RESULTS

In 20 eligible studies, 311 patients underwent TEVAR for acute, subacute, or chronic TAAD. Mean age at the time of the operation was 60.70 ± 8.00 years and 75.48% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 60.33-88.46%) of the included patients were males. Mean operative time was 169.40 ± 30.70 min. Overall, 0.44% (95% CI, 0.00-4.83%) of the cases were converted to salvage open surgery. Technical failure, stroke, and endoleaks occurred in 0.22%, 0.1%, and 8.52% of the cohort, respectively. Thirty-day postoperative complication rate was 7.08% (95% CI, 1.52-14.97%), whereas late complications developed in 16.89% (95% CI, 7.75-27.88%) of the patients. One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were estimated at 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively. Reintervention was required in 8.38% of the cohort over a mean follow-up of 32.40 ± 24.40 months.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR seems to be feasible in highly selected patients with TAAD who cannot tolerate open surgery. Overcoming technical limitations and acquiring long-term data are warranted to safely define the place of endovascular treatment in the armamentarium of TAAD repair.

Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency.

RESULTS

24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0 min vs. 90.8 min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0 min vs. 33.4 min p = 0.614).

CONCLUSIONS

The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

Debranching abdominal aortic hybrid surgery for aortic diseases involving the visceral arteries

Objective

Aortic diseases involving branches of the visceral arteries mainly include thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA), aortic dissection (AD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The focus of treatment is to reconstruct the splanchnic arteries and restore blood supply to the organs. Commonly used methods include thoracoabdominal aortic replacement, thoracic endovascular aortic repair and hybrid approaches. Hybrid surgery for aortic disease involving the visceral arteries, consisting of visceral aortic debranching with retrograde revascularization of the celiac trunk and renal arteries and using stent grafts, has been previously described and may be considered particularly appealing in high-risk patients. This study retrospectively analyzed recorded data of patients and contrasted the outcomes with those of a similar group of patients who underwent conventional open repair surgery.

Methods

Between 2019 and 2022, 72 patients (52 men) with an average age of 61.57 ± 8.66 years (range, 36-79 years) underwent one-stage debranching abdominal aortic hybrid surgery. These patients, the hybrid group, underwent preoperative Computed Tomographic Angiography (CTA) and had been diagnosed with aortic disease (aneurysm or dissection) involving the visceral arteries and were at high risk for open repair. The criteria used to define these patients as high-risk group who are in the need of hybrid treatment were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 or 4. In all cases, we accomplished total visceral aortic debranching through a previous visceral artery retrograde revascularization with synthetic grafts (customized Y or four-bifurcated grafts), and aortic endovascular repair with one of two different commercially produced stent grafts (Medtronic® and Lifetech®). In some cases, we chose to connect the renal artery to the artificial vessel with a stent graft (Viabahn) and partly or totally anastomosed. We analyzed the results and compared the outcomes of the hybrid group with those of a similar group of 46 patients (36 men) with an average age 54.15 ± 12.12 years (range, 32-76). These 46 patients, the conventional open group, were selected for having had thoracoabdominal aortic replacement between 2019 and 2022.

Results

In the hybrid group, 72 visceral bypasses were completed, and endovascular repair was successful in all cases. No intraoperative deaths occurred. Perioperative mortality was 2.78%, and perioperative morbidity was 9.72% (renal insufficiency in 1, unilateral renal infarction in 5, Intestinal ischemia in 1). At 1-month postoperative CTA showed 2 endoleaks, one of which was intervened. At follow-up, there were unplanned reoperation rate of 4.29% and 5 (7.14%) deaths. The remaining patients' grafts were patent at postoperative CTA and no endoleak or stent graft migration had occurred. In the conventional open group, 1 died intraoperatively, 4 died perioperatively, perioperative mortality was 10.87% and complications were respiratory failure in 5, intestinal paralysis/necrosis in 4, renal insufficiency in 17, and paraplegia in 2. At follow-up, 5 (12.20%) patients presented with synthetic grafts hematoma 4 (9.76%) patient died, and 6 (14.63%) patients required unplanned reoperation intervention.

Conclusion

Hybrid surgery is technically feasible in selected cases. For aortic diseases involving the visceral arteries, the application of hybrid abdominal aorta debranching can simplify the operation process, decrease the risks of mortality and morbidity in high-risk and high-age populations and decrease the incidence of various complications while achieving ideal early clinical efficacy. However, a larger series is required for valid statistical comparisons, and longer follow-ups are necessary to evaluate the long-term efficacy of hybrid surgery.

Stent-Graft Fabrics Incorporating a Specific Corona Ready to Fenestrate

In situ fenestration of endovascular stent-grafts has become a mainstream bailout technique to treat complex emergent aneurysms while maintaining native anatomical visceral and aortic arch blood supplies. Fabric tearing from creating the in situ fenestration using balloon angioplasty may extend beyond the intended diameter over time. Further tearing may result from the physiologic pulsatile motion at the branching site. A resultant endoleak at the fenestrated sites in stent-grafts could ultimately lead to re-pressurization of the aortic sac and, eventually, rupture. In an attempt to address this challenge, plain woven fabrics were designed. They hold a specific corona surrounding a square-shaped cluster with a plain weave fabric structure, a 2/2 twill, or a honeycomb. The corona was designed to stop potential further tearing of the fabric caused by the initial balloon angioplasty and stent or later post-implantation motion. The cluster within the corona was designed with relatively loose fabric structures (plain weave, 2/2 twill weave, and honeycomb) to facilitate the laser fenestration. Two commercial devices, Anaconda (Vascutek, Terumo Aortic) and Zenith TX2 (Cook), were selected as controls for comparison against this new design. All the specimens were characterized by morphology, thickness, and water permeability. The results demonstrated that all specimens with a low thickness and water permeability satisfied the requirements for a stent graft material that would be low profile and resistant to endoleaks. The in situ fenestrations were performed on all fabrics utilizing an Excimer laser followed by balloon angioplasty. The fabrics were further observed by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. The dimension of the fenestrated apertures was smaller than the balloon's diameter. The tearing was effectively confined within the corona. The clinical acceptability of this concept deserves additional bench testing and animal experimentation.

Long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular repair with quick fenestrater assisted in situ fenestration for type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

To report the long-term outcomes of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and quick fenestrated (QF)-assisted in situ fenestration (ISF).

METHODS

Between October 2017 and December 2018, 15 patients with TBAD requiring revascularization of the supra-aortic trunks underwent TEVAR with QF-assisted ISF at our institution.

RESULTS

Thirteen of the 15 patients were male, and the mean age was 52.87 ± 11.26. The technical success rate was 100%. Thirty-day mortality rate was 0. The median follow-up period was 41 months (range, 35-49). During follow-up, one non-aortic-related death was recorded, no fenestration lost its alignment, and no stroke or stent graft migration was observed. Two patients underwent another successful endovascular repair. One case of type Ib endoleak occurred 19 months postoperatively. This was caused by aortic progression distal to the stent graft. Another stent graft with a larger diameter was implanted in the descending aorta. One case of type Ic endoleak was observed 35 months postoperatively. The patient was diagnosed during the annual follow-up without any symptoms. Another bridging stent graft was implanted into the left subclavian artery distal to the already existing one, and the type Ic endoleak was successfully treated.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with QF-assisted ISF may be an effective treatment for ISF in type B aortic dissection.

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.

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.

Technical details of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with fenestrations for thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch: A Chinese expert consensus

Thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch are a great challenge for vascular surgeons. Maintaining the patency of supra-aortic branches while excluding the aortic lesion remains difficult. Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) with fenestrations provides a feasible and effective approach for this type of disease. The devices needed in the procedure are off-the-shelf, with promising results reported in many medical centers. Up until now, there have been no guidelines focusing exclusively on the details of the TEVAR technique with fenestrations. Experts from China have discussed the technical parts of both in situ fenestrations (needle and laser) and fenestrations in vitro (direction inversion strategy and guidewire-assisted strategy), providing a technical reference to standardize the procedure and improve its results.

The fate of the left subclavian artery in TEVAR for aortic arch pathology

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY

The origin of the vertebral artery (VA) from the left subclavian (LSA) is variable and must be considered when proximal ligation or embolization is performed post thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and extra-anatomical bypass (EAB). A retrospective study was conducted to understand the patency of the LSA and VAs after TEVAR and the relationship of the EAB to the LSA.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients underwent TEVAR where the LSA origin was occluded. A comparison was performed between the length of the proximal LSA from the arch of the aorta to the origin of the VA. Patient outcomes included posterior or anterior circulation cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and symptoms and signs of left arm ischemia (LAI). Thirty one underwent EAB with 8 undergoing occlusion of the LSA proximal to the origin of the left VA. A further 25 underwent TEVAR with no EAB performed. The mean (standard deviation) of origin of the VA from the origin at the arch was 37.0 (12.9) mm compared to 34.0 (13.7) mm in those where no bypass was performed (p 0.45). Four patients underwent intraluminal plug occlusion and four had external ligation of the proximal LSA in those undergoing EAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful evaluation of the LSA is needed when planning TEVAR as occlusion techniques may be dependent on a minimum length of the VA from the aortic arch. The mean length of the VA from the aorta has high heterogeneity which may dictate the optimum occlusion method for LSA.

Laser in situ Fenestration in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laser in situ fenestration (LISF) is an expanding technique for arch vessel revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present a single center's early and midterm outcomes using adjunctive LISF with TEVAR for treatment of various arch pathologies.

METHODS

24 patients underwent TEVAR with LISF (2017-2020). Patients were evaluated by an Aortic Team consisting of cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons and were deemed unfit for open surgical repair. Informed consent emphasized the procedure's off-label nature. Thoracic stent-grafts were sized by preoperative Computed Tomography Angiogram and intraoperative Intravascular Ultrasound, with oversizing determined by pathology. Extra-anatomic debranching was performed in staged or concurrent fashion based on urgency of repair and access site options for branch fenestration. A 2.3 mm Spectranetics laser was used, with access site determined at surgeon discretion. Covered balloon expandable stent-grafts were deployed with 0-10% oversizing.

RESULTS

In 24 patients, a total of 30 fenestrations were created (LSA N = 19, LCCA N = 3, Innominate N = 7, RSA N = 1) with 1 (N = 18) or 2 (N = 6) fenestrations/patient. Indications included aneurysm (8), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (8), acute dissection (4), intramural hematoma (2), and pseudoaneurysm (2). 13 cases were elective, and 11 were emergent. Technical success was 100%. 12 patients underwent concurrent (N = 8) or staged (N = 4) extra-anatomic bypass. The major complication rate was 21%, including stroke (N = 3) and 30-day mortality (N = 2). The overall complication rate was 58%. Over a mean follow up of 261 days (15-864 days), 7 patients (32%) have required reinterventions.

CONCLUSIONS

LISF for branch revascularization in TEVAR is technically feasible for treating various aortic arch pathologies, demonstrating practicality in both elective and emergent settings. With a morbidity and mortality profile that is favorable compared to that of open repair, LISF with TEVAR is a promising potential option for patients with complex arch pathology and prohibitive open surgical risk.