Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the chimney graft technique

In Situ Needle Fenestration during Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Successful Fenestration of Two Overlapping Thoracic Stent Grafts

Endovascular stent grafting is becoming more common in treating complex thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. When it becomes necessary to cover the supra-aortic vessels, maintaining blood supply through the supra-aortic branches can be achieved by performing in situ needle fenestration. We present a case of a 65-year-old man with a type B aortic dissection that extended from the origin of the left subclavian artery. A stent graft was inserted into the thoracic aorta distally of the origin of the left common carotid artery. Due to the stent graft moving distally and not adequately sealing the subclavian artery, a second stent graft was placed more proximally. Both stent grafts were successfully in situ fenestrated using a needle, and a stent graft was inserted into the subclavian artery. In conclusion, during thoracic endovascular aortic repair, in situ needle fenestration can be successfully carried out on two overlapping thoracic stent grafts.

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Outcome of Different Endovascular Aortic Arch Procedures

Objectives: There are several endovascular treatment options to treat aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts. This study seeks to assess endovascular treatment methods for aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), comparing different treatment methods and evaluating technical success, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes. Methods: All patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies, with no acceptable landing zone for standard TEVAR, between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2024, at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. An acceptable landing zone was defined as a minimum of 2 cm for sufficient sealing. All patients were not suitable for open surgery. Patients were categorized by an endovascular treatment method for a comprehensive comparison of pre-, intra- and postoperative variables. IBM SPSS29 was used for data analysis. Results: The patient cohort comprised 21 patients, predominantly males (81%), with an average age of 70.9 ± 9 years with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard TEVAR procedure. The most treated aortic pathologies were penetrating aortic ulcers and chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Patients were sub-grouped according to the applied procedure as follows: five patients with chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (chTEVAR), seven patients with in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (isfTEVAR), six patients with custom-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmfTEVAR) and three patients with custom-made branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmbTEVAR). Emergency procedures involved two patients. There were significant differences in the total procedure and fluoroscopy time, as well as in contrast agent usage among the treatment groups. cmfTEVAR had the shortest total procedure time, while chTEVAR exhibited the highest contrast agent usage. The overall mortality rate among all procedures was 9.5% (two patients) and 4.7% for elective procedures, respectively. Deaths were associated with either retrograde type A dissection or stent graft infection. Both patients were treated with chTEVAR. There was one minor and one major stroke; these patients were treated with isfTEVAR. No endoleak occurred during any procedure. The reintervention rate for chTEVAR was 20% and 0% for all other procedures during the in-hospital stay. The patients who were treated with cmfTEVAR had no complications, the shortest operating and fluoroscopy time, and less contrast agent was needed in comparison with other treatment methods. Conclusions: Complex endovascular procedures of the aortic arch with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts offer a safe solution, with acceptable complication rates for patients who are not suitable for open aortic arch repair. In terms of procedure-related parameters and complication rates, a custom-made fenestrated TEVAR is potentially advantageous compared to the other endovascular techniques.

The Initial Results of Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repairs of the Aortic Arch and Lessons Learned From the First 21 Cases

INTRODUCTION

Physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for the aortic arch provides a minimally invasive treatment option for patients who are too high-risk for open repair. Improvements in technique are gained with ongoing experience with these complex repairs. This study aims to describe outcomes of arch PM-FBEVAR and technical lessons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR with zone 0 proximal sealing at a single institution between January 2019 and July 2023 was performed. Cases completed using initial techniques (early technique) were compared with cases using the current techniques (current technique). Modification technique changed to include a self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific fenestrations or inner branches in the current group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success and 30 day stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients underwent arch PM-FBEVAR, with 7 in the early group and 14 in the current group. Severe comorbidities were present in both groups including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (43% vs 36%), prior open ascending aortic repair (57% vs 43%), and prior stroke (86% vs 21%), respectively. Technical success was the same (86% vs 86%, p=1.0). Fluoroscopy time (56 vs 24 min, p=0.012) and in-hospital death (43% vs 0%, p=0.026) were significantly lower in the current group. A 30 day stroke rate (29% vs 7%, p=0.247) was non-significantly decreased in the current group. All-cause mortality was 100% vs 7% during median follow-up of 8 and 6 months (p<0.001). Three deaths in the early group were related to their aortic arch repair including aortic rupture during endograft advancement and 2 postoperative strokes.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant learning curve associated with aortic arch PM-FBEVAR. This study suggests that gained experience, use of the spine trigger wire technique, and precise creation of fenestrations or inner branches can lead to a shorter procedure time and lower complications.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Physician modified fenestrated branched endografting is feasible for the aortic arch. The high rate of stroke and perioperative mortality was reduced with incorporation of self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific inner branch creation.

Subclavian artery revascularization with subclavian-carotid transposition for TEVAR and non-TEVAR patients

BACKGROUND

Subclavian artery revascularization (SAR) has become an increasingly performed technique in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR), in order to optimize the proximal landing zone, or in patients with significant atherosclerotic diseases. SAR was usually achieved through carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) which is daunted by graft and patency-related issues, or through subclavian carotid transposition (SCT) which has recently been reconsidered as a potential solution. Nowadays, multiple endovascular strategies including parallel grafts, chimney graft and branch-fenestrated repair, are available in patients unfit for open SAR. However, there is no consensus on the preferable technique in both TEVAR- and non TEVAR-patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with SCT in terms of overall postoperative adverse events and mid-term patency rate.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study, including all patients who underwent SCT between June 2014 and March 2020 at our Division. Preoperative risk factors, symptoms, intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were included in this study. Indications for SCT included aortic arch debranching for TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm and type B dissection and symptomatic subclavian steal syndrome (SSS). There were no major perioperative adverse events or major neurological complications; five minor adverse events occurred (18.5%) (3 Horner' Syndrome, 1 hematoma requiring reoperation,1 pneumothorax). Peripheral nerve injuries and lymphatic lesions were not recorded. On a mean follow-up of 21±16 months, SCT patency was confirmed in all patients and no deaths occurred. Comparison of baseline and operative characteristics and intraoperative details between groups of patients with or without adverse events did not found differences.

CONCLUSIONS

SCT should be considered a feasible, effective and safe technique for SAR, with low perioperative complications and optimal mid-term patency. This surgical technique appears to provide a lower risk of neurological events and mortality, particularly in TEVAR patients, reducing the complications caused by the coverage of the left subclavian artery.

Chimney Technique and Single-Branched Stent Graft for the Left Subclavian Artery Preservation During Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Acute Aortic Syndromes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair assisted by the chimney technique or single-branched stent graft for the preservation of the left subclavian artery, and summarize our single-center experience with the techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2017 to June 2020, 137 patients who underwent left subclavian artery revascularization during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair were enrolled. Patients had acute type B aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer associated with intramural hematoma. The chimney technique was performed in 68 patients (group A), and single-branched stent graft was deployed in 69 patients (group B). All procedures were performed during the acute phase. Primary technical success, immediate postoperative endoleak, neurologic complications (stroke or spinal cord ischemia), 30-day mortality, 1-year technical success, all-cause mortality, patency of the left subclavian artery, and reintervention were analyzed. Comparing the occurrence of the Bird-Beak Configuration, defined as a gap between the aortic wall and the sent graft with stent protrusion into the aortic lumen more than 5 mm, was also performed.

RESULTS

Primary technique success was achieved in 66 and 67 patients in groups A and B, respectively. The incidence of immediate postoperative endoleak, neurologic complications (stroke or spinal cord ischemia), and 30-day mortality were 5.9%, 1.5%, and 4.4% in group A, and 2.9%, 2.9%, and 2.9% in group B, respectively. During follow-up, the 1-year technical success rate was similar in both groups. All-cause mortality was similar in both groups (3.1% in group A and 4.5% in group B). The patency of the left subclavian artery was not significantly different between the 2 groups with 2 and 3 occlusions in groups A and B, respectively. The rate of reintervention was higher in group B (3.1% vs 1.6%, p=0.536), with a non-significant difference. Bird-Beak Configuration was more prominent in group B with the incidence of 59.42%.

CONCLUSIONS

Acting as minimally invasive alternatives, both techniques are feasible for left subclavian artery preservation during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B acute aortic syndromes with encouraging mid-term outcomes. Long-term follow-up is required to confirm these findings.

Risk of Stroke with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of the Aortic Arch

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.

Experience with the Ankura Thoracic Stent Graft and In-situ Fenestration for the Left Subclavian Artery with the Fu-Through Needle - a Technical Overview and Comparison to Similar Endovascular Techniques

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a widespread minimally invasive procedure prevalently used to treat thoracic aortic pathologies. However, when the left subclavian artery (LSA) is involved in the pathology, a more complex surgical approach is required to guarantee the perfusion of the vertebral and brachial arteries. In fact, coverage of the LSA has been proven to be associated with a higher risk of stroke, spinal cord ischemia, and arm ischemia.Historically, carotid-subclavian bypass or subclavian transposition has been the only treatment options to restore the perfusion of the LSA. For the past 10 years, different endovascular techniques have been implemented in the endovascular armamentarium to reduce the risk of complications related to surgical treatment such as infection, bleeding, and chylothorax.Currently, physician-modified grafts, in situ fenestration, chimneys, and branched or fenestrated devices are available. The aim of this overview is to describe the technique with the Ankura thoracic stent graft and in situ fenestration with the Futhrough needle and thus to shed light on the different approaches by comparing their pros and cons.

Novel TEVAR technique for thoracic aortic aneurysm repair: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

A thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a life-threatening condition affecting 5-10 per 100,000 people per year. If not repaired, mortality rates are reported as high as 11.8 %, increasing to 97 %-100 % following a TAA rupture. Thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) are becoming more common, but currently face limitations due to complex vasculature. New techniques may provide a safer alternative.

CASE PRESENTATION

70-year-old male presenting with a history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and previous replacement of ascending aorta and hemi arch with reimplantation of innominate artery done in 2020. A CT scan done during routine interval monitoring of previous TAA repair demonstrated a new aneurysm, which was confirmed with CT angiogram. A novel TEVAR technique was used for repair. The patient tolerated this procedure well and was discharged from the ICU after six days.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Open procedures and hybrid techniques for TAA repair are not always suitable for high-risk patients. Alternative parallel grafting techniques have shown promising early results but still lack clinical support and long-term data. Several small-scale studies and case reports have demonstrated the use of in-situ laser fenestrations in various settings, but none have demonstrated the ability to extend the landing zone as far as zone 0 for repair of a Type B TAA.

CONCLUSION

The use of this novel technique may be considered suitable in high-risk patients with various subtypes of TAAs not suitable for open repair. More cases and clinical trials are needed to compare risks and long-term results to more commonly performed procedures.

Status of diagnosis and therapy of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are characterized by localized dilation of the abdominal aorta. They are associated with several serious consequences, including compression of adjacent abdominal organs, pain, treatment-related financial expenditure. The main complication of AAA is aortic rupture, which is responsible for about 200,000 deaths per year worldwide. An increasing number of researchers are dedicating their efforts to study AAA, resulting in significant progress in this field. Despite the commendable progress made thus far, there remains a lack of established methods to effectively decelerate the dilation of aneurysms. Therefore, further studies are imperative to expand our understanding and enhance our knowledge concerning AAAs. Although numerous factors are known to be associated with the occurrence and progression of AAA, the exact pathway of development remains unclear. While asymptomatic at most times, AAA features a highly unpredictable disease course, which could culminate in the highly deadly rupture of the aneurysmal aorta. Current guidelines recommend watchful waiting and lifestyle adjustment for smaller, slow-growing aneurysms, while elective/prophylactic surgical repairs including open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair are recommended for larger aneurysms that have grown beyond certain thresholds (55 mm for males and 50 mm for females). The latter is a minimally invasive procedure and is widely believed to be suited for patients with a poor general condition. However, several concerns have recently been raised regarding the postoperative complications and possible loss of associated survival benefits on it. In this review, we aimed to highlight the current status of diagnosis and treatment of AAA by an in-depth analysis of the findings from literatures.

Near-wall hemodynamic changes in subclavian artery perfusion induced by retrograde inner branched thoracic endograft implantation

Objective

Left subclavian artery (LSA)-branched endografts with retrograde inner branch configuration (thoracic branch endoprosthesis [TBE]) offer a complete endovascular solution when LSA preservation is required during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair. However, the hemodynamic consequences of the TBE have not been well-investigated. We compared near-wall hemodynamic parameters before and after the TBE implantation using computational fluid dynamic simulations.

Methods

Eleven patients who had undergone TBE implantation were included. Three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were constructed from the pre- and post-TBE implantation computed tomography images. The resulting 22 three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were then discretized into finite element meshes for computational fluid dynamic simulations. Inflow boundary conditions were prescribed using normal physiological pulsatile circulation. Outlet boundary conditions consisted of Windkessel models with previously published values. Blood flow, modeled as Newtonian fluid, simulations were performed with rigid wall assumptions using SimVascular's incompressible Navier-Stokes solver. We compared well-established hemodynamic descriptors: pressure, flow rate, time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), the oscillatory shear index (OSI), and percent area with an OSI of >0.2. Data were presented on the stented portion of the LSA.

Results

TBE implantation was associated with a small decrease in peak LSA pressure (153 mm Hg; interquartile range [IQR], 151-154 mm Hg vs 159 mm Hg; IQR, 158-160 mm Hg; P = .005). No difference was observed in peak LSA flow rates before and after implantation: 40.4 cm³/ (IQR, 39.5-41.6 cm³/s) vs 41.3 cm³/s (IQR, 37.2-44.8 cm³/s; P = .59). There was a significant postimplantation increase in TAWSS (15.2 dynes/cm² [IQR, 12.2-17.7 dynes/cm²] vs 6.2 dynes/cm² [IQR, 5.7-10.3 dynes/cm²]; P = .003), leading to decreases in both the OSI (0.088 [IQR, 0.063 to -0.099] vs 0.1 [IQR, 0.096-0.16]; P = .03) and percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 (10.4 [IQR, 5.8-15.8] vs 15.7 [IQR, 10.7-31.9]; P = .13). Neither LSA side branch angulation (median, 81°, IQR, 77°-109°) nor moderate compression (16%-58%) seemed to have an impact on the pressure, flow rate, TAWSS, or percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 in the stented LSA.

Conclusions

The implantation of TBE produces modest hemodynamic disturbances that are unlikely to result in clinically relevant changes.

Chimney Stenting Versus Surgical Debranching for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies-A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions requires revascularization of epiaortic vessels in case of coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical bypass versus endovascular reconstruction with a chimney graft.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a multicenter register between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 127 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: thoracic endovascular aortic repair + surgical debranching (n = 72) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair + chimney stenting (n = 55). The main end points were major neurologic sequelae and type IA endoleak. Propensity score matching was performed to analyse baseline variables related to these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 35.6 months for the debranching group and 34.1 for the chimney group (P = 0.65). The incidence of stroke was higher in the chimney group although not statistically significant (7.3% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.46); for both groups, a wide angle between the ostium of the target vessel and the aorta and landing in Ishimaru Zone 0 was found to be the main predictors for major neurologic sequelae (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). During follow-up, 9 (12.5%) type IA endoleaks occurred in the debranching group and 12 (21.8%) in the chimney group (P = 0.14). Aortic diameter larger than 66 mm and arch angle >46° had a strong association with proximal endoleak incidence (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: Surgical debranching showed better results than chimney stenting in terms of major neurologic events incidence and type IA endoleak, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to establish the indications for these procedures.

Hybrid and endovascular approaches to the aortic arch

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch remains open total arch replacement. High-risk operative candidates may benefit from hybrid or completely endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some are fenestrated or scalloped, whereas others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Initial results for completely endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging. Current data estimates that rates of successful deployment of arch endografts ranges from 84.2% to 100%, whereas operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%.

SUMMARY

More data are necessary to compare hybrid and endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch to conventional open total arch replacement. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. However, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in high-risk patients with complex aneurysms and dissections of the aortic arch.

Tratamiento endovascular con técnica de chimenea para patologías del arco aórtico

Introducción. La patología del arco aórtico se ha tratado principalmente con cirugía por vía abierta, pero con una alta morbimortalidad. Las técnicas endovasculares híbridas y las reconstrucciones en “chimenea” son una técnica válida y segura para disminuir el riesgo y la mortalidad. Métodos. Se presentan dos pacientes con patología del arco aórtico y contraindicación de manejo quirúrgico abierto, atendidos en el Servicio de Cirugía Vascular, Hospital Universitario Clínica de San Rafael, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Resultados. Se realizaron dos procedimientos endovasculares del arco aórtico para tratar un aneurisma torácico roto y una úlcera aórtica sintomática, con cubrimiento de los troncos supra aórticos con una endoprótesis y canalización de los vasos supra aórticos con prótesis cubiertas y uso de la “técnica de chimenea”, de manera exitosa. Discusión. La patología del arco aórtico es de alta complejidad y se asocia con una morbimortalidad elevada por lo que, en los últimos 20 años se han desarrollado diferentes técnicas utilizando procedimientos percutáneos. Conclusión. La “técnica de chimenea” se puede realizar de una manera mínimamente invasiva en pacientes con patología del arco aórtico, no candidatos para cirugía abierta, con resultados exitosos.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with chimney technique for aortic arch diseases

Objective

This study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.

Methods

From November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28–83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

Results

Among the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1–108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).

Conclusion

TEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.

Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Aortic Aneurysms with the GORE® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for Left Subclavian Artery Preservation

OBJECTIVE OR BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has emerged as the dominant paradigm for treatment of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. For aneurysms involving the aortic arch in the region of the left subclavian artery (LSA), branch vessel preservation to maintain blood flow to the LSA is recommended. Branched aortic endografts are an alternative to surgical revascularization of the LSA.

METHODS

Across 34 investigative sites, 84 patients with Zone 2 aneurysm were enrolled in a nonrandomized, prospective study of a single branched aortic endograft. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis device allows for graft placement proximal to the LSA and incorporates a single side branch for left subclavian perfusion.

RESULTS

Over half of the patients were male (63%). Their average age was 70 (±11) years. The aneurysm morphology was fusiform in 43 and saccular in 41 patients. The mean aneurysm diameter at screening was 56.2 mm. The mean follow up was 30 months (range 2.6 to 50.7 months). Reported here are the patient outcomes at 1 and 12 months. Pre-defined technical success with implantation of the device in landing Zone 2 was achieved in 92% (n=77) of patients. There were no cases of aortic rupture, lesion-related mortality, or new onset renal failure. There was no peri-operative (30-day) mortality. A single case each of permanent paraplegia and paraparesis occurred. Three patients experienced a procedure-related stroke. Through 12 months, four patients died; none of the deaths were adjudicated as related to the device or procedure. One aortic reintervention was required. A single case of aortic enlargement (core laboratory) was reported at 6 months. Type 1 (n=3) and III (n=5) endoleaks occurred in 9.8% of patients of which one (Type III) required reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this device study in patients with Zone 2 aneurysm demonstrate that early safety and efficacy outcomes are maintained up to 12 months after the endovascular procedure with low mortality and reintervention rates and an acceptable frequency of procedural complications, including neurologic complications.

Physician-Modified Endovascular Grafts for Zone-2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

 This study aims to describe our technique and early experience with physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for aortic arch diseases in zone 2. We used a total endovascular technique based on a single fenestrated endograft to preserve left subclavian artery (LSA) patency.

METHODS

 From December 2019 to August 2020, six consecutive patients with a variety of thoracic aortic diseases were treated with handmade fenestrated thoracic aortic grafts: four aortic dissections, one penetrating aortic ulcer, and one intramural hematoma. The planning, endograft modification, surgical technique, and follow-up of the patients were described. We evaluated immediate technical success and after 30 days, the LSA patency, Type-1 endoleak, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

 Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed for zone 2 in all cases. Immediate technical success, defined as successful alignment of the LSA with a covered stent and no Type-1 endoleak, was achieved in all cases. Patients had a 30-day follow-up computed tomography, which demonstrated LSA patency and no Type-I endoleaks. To date, no strokes, left arm ischemia, paraplegia, or conversions to open surgery have been reported; one patient operated for acute Type B dissection died during the early follow-up.

CONCLUSION

 TEVAR for zone 2 with a PMEG to maintain LSA patency achieved technical success and early durability. It is expected that with longer follow-up and a larger number of cases, these results will be confirmed.

Current state of hybrid solutions for aortic arch aneurysms

Since its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from a novel approach to a well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. HAR procedures have been proposed as a means to circumvent the perioperative morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch replacement. These procedures, all of which remain off-label applications of approved endograft technology, combine more conventional open surgical techniques, to create endograft landing zones, with thoracic endovascular aortic repair to exclude the aortic pathology from the circulation. The current classification system for HAR was proposed in 2013 and consists of three types, designated by the Roman numerals I, II and III. The current system has become outdated, however, with the advent of newer technologies, and herein we propose a new, updated classification system that is more encompassing with regards to the broad array of options available to treat aortic arch disease. Likewise, an institutional algorithm to guide patient and operative selection for HAR is presented. Patients are considered for HAR if they have either high-risk comorbidities or high-risk anatomy, with an important feature of the algorithm being that any decisions about repair strategy should be made by a surgical team with expertise in both open and endovascular techniques. Despite being performed for nearly two decades, the evidence around HAR consists mainly of single center series (level B-C evidence) with no randomized controlled trials. The data suggest HAR to be a safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short and mid-term results. As we as aortic surgeons continue to move towards less invasive approaches, both conventional open and hybrid techniques will remain important tools in the toolbox for arch repair, although the advent of multi-branched arch endografts will almost certainly reduce the extent of open or hybrid repair in many patients and eliminate it altogether in others.

[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.

Endovascular repair of the aorti arch

AIM

The study was aimed at assessing the in-hospital results of aortic arch endoprosthetic repair using different variants of endovascular supraaortic debranching.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The analysis included 27 patients subjected within the framework of aortic arch endoprosthetic repair to various types of supraaortic endobranching, including the technique of parallel prostheses and implantation of fenestrated stent grafts. We analysed the clinical and morphological status of patients prior to operation, peculiarities of the intervention (type of debranching and Ishimaru's classification zones in which the reconstruction was performed) and in-hospital results of treatment.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age amounted to 66 years. The main nosology (70%) was an aortic aneurysm. Nearly in 30% of cases, the operation was performed emergently for acute aortic syndrome. The main causes of refusal from the traditional prosthetic repair included chronic kidney disease (22.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11%), acute cerebral ischaemia within the previous 6 months (15%). The technical success rate of the operation was achieved in 100% of cases. The average duration of the intervention amounted to 226 min, with the mean blood loss equalling 355 ml. The majority of reconstructions were performed in zones 1 and 2 according to Ishimaru (59 and 33%, respectively), in 2 (7%) patients prosthetic repair was performed in zone 0. The total number of the aortic branches involved into reconstruction amounted to 45. Intervention-related complications included 3 (11%) cases of acute cerebral circulation impairment, 2 (7.4%) aortic branch occlusions, and 1 (3.7%) type II endoleak. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates amounted to 3.7 and 7.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Aortic arch endoprosthetic repair using supraaortic endobranching is considered to be an effective alternative method of treatment for patients with various pathology of the aortic arch and contraindications to traditional prosthetic repair involving artificial blood circulation.

Early Efficacy of In Situ Fenestration with a Triple Chimney Technique for High-Risk Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Purpose

The objective of this investigation was to study the early efficacy of in situ fenestration with triple chimney technique for high-risk type A aortic dissection patients.

Methods

This study included 24 patients who were treated by in situ fenestration with TCT for high-risk TAAD between January 2018 and December 2019. Multiple comorbidities or preoperative critical conditions rendered patients ineligible for open surgery, but all patients that were evaluated and considered had to undergo operation. By analyzing the regular follow-up data, the early postoperative efficacy of the patients was evaluated.

Results

The average age of the 24 patients was 65.4 ± 9.3 years. The success rate of the operation was 100%, as all the patients were discharged successfully. There were no serious neurological complications or persistent endoleakage. The mean follow-up time was 21.4 ± 6.9 months. The patency rate of all branching stents was 100%, with no stent displacement, stenosis, or blockage observed. While none presented with type I endoleakage, one patient (4.2%) presented asymptomatic type II endoleakage around the left subclavian artery stent. Currently, 23 of the 24 patients remain alive.

Conclusion

Initial results are encouraging with TCT for high-risk TAAD. However, due to its high selectivity and potential complexity related to surgical risks, the mid- and long-term efficacy of this technique remains unknown. For patients who are eligible for open heart surgery, we still recommend it be performed.

Hybrid Surgery to Manage Aortic Arch Pathology

Background and Objectives: Aortic arch disease is still a high-risk surgical challenge despite major advances both in surgical and anesthesiological management. A combined surgical and endovascular approach has been proposed for aortic arch disease treatment to avoid hypothermia and circulatory arrest in high-risk patients. Materials and Methods: Between June 2004 and June 2021, 112 patients were referred to our department for aortic arch surgery; 38 (33.9%) patients underwent supra-aortic debranching and endovascular treatment. Of these, 21 (55%) patients underwent type I aortic arch hybrid debranching procedure and in 17 (45%) patients a type II aortic arch hybrid debranching procedure was performed. None of the patients were emergent. Results: No intra-operative deaths were recorded. In the type I aortic arch hybrid debranching patients’ group, one patient died at home waiting the endovascular step, one developed ascending aortic dissection and another one developed a pseudoaneurysm at the site of the debranching at follow-up. In the type II aortic arch hybrid debranching patients’ group, left carotid artery branch closure was detected at follow-up in one patient. Thirty day/in-hospital rates of adverse neurological events for both the surgical and endovascular procedures were 3% for minor stroke, with no permanent neurological deficit and 0% for permanent paraplegia/paraparesis. In 100% of the cases, the endovascular step succeeded and the type Ia endoleak rate was 0%. Conclusions: Hybrid arch surgery is a valuable option for aortic arch aneurysm treatment in patients with high surgical risk. The choice of aortic arch debranching between type I or type II is crucial and depends on anatomic and clinical patient characteristics. Further larger scale studies are needed to better define the advantages of these techniques.

Endovascular repair of the aortic arch: State of the art

BACKGROUND

Open total arch replacement remains the gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch. However, high-risk surgical candidates may benefit from endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity, especially neurologic complications. Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some devices are fenestrated or scalloped, while others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Furthermore, chimney techniques and in situ fenestration may be utilized in bailout or emergent situations.

RESULTS

Initial results describing outcomes of complete endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging, with current data estimating that technical success ranges from 84.2% to 100%. Moreover, operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, while neurologic complications also remain common, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%. However, more data are necessary to determine the comparative treatment effect of endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch, compared with conventional open and hybrid repairs. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. Nevertheless, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in patients with complex and potentially devastating pathologies of the aortic arch.

TEVAR and periscope graft technique to treatment of huge aneurysm of aortic isthmus: Case report

Introduction

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms. Innovative techniques as chimney and periscope grafts can improve the outcomes of procedure. Herein, we report a case in emergency of huge Thoracic aortic aneurism.

Presentation of case

An 86-year-old male with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, was referred to our hospital for chest pain. CT-angiography showed a huge aneurysm of aortic isthmus with signs of rupture. The patient was considered unfit for open surgery and an endovascular approach was chosen. This patient underwent endovascular repair with TEVAR, using the periscope graft technique to preserve patency in left subclavian artery (LSA).

Discussion

Symptomatic ischemia from LSA coverage has been reported to occur in only a modest 6–10% of patients and is often sacrificed with impunity given coverage rates between 10 and 50%. In this case reported the lack of revascularization of LSA increased the risk of neurological manifestations or stroke. Periscope technique is feasible and safe to maintain perfusion to the subclavian artery, with a 93% primary patency at 2 years.

Conclusions

Our experience using TEVAR with periscope graft technique as solution to address thoracic aneurysm of aortic isthmus was feasible and safe.

•

Innovative techniques as chimney and periscope grafts can improve the outcomes of TEVAR.

•

Subclavian Artery is important to vascularization of upper arm, vertebro-basilar circulation and medullar vascularization.

•

Maintenance of blood flow to the LSA is recommended because it has been shown to prevent paraplegia in TEVAR procedures.

•

Periscope technique is feasible and safe to maintain perfusion to the subclavian artery.

Evaluation of the Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis in the treatment of proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has radically transformed the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, when aneurysms involve the aortic arch in the region of the left subclavian artery, branch vessel preservation must be considered. Branched aortic endografts have provided a new option to maintain branch patency.

METHODS

Six investigative sites enrolled 31 patients in a nonrandomized, prospective investigational device exemption feasibility trial of a single branched aortic endograft for the management of aneurysms that include the distal aortic arch. The Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz), an investigational device, allows for graft placement proximal to the left subclavian artery and incorporates a single side branch for left subclavian perfusion.

RESULTS

All 31 patients (100%) had undergone successful implantation of the investigational device in landing zone 2. Men slightly outnumbered women (51.6%). Their average age was 74.1 ± 10.4 years. The aneurysm morphology was fusiform in 12 and saccular in 19 patients, with a mean maximum aortic diameter of 54.8 ± 10.9 mm. The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 25.2 ± 11.1 months. We have reported the patient outcomes at 1 month and 1 year. At 1 month, the side branch patency was 100% and the freedom from core laboratory-reported device-related endoleak (types I and III) was 96.7%, without 30-day death or permanent paraplegia. One patient experienced a procedure-related stroke. Through 1 year, five patients had died; none of the deaths were related to the device or procedure (clinical endpoint committee adjudicated). One thoracic reintervention was required. No conversions were required, and no aneurysm growth (core laboratory) was reported. One case of the loss of side branch patency was diagnosed in the left subclavian artery in an asymptomatic individual from computed tomography at 6 months, with no reported subsequent adverse events due to loss of patency. Endoleaks were reported by the core laboratory in five patients at 12 months (two, type II; and three, indeterminate).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigational device exemption feasibility study has reported the preliminary results of the use of a single side branch endograft to treat patients with proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Association of carotid ultrasonography with perioperative stroke after thoracic aortic aneurysm treatment: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to verify whether carotid ultrasonography (CUS) findings could be associated with the occurrence of perioperative stroke after thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) treatment.

METHODS

Patients with TAAs who were treated by either total arch replacement or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) were retrospectively enrolled. Left subclavian artery (LSA) embolization and bypass surgery of the left common carotid artery (CCA) to the LSA before TEVAR were additionally performed for some patients. CUS was performed before TAA treatment to evaluate carotid atherosclerosis and flow velocities of bilateral cervical arteries. After dividing patients into those with and without perioperative stroke, their background, atherosclerotic risk factors, history of stroke, TAA location and size, treatment procedures, and CUS parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients (18 women, 42 men; mean age 73.5 ± 10.2 years) with TAA, four (7.5%) developed perioperative stroke. There were no significant differences in the patients' characteristics and their TAAs between those with and without perioperative stroke. For the CUS parameters, end-diastolic velocity (EDV) of bilateral CCAs was significantly decreased in perioperative stroke patients (with vs without stroke; right: 9.2 ± 1.8 vs. 14.5 ± 4.6 cm/s, P = 0.025, left: 9.1 ± 0.3 vs. 15.0 ± 4.5 cm/s, P = 0.012), whereas the resistance index (RI) of bilateral CCAs was significantly elevated (right: 0.76 vs. 0.87, P = 0.008, left: 0.76 vs. 0.87, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower EDV and higher RI of bilateral CCAs were significantly associated with perioperative stroke after TAA treatment. Thus, CUS findings may help predict the occurrence of perioperative stroke.

Endovascular Repair for Acute Type B Aortic Dissection With Unfavorable Proximal Landing Zone

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between fenestrated technique with or without chimney stent and single-branched stent graft for isolated left subclavian artery revascularization during endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection with unfavorable proximal landing zone.

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2019, 65 acute type B aortic dissection patients with unfavorable proximal landing zone were treated with either the fenestrated technique (n = 34, group A) or single-branched stent graft (n = 31, group B). Type I endoleak, retrograde type A dissection, stroke, left subclavian artery patency, 30-day mortality, and aortic remodeling were systematically recorded and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Technical success rates for groups A and group B were 94.12% and 100%, respectively. Left subclavian artery primary patency was achieved for all enrolled patients. The incidence of type I endoleak, retrograde type A dissection, stroke, and 30-day mortality was 5.9%, 5.9%, 2.9%, and 2.9% in group A, respectively, but none were encountered in group B. Left subclavian artery occlusion was observed in 3 patients in group A and 2 patients in group B during a mean follow-up of 16.18 ± 2.08 months and 15.19 ± 2.68 months, respectively. After the procedure, significant aortic remodeling was detected in both groups during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques are feasible and safe for isolated left subclavian artery revascularization during endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection. Apart from the associated perioperative risks of complications and mortality for the fenestrated technique, both procedures contributed to favorable aortic remodeling.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed.

RESULTS

Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.

Narrative review on endovascular techniques for left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and risk factors for postoperative stroke

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures.

METHODS

Non-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010-1 August 2020.

RESULTS

Current general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.

The midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a precurved fenestrated endograft in zone 0-1

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch disease remains challenging due to certain anatomical and haemodynamic features. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm results of TEVAR with a second-generation fenestrated endograft for aortic arch disease.

METHODS

This non-randomized, interventional study was part of a multicentre clinical trial conducted between 2010 and 2011 and was designed to assess the effectiveness of a second-generation precurved fenestrated endograft for aortic arch disease. Midterm data collected during the fifth postoperative year from 205 patients treated with this endograft with the proximal landing of zone 0 or 1 were assessed regarding survival, reoperation and complications.

RESULTS

The initial and technical success rates were 94% and 91%, respectively. Ninety-seven percent of patients were treated using zone 0. The rate of in-hospital deaths was 3%. Overall survival was 71% at 5 years; thoracic aorta-related death-free survival rates at 1 and 5 years after surgery were 99.5% and 97.8%, respectively. Aneurysm-related event-free survival rates at 1 and 5 years after surgery were 86.8% and 77.1%, respectively. Reoperation-free survival rates at 5 years were 86.6%. The most frequent reason for reoperation was type Ia endoleak (5%), followed by type II endoleak (2%). Incidences of cerebral infarction, device migration, spinal cord ischaemia and supra-aortic branch stenosis were 6%, 1%, 1% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The precurved fenestrated endograft provided appropriate conformability to the aortic arch and made zone 0 landing possible with simplified, less-invasive manipulations. The midterm results of TEVAR with this endograft suggest this method is a valuable endovascular treatment option for aortic arch disease.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007213.

Endovascular Aortic Arch Reconstruction with Parallel Grafts: A Dilemma of Excessive Endograft Oversizing

Background

Preservation of supra-aortic branches in thoracic endovascular aortic repair plays a role in associated neurological outcomes, and the strategy varies.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a parallel graft technique to reconstruct the aortic arch.

Methods

From August 2014 to July 2018, a total of 25 patients with thoracic aortic pathologies requiring arch reconstruction were included. All patients underwent thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with a zone 1 landing aortic stent graft, a chimney graft to preserve the left common carotid artery, and a periscope graft to preserve the left subclavian artery. The associated outcomes and complications were reported.

Results

Eighteen patients presented with aortic dissection, 4 with a thoracic aortic aneurysm, 1 with a penetrating aortic ulcer, 1 with a traumatic aortic injury, and 1 case of re-TEVAR. The technical success rate was 96% (24/25), but the case of immediate failure died of retrograde type A dissection. Over a mean follow-up of 32.33 months, another retrograde type A aortic dissection was detected in 1 month, and a case of early failure (< 1 year) and 3 cases of late failure (> 1 year) whose primary aortic problems recurred were detected.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a total endovascular approach to preserve supra-aortic branches with a parallel graft technique. However, the dilemma of excessive graft oversizing was disclosed due to the risk of retrograde type A dissections and an unsatisfactory durability in this small series.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Left Subclavian Artery Coverage Is Associated With a High 30-Day Stroke Incidence With or Without Concomitant Revascularization

Purpose: To evaluate the perioperative stroke incidence following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with differing left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage and revascularization approaches in a real-world setting of a nationwide clinical registry. Materials and Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was interrogated from 2005 to 2017 to identify all nonemergent TEVAR and/or open LSA revascularization procedures. In this time frame, 2346 TEVAR cases met the selection criteria for analysis. The 30-day stroke incidence was compared between patients undergoing TEVAR with (n=888) vs without (n=1458) LSA coverage, for those with (n=228) vs without (n=660) concomitant LSA revascularization among those with coverage, and following isolated LSA revascularization for occlusive disease (n=768). Multivariable logistic regression was employed for risk-adjusted analyses and to identify factors associated with stroke following TEVAR. Results of the regression analyses are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The stroke incidence was 2.3% following TEVAR without vs 5.2% with LSA coverage (p<0.001). In TEVARs with LSA coverage, the stroke incidence was 7.5% when the LSA was concomitantly revascularized and 4.4% without concomitant revascularization, while stroke occurred in 0.5% of isolated LSA revascularizations. Of 33 TEVAR patients experiencing a perioperative stroke, 8 (24%) died within 30 days. LSA coverage was associated with stroke both with concomitant revascularization (OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 7.5, p<0.001) and without concomitant revascularization (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8, p=0.002). Other preoperative factors associated with stroke were dyspnea (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0, p=0.014), renal dysfunction (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.8, p=0.049), and international normalized ratio ≥2.0 (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 13, p=0.045). Conclusion: Stroke following TEVAR with LSA coverage occurs frequently in the real-world setting, and concurrent LSA revascularization was not associated with a lower stroke incidence.

Early and midterm outcomes of in situ laser fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and subacute aortic arch diseases and analysis of its complications

OBJECTIVE

An analysis was conducted of early and midterm outcomes of a large series of patients treated with in situ laser fenestration (ISLF) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases, such as Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD), type B aortic dissection (TBAD) requiring proximal sealing at zone 2 or more proximal, thoracic aortic aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm, and penetrating aortic ulcer. We present the perioperative and follow-up outcomes and discuss the rate of complications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from January 2017 to March 2019 of patients treated with TEVAR and ISLF of aortic arch branches at a large tertiary academic institution in an urban city in China. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up clinical and radiographic data are analyzed and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients presented with symptomatic and acute or subacute TAAD, TBAD, thoracic aortic aneurysm, or penetrating aortic ulcer for a total of 183 arch vessels. There were 105 men and 43 women, 21 to 79 years of age (mean, 54.9 ± 12.9 years). Time from symptom onset to time of surgery was an average of 7 ± 3 days. Survivor follow-up duration ranged from 5 to 24 months (mean, 15 ± 5 months). Single-vessel fenestration was carried out in 124 cases, two-vessel fenestration in 13 cases, and three-vessel fenestration in 11 cases. There were four cases with technical failure to laser fenestration, with a technical success rate of 97.3%. Postoperatively, there were seven cases of endoleak (4.7%; one type IB distal from the left subclavian artery branch stent graft, three type IIIC at the fenestration site, and three type II), three retrograde dissections (2.0%), and five strokes (3.4%); death occurred in three patients with 30-day mortality of 2.9%, and two deaths occurred during follow-up for 3.4% mortality at an average 15 months of follow-up. There was no branch stent graft occlusion or spinal ischemia postoperatively or during follow-up. The distribution of arch diseases varied significantly according to the number of vessels that were laser fenestrated; TAAD was more likely to receive multivessel laser fenestrations, and TBAD was more likely to receive single-vessel fenestration (P < .001). The rate of complications was distributed differently between the three ISLF groups, with more complications occurring in multivessel fenestrations. However, a statistical weakening was observed when frequency of complications between the three groups was stratified by type of arch disease. The complication rate varied significantly between the different arch diseases, higher in TAAD than in TBAD (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

ISLF during TEVAR for treatment of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases in the proximal aortic arch is safe and effective on the basis of these early to midterm follow-up data of a large cohort. However, care should be taken in intervening on TAAD using TEVAR with adjunctive multivessel laser fenestration. Continued investigation of TEVAR and adjunctive ISLF is needed to elucidate the long-term outcomes of this minimally invasive treatment for complex aortic arch disease in an urgent setting.

Long-term Results of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection and Risk Factors for Survival

Purpose: To compare characteristics of acute, subacute, and chronic type B aortic dissection and their influence on long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: In a single-center, retrospective cohort study, 314 patients (median age 52 years; 244 men) with acute (n=165), subacute (n=115), or chronic (n=34) type B aortic dissection underwent TEVAR between January 2009 and December 2013. Patient demographics, risk factors, and imaging characteristics were compared among the groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify any factors influencing survival. Results: The acute and subacute patients exhibited more complications at presentation than chronic patients. However, the chronic patients exhibited more aneurysmal dilatation (p<0.001) and true lumen collapse (p<0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 68.1±22.9 months (range 2–108), subacute patients showed a lower reintervention rate (3.6% vs 12.1% vs 12.1%, p=0.045), a lower major complication rate (14.4% vs 33.1% vs 27.3%, p=0.002), and better cumulative overall survival (p=0.03) than the acute and chronic groups, respectively. Furthermore, acute patients developed more stent-graft–induced distal erosion (p=0.017) and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (p=0.036), whereas chronic patients had less aortic remodeling in the stented segment (p<0.001), distal thoracic aorta (p<0.001), and abdominal aorta (p=0.047). Finally, multivariable analysis demonstrated age >52 years, visceral malperfusion, and RTAD as independent factors influencing overall survival; aneurysmal dilatation, rupture/impending rupture, and RTAD were independent factors influencing aorta-specific survival. Conclusion: Acute and subacute patients had increased risks of rupture and complications at presentation, whereas chronic patients had increased risks for aneurysmal dilatation. From a long-term perspective, the subacute phase might be an optimal time for TEVAR in cases of type B aortic dissection that do not need emergent interventions. The risk factors influencing survival should be identified, carefully managed, and possibly prevented.

Methods and clinical outcomes of in situ fenestration for aortic arch revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Despite endovascular advances in fenestrated and branched devices, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for arch pathologies remains challenging. The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary review on the current evidence for in situ fenestration during TEVAR and to evaluate its short- and mid-term clinical outcome in the management of arch pathology.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on in situ fenestration of thoracic aortic stent-graft from January 2003 to September 2018 was performed under the instruction of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 169 studies, of which 21 articles were relevant to the topic and were finally included. One hundred and forty-five in situ fenestration procedures in 99 patients were reviewed, involving 25 innominate arteries (17%), 33 left common carotid arteries (23%) and 87 left subclavian arteries (60%). Twelve patients (12/99, 12%) had two-vessel fenestration and three-vessel fenestration was performed in 17 patients (17/99, 17%). Technical success was achieved in 136 arteries (136/145, 93%). Talent/Valiant with monofilament twill woven polyester fabric was the most common (50/99, 51%) stent-graft used for fenestration. Three methods reported for in situ fenestration were needle, laser and radiofrequency. Needle was the most frequently used device for fenestration, which was performed in 60 patients (60/99, 61%). Three patients (3/99, 3%) died with 30 days, none were in situ fenestration TEVAR procedure-related. Perioperative complications including one (1%) retrograde type A aortic dissection, two (2%) type II endoleaks, and three (3%) strokes were reported. The pooled estimate for overall technical success, perioperative mortality and stroke was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.6%-93.9%), 5.9% (95% CI, 2.5%-13.4%) and 9.5% (95% CI, 4.1%-20.6%), respectively. Four patients (4/96, 4%) died during follow-up, none were aortic-related. All the fenestration bridging stents were reportedly patent, with only 1 (1/96, 1%) asymptomatic left subclavian stent stenosis. Two patients (2/96, 2%) with type II endoleak from left subclavian artery required secondary intervention.

CONCLUSION

In situ fenestration appeared to be a feasible and effective method to extend proximal landing zone during TEVAR. It had an acceptable short-term result with high technical success and low fenestration related morbidity. Long-term durability data were lacking, and there was no high level evidence to recommend the routine use of in situ fenestration TEVAR for the management of arch pathology.

The Position Relationship Between the Opening of the Three Branches of the Aortic Arch and the Aortic Arch Axis in Normal People

BACKGROUND

Due to the anatomical variability of the three branches of the aortic arch, interventional treatment of arch diseases becomes difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the position of three branches of the aortic arch in normal people and to provide reference data for the customization of aortic arch stents and simplified intraluminal treatment.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who underwent computed tomography angiography examination of thoracic aorta in our institution were enrolled as per a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria from January 2018 to December 2018. Measurements were carried out using GEAW 4.6 workstation. The parameters recorded were the ratio of the distance from the point where the aortic branch opening intersects the aortic arch to the anterior wall of the aorta to the cross-sectional diameter of the aortic arch. Finally, the position relationship among the three branch openings was determined.

RESULTS

The position relationship among the three branches openings is divided into three categories. Type I: Two of the branch openings are completely surrounded by the boundary of the other branch. Type II: There is no inclusion relationship between the three branch openings. Type III: One branch opening is surrounded by the boundary of the other branch. In type I, there were 23 cases (19.2%); in type II, 37 cases (30.8%); and in type III, 60 cases (50%). These three position relationships were not significantly different between sexes and different ages (P > 0.05). These data were used to design a possible stent model.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that the position of three aortic branches exhibits distinct patterns divided into 3 types. Based on measurements of the opening position of the three branches, the position relationship between the 3 branches can be obtained to provide a theoretical basis for the design of intraluminal stents and application of the simplified intracavity thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair technology.

Chimney Endografting for Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using The Reorientation Technique

The purpose of this report was to describe the reorientation of the chimney graft technique to downsize brachial artery access during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and thus preserve left subclavian artery flow. In the case described herein, the chimney graft was advanced not from the brachial or axillary artery, but from the common femoral artery, over a brachiofemoral pull-through wire. The chimney graft was then turned out into the ascending aorta by balloon dilatation via percutaneous brachial access (“reorientation”). Despite the use of a large-diameter chimney graft, the chimney technique with percutaneous brachial access was successfully performed using the reorientation technique.

Long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable bare stent as chimney stent in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for supra-aortic branches reconstruction

Background

To report the long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable bare stent (BEBS) as chimney stent (CS) in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for supra-aortic branches reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 33 patients with thoracic aortic diseases underwent TEVAR using BEBSs as CSs for supra-aortic branches reconstruction in our center from 2010 to 2015. The demographics and procedural details were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6 months and every 1 year thereafter. Postoperative complications and long-term outcomes were recorded.

Results

The technical success rate was 100%. A total of 36 BEBSs were utilized as CSs to reconstruct the supra-aortic branches during TEVAR. The rate of immediate endoleak was 42.4% (14/33), including 12 (36.4%) type Ia endoleaks and 2 (6.1%) type II endoleaks. Two of type Ia endoleaks were managed by balloon dilation and disappeared, while the rest were left with close follow-up. Two type II endoleaks were embolized by coils and excluded by a plug, respectively. One patient (3.0%) died 2 days after the procedure due to the acute rupture of aortic dissection. The mean follow-up time was 61.8 (ranged from 12 to 102) months. The unmanaged 10 type Ia endoleaks were closely observed during the follow-up, of which 7 disappeared at 1 year and 1 disappeared at 2 years. The rest 2 type Ia endoleaks existed without further dilation of the aorta. One patient (3.0%) was re-intervened for the increased false lumen due to the distal residual tears. The long-term mortality was 9.1% (3/33). All CSs kept patent till the end of follow-up. No other complications were found.

Conclusions

The balloon-expandable stent (BES) is a feasible choice as CS for supra-aortic branches reconstruction with long-term patency during TEVAR. However, BEBS may be related to a higher rate of early endoleak.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection with Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with an aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2012 to July 2018, 15 patients (13 male, 2 female) who had TBAD with ARSA underwent total endovascular repair, including thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), left subclavian artery (LSA) chimney technique, LSA fenestration technique, and double chimney technique (LSA chimney and ARSA periscope). The mean age was 55 years. Kommerell diverticulum (KD) occurred in 2 patients, which were covered by means of oversized aortic stents. All patients had preoperative imaging examinations for assessing cerebral blood flow and the dominant vertebral arteries.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed successfully. There was no in-hospital mortality. The mean procedural time was 98 ± 40 minutes (range 50-190). The mean preoperative diameters of the maximum descending aorta, false lumen, and true lumen in the descending aorta versus postoperative were 37 ± 10 mm (range 28-67), 18 ± 9 mm (range 9-41), and 19 ± 6 mm (range 10-35) versus 34 ± 9 mm (range 25-64), 5 ± 8 mm (range 0-28), and 28 ± 5 mm (range 19-37), respectively. Right upper extremity weakness was observed in 2 patients, which recovered gradually during follow-up. Immediate type Ia endoleak was detected in 1 patient. The mean follow-up time was 33 ± 20 months. During follow-up, no ARSA steal syndrome, spinal cord ischemia, or strokes were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment for TBAD with ARSA was feasible and safe with a satisfactory midterm follow-up outcome.

Measuring the greater curvature length of virtual stent graft can provide accurate prediction of stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of predicting stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair by measuring three lengths of the virtual stent graft: smaller curvature (SC), center lumen line (CL), and greater curvature (GC).

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2016, patients treated at our institution were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who were treated with more than two devices, patients treated for aortic dissection, and cases without complete preoperative or postoperative computed tomography (CT) data were excluded. From the preoperative CT data, the virtual stent graft image based on the SC (SCVS) was created so that its SC length matched that of the stent graft actually used. In the same manner, virtual stent graft images based on the CL (CLVS) and GC (GCVS) were created. These virtual stent graft images were created using SYNAPSE VINCENT software (Fujifilm Co, Tokyo, Japan) and superimposed on the postoperative CT image to measure the misalignment between these virtual stent graft images and the actual stent graft. These misalignments were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. In addition, the actual length (AL) of the stent graft was measured on the basis of the CL from postoperative CT data and compared with its original length (OL).

RESULTS

A total of 35 cases were analyzed. Twenty-six patients were men. The average age of the patients was 72.4 ± 13.0 years. The proximal landing zone were located at the descending aorta (n = 11) and the aortic arch (n = 24). The misalignment between SCVS, CLVS, and GCVS and actual stent graft position was -47.8 ± 18.1 mm, -21.5 ± 9.4 mm, and 5.3 ± 7.4 mm, respectively. The difference in means between the three groups was significant (P < .001). The relationship between the AL based on CL and OL was represented by the formula AL = OL * 0.92 - 0.05 (in the descending aorta) and AL = OL * 0.77 + 9.85 (in the aortic arch).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLVS and SCVS, GCVS was the most accurate predictor of stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Chimney parallel grafts and thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Whilst the management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury has seen a paradigm shift to an 'endovascular first' approach, the limitations of thoracic endovascular aortic repair remain. An inadequate proximal landing zone limits the use of thoracic aortic stent grafts and in an emergent polytrauma setting, aortic arch debranching via open surgery may not be practical or feasible. A wholly endovascular approach to debranching utilising 'off-the-shelf' stents and parallel graft techniques may represent a possible solution. Hence, we sought to perform a systematic review investigating the use of chimney graft techniques alongside thoracic aortic stenting in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury.

METHODS

We performed the systematic review in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Searches were performed on Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus to identify articles describing the use of chimney grafts in traumatic aortic transection (PROSPERO: CRD42017082549).

RESULTS

The systematic search revealed 172 papers, of which 88 duplicates were removed resulting in 84 papers to screen. Based on title, abstract and full text review, six articles were included for final analysis. There were nine patients in total with an average age of 41 (three females, five males, one unspecified), all with significant polytrauma, secondary to the mechanism of injury. A variety of stents were used between centres, with techniques showing a predominance to stenting of the left subclavian artery (77%, n = 7). The technical success rate was 82%, with two (18%) cases of type 1 endoleaks, of which one resolved spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the encouraging results, this by no means provides for a firm conclusion given the small sample size. Patients should still be judiciously selected on a case-by-case basis when employing the chimney graft technique. Larger cohort studies are needed to establish these findings.

Comparison of Two Different Techniques for Isolated Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Zone 2

Purpose: To analyze the results of isolated left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using carotid-subclavian bypass (CSbp) or chimney grafts (CGs). Methods: A retrospective multicenter, observational study identified 73 patients (mean age 68±13 years, range 22–87; 56 men) with acute or chronic thoracic aortic lesions who underwent TEVAR with isolated LSA revascularization using either CSbp (n=42) or CGs (n=31) from January 2010 and February 2017. Primary endpoints were TEVAR-related mortality, postoperative stroke, freedom from type Ia endoleak, and LSA patency. Results: Primary technical success was achieved in all cases. Early TEVAR-related mortality was 4.2% (CSbp 2% vs CG 6%, p=0.571). Two (3%) patients had major ischemic strokes (one in each group). Mean follow-up was 24±21 months (range 1–72; median 15). Estimated freedom from TEVAR-related mortality was 93%±3% (95% CI 84.3% to 97.0%) at 12 and 36 months, with no significant difference between CSbp and CG (p=0.258). Aortic reintervention did not differ between the groups (CSbp 5% vs CG 6%, p=0.356); nor did freedom from type Ia endoleak (CSbp 98% vs CG 87%, p=0.134). Gutter-related endoleaks occurred in 4 (13%) CG patients, but none of the patients experienced sac enlargement or the need for reintervention and none died. Primary patency of the LSA was 100% for the entire group during the observation period. Conclusion: In our experience, LSA revascularization proved most satisfactory and equally effective with both the CSbp and CG techniques, without discernible differences at midterm follow-up.