Clinical outcomes of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair using commercially available fenestrated stent graft (Najuta endograft)

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Jaw claudication and branch perfusion reduction as rare complications of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair

We report a rare case of jaw claudication following fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for a saccular aortic arch aneurysm. The brachiocephalic artery (BCA) was preserved with fenestration and intentionally half covered. Although discharged without any complications 2 weeks after the procedure, the patient subsequently experienced right mandibular fatigue at mealtime and hypotension in the right upper extremity. Angiography revealed a flap-like structure in the BCA orifice, with a 100-mm Hg pressure gradient between the aorta and BCA. Intravascular ultrasound revealed a stenosed BCA with a cord-like structure, which was considered a graft protrusion. Bare metal stenting was performed, which promptly resolved the symptoms.

The outcomes of aortic arch repair between open surgical repair and debranching endovascular hybrid surgical repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, open surgical aortic arch repair (OAR) and debranching hybrid surgical aortic arch repair (HAR) serve as significant therapeutic approaches for aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. It remains unclear which technique is preferable. Our study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two procedures.

METHODS

To identify comparison studies of debranching HAR and OAR, a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 2002 to April 2022. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218080).

RESULTS

Sixteen publications (1316 patients), including six propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis papers, were included in this study. Compared with the HAR group, the patients who underwent OAR were younger (OAR vs HAR: 67.53 ± 12.81 vs 71.29 ± 11.0; P < .00001), had less coronary artery disease (OAR vs HAR: 22.45% vs 32.6%; P = .007), less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OAR vs HAR: 16.16% vs 23.92%; P = .001), lower rates of previous stroke (OAR vs HAR: 12.46% vs 18.02%; P = .05), and a lower EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) score (OAR vs HAR: 6.27 ± 1.04 vs 6.9 ± 3.76; P < .00001). HAR was associated with less postoperative blood transfusion (OAR vs HAR: 12.23% vs 7.91%; P = .04), shorter length of intensive care unit stays (OAR vs HAR: 5.92 ± 7.58 days vs 4.02 ± 6.60 days; P < .00001) and hospital stays (OAR vs HAR: 21.59 ± 17.54 days vs 16.49 ± 18.45 days; P < .0001), lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding complications (OAR vs HAR: 8.07% vs 3.96%; P = .01), fewer postoperative pulmonary complication (OAR vs HAR: 14.75% vs 5.02%; P < .0001), and acute renal failure (OAR vs HAR: 7.54% vs 5.17%; P = .03). In the PSM subgroup, the rates of spinal cord ischemic (OAR vs HAR: 5.75% vs 11.49%; P = .02), stroke (OAR vs HAR: 5.1% vs 17.35%; P = .01), and permanent paraplegia (OAR vs HAR: 2.79% vs 6.08%; P = .006) were lower in the OAR group than that in the HAR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year survival rates (HAR vs OAR: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.54; P = .10), the 3-year and 5-year survivals were significantly higher in the OAR group than that in the HAR group (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.69; P = .01; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.68; P = .01). In the PSM subgroup, the OAR group was also significantly superior to the HAR group in terms of 3-year and 5-year survivals (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.73; P = .04; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.67; P = .04). The reintervention rate in the HAR group was significantly higher than that in the OAR group (OAR vs HAR: 8.24% vs 16.01%; P = .01). The most common reintervention was postoperative bleeding (8.07%) in the OAR group and endoleak (9.67%) in the HAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that debranching HAR was associated with fewer perioperative complications than the OAR group, except for postoperative permanent paraplegia, reintervention, and stroke events. The OAR group demonstrated better 3-year and 5-year survivals than the debranching HAR group. However, patients in the OAR group had fewer comorbid factors and were younger than those in the HAR group. High-quality studies and well-powered randomized trials are needed to further evaluate this evolving field.

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.

Branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic arch repair in patients with native proximal aortic landing zone

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular repair (f/bTEVAR) have been successfully applied in patients with diverse aortic arch pathologies. The aim of this study is to present the early and mid-term outcomes of patients with native proximal aortic landing (NPAL) managed with f/bTEVAR.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with NPAL, managed with f/bTEVAR, between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, was conducted. All patients were treated with custom-made devices (Cook Medical) with landing within Ishimaru zones 0 to 2. Primary outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke, and retrograde type A dissection at 30 days. Follow-up outcomes were considered secondary.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients were included (69.8% males; mean age, 70.8 ± 4.2 years; 18.3% urgent). The main indications (60.4%) for repair were aortic arch (29.4%) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (31.0%). Seventy-two patients (57.1%) were managed with fTEVAR. Proximal landing in zone 0 and 1 was chosen in 97.6%. Technical success was 94.4%, and 30-day mortality was 11.9%. Strokes were diagnosed in 13.5% of patients and major strokes were identified in 7.9% cases. Retrograde type A dissection rate was 3.9%. The multivariate analysis confirmed landing in Ishimaru zone 0 as an independently related factor for stroke (P = .005), whereas stroke (P < .001), pericardial effusion (P < .001), and acute kidney injury (P < .001) were independently related to 30-day mortality. Mean follow-up was 17.5 ± 9.3 months. The estimated survival rate and the freedom from reintervention rate were 72.6% (standard error, 4.4%) and 46.4% (standard error, 6.0%) at 24-month follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke rate after endovascular arch repair was alarming among patients with NPAL. Proximal landing to zone 0 was related to higher risk of stroke. Reinterventions were common within the 24-month follow-up.

Open Versus Zone 0/1 Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysm: A Propensity Score-Matched Study from the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although open surgical repair (OSR) is the gold standard for treating arch aneurysms, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may be a less invasive alternative. However, it remains unclear which of the 2 methods yields better outcomes. In this study, we compared the perioperative outcomes of both procedures for arch aneurysms using a nationwide surgical database.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent elective aortic repair for true arch aneurysms were extracted from the National Clinical Database of Japan. Patients who underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores and their mortality and morbidity rates were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2,815 and 1,125 patients underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR, respectively. After propensity score matching, 1,058 patients were included in both groups. Compared with OSR, Zone 0/1 TEVAR was associated with a significantly higher incidence of stroke (5.8 vs. 10.0%, P < 0.001) and paraplegia/paraparesis (1.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the 30-day and operative mortality rates between the 2 groups (2.2 vs. 2.7% and 4.5 vs. 5.4%, respectively). In the Zone 0/1 TEVAR group, postoperative computed tomography was performed in 92.4% of patients, and types I and III endoleaks were identified in 6.4% and 1.1% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 0/1 TEVAR has higher incidences of stroke and paraplegia/paraparesis than OSR, with a risk of postoperative endoleaks. Resolving these problems is the key for expanding the application of Zone 0/1 TEVAR and in the meantime OSR remains the gold standard for surgically fit patients.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using fenestrated stent grafts in patients with thoracic aortic distal arch aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch aneurysms is challenging because of anatomical restrictions and the presence of cervical branches. Revascularization of the cervical branch is required when conventional commercial stent grafts are used. TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts (FSG) often does not require additional procedures to revascularize cervical branches. This study aimed to evaluate the features and initial and midterm outcomes of TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts.

METHODS

From April 2007 to December 2016, 101 consecutive patients underwent TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts for distal aortic arch aneurysms at a single centre. Technical success, complications, freedom from aneurysm-related death, secondary intervention and aneurysm progression were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

All the patients underwent TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts. The 30-day mortality rate was zero. Cerebral infarction, access route problems and spinal cord injury occurred in 4, 3 and 2 patients, respectively. Each type of endoleak was observed in 38 of the 101 patients during the course of the study; 20/38 patients had minor type 1 endoleaks at the time of discharge. The endoleak disappeared in 2 patients and showed no significant change in 8 patients; however, the aneurysm expanded over time in 10 patients. Additional treatment was performed in 8 of the 10 patients with type 1 endoleaks and dilatation of the aneurysm. The rate of freedom from aneurysm-related death during the observation period was 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with FSG is a simple procedure, with few complications. Additional treatment has been observed to reduce aneurysm-related deaths, even in patients with endoleaks and enlarged aneurysms. Based on this study, the outcomes of endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using a fenestrated stent graft seem acceptable.

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.

Zone 0 TEVAR with femoral artery inflow for an anastomotic pseudoaneurysm

We describe the case of an 89-year-old female with a distal anastomotic pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta after an ascending aorta replacement for an acute type A aortic dissection. Initially, we attempted endovascular repair using a semi-custom-made thoracic fenestrated stent graft. However, this treatment failed due to an endoleak. Two weeks later, we performed a total arch vessel debranching using femoral artery inflow and thoracic endovascular repair. Postoperative computed tomography revealed no signs of the endoleak. This hybrid approach could be an effective treatment option for anastomotic pseudoaneurysms of the ascending aorta.

Dynamic aortic changes during the cardiac cycle in patients with aortic valve disease analyzed by computed tomography combined with PhyZiodynamics software

BACKGROUND

Endovascular therapy for the ascending aorta is expected in the future, but the dynamic changes in the ascending aorta are unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate dynamic changes in the aortic cross-sectional area and examine related determinants.

METHODS

The subjects included 75 patients (aortic regurgitation [AR] in 18 patients, aortic stenosis [AS] in 46 patients, and 11 controls) who underwent dynamic computed tomography (CT) prior to cardiac treatment. According to the centerline method, the cross-sectional areas of the ascending and descending aortas at the same level were analyzed. The rate of change from the minimum value to the maximum value in one heartbeat and peak rate of change in cross-sectional area (peak area change) were measured.

RESULTS

The rates of change of the ascending and descending aortas were 4.4% and 6.4% (P < 0.05) and the peak area change was 0.3 mm2/msec vs. 0.2 mm2/msec (P < 0.05), respectively. In both the ascending and descending aortas, the rate of change and the peak area change were significantly greater in the AR group than in the AS and control groups. Results of the multiple regression analysis showed that greater stroke volumes (SVs) were associated with greater change in the ascending aorta and a faster momentary expansion rate. Furthermore, it was observed that the momentary expansion rate declined with age.

CONCLUSION

The ascending aortic diameter changes significantly in one heartbeat and differs depending on AR, age, and SV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

17 - 006.

DATE OF REGISTRATION

May 29, 2017 Retrospectively registered.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Clinical outcomes of Najuta thoracic stent graft system for arch aneurysms

Objectives

We aimed to elucidate the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system with fenestrations for supra-aortic vessels.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of 20 patients treated for arch or distal arch aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system during the period from May 2019 to February 2023.

Results

The technical success rate of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system was 95%. Of the 20 patients, 17 patients (85.0%) underwent concomitant extra-anatomical supra-aortic bypass. Postoperative CT revealed type Ia (n = 2) and type II (n = 3) endoleaks which disappeared on follow-up. The postoperative complications were stroke (n = 2, 10.0%), paraplegia (n = 1, 5.0%), and paraparesis (n = 1, 5.0%). In a very old patient, a blood transfusion was performed from the common iliac artery using the retroperitoneal approach. There were no aorta-related complications such as retrograde type A dissection or distal stent graft-induced new entry.

Conclusions

We treated arch or distal arch thoracic aneurysms by inserting a tube-type stent graft as a scaffold on the peripheral site and placing the Najuta thoracic stent graft on the proximal site. By extending the landing zone to Zone 0 and using a low radial force, which is a feature of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system, postoperative bird-beak and aorta-related complications were avoided. The treatment of arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system showed acceptable perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system may be a potential treatment option for arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms, warranting further studies.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of the total endovascular aortic repair in aortic arch

Background: The total endovascular repair of the aortic arch is becoming more and more an acceptable alternative to the open repair in selected patients. The aim of the present study is to perform a meta-analysis of the available data on the outcomes of the various endovascular techniques used to treat the pathologies in this challenging anatomical area. Patients and methods: An extensive electronic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct Databases, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. All papers published up to January 2022 on the endovascular techniques in the aortic arch (chimney-thoracic endovascular aortic repair (ChTEVAR), fenestrated/branched grafts as custom made devices (CMD) and surgeon modified TEVAR (SM TEVAR) providing information about at least one of the essential outcomes defined in the inclusion criteria. Results: Out of the 5078 studies found through the search in the databases and registers, 26 studies with a total number of patients of 2327 with 3497 target vessels were included in the analysis. The studies reported a high technical success rate with an estimated proportion of 95.8% (95% CI, 93-97.6%). Moreover, the pooled estimation of the early type Ia/III endoleak was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.4-12.1%). The pooled mortality was 4.6% (95 CI, 3.2-6.6%) with a significant heterogeneity and the stroke had an estimated proportion (major and minor combined) of 4.8% (95% CI, 3.5-6.6%). A meta-regression analysis showed no significant variation between the groups in mortality (P=.324) showed however a significant difference between the therapeutic methods regarding stroke P<.001 (lower rate in ChTEVAR and SM vs. CMD). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis could demonstrate good short- and long-term outcomes of the multiple total endovascular repair methods used in the aortic arch.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preliminary results from an Italian National Registry on the outcomes of the Najuta fenestrated aortic arch endograft

BACKGROUND

Arch pathology represents one of the last frontiers in aortic aneurysm endovascular management. Several companies recently developed dedicated branched and fenestrated endografts specifically designed for the aortic arch, aiming to overcome some of the issues associated with standard thoracic endograft and supra-aortic vessels extra-anatomic debranching. This study aimed to evaluate early outcomes obtained with a custom-made fenestrated endograft approved for thoracic aortic aneurysms exclusion.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated with the Najuta endograft (Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc, Tokyo, Japan) in Italy were enrolled prospectively and included in the study population. Anatomic characteristics and perioperative data were analyzed retrospectively. Study end points were technical success, 30-day clinical success, overall survival, supra-aortic vessel patency, endoleak, and need for reintervention or surgical conversion.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 76 patients received a Najuta endograft in Italy and were enrolled in the study. The median patient age was 72 years (interquartile range, 69-76 years) and 80.3% were male. Most of the patients received treatment for atherosclerotic aneurysms (80.3%); others were treated for postdissection aneurysms (7.9%), penetrating aortic ulcer (9.2%), or type I endoleak correction after previous thoracic endovascular repair (2.6%). Overall, 161 supra-aortic vessels were preserved through a dedicated fenestration. Technical success was achieved in 74 of 76 procedure (97.4%); both failures were associated with endoleak detection at final angiography (one type I and one type III endoleak). Two distal migrations occurred during the implanting procedure. Clinical success at 30 days was 94.7%. Two early reinterventions were needed within 30 days after index procedure: in one case, an aortic false lumen coils embolization was performed, because distal re-entry caused enlargement of the postdissection thoracic aneurysm. The other procedure consisted of a femoral pseudoaneurysm repair. The median follow-up was 7 months (interquartile range, 3-15 months); no supra-aortic vessel occlusions occurred and no patients needed surgical conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results suggest that, in selected patients with aortic arch pathology needing a proximal landing, an endovascular approach with the Najuta system is safe and effective, especially for those at high surgical risk. A strict follow-up with high-quality computed tomography angiography images and eventual evaluation for long-term complications is needed to confirm these initial experience findings.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: From Dream to Reality

The gold-standard therapy for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies is conventional open surgery. Recently, total endovascular aortic arch replacement with branched stent-grafts has been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of reducing invasiveness especially in selected high-risk patients. The aim of this review is to describe the two most commonly used branched devices for endovascular arch stent-grafting: Nexus (Endospan, Herzlia, Israle) and RelayBranch (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, United Kingdom). Nexus is a CE-certified off-the-shelf, single branch, double stent graft system. It consists of two different components: a main module for the aortic arch and the descending aorta with a side-branch for the brachiocephalic artery (BCA), and a curved module for the ascending aorta that lands into the sino-tubular junction and connects to the main module through a side-facing self-protecting sleeve. Nexus may be used in urgent-emergency cases and also in patients with only one suitable supra-aortic target vessel but, on the other hand, it makes cerebral blood flow dependent on one source vessel only. The RelayBranch Thoracic Stent-Graft System is a custom made, double branched endograft with a wide window on its superior portion to accommodate two inner tunnels for BCA and left common carotid artery connection; bilateral cervical accesses are generally used to advance guidewires for catheterization of the inner tunnels in a retrograde fashion. RelayBranch can be customized on every patient’s specific anatomy and provides a double blood source for the brain, but it cannot be used in urgent-emergency conditions. Therefore, in order to optimize outcomes, the choice of the most appropriate device should be made considering pros and cons of each system and patient’s anatomy by an experienced aortic team. In conclusion, total endovascular aortic arch exclusion is a promising reality in selected high-risk patients.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pre-Loaded Fenestrated Thoracic Endografts for Distal Aortic Arch Pathologies: Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Short and Mid Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine short and midterm outcomes of a pre-loaded fenestrated thoracic endograft (f-TEVAR) for exclusion of distal aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, retrospective study including consecutive patients from six experienced European vascular centres undergoing f-TEVAR for distal arch pathologies. Primary endpoints included peri-operative mortality and peri-operative stroke and/or spinal cord ischaemia rates. Secondary outcomes were technical success and mid to late events, including death and re-interventions. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 26. Mid to late term events were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 68 ± 11 years, 70% men). A total of 38% (n = 42) had a prior history of aortic dissection, and 24% (n = 26) prior aortic surgery. The mean aneurysm diameter was 59 ± 12 mm and the most frequent indication for treatment was post-dissection aneurysms (n = 42, 39%). Technical success was 99% (n = 107) despite intra-operative wire entanglement occurring in 29% (n = 31). The 30 day mortality rate was 3.7% (n = 4), with a 5.6% major stroke incidence (n = 6) and 3.7% (n = 4) spinal cord ischaemia rate. Three cases of retrograde dissection occurred (two of which were fatal), all in post-type B dissecting aneurysm patients without prior aortic surgery (three of 19, 15.8%). Median follow up was 12 months (range, 1 - 26). Endoleaks were documented during follow up, with 3.5% type Ia (4/104) and 2.9% type Ib (3/104) as a result of persistent false lumen perfusion. The one, two, and three year survivals and freedom from re-intervention rates were 93.2% and 92.1%, 89.1% and 86.3%, and 84.4% and 73%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study shows that treatment of the distal aortic arch by f-TEVAR is feasible, with promising 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia rates.

Long-term results of total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies using parallel grafts for supra-aortic debranching

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the long-term morphologic and clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with parallel grafts (PG-TEVAR) for arch-involving aortic pathologies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of perioperative and follow-up data of patients who had undergone PG-TEVAR at a single vascular surgery center from November 2010 to April 2018. Patients with prior or simultaneous open chest or cervical debranching procedures or arch repair were excluded. The primary endpoint was freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention. The secondary endpoints were parallel graft sealing zone failure (presence of gutter-related type I or Ic endoleak), PG failure (occlusion or reintervention), stroke, and 30-day and overall PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the freedom from reintervention and survival. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to find the optimal cutoff to prevent type Ia endoleak-related reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients, including 8 women, with a median age of 74 years (interquartile range, 67-79 years) had undergone PG-TEVAR (chimney, periscope, and sandwich in 20, 15, and 13 patients, respectively) with proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 0, 1, or 2 in 4, 5, and 24 patients, respectively. The aortic pathologies included type B aortic dissection (acute and chronic, eight and six, respectively), degenerative aneurysm (n = 10), type Ia endoleak (n = 3), para-anastomotic/patch aneurysm (n = 4), left subclavian artery aneurysm (n = 1), and traumatic rupture (n = 1). The perioperative stroke rate and 30-day mortality was 6% and 9%, respectively. Direct postoperative computed tomography revealed 28 endoleaks (gutter-related type Ia, 12; gutter-related type Ib, 9; type Ia, 2; type Ic, 2; type III, 1; undetermined, 2) in 27 patients. The technical and clinical success rate was 37% and 30%, respectively. The mean follow-up for survival was 48 ± 31 months. The latest radiologic follow-up demonstrated 12 remaining and 1 new endoleak. The early and overall PG sealing zone failure and PG failure was 73% and 36% and 9% and 18%, respectively. The overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention rate was 33% (n = 11). The estimated freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention was 68% at 60 months. The main graft oversizing and length oversizing rates were not significantly associated statistically with the type Ia endoleak-related reintervention rate. The PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality were 18% and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PG-TEVAR for total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies resulted in a high rate of type I endoleaks and the need for long-term reintervention. Gutter-related endoleaks might be more frequent than reported and should not be underestimated because they can lead to sac enlargement and reintervention. Frequent radiologic surveillance is mandatory. Further studies comparing PG-TEVAR to other total endovascular alternatives are required to confirm these findings.

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.

What are the endovascular options and outcomes for repair of ascending aortic or aortic arch pathology?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'in patients with ascending aortic or aortic arch disease what are the outcomes with endovascular repair in terms of survival, complications and reintervention?' Altogether 585 papers were found using the reported search, of which 9 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We found that the endovascular operative techniques with the greatest evidence were ascending aortic chimney grafts (AACs), branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (bTEVAR) aortic grafts and fenestrated TEVAR (fTEVAR) aortic grafts. The best evidence available were small case-series or retrospective cohort studies (n < 100), with 1 systematic review, at a short follow-up period (range 0-5 years). Intraoperatively, these techniques have a high technical success rate (84-100%). We found rates of endoleak comparable between AAC (7.4-16%) and bTEVAR/fenestrated TEVAR (11.1-21.4%). Stroke rates are higher in bTEVAR (3.1-42% vs 1-26% in AACs), attributed to more proximal pathology and technically challenging procedures. Following the immediate postoperative period, the 30-day mortality is 0-10.8% and patency is 97-100%. Stroke and reintervention rates remain higher in the bTEVAR group (3.1-42.0% and 0.5-33.3%) compared to the AAC group (1.0-11.1% and 6.7-16.7%). The 3- and 5-year survival ranges from 59% to 90%, but is driven by non-aortic pathology in a high-risk population; 3-year freedom from aortic death is 93-97%. Patency is 97-100% at up to 3 years, conformation and supra-aortic occlusions thereafter remain unknown. We conclude that AACs, bTEVARs and fenestrated TEVARs are safe endovascular options in high-risk elective patients, with results comparable to open or hybrid repair. They remain unverified in acute settings or in patients fit for open intervention.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysms with the Najuta Thoracic Stent-Graft System

Objective: The treatment for arch aneurysms by endovascular repair is often difficult. This study evaluated the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch aneurysms treated with the Najuta stent-graft system.

Materials and Methods: From January 2009 to December 2019, 37 patients underwent treatment for aortic aneurysms with the Najuta stent graft system at two institutes, including our hospital. We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

Results: Of all 37 cases, the technical success rate was 97.3% (36 of 37). The mean proximal neck length was 20.1±5.3 mm. The postoperative results revealed 10 patients with type Ia endoleaks (27.8%), 6 with stroke (16.7%), and one with paraplegia (2.8%). In the chronic phase, the overall survival rates and the rates of freedom from aorta-related events at 7 years were 71.3% and 50.7%, respectively. Between two groups divided based on the proximal neck diameter of 20 mm, the <20-mm group had significantly higher rates of aorta-related events in terms of freedom from aortic events (P=0.046).

Conclusion: The fenestrated stent graft can be a less invasive option for the treatment of high-risk patients with aortic aneurysms.

Dissected thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair with modified parallel endografting

A 67-year-old woman with a prior history of aortic dissection was admitted for enlarging the thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). She has received multiple treatments including Bentall procedure, hemiarch replacement, and subsequent endovascular procedures for the closure of re-entry. Preoperative computed tomography revealed previously implanted thoracic endograft from distal arch to superior mesenteric artery with dissected TAAA measuring up to 70 mm in diameter. Re-entry was observed at bilateral common iliac arteries. The patient was successfully treated by endovascular treatment using a fenestrated stent graft to obtain a landing zone for parallel endograft technique to the iliac arteries for the closure of re-entry.

Current status on aortic endografts

Endovascular treatment has become widespread to treat aneurysmal disease, especially located in the aorta. The modern era of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair started between 1986 and 1991, and in the last 30 years, Endovascular Treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms evolved both due to the development of new materials and devices and the increasing appeal and effectiveness of the endovascular therapy itself. Vascular surgeons are using nowadays different solutions of Endovascular Treatment to treat all the expressions of aortic pathology (aneurysms, dissections and trauma) both in the acute and elective setting. Despite its use in every location of the aorta (the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, the thoracic aorta, thoraco-abdominal aorta, pararenal, iuxtarenal and infrarenal aortic aneurysms and iliac aneurysms), its safety and efficiency, endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms presents some drawbacks: despite a lower short-term morbi-mortality, reinterventions and long-term patency are higher compared to open repair. In this review, we detail the most used types of endografts according to location, their performances and durability for each device. We conclude by discussing options to overcome ET limitations. Therefore, an obvious question arises: what we need in the future? What can the technological progress gives to physicians to further improve this new way of treating aorta?

Long-Term Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Chimney Grafts for Aortic Arch Pathologies: 10 Years of Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the early- and long-term outcomes of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Chimney-Graft technique (ChTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, patients who underwent aortic ChTEVAR technique in our institution were included. Early, mid, and long-term outcomes in this group of patients were evaluated. Patient follow-up data were obtained by imaging follow-up that are routinely performed after 3-6 months following initial surgery and then at yearly intervals.

RESULTS

Aortic arch repair with a ChTEVAR was performed in 54 patients. The 30-day mortality was 18.5% (n = 10). All-cause 30-day mortality was higher in the subgroup of patients operated urgently (33% vs. 14%) without a significant difference (P = 0.141). Permanent neurological deficit (PND) was observed in 15% (8/54 patients); stroke in 11% (6/54), and paraplegia 4% (2/54). During follow-up the primary and primary-assisted chimney-graft patency was 96.8% and 97.8%, respectively. The multivariate analysis identified the age >70 years and the aortic diameter as independent risk factors for elevated mortality during the follow-up (P = 0.015 and 0.001, respectively). The PND was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality (P = 0.014, hazard ratio 13.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7-106.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The ChTEVAR has noninferior results to other open and endovascular aortic arch repair methods with an acceptable long-term survival especially in elective procedures.

Survival and cause of death after aortic arch aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify differences in prognosis, causes of death, and outcomes between open and endovascular repair for aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the survival status and causes of death determined from the medical records of 124 consecutive elderly patients (age>70 years) with aortic arch aneurysms that were treated between 2010 and 2018 at our hospital. Forty patients (male, N.=30; mean age, 76 years) underwent open repair and 84 (male, N.=68; mean age, 78 years) underwent endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Early postoperative complications (10.0% vs. 6.3%; P=0.4) and rates of in-hospital death (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P=0.2) did not significantly differ between open and endovascular repair. Cumulative long-term and event free survival rates at eight years were similar in both groups (78.7% vs. 66.3%, P=0.1 and 66.6% vs. 58.4%; P=0.4, respectively). The causes of death at follow-up after endovascular repair comprised malignancies in 11 (52.4%) patients and cardiopulmonary and cerebral events unrelated to aortic aneurysms in 10 (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late outcomes did not statistically differ after both procedures. However, the prevalence of cancer-related death occurring late after arch repair was significantly higher after endovascular repair. The most important observation from this series was that significantly more patients died of malignant disease during follow-up after endovascular repair than open repair.

Endovascular repair during complex thoracic aortic dissection using a micropore stent graft: Midterm follow-up clinical outcomes

Objective

This study explored the clinical efficacy and hemodynamic effects of the micropore stent graft (MSG) that could promote aortic remodeling and preserve important organ branches.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 26 patients who underwent endovascular repair using an MSG for DeBakey types I and III TAD at our center between December 2014 and December 2017. The main efficacy parameters were rupture of the false lumen or dissection‐related death, conversion to open repair, secondary reintervention, branch vessel patency, and the hemodynamic effects of TAD at 12 months.

Results

Dissection rupture, dissection‐related mortality, conversion to open repair, and secondary reintervention rates at 12 months were 0, 3.9, 0, and 0%, respectively. In the 24 patients with more than 6 months of follow‐up, micropore stents were implanted to cover 39 openings in aortic arch branches, 91.7% (22/24) presented with complete thrombosis in the false lumen, 8.3% (2/24) presented with partial thrombosis in the false lumen, 35.2% (6/17) presented with a thrombus in the false lumen that was completely absorbed, and all 39 branches were patent. After surgery, pressure peak value and fluctuation along with the degree and range of unstable blood flow in the aortic lumen decreased.

Conclusions

For type I and type III thoracic artic dissection, endovascular treatment with an MSG may be a safe and effective treatment option with a good midterm outcome.

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

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

Malnutrition diagnosed by controlling nutrition status is a negative predictor of life prognosis in aortic arch aneurysm patients treated with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair

Objectives

Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) is a useful screening tool for malnutrition in patients with various diseases; however, how CONUT-diagnosed malnutrition affects patients with aortic arch aneurysm is unknown. This study aimed to reveal the utility of CONUT for detecting the patients with high-risk aortic arch aneurysm with malnutrition.

Methods

Sixty patients treated for aortic arch aneurysms with elective thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analyzed at a single institution. Preoperative nutrition status was evaluated by CONUT, and a CONUT score ≥ 3 was defined as malnutrition. The influence of malnutrition on the patients’ overall survival, aneurysm-related death-free rates, and prevalence of re-interventions were also analyzed.

Results

Twenty-three patients were diagnosed with malnutrition. Overall survival was significantly lower in the malnutrition group ( P = 0.0036). The multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that age ( P  < 0.0001) and malnutrition ( P  = 0.0457) were negative predictors of overall survival. Conversely, the two groups did not differ significantly in aneurysm-related death-free rates ( P  = 0.7879) and the prevalence of re-interventions ( P  = 0.7879).

Conclusions

Malnutrition diagnosed by CONUT as well as age is a negative predictor of survival prognosis in patients with aortic arch aneurysm.

Initial results of thoracic endovascular repair for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection involving the arch vessels using a semicustom-made thoracic fenestrated stent graft

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for selected type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a standard treatment; however, TBAD involving the aortic arch is difficult to treat because of the need for arch vessel reconstruction. We report our initial results of TEVAR for uncomplicated TBAD involving the arch vessels using a semicustom-made fenestrated stent graft.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 24 patients treated by fenestrated (F group) or debranching (D group) TEVAR from August 2011 to July 2017. The patients in the F group received the Najuta semicustom-made fenestrated stent graft (Kawasumi Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan). The fenestrated graft ensures sufficient sealing at the proximal healthy aorta without the need for arch vessel reconstruction. The primary end point was aorta-related mortality; the secondary end points were technical success and major adverse events (stroke, type IA endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and secondary intervention).

RESULTS

During the study period, we treated 65 TBAD cases by TEVAR, including 17 complicated cases. Of the 48 uncomplicated cases, 24 underwent TEVAR with arch vessel involvement (13 in the F group and 11 in the D group). The technical success rates in the F and D groups were 92.3% and 100.0%, respectively (P > .99, NS). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the F group (158 minutes) than in the D group (202 minutes; P = .0426), and the mean postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the F group (7 days) than in the D group (22 days; P = .0168). The primary patency rate of the reconstructed branch vessel was 100%, and there were no aorta-related deaths or retrograde type A aortic dissection in either group. One patient had a type IA endoleak in the F group. In the D group, one patient had a postoperative stroke and two patients required secondary interventions for stent graft-induced new entry at the descending aorta. The median follow-up period was 14.1 months (range, 1-37 months). The rate of freedom from aorta-related death was 100% in both groups (P > .99, NS); the rate of freedom from major adverse events at 24 months was 92.3% in the F group and 72.7% in the D group (P = .749, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The initial results of TEVAR with aortic arch vessel reconstruction for uncomplicated TBAD were acceptable. The fenestrated graft may be a less invasive option for the treatment of TBAD involving the aortic arch.

Fenestrated Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Physician-Modified Stent Grafts (PMSGs) in Zone 0 and Zone 1 for Aortic Arch Diseases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) using physician-modified stent grafts (PMSGs) in zone 0 and zone 1 for aortic arch diseases.

METHODS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 was performed on ten high-risk patients for open surgery from November 2015 to September 2017. Indications were complicated acute type B dissection (ABAD) with retrograde dissection involving the mid-arch (n = 1), distal arch aneurysms (n = 3), mid-arch aneurysms of the inner arch curvature (n = 3) and penetrating aortic ulcer located in the mid- or proximal arch (n = 3). Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data were recorded.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 61 (range 45-81) years, and 9 (90%) patients were men. Ten PMSGs (Medtronic Valiant stent grafts, n = 1; Relay thoracic stent grafts, n = 4; Cook TX2 device, n = 5) were deployed. PMSGs were deployed from Z0 and Z1 in 5 and 5 patients, respectively. Double small fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the left common carotid artery (LCCA), respectively, were created in 3 patients. Triple small fenestrations for the innominate artery (IA), the LCCA and the LSA, respectively, were created in 2 patients. One large fenestration for both the IA and the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 3 patients. One large fenestration for the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 2 patients. Posterior diameter-reducing ties were added to all the devices except to one Valiant stent graft. All but 2 patients underwent elective procedure. Median duration for stent graft modifications was 105 (range 90-125) min. The technical success rate was 90%. Overall mortality was 10% (1/10). One patient died of sudden cardiac arrest intraoperatively after the deployment of the PMSG and all the supra-aortic branch stents. Mean operative time was 106.0 ± 43.0 min, and fluoroscopy time was 30.6 ± 22.9 min. There were no type I or type III endoleaks, perioperative neurological complications or spinal cord ischemia. Median length of stay was 8 (range 4-35) days. Nine patients survived at mean 13.3 (range 6.0-19.0) months follow-up. Retrograde dissection occurred in one patient of Z0 group 40 days post-f-TEVAR and resolved after open repair. During follow-up, all target vessels remained patent without fenestration-related type I or III endoleaks.

CONCLUSIONS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients is feasible in the hands of experienced operators.

Fenestrated Endovascular Repair of Zones 1 and 2 Aortic Arch Pathologies

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of aortic arch pathologies is complex, and endovascular developments have now enabled total or hybrid endovascular aortic arch repair. We present our early experience with fenestrated aortic arch repairs in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2 pathologies.

METHODS

In a single tertiary institution, all consecutive endovascular aortic arch repairs were reviewed. A preoperative computed tomography aortogram was performed to assess anatomic suitability, which we defined as having a proximal sealing zone with a maximum diameter of 38 mm and minimum length of 20 mm, absence of significant aortic tortuosity, and suitable sealing zones in target vessels.

RESULTS

From September 2015 to February 2018, 5 cases of fenestrated aortic arch endovascular repairs were performed. There were 3 male patients. The patients were between 57 and 83 years old, all of whom were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II or III. Indications for surgery included aortic arch aneurysms (n = 3), a symptomatic aortic dissection, and a left subclavian artery aneurysm. Three patients had a scallop to the innominate artery, and one patient had a scallop to the left common carotid artery. Fenestrations were made to 3 left common carotid arteries and 3 left subclavian arteries. In 2 patients, a left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed, and the left subclavian artery origin occluded with a vascular plug. Technical success was 100%. One patient developed a right occipital infarct and acute myocardial infarction. The mean duration of surgery was 164 min, and the mean length of stay was 4.2 days. The mean follow-up period was 14.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fenestrated grafts in the aortic arch is a feasible treatment option. However, certain limitations still exist, and preoperative planning is important in ensuring clinical success. Although this procedure appears feasible in the short term, long-term results and durability remain to be seen.

Case Series of Aortic Arch Aneurysm in Patients with Bovine Arch Treated with Proximal Scalloped and Fenestrated Stent Graft

PURPOSE

The bovine arch is the most common variant of the aortic arch and occurs when the innominate artery shares a common origin with the left common carotid artery. We report an endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysm in patients with a bovine arch using the Najuta proximal scalloped and fenestrated stent graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repairs using the Najuta stent graft were performed at our facility. It was inserted and deployed at a zone 0 with precise positional adjustment of the scallop of the stent graft to the brachiocephalic trunk.

RESULTS

Overall, eight patients with bovine aortic arch were treated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair. Technical success was 100% with no 30-day death. The follow-up period ranged from 7 to 29 (median 12) months. None of the patients had a stroke or paraplegia, and no endoleak was observed. All brachiocephalic trunks scalloped, and the left subclavian artery fenestrated vessels remained patent during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The Najuta stent graft repair of aortic arch aneurysms in patients with a bovine arch is a safe and effective treatment option, with good immediate and short-term results.

Case report of retrograde in situ fenestration of the thoracic stent graft with reentry device in a patient with aortobronchial fistula

RATIONALE

In situ fenestration may be necessary to preserve branch arteries during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) when there is an inadequate landing zone.

PATIENT CONCERNS

We report the case of a 74-year-old man presenting with recurrent hemoptysis.

DIAGNOSES

Based on computed tomography (CT) angiogram and bronchoscopy, diagnosis was aorto-bronchial fistula.

INTERVENTIONS

We performed retrograde in situ fenestration with reentry catheter (Pioneer Plus, Volcano Corporation, San Diego, CA) to preserve the left subclavian artery following TEVAR for aorto-bronchial fistula.

OUTCOMES

Following this procedure, the patient had a patent left subclavian artery and no evidence of endoleak. The patient had no further episodes of hemoptysis.

LESSONS

The retrograde in situ fenestration with reentry catheter strategy is an option for patients when carotid-subclavian bypass is deemed unsafe.

Fenestrated endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysm in patients with bovine arch using the Najuta stent graft

We describe the case of a 74-year-old man with a thoracic aortic aneurysm with a bovine arch who underwent fenestrated endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysm using the Najuta stent graft (Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc, Tokyo, Japan). He has had a previous endovascular aneurysm repair and femoropopliteal bypass for abdominal aortic aneurysm combined with peripheral arterial disease. The Najuta stent graft was inserted and deployed at zone 0 with delicate positional adjustment of the fenestration of the stent graft to the brachiocephalic trunk. There was no endoleak or complication. His postoperative course was uneventful. At 7-month follow-up, complete exclusion of the aneurysm was noted. The Najuta stent graft repair of aortic arch aneurysms is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with a bovine arch.

Endovascular Treatment of Various Aortic Pathologies: Review of the Latest Data and Technologies

The technologies and innovations applicable to endovascular treatment for complex aortic pathologies have progressed rapidly over the last two decades. Although the initial outcomes of an endovascular aortic repair have been excellent, as long-term data became available, complications including endoleaks, endograft migration, and endograft infection have become apparent and are of concern. Previously, the indication for endovascular therapy was restricted to descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, its indication has expanded along with the improvement of techniques and devices, and currently, it has become possible to treat pararenal aortic aneurysms and Crawford type 4 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) using the off-the-shelf devices. Additionally, custom-made devices allow for the treatment of arch or more extensive TAAAs. Endovascular treatment is applied not only to aneurysms but also to acute/chronic dissections. However, long-term outcomes are still unclear. This article provides an overview of available devices and the results of endovascular treatment for various aortic pathologies.