Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using aortic arch chimney stents in high-risk patients

Current techniques of repair of aortic arch pathologies and the role of the aortic team

The treatment of aortic arch pathologies is becoming progressively more complex and multidisciplinary. Despite progresses in open surgical techniques, the high rate of surgical morbidity and mortality, especially in frail and elderly patients, has led to the development of alternative treatment options to conventional open surgery such as hybrid and endovascular procedures. Our purpose is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and investigate the role of a dedicated aortic team in the choice of the most appropriate treatment for each patient.

Mid-term results of a prospective study for aortic dissection with a gutter-plugging chimney stent graft

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to access early and mid-term outcomes of a gutter-plugging chimney stent graft for treatment of Stanford type B aortic dissections in the clinical trial Prospective Study for Aortic Arch Therapy with stENt-graft for Chimney technology (PATENCY).

METHODS

Between October 2018 and March 2022, patients with Stanford type B aortic dissections were treated with the Longuette chimney stent graft in 26 vascular centres. The efficiency and the incidence of adverse events over 12 months were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included. The technical success rate was 99.33% (149/150). The incidence of immediate postoperative endoleak was 5.33% (8/150, type I, n = 6; type II, n = 1; type IV, n = 1) neurologic complications (stroke or spinal cord ischaemia); the 30-day mortality was 0.67% (1/150) and 1.33% (2/150), respectively. During the follow-up period, the median follow-up time was 11.67 (5-16) months. The patent rate of the Longuette graft was 97.87%. Two patients with type I endoleak underwent reintervention. The follow-up rate of the incidence of retrograde A type aortic dissection was 0.67% (1/150). There was no paraplegia, left arm ischaemia or stent migration.

CONCLUSIONS

For revascularization of the left subclavian artery, the Longuette chimney stent graft can provide an easily manipulated, safe and effective endovascular treatment. It should be considered a more efficient technique to prevent type Ia endoleak. Longer follow-up and a larger cohort are needed to validate these results.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

NCT03767777.

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.

Aortic Arch Debranching and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of type B aortic dissections (TBADs). However, the proximal aspect of the aortic pathology treated may infringe on the origin of the left subclavian artery or even more proximally. Hence, to ensure durable outcomes, the origin of these vessels needs to be covered, but an extra-anatomical bypass is required to perfuse vital branches, known as aortic arch debranching. This series aims to describe and delineate the disparities of aortic arch debranching during TEVAR for TBAD.

METHODS

A retrospective review and analysis of a multicenter international database was conducted to identify patients with TBAD treated with TEVAR between 2005 and 2021. Data analyzed included patient demographics, disease characteristics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes with follow-up on mortality and reintervention. All statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS 26. Patient survival was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the analysis, of which 27 (46.6%) presented with complicated disease and 31 were uncomplicated, of which 10 (17.2%) were classed as high risk and 21 (36.2%) low risk. Zone 2 was the most common proximal landing zone for the stent graft. Left subclavian artery bypass was performed selectively (26%), with 1 stroke occurring, likely due to embolic reasons. A further 6 underwent more proximal aortic debranching before TEVAR (10%) and was a significant risk factor for mortality and the number of stents deployed. The overall rates of reintervention and mortality were 17.2% (n = 10) and 29.3% (n = 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch debranching and TEVAR for TBAD is associated with significant mortality. Future developments to treat aortic arch pathology could incorporate branched graft devices, eliminating the need for debranching, improving stroke rates, and reducing future reinterventions.

Preliminary Outcomes of Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Castor Single-Branched Stent Grafts: A Single-Center Experience

In the context of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), the reconstruction of the left subclavian artery (LSA) has emerged as a crucial component in establishing a sufficient proximal landing zone. However, the technical difficulty of these procedures raises the possibility of endoleaks and neurological consequences. Single-branched stent grafts offer good anchoring and LSA flow for these patients. This study evaluates the feasibility of utilizing novel single-branched stent grafts in the treatment of distal aortic arch disease, identifying good results in the short and medium term. From September 2019 to March 2023, TEVAR and revascularized LSA were performed on ten patients at the Ospedale del Cuore-FTGM in Massa, Italy, using Castor single-branched thoracic aortic stent grafts (Microport Medical, Shanghai, China). The authors' first findings demonstrated that, after an average follow-up of one year, the Castor branching aortic stent graft system was safe and achieving an appropriate proximal landing zone and maintaining sufficient LSA perfusion was possible. With regard to the endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch diseases, this product offers a compelling substitute for surgery. For the purpose of assessing the long-term effectiveness of this approach, the follow-up period should be extended.

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.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION

Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE.

METHODS

We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE.

RESULTS

Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

Left carotid chimney and left subclavian artery laser fenestration for zone 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has become an increasingly used option for treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. Pathology involving the proximal thoracic aorta is more complex and requires revascularization of the subclavian and carotid arteries. We report a case of an arch thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm repaired via a complete endovascular approach using a left carotid chimney and left subclavian artery laser fenestration.

Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Arch Disease

Aortic arch and descending thoracic pathology have historically remained in the realm of open surgical repair. Technology is quickly pushing to bring these under the endovascular umbrella, with lower morbidity repairs proving safe in their early experience. Much work remains particularly for acute aortic syndromes, however, to understand who is best treated medically, surgically, endovascularly, or with hybrid approaches.

Homemade fenestration and chimney techniques for the left subclavian artery revascularization during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background

To investigate the safety and efficacy of homemade fenestration and chimney techniques for the left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

From February 2017 to February 2021, 41 patients undergoing fenestration technique (group A) and 42 patients undergoing chimney technique (group B) to preserve the LSA during zone 2 TEVAR were enrolled in the present study. The procedure was indicated for dissections with unsuitable proximal landing zone with refractory pain and hypertension, rupture and malperfusion, and high-risk radiographic features. The baseline characteristics, peri-procedure, and follow-up clinical and radiographic data were recorded and analyzed. The primary endpoint was clinical success, and the secondary endpoints were rupture-free survival, LSA patency, and complications. Aortic remodeling, defined as patency, partial and complete thrombosis of the false lumen, was also analyzed.

Results

Technical success was achieved in 38 and 41 patients in groups A and B, respectively. Four intervention-related deaths were confirmed, two in each group. Immediate post-procedural endoleaks were detected in two and three patients in group A and B, respectively. No other major complications were found in either group, except for one retrograde type A dissection in group A. During follow-up, the initial clinical success rates were 90.24% and 92.86% in groups A and B, respectively. The primary and secondary mid-term clinical success rates were 87.5% and 90% in group A, and both of them were 92.68% in group B. Rupture-free survival and LSA patency were not significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of complete thrombosis in the aorta distal to the stent graft was 67.65% and 61.11% in groups A and B, respectively.

Conclusions

Apart from the lower clinical success rate of fenestration technique, both physician-modified techniques are available for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR and significantly promote favorable aortic remodeling.

Endovascular repair of aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch using castor stent-graft combined with in-vitro fenestration technology

BACKGROUND

Aortic arch pathologies are concerning clinical conditions with poor prognoses. The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been investigated to treat aortic arch pathologies. Nonetheless, cerebral blood flow regulation during endovascular aortic arch repair therapy remains challenging. Castor, a unique single-branched stent graft, has been proven effective for retaining the left subclavian artery (LSA). This study aimed to determine whether endovascular therapy for pathologies involving the aortic arch using Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique is promising, effective, and safe.

METHODS

Eligible patients were enrolled between June 2018 and December 2021. All patients underwent TEVAR with an evaluated proximal landing zone for "Castor" located in Ishimaru zones 0-1. Moreover, the supra-aortic branches (SABs) were reconstructed using the Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique.

RESULTS

Herein, 57 patients with aortic arch lesions were treated with Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique. Innominate artery and the left carotid artery (LCA) were reconstructed in 5 patients, LCA and left subclavian artery (LSA) were reconstructed in 22 patients, and the total SABs were effectively reconstructed in 30 patients (including a hybrid arch repair case). Among them (excluding a hybrid arch repair case) were in-vitro fenestration methodologies for LCA in 32 of 34 cases (2 switched to in-situ fenestration) and LSA in 51 of 56 cases (3 switched to in-situ fenestration and 2 converted to spring coil caulking); furthermore, LCA and LSA in-vitro fenestration were simultaneously successfully performed in 27 of 34 cases. There were no surgical-related neurological complications, and early mortality was estimated at 5.26%. At a mean follow-up of 3.75 months, computed tomography (CTA) images confirmed that each branch stent remained patent. There were no signs of endoleaks, migrative manifestations, or the need for secondary endovascular intervention or conversion to open surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

Castor, in combination with in-vitro fenestration, reflects a feasible, efficient procedure for re-developing SABs.

Endovascular aortic arch repair with chimney technique for pseudoaneurysm

BACKGROUND

Aortic pseudoaneurysm is a life-threatening clinical condition, and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been reported to have a relatively satisfactory effect in aortic pathologies. We summarized our single-centre experience using chimney TEVAR for aortic arch pseudoaneurysms with inadequate landing zones.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from October 2015 to August 2020, 32 patients with aortic arch pseudoaneurysms underwent chimney TEVAR to exclude an aortic lesion and reconstruct the supra-aortic branches, including 3 innominate artery, 12 left common carotid arteries and 29 left subclavian arteries. Follow-up computed tomography was suggested before discharge; at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly thereafter.

RESULTS

The median age of 32 patients was 68.0 years (range, 28-81) with the mean max diameter of aneurysm of 47.9 ± 12.0 mm. Forty-four related supra-aortic branches were well preserved, and the technical success rate was 100%. The Type Ia endoleaks occurred in 3 (9%) patients. Two patients were lost to follow-up and 4 patients died during the follow-up period. The mean follow-up times was 46.5 ± 14.3 months. One patient died due to acute myocardial infarction just 10 days after chimney TEVAR and the other 3 patients passed away at 1.5 months, 20 months, and 31 months with non-aortic reasons. The 4.5-year survival estimate was 84.4%. The primary patency rate of the target supra-arch branch vessels was 97.7% (43/44), and no other aorta-related reinterventions and severe complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

For aortic arch pseudoaneurysms with inadequate landing zones for TEVAR, the chimney technique seems to be feasible, with acceptable mid-term outcomes, and it could serve as an alternative minimally invasive approach to extend the landing zone. Slow flow type Ia endoleak could be treated conservatively after chimney TEVAR. Additional experience is needed, and the long-term durability of chimney TEVAR requires further follow-up.

Non-invasive estimation of the parameters of a three-element windkessel model of aortic arch arteries in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background: Image-based computational hemodynamic modeling and simulations are important for personalized diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. However, the required patient-specific boundary conditions are often not available and need to be estimated. Methods: We propose a pipeline for estimating the parameters of the popular three-element Windkessel (WK3) models (a proximal resistor in series with a parallel combination of a distal resistor and a capacitor) of the aortic arch arteries in patients receiving thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aneurysms. Pre-operative and post-operative 1-week duplex ultrasound scans were performed to obtain blood flow rates, and intra-operative pressure measurements were also performed invasively using a pressure transducer pre- and post-stent graft deployment in arch arteries. The patient-specific WK3 model parameters were derived from the flow rate and pressure waveforms using an optimization algorithm reducing the error between simulated and measured pressure data. The resistors were normalized by total resistance, and the capacitor was normalized by total resistance and heart rate. The normalized WK3 parameters can be combined with readily available vessel diameter, brachial blood pressure, and heart rate data to estimate WK3 parameters of other patients non-invasively. Results: Ten patients were studied. The medians (interquartile range) of the normalized proximal resistor, distal resistor, and capacitor parameters are 0.10 (0.07-0.15), 0.90 (0.84-0.93), and 0.46 (0.33-0.58), respectively, for common carotid artery; 0.03 (0.02-0.04), 0.97 (0.96-0.98), and 1.91 (1.63-2.26) for subclavian artery; 0.18 (0.08-0.41), 0.82 (0.59-0.92), and 0.47 (0.32-0.85) for vertebral artery. The estimated pressure showed fairly high tolerance to patient-specific inlet flow rate waveforms using the WK3 parameters estimated from the medians of the normalized parameters. Conclusion: When patient-specific outflow boundary conditions are not available, our proposed pipeline can be used to estimate the WK3 parameters of arch arteries.

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.

Endovascular Repair of Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAAs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. Once diagnosed, they should be surveilled and then repaired at a diameter of 5.5 to 6 cm, depending on the individual patient's physiologic and anatomic risk of repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred approach for repair and there are multiple procedural adjuncts that can expand indications for and use of TEVAR. Spinal cord injuries are an important and highly morbid complication after TEVAR and it is imperative to mitigate this risk.

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.

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.

Endovascular surgery for thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch

Background

Aortic arch pathologies are serious clinical conditions associated with a very dismal prognosis. Traditional open surgery has a high mortality and is not suitable for critically ill patients. Recently years, endovascular treatment of thoracic aorta has made rapid progress and has been gradually applied to the treatment of aortic arch pathologies. However, maintaining cerebral blood flow during endovascular treatment of aortic arch lesions remains a challenge at this time. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch, and to present initial experience with this technique.

Methods

From October 2016 to December 2020, patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone of the stent-graft in the aortic arch at Ishimaru zones 0–1, in which cerebral flow needs to be maintained during surgery, and the supra-aortic branches were reconstruction with either in situ fenestration or the chimney technique.

Results

A total of 62 cases with lesions involving the arch were treated with endovascular surgery. Total supra-aortic branches reconstruction was successfully performed in 51 cases, the left carotid artery (LCA) and the innominate artery reconstruction were performed in eight cases, the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the LCA were reconstructed in three patients. Among them, the in situ fenestration or chimney repair technique for the LSA was successful performed in 42 and 12 cases. However, in 20 patients, attempts to reconstruction the LSA using the fenestration technique were unsuccessful due to tortuous and angulated vessels. Early mortality was 6.45%. No neurological complications related to surgery occurred. Computer tomography images at post-operative follow-up (mean 3.51 months) confirmed patency of all branch stents without any signs of endoleaks, migration, conversion to retrograde dissection or receive open-heart surgery.

Conclusion

The endovascular technique is an effective, feasible, safe and repeatable method to reconstruct the aortic arch, which allows for the reconstruction of the supra-aortic branches.

Homemade fenestrated physician-modified stent-grafts for arch aortic degenerative aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate early and medium-term outcomes of single and double fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total endovascular degenerative aortic arch aneurysm repair.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data included 52 patients, from August 2013 through January 2021, undergoing home-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for degenerative aortic aneurysms. In all cases a distal smaller fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA) was fashioned and the only one stented. For double-fenestrated endograft a proximal larger fenestration that incorporated both the brachiocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery was added.

RESULTS

52 patients with degenerative aortic arch aneurysms were treated. There were 36 men and the mean age was 75 ± 8 years. 31% treated with a single LSA fenestration, while 69% had a double-fenestrated TEVAR. 10% (n=5) were emergent procedures. Technical success was 100%. The median time requirement for stent graft modification was 22 ± 6 minutes. Thirty-day mortality was 2% (n=1). 5 patients (10%) had a cerebrovascular event including 2 transient ischemic attack, one minor stroke with full neurological recovery and 2 with sequelae. 2 patients (4%) experienced perioperative retrograde dissection during follow-up. No patient had a type I, type III or type II endoleak from the LSA. No patient required re-intervention. All supra-aortic trunks were patent. During a mean follow up of 18 ± 11 months, there were no conversion to open surgical repair, aortic rupture or paraplegia.

CONCLUSIONS

Single or double PMEG is a safe and suitable tool for the treatment of high morbidity pathology such as aortic arch degenerative aneurysm repair. This device can be used in elective and emergency patients.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Mid-term Comparison of One-Piece Branched Stent-Graft and Chimney Technique Treating Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

We compared the mid-term outcomes of a one-piece branched stent-graft with the chimney technique in the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between August 2012 and December 2017, a retrospective analysis of 279 patients with thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) or aneurysm (TAA) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with b-TEVAR (n = 69, 58 TAD and 11 TAA) or c-TEVAR (n = 210, 151 TAD and 59 TAA) was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five double-chimney for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and left common carotid artery LCCA and 165 single-chimney for the LSA were performed in chimney-TEVAR (c-TEVAR) and 69 branched-TEVAR (b-TEVAR) with 36 single-branched stent-grafts and 33 branched stent-grafts combined with fenestration technique. The c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital complications than the b-TEVAR group (19.5 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.017), primarily because the c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital cerebral ischemia events (6.2 vs. 0%, p = 0.043) and intra-operative type I endoleaks (31.9 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01). There were significantly more follow-up type I endoleaks (21.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.002), cerebral ischemia events (11.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.042), and re-interventions (12.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.048) in the c-TEVAR group than in the b-TEVAR group. However, follow-up mortality was not significantly different between the c-TEVAR and b-TEVAR groups (5.2 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.638).

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic pathologies involving the arch branches, customized b-TEVAR may result in fewer cerebral ischemia events and endoleaks than c-TEVAR. However, c-TEVAR should be considered an off-the-shelf treatment option for patients in need of emergency treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

Hybrid Repair with Reversed Sequence Supra-aortic Debranching in Ruptured Arch Aneurysm

Aortic arch pathology in a high-risk patient in whom the resternotomy approach is unfeasible due to treated mediastinitis after ascending aortic replacement presents a unique challenge for hybrid arch repair (HAR) because of the need for supra-aortic debranching from unusual inflow sites other than the ascending aorta. This report describes a "reversed sequence" extra-anatomical supra-aortic debranching procedure as a salvage technique performed to enable HAR. An 83-year-old woman with a history of ascending aortic replacement for type A aortic dissection, mediastinitis complicated by sternal osteomyelitis, and a chest wall reconstructed with a rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap presented with chest pain because of a contained dissecting arch aneurysm rupture. The patient underwent supra-aortic debranching from the bilateral common femoral arteries and thoracic endovascular aortic repair to the ascending aorta under cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) monitoring. Completion imaging by angiography demonstrated successful exclusion of the ruptured aneurysm. The regional cerebral oxygen saturation level, monitored by NIRS, did not change markedly during surgery. The patient was neurologically intact with adequate cerebral blood flow assessed postoperatively by ¹²³ I-IMP single photon emission computed tomography. Total debranching of the supra-aortic vessels from the common femoral artery for inflow is feasible and provides adequate cerebral perfusion. This procedure may offer an alternative treatment option in patients with complex conditions involving aortic arch pathology.

Mid-term outcomes of the use of endoanchors during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in multicentre analysis

Objective

To describe mid-term outcomes of the use of EndoAnchors as an adjunct for arch and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

A retrospective multicentre series from nine centres using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA) at TEVAR over May 2014–May 2019 is presented. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT04100499. The primary outcome was freedom from Type I endoleak at EndoAnchors deployments; secondary outcomes included evaluation of aortic wall penetration (AWP) at first computed tomography scan, EndoAnchor-related issues and mortality.

Results

54 high-risk patients (35 males/19 females, age 73 ± 11 years) with arch, thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysmal disease (3 chronic post-dissection and one patch pseudoaneurysm), with a mean neck length 19.7 ± 6.6 mm that were treated with multiple hybrid and endovascular techniques were included. A total of 329 EndoAnchors were used with a mean of 6.1 ± 2.5 per patient. Overall adequate AWP was 86%, whereas arch (Ishimaru’s zones 0–2) deployments achieved 80.6% when compared to 87.3% in descending thoracic aorta (dTA); although there was no statistical significance. Freedom from type I endoleaks was 88% at 2 year follow-up, due to 4 type IA endoleaks, two of them successfully treated, one with conservative treatment due to complexity of repair and remaining patient died 1 year later due to endograft infection. There were reported five EndoAnchor-related issues; four losses and one renal stent-graft was crushed due to catheter deflection solved with balloon reinflation. None of the losses had clinical significance. Overall mortality is described for 7 (9.5%) patients, one of them aneurysm-related.

Conclusions

The adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in TEVAR and complex TEVAR procedures achieved acceptable outcomes at midterm in a high-risk series with hostile seal zones. Still, they should be still judiciously used as there is lack of data to suggest a more liberal use; therefore, the landing zone should not be compromised in favour of their use.

Parallel grafts and physician modified endografts for endovascular repair of the aortic arch

Aortic arch aneurysms are a challenging clinical problem especially in high-risk patients. Open aortic arch replacement, even in the best of centers, carries significant risk of stroke or death in this high-risk population. Many high-risk patients are deemed inoperable and not offered repair. Branched and fenestrated thoracic endografts are currently undergoing clinical trials in the United States but are not yet commercially available. Many elderly and frail patients have significant brachiocephalic occlusive disease or anatomy excluding them for consideration for such clinical trials. These patients also present with acute aortic syndromes requiring urgent or emergent repair and are unable to participate in clinical trials due to the time required to have such devices available. Alternative endovascular therapies, including parallel stent grafts (including Chimneys, Snorkels and Periscopes) and physician modified thoracic endografts, have been used to treat such high-risk patients combined with commercially available thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) devices. This paper aims to review the techniques and current reported outcomes from parallel stent grafts and physician modified devices used to treat high risk patients undergoing repair for aortic arch pathologies.

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.

Procedure-Associated Costs and Mid-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Zone 0 and Zone 1 Aortic Arch Repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of proximal aortic arch pathology provides a less-invasive treatment option for high-risk patients ineligible for open arch reconstruction. However, the fiscal impact of these techniques remains unclear. Therefore, our objective was to characterize the mid-term outcomes after Zone 0 and Zone 1 TEVAR and describe the associated technical costs, revenues, and net margins at a single tertiary medical center.

METHODS

We examined all patients who underwent TEVAR between April 2011 and August 2019 via retrospective chart review. Patients were categorized by proximal endograft extent to identify Zone 0 or Zone 1 repairs. Procedural characteristics and outcomes were described. Technical costs, revenues, and margins were obtained from the hospital finance department.

RESULTS

We identified 10 patients (6 Zone 0, 4 Zone 1) who were denied open arch reconstruction. Patients were predominantly female (n = 8; 80%) and the mean age was 72.8 ± 5.5 years. TEVAR was performed in 5 asymptomatic patients, urgently in 3 symptomatic patients, and emergently in 2 ruptured patients. TEVAR plus extra-anatomic bypass was performed in 4 patients. Another 4 patients also received parallel stent-grafting while 1 patient received a branched thoracic endograft and yet another an in-situ laser fenestration followed by branch stent grafting. Within the 30-day postoperative period, 1 patient experienced stroke and 1 patient died. Bypass and branch vessel patency were 100% through the duration of follow-up (mean 19.3 months). Mean total technical cost associated with all procedures or repair stages was $105,164 ± $59,338 while mean net technical margin was -$25,055 ± $18,746. The net technical margin was negative for 9 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of the proximal aortic arch is associated with good mid-term outcomes in patients considered too high-risk for open repair. However, reimbursement does not adequately cover treatment cost, with net technical margins being negative in nearly all cases. To remain financially sustainable, efforts should be made to both optimize aortic arch TEVAR delivery as well as advocate for reimbursement commensurate with associated costs.

Short-Term Outcomes of In Situ Fenestration in Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term outcomes of in situ fenestration and discuss its feasibility and safety for the treatment of aortic dissection or aneurysm involving aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center review was conducted on patients who were treated with ISF technique to revascularize supra-arch branches from Jun 2017 to Oct 2019. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) was performed to assess the patency of bridging stents, endoleaks and prognosis prior to discharge, after 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed and then discussed in this paper.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were diagnosed with arch pathologies, 5 type A aortic dissections, 12 type B aortic dissections and 4 thoracic aortic aneurysms. There were 19 men and 2 women (mean age 60.7 ± 15.3). 8 cases were treated with t hree-fenestration stent grafts, 1 case with two-fenestration stent graft, and 12 case with single-fenestration stent grafts. Overall technical success rate was 95.2%. Mean operation time was 227.4 ± 143.8 min. Complications were intraoperative hemorrhage (>1000 ml, 2), stroke (2), hydropericardium (1) and endoleaks (2 type Ⅲ, 1 type Ⅰ). There was no aorta-related mortality or late endoleaks during the mean follow-up of 25.5 ± 6.2 months. All the bridging stents remained patent and there was no migration according to follow-up CTA.

CONCLUSION

With low complication and mortality rate, ISF is an effective and feasible method for the total endovascular aortic arch repair. Long-term follow-up study is needed to evaluate its durability.

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.

Chimney Graft Technique Combined With Embolization for Treating Ruptured Aortic Arch Lesions

Background: This study aimed to share the experience in applying the chimney graft technique combined with embolization for treating aortic arch rupture under emergency conditions and evaluating early-term results in these patients. Methods: This study retrospectively included patients with ruptured aortic arch lesions who received the chimney graft technique combined with embolization between March 2016 and March 2021. The primary endpoint was a technical success, deemed as successful stent graft deployment to the planned location, patency of the target branch vessel, and absence of significant type I endoleak. The secondary endpoint was clinical success defined with the size of false lumen in follow-up remaining unchanged or decreasing over time, 30-day mortality, complication, and primary patency of chimney graft. Results: This study included 12 patients (age, 61 ± 12 years; male, 83%). Five patients (42%) received single chimney, one patient (8%) received double chimney, and six patients (50%) received triple chimney. Intraoperative type I endoleak occurred in six patients (50%) who underwent endovascular embolization in the primary operation. Post-operative type I endoleak, evaluated by computed tomography angiography examination following the primary operation, occurred in seven patients (58%), including one patient who received endovascular embolization two times. All patients with post-operative type I endoleak were successfully re-treated using coil and Onyx glue within 1 week, and the median length of stay was 22 ± 11 days (range: 7-44 days). Overall technical success was 100%. Eleven patients had completed their follow-up (median, 12 months, range: 1-34 months), and one patient was out of contact. The 30-day mortality was 9% (1/11, post-operative death of a patient with cerebral hemorrhage). No major complications and no chimney compression, migration, occlusion, or stenosis were recorded during follow-up. Seven patients (58%) have ≥6 months of clinical follow-up time with appropriate imaging. In four (57%) of these patients, diameter stabilization was detected, whereas three (43%) experienced significant reduction (≥5 mm). Conclusion: The patients in this study had satisfactory early-term outcomes. The chimney graft technique combined with coil and Onyx glue embolization may be a safe and effective treatment for ruptured aortic arch lesions under emergency conditions.

Bail-Out Pull-Through Pull-Back Technique for Accidental Coverage of the Left Common Carotid Artery During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

We describe a pull-through pull-back technique to revascularize the left common carotid artery (LCCA) that was unintentionally covered during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

CASE REPORT

A 69-year-old man presented with back pain secondary to acute type B aortic dissection with an intimal tear in the proximal descending aorta. Serial computed tomography (CT) revealed an enlarged descending aorta and proximal progression of the aortic dissection. He underwent left carotid-subclavian artery bypass and TEVAR, 10 days after admission. The Valiant Navion stent graft without a bare stent was deployed proximally; however, the LCCA was unintentionally covered by the stent graft during this procedure. A pull-through form was created between the left axillary and femoral arteries using a 0.035-inch guide wire. The pull-through guide wire was gently pulled, and the greater curvature of the proximal end of the stent graft was displaced distally. Angiography confirmed restoration of antegrade blood flow into the LCCA. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. Follow-up CT performed 6 months postoperatively confirmed preserved blood flow into the LCCA without endoleak nor stent migration.

CONCLUSION

The pull-through pull-back technique is a feasible troubleshooting strategy for accidental coverage of supra-aortic vessels during TEVAR.

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.

Endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients are concerned. Endovascular treatments for this disease are under evaluation and some reports exist. We investigated the current use of catheter-based treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch repair.

METHODS

We searched in PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of June 2020 for studies on endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch. Data on demographic, procedure and stent graft (SG) details, access route, mortality with cause of death, complications and follow-up were extracted. A systematic review on the employed technology, procedure and outcome was performed.

RESULTS

A total number of 15 articles (13 retrospective reports and 2 case reports) were deemed eligible and were included in the study. In total, 140 patients (mean age: 56.7 years in 106 cases) received endovascular treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch (unspecific aortic dissection: 14; acute and subacute type A aortic dissection: 88; chronic type A aortic dissection: 23; type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A dissection: 15). The procedure strategy included unspecific thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (n = 8), TEVAR + supra-aortic debranching (n = 2), TEVAR + cervical bypass (n = 8), TEVAR + periscope SG (n = 12), TEVAR + chimney graft (n = 8), TEVAR + branched SG (n = 21) and TEVAR + fenestration (n = 81). Procedural success rate was 95.6% for 116 reported cases. Complications included endoleaks (postoperative: 2; late: 5), stroke (n = 4), late SG-induced new entry (n = 3) and new false lumen formation (n = 1). Hospital mortality was 5% (6 cases) in 13 reports (120 patients). The mean follow-up time was 26.2 ± 29.4 months and 2 patients died during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

As an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with a dissected proximal aortic arch, the endovascular treatment seems to be promising in highly selected cases. Further studies with long-term results and specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.

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.

Thoracic aortic parallel stent-graft behaviour when subjected to radial loading

To manage complex aortic arch disease using minimally invasive techniques, interventionalists have reported the use of multiple stent-graft devices deployed in a parallel configuration. The structural device-device and device-artery interactions arising during aortic arch parallel endografting, also known as chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (ch-TEVAR), is not well understood. Through the use of a radial force testing system we sought to characterise both the loading and deformation behaviour of parallel endografts in representative ch-TEVAR configurations. Four commercially available devices (Bentley BeGraft, Gore TAG, Gore Viabahn, and Medtronic Valiant) were subjected to uniform radial load individually, and in six combinations, to quantify loading profiles. Image data collected during testing were analysed to evaluate mechanical deformations in terms of gutters, chimney and main endograft compression, as well as graft infolding. Parallel endografting was found to increase radial loads when compared to standard TEVAR. Chronic outward force during ch-TEVAR was dependent on main endograft manufacturer, with TAG combinations leading to consistently higher loads than Valiant, but independent of chimney graft type. Endograft deformations were dependent on chimney graft type, with Viabahn combinations presenting with lower gutter areas and increased lumen compression than BeGraft. Chimney graft deformations were also influenced by deployment arrangement in the case of double ch-TEVAR. This study emphasizes the significant variability in both radial loads and mechanical deformations between clinically relevant ch-TEVAR configurations.

Endovascular Outcomes in Aortic Arch Repair with Double and Triple Parallel Stent Grafts

PURPOSE

To report early and midterm outcomes of treating thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and aortic dissection (AD) involving zone 1 and zone 0 with multiple parallel stent grafts (PSGs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2011 to August 2018, 31 of 1,806 patients (1.7%) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with double PSGs (DPSGs) (n = 20) or triple PSGs (TPSGs) (n = 11) were retrospectively reviewed. Procedures were performed in high-risk patients who had TAA or AD involving zone 1 or zone 0.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (48.4%) who presented with symptomatic or impending rupture underwent urgent or emergent TEVAR with DPSGs or TPSGs. Nineteen patients (61.3%) were treated for zone 0 disease. Technical and clinical success rates were 70.0% for DPSG cohort and 45.5% for TPSG cohort. Intraoperative type Ia endoleak was observed in 30% of DPSG cohort and 45.5% of TPSG cohort. One patient in the DPSG cohort died of aortic sinus rupture intraoperatively. Minor stroke during the 30-day postoperative period was more frequent in the TPSG cohort (P = .042). Mean duration of follow-up was 28.9 months ± 17.7. The TPSG cohort had a higher incidence of major adverse events (72.7% vs 25.0%, P = .021). The most common adverse events were endoleaks (12.9%), endograft migration (9.7%), PSG stenosis or occlusion (6.5%), retrograde dissection (6.5%), and stroke (3.2%). Endograft migrations were more common in TPSG cohort (27.3%, P = .037). Overall mortality rate was 16.1% (5/31) perioperatively and during follow-up. There were no statistical differences in overall survival and reintervention-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of TEVAR with multiple PSGs for aortic arch repair, TPSGs may have a high risk of major complications.

Complications and Management of the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Endovascular treatment in thoracic aortic diseases has increased in use exponentially since Dake and colleagues first described the use of a home-made transluminal endovascular graft on 13 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm at Stanford University in the early 1990s. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was initially developed for therapy in patients deemed unfit for open surgery. Innovations in endograft engineering design and popularization of endovascular techniques have transformed TEVAR to the predominant treatment choice in elective thoracic aortic repair. The number of TEVARs performed in the United States increased by 600% from 1998 to 2007, while the total number of thoracic aortic repairs increased by 60%. As larger multicenter trials and meta-analysis studies in the 2000s demonstrate the significant decrease in perioperative morbidity and mortality of TEVAR over open repair, TEVAR became incorporated into standard guidelines. The 2010 American consensus guidelines recommend TEVAR to be “strongly considered” when feasible for patients with degenerative or traumatic aneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta exceeding 5.5 cm, saccular aneurysms, or postoperative pseudoaneurysms. Nowadays, TEVAR is the predominant treatment for degenerative and traumatic descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. Although TEVAR has been shown to have decreased early morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair, endovascular manipulation of a diseased aorta with endovascular devices continues to have significant risks. Despite continued advancement in endovascular technique and devices since the first prospective trial examined the complications associated with TEVAR, common complications, two decades later, still include stroke, spinal cord ischemia, device failure, unintentional great vessel coverage, access site complications, and renal injury. In this article, we review common TEVAR complications with some corresponding radiographic imaging and their management.

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?

Exercise stress echocardiogram for the evaluation of change in the ventricular-arterial interaction after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore, with exercise echocardiography, the potential impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on the ventricle-aorta coupling, based on the hypothesis that the interaction between the ventricle and aorta may be influenced by an increase in aortic stiffness due to the stent graft.

METHODS

Of the patients who underwent isolated TEVAR for thoracic aortic diseases between April 2016 and December 2016, changes found in haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters between the control (n = 17) and TEVAR (n = 30) groups were analysed by a stress echocardiogram.

RESULTS

The end-systolic elastance significantly increased with stress in both groups [from 3.0 (2.5-4.5) mmHg/ml to 4.8 (3.7-6.5) mmHg/ml, P < 0.001, in the control group and from 2.9 (2.0-3.5) mmHg/ml to 3.4 (2.6-4.2) mmHg/ml, P < 0.001, in the TEVAR group]. The arterial elastance significantly elevated only in the TEVAR group [from 1.6 (1.3-1.8) mmHg/ml to 1.7 (1.5-2.0) mmHg/ml, P = 0.007] and arterial elastance/end-systolic elastance (ventricular-arterial coupling) significantly decreased only in the control group [from 0.5 (0.4-0.7) to 0.4 (0.3-0.5), P = 0.002, in the control group and from 0.6 (0.4-0.8) to 0.5 (0.4-0.6), P = 0.10, in the TEVAR group]. In the control group, the change in end-systolic elastance and ventricular-arterial coupling tended to be greater (P = 0.002 and 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

An exercise echocardiogram showed the underlying influences of TEVAR on the interaction between the heart and aorta. TEVAR may have the potential to suppress left ventricular contractile capacity and increase cardiac afterload during exercise.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

A201770-01.

Successful concomitant open surgical repair of aortic arch pseudoaneurysm and percutaneous myocardial revascularization in a high risk patient: A case report

INTRODUCTION

We present a case of open surgical repair of an aortic arch pseudoaneurysm (AAP) without the use of hypothermic circulatory arrest in a patient with low ejection fraction and associated coronary artery disease (CAD) and discuss some issues regarding the management of this case.

PRESENTATION OF THE CASE

A 69-year-old male with multiple pathologies and history of angina pectoris was transferred to our center from a local hospital with an initial diagnosis of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Coronary angiography revealed stenotic lesions affecting all three coronary arteries. Multislice 3D contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT-scan) revealed a 36 × 27 mm AAP. Endovascular stent-grafting was deemed to be unsuitable due to hostile landing zone. Therefore, the heart team decided for simultaneou treatment of the AAP and percutaneous therapy of CAD. The AAP was excised, and repair was performed with a Dacron patch on beating heart. After the surgical procedure, PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) was performed on the right coronary artery (RCA) and the left circumflex artery (LCx) in the operating room. The patient's postprocedural course was uneventful and after thirteen days, he was discharged in good shape. 3D CT-scan performed after three month showed no residual AAP.

DISCUSSION

We established this approach as being the most suitable for our case based on favorable circumstances such as: stable CAD, beating heart procedure with low impact on myocardial ischemia, the impossibility of successful placement of an endovascular stent-graft, the presence of a pseudoaneurysm neck with minimum calcification.

CONCLUSION

We consider the best approach for individual cases is tailoring the treatment plan and the procedure to the patient's specific anatomy and pathology.

Short-term results in canines of novel stent-graft design for chimney technique in TEVAR

Introduction

Parallel stent-stent grafting is a major endovascular technique used to preserve the supra-aortic branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch. The short- and mid-term results of this technique are satisfactory; however, endoleak remains a major concern. Thus, here we designed a new chimney stent-graft to decrease the endoleak rate.

Aim

To testify the feasibility and safety of the new chimney stent-graft system in a canine model.

Material and methods

Six Labrador retrievers were used. Pre-operative data were collected and all operations were performed under general anesthesia. The main and chimney stent-grafts were implanted through the abdominal aorta and left subclavian artery approaches, respectively. Completion digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was performed to confirm the immediate outcomes. All dogs were fed separately for 6 months and sacrificed after aortic angiography. The thoracic aorta and the main and chimney stent-grafts were harvested for histopathologic examination.

Results

No complications were found in follow-up DSA. All branch arteries were patent. Inflammatory responses were observed around the stent-grafts in 3 experimental animals, and slight hyperplasia was observed in the surrounding tissues compared with the normal vessels. There was no mural thrombus in the stent, endothelial cells were noted on the inner surface of the stent, and thrombus was formed in the outer skirt and gutter area. The histopathologic examinations revealed similar results to those of gross necropsy observations.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the Longuette stent-graft and the first to report a revised stent-graft specific for chimney technique.

Anatomical Analysis and Feasibility Study of Next-Generation Fenestrated or Branched Stent-Grafts for the Treatment of Arch Aneurysms

Purpose: To analyze the anatomical characteristics of arch aneurysms and evaluate the anatomical feasibility of 4 next-generation stent-grafts with either branched or fenestrated configurations. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 213 patients (mean age 75.0±7.1 years; 179 men) with arch aneurysms treated using total arch replacement or zone 0 or 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from 2007 to 2017 at 2 Japanese hospitals. Anatomical analyses were performed using the centerline of flow technique on a 3-dimensional workstation. The anatomical feasibility of the Zenith A-branch, TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE), Terumo Aortic Relay Plus Double Branched (DB), and fenestrated Najuta stent-grafts were evaluated based on the instructions for use (IFU). Results: The mean lengths from the sinotubular junction (STJ) to the innominate artery (IA) and from the IA to the left common carotid artery were 114.9±15.9 and 12.8±5.6 mm, respectively. The mean aortic diameters at the STJ and IA were 31.3±3.4 and 34.1±5.3 mm, respectively. In terms of feasibility, 5.2% of patients were within the Zenith A-branch IFU, 40.8% for the TAG TBE, 24.9% for the Relay Plus DB, and 13.6% for the Najuta. Significant (>50% circumference) thrombus/calcification at the sealing zone affected nearly half of the patients, but there is currently no standardized definition or evaluation method for "significant" thrombus/calcification. Conclusion: Only 5% to 41% of arch aneurysm patients are anatomically suitable for TEVAR using any one of the next-generation branched or fenestrated stent-grafts. Furthermore, a definitive method of evaluating the thrombus/calcification burden needs to be established in future IFU.

Endovascular aortic repairs combined with looping-chimney technique for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) combined with looping chimney technique (LCT) for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery.

Methods

Total of 14 patients (mean age 52.86±14.46 years; range, 27–79; 10 men, 4 women) were included in the study from December 2016 to December 2018. Aortic arch pathologies of all patients with insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) were repaired by TEVAR under local anesthesia, before TEVAR, the left common carotid artery (LCCA) was protected by the guiding sheath from the retrograde brachial access, after aortic stent graft deployed, chimney graft was implanted to restore LCCA by LCT if necessary. All patients underwent computed tomography angiograph (CTA) 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery.

Results

Pathology results of 14 patients included: type B aortic dissection (n=8), penetrating aortic ulcers (n=1), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=1), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=2), and thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm (n=2). In all patients, aortic arch lesions were repaired by TEVAR; while LCCA were successfully reconstructed by the LCT. In one case, the innominate artery (IA) was simultaneously reconstructed through the same percutaneous right brachial artery (RBA) access. Coiling eliminated type Ia endoleak in 3 patients, and type II endoleak vanished by plugging left subclavian artery (LSA) in 2 patients. In four patients, the chimney stent (CG) of LCCA was partially compressed and then another bare stent was implanted to restore patency rate. The mean follow-up duration was 9.77±6.64 months (range, 0–24) and no combinations were observed in 13 patients; except in one patient who died of cerebral hemorrhage due to abnormal coagulation function.

Conclusions

TEVAR combined with LCT has shown to be suitable surgical approach for aortic arch lesions. Either covered intentionally or inadvertently, the LCCA could be safely and effectively reconstructed via percutaneous RBA access. Short-term follow-up demonstrated satisfactory morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients; however, longer follow-up is required to assess the effectiveness and durability of this innovative endovascular procedure.

Thoracic aortic surgery: status and upcoming novelties

Several novel technological developments and surgical approaches have characterized the field of aortic surgery in the recent decade. The progressive introduction of endovascular procedures, minimally invasive surgical techniques and hybrid approaches have changed the practice in aortic surgery and generated new trends and questions. Also, the advancements in the manufacturing of tissue engineered vascular grafts as substitutes for aortic replacements are enlightening new avenues in the treatment of aortic disease. This review will provide an overview of the current novel perspectives, debates and trends in major thoracic aortic surgery.

Early experience and technical aspects of physician-modified fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies

Objective

This study was performed to describe the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with a physician-modified fenestration (PMF) technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

From August 2015 to August 2017, 32 patients with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR with the PMF technique. All patients’ clinical data were analyzed with GraphPad Prism 7.0.

Results

Thirty-four aortic stent-grafts were implanted in 32 patients. The mean proximal diameter of the stent-graft was 32.4 ± 3.4 cm, and the mean length was 170.0 ± 25.2 cm. Twenty-nine PMF procedures were performed to preserve the left subclavian artery (LSA) and three to preserve both the LSA and left common carotid artery. The mean distance between the pathology and LSA was 8.4 ± 4.0 mm. The mean procedure time (from first to last digital subtraction angiography) was 22.8 ± 20.8 min. The mean follow-up time was 8.3 ± 5.3 months. During follow-up, the all-cause survival rate was 83.3% and the patency rate of the branch artery after PMF was 96.0%.

Conclusion

The PMF technique is a relatively safe, feasible, and time-saving method to preserve the branch artery in TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies. The short- to middle-term result of this technique is satisfactory.

A Shorter Aortic Arch Sealing Ring (< 10 mm) Distal to the Most Distal Chimney Seems to Be an Additional Important Factor Contributing to a Gutter Endoleak in Aortic Arch TEVAR

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to define the possible anatomical and technical parameter that might predict the occurrence of gutter endoleak or type Ia endoleak (EL Ia) in patients treated with the chimney graft (CG) technique for the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) and left common carotid artery (LCCA) due to aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

We reviewed our institutional endovascular aortic database of patients, who between 2010 and 2018 had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with chimney graft technique (ChTEVAR) as a debranching method of the supraaortic arteries.

RESULTS

ChTEVAR was performed in 45 patients of whom a chimney in both the LCCA and the BCT was used in 32 patients, only in the LCCA in twelve patients, and only in the BCT in one patient. Eight patients (17.8%) had an EL Ia (based on postoperative computed tomography angiography). No late EL Ia was detected during the follow-up period. All patients with a postoperative EL Ia received 2 CGs with one each for the BCT, and LCCA had either no or a sealing ring distal to the most distal chimney of less than 10 mm versus patients with a longer sealing zone (P = 0.043). Patients with an endoleak did not differ from those without endoleak with respect to stent-graft oversizing, the diameter of the proximal and distal landing zones, or the aortic diameter directly proximal to the pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

A sealing ring distal to the most distal chimney of more than 10 mm seems to be associated with a reduced risk of an EL Ia. The relatively few patients and the single-center nature require larger studies to verify the present results.