Supra-aortic interventions for endovascular exclusion of the entire aortic arch

Analysis of Flow Through Extra-Anatomic Bypasses Between Supra-Aortic Branches Using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)

Supra-aortic extra-anatomic debranch (SAD) are prosthetic surgical grafts used to revascularize head and neck arteries that would be blocked during a surgical or hybrid procedure used in treating ascending and arch of the aorta pathologies. However, bypassing the supra-aortic arteries but not occluding their orifice might introduce potential for competitive flow that reduces bypass patency. Competitive flow within the bypasses across the supra-aortic arteries has not previously been identified. This research identified haemodynamics due to prophylactic inclusion of bypasses from the brachiocephalic artery (BCA) to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), and from the LCCA to left subclavian artery (LSA). Four model configurations investigated the risk of competitive flow and the necessity of intentionally blocking the proximal LSA and/or LCCA. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) was used to assess haemodynamics in each model configuration. We found potential for competitive flow in the BCA-LCCA bypass when the LSA was blocked, in the LSA-LCCA bypass, when the LCCA alone or LCCA and LSA were blocked. Flow stagnated at the start of systole within the RCCA-LCCA bypass, along with notable recirculation zones and reciprocating flow occurring throughout systolic flow. Flow also stagnated in the LCCA-LSA bypass when the LCCA was blocked. There was a large recirculation in the LCCA-LSA bypass when both the LCCA and LSA were blocked. The presence of competitive flow in all other configurations indicated that it is necessary to block or ligate the native LCCA and LSA once the debranch is made and the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) completed.

Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up.

RESULTS

Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.

CONCLUSION

F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.

Non-A Non-B Acute Aortic Dissection: Is There Some Confusion in the Radiologist's Mind?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to define and determine the rate of acute non-A-non-B aortic dissections, and to evaluate CT angiography findings and possible complications, as well as to discuss management strategies and currently available therapy. Non-A non-B type of aortic dissection is still a grey area in the radiologist's mind, such that it is not entirely clear what should be reported and completed in terms of this disease.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study including 36 pre-treatment CT angiograms of consecutive patients (mean age: 61 years) between January 2012 and December 2022 with aortic dissection involving the aortic arch with/without the thoracic descending/abdominal aorta (type non-A non-B).

RESULTS

According to the dissection anatomy, we identified three modalities of spontaneous acute non-A-non-B anatomical configurations. Configuration 1 (n = 25) with descending-entry tear and retrograde arch extension (DTA entry). Configuration 2 (n = 4) with Arch entry tear and isolated arch involvement (Arch alone). Configuration 3 (n = 7) with Arch entry and anterograde descending (±abdominal) aorta involvement (Arch entry). CT angiogram findings, management, and treatment options are described.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute non-A non-B dissection represents an infrequent occurrence of aortic arch dissection (with or without involvement of the descending aorta) that does not extend to the ascending aorta. The complete understanding of its natural progression, distinct CT angiography subtypes, optimal management, and treatment strategies remains incomplete. Within our series, patients frequently exhibit a complex clinical course, often necessitating a more assertive approach to treatment compared to type B dissections.

Anatomical feasibility of a 'semi-custom' unibody single-branch endograft in previous zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of a subclavian unibody single-branch endograft among patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in landing zone 2 (LZ2).

METHODS

This is a pre-clinical, single-centre, real-world, all-comers, retrospective cohort study. Patients treated with TEVAR in LZ2 with an available preoperative computed tomography angiography were included. The primary outcome was the anatomical feasibility of the Castor endograft in patients receiving endovascular treatment in LZ2 between 1999 and 2022. Secondary outcomes were: a comparison of feasible and unfeasible patients; frequencies and description of exclusion causes; non-feasibility risk factor analysis; and analysis of the stent graft configurations necessary to treat 75% of the patients. A logistic regression model was used to find associations between baseline morphological data and non-feasibility.

RESULTS

A total of 473 procedures were performed and 72 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. The mean distance between the left carotid artery and left subclavian artery (or between innominate artery and bovine trunk) was 12.4 ± 5.2 mm and its average diameter was 33.0 ± 10.6 mm. The pre-vertebral left subclavian artery's diameter and length were 11.3 ± 2.5 and 38.7 ± 10.8 mm. Forty-nine (68.1%) patients were suitable for Castor implantation. Twenty-one configurations were required to treat 75% of feasible patients and might be lowered to 12 configurations applying less strict criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Castor endograft was anatomically feasible in several patients requiring TEVAR in LZ2. Three-quarters of feasible patients could be treated with a reasonable number of configurations, paving the path for future off-the-shelf applications.

Protocol for Guo's aortIc Arch recoNstrucTion: a prospective, multicentre and single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the WeFlow-Arch modular inner branch stent-graft system for aortic arch lesions (GIANT study)

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of the entire aortic arch provides treatment opportunities for patients with aortic arch lesions who are intolerant to open surgery. However, the complex anatomical configuration, high-speed blood flow and long access from the femoral artery increase the difficulty of endovascular aortic arch repair. On the basis of our earlier studies, a new modular inner branch stent-graft system was developed specifically for lesions located in the aortic arch and part of the ascending aorta. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system in patients with aortic arch lesions who are unsuitable for open aortic arch replacement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective, multicentre, single-arm, clinical trial will enrol 80 patients with aortic arch lesions requiring intervention, namely, true aortic arch aneurysms, pseudo-aortic arch aneurysms and penetrating ulcers involving the aortic arch. Clinical information and CT angiography (CTA) images will be collected and analysed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system. Patients will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality and severe stroke within 12 months after the procedure. In addition, this trial will evaluate mid-term to long-term clinical and imaging outcomes through the annual clinical and CTA follow-up for 2-5 years postoperatively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We have registered the study on a registry website (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, physician newsletters, conferences and the mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04765592.

Hybrid Approaches for Aortic Disease – Our Experience

BACKGROUND

Despite significant technological advancements in endovascular aortic repair, the aortic arch remains a challenge due to anatomic complexity including arch angulation and morphology as well as the location of brachiocephalic vessels in relation to landing zones. Total endovascular solutions are in development and being studied, in the meantime, hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a viable alternative to traditional open total arch replacement.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was performed reviewing outcomes of 71 patients who underwent hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch over the past 12 years at our facility.

RESULTS

Major morbidity in the first 30 days post procedure was experienced by 3 patients (15.7%) and included one patient with stroke (n = 1), and another who experienced paraplegia and pulmonary complications (n = 1). There was one in-hospital death as a result of respiratory failure in a patient with multiple underlying comorbidities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on postoperative day 5 resulting in a 30-day mortality of 5.2%. After a mean follow-up of 30 months, the overall mortality remained 5.2%. Major morbidity occurred in one patient who developed retrograde type A dissection. There was no stenosis of bypass grafts identified on follow-up imaging. Endoleak was identified in 2 patients. One patient experienced persistent retrograde perfusion of the false lumen with interval aneurysmal degeneration which was managed with an Amplatz vascular plug at 120 months following the initial hybrid TEVAR (5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch is technically feasible with a good mid-term survival and a long-term freedom from reintervention.

Tratamiento endovascular con técnica de chimenea para patologías del arco aórtico

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

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.

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.

Hybrid Repair of an Aneurysm of the Innominate Artery

Introduction

Innominate artery aneurysms (IAAs) are rare. They are notorious for causing thromboembolic events. Modern imaging modalities make early detection in an asymptomatic phase possible. In Kieffer group B aneurysms the origin of the innominate artery is affected. Thanks to the combination of open and endovascular techniques, off pump repair is feasible in patients with a fragile aortic arch. During this hybrid procedure the aortic arch is debranched and reinforced with a stent graft.

Report

A 73 year old white man with a history of extensive thoraco-abdominal aortic reconstructions for aneurysmal disease presented with a progressive Kieffer B IAA of 35 mm. He underwent an off pump hybrid repair. A bifurcated Dacron prosthesis was used for the debranching. The main body originated from the ascending aorta. The right limb was anastomosed to the common ostium of the right carotid and subclavian arteries. The left limb was anastomosed to the left subclavian and carotid artery. The aortic arch was reinforced with a 40 × 162 mm Zenith TX2 endoprosthesis. The endoprosthesis was inserted through a temporary conduit on the main body and deployed during rapid ventricular pacing. The endoprosthesis lined the ascending aorta distal to the debranching up to Ishimaru zone 3. The antegrade insertion prevented excessive manipulation of the aortic arch and the tortuous aorta, which was lined with mural thrombus. Post-operative computed tomography showed a patent debranching with excellent alignment of the endoprosthesis without endoleak.

Discussion

Hybrid repair of the aortic arch is well described in literature. This technique was adapted in the treatment of a Kieffer group B IAA. The tortuous aorta and mural thrombus led to the antegrade placement of the endoprosthesis through the main body of the debranched aorta. This approach seems safe and feasible.

•

An innominate artery aneurysm (IAA) is rare and notorious for causing a thromboembolic event (cerebral and upper limb).

•

Surgery (interposition graft) is indicated in symptomatic lesions or lesions >30 mm.

•

Aneurysmal involvement of the aortic arch may require cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

•

Aortic arch stent graft plus an interposition graft (hybrid) can prevent CPB.

•

The stent graft was implanted in an antegrade fashion preventing groin cutdown.

Endovascular repair of the aorti arch

AIM

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

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.

Review of frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex Hybrid device

The frozen elephant trunk technique has revolutionized aortic arch repair to enable more extensive arch and descending thoracic aortic treatment in a single setting. We review the current evidence supporting the use of the Thoraflex Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, FL, USA) device and discuss advantages, pitfalls and future design considerations.

Hybrid zone zero debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair of ascending aortic injury after surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the ascending aorta remains challenging. We have reported the case of an 81-year-old woman with ascending aortic injury who underwent a life-saving hybrid repair. The patient had previously undergone extended radical mastectomy and postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer, which had resulted in a right thoracic wall defect and bone exposure and osteonecrosis of the sternum. Therefore, the ascending aorta was directly compressed by the sternum at the level of the brachiocephalic artery bifurcation, causing persistent bleeding from the thoracic wall. Hybrid zone 0 debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a left subclavian artery inflow was emergently performed and achieved hemostasis.

Anatomic Suitability for Branched Thoracic Endovascular Repair in Patients with Aortic Arch Pathological Features

Background Endovascular repair has become a viable alternative for aortic pathological features, including those located within the aortic arch. We investigated the anatomic suitability for branched thoracic endovascular repair in patients previously treated with conventional open surgery for aortic arch pathological features. Methods and Results Patients who underwent open surgery for aortic arch pathological features at our institution between 2000 and 2018 were included. Anatomic suitability was determined by strict compliance with the anatomic criteria within manufacturers' instructions for use for each of the following branched thoracic stent grafts: Relay Plus Double-Branched (Terumo-Aortic), TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates), Zenith Arch Branched Device (Cook-Medical), and Nexus Stent Graft System (Endospan Ltd/Jotec GmbH). Computed tomography angiography images were analyzed with outer luminal line measurements. A total of 377 patients (mean age, 64±14 years; 64% men) were identified, 153 of whom had suitable computed tomography angiography images for measurements. In total, 59 patients (15.6% of the total cohort and 38.6% of the measured cohort) were eligible for endovascular repair using at least one of the devices. Device suitability was 30.9% for thoracic aneurysms, 4.6% for type A dissections, 62.5% for type B dissections, and 28.6% for other pathological features. Conclusions The anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of all aortic arch pathological features was modest. The highest suitability rates were observed for thoracic aneurysms and for type B dissections, of which repair included part of the aortic arch. We suggest endovascular repair of arch pathological features should be reserved for high-volume centers with experience in endovascular arch repair.

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.

Various Endoluminal Approaches Available for Treating Pathologies of the Aortic Arch

Open surgical repair of the aortic arch for degenerative aortic disease in an unfit patient is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal techniques have advanced over the last decade. Contemporary endovascular options including a hybrid approach (supra-aortic debranching and aortic stent graft), inner branched endograft, chimney stents, and scallop or fenestrated endografts are being used frequently as an alternative to open surgical arch repair. Understanding of the available endoluminal technology along with careful planning and effective teamwork is required to minimise complications associated with the endoluminal techniques, particularly neurological ones. Custom made techniques are superior to chimney or parallel technology in terms of their complications and durability. Integration of the protective devices such as embolic protection filters into stent design may reduce the risk of poor neurological sequelae. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of these devices.

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.

A Clampless Aortoprosthetic End to Side Anastomotic Device with Large Diameter Aortic Puncher

Introduction

To facilitate safe anastomosis of a vascular prosthesis onto the proximal ascending aorta without side clamping, a clampless anastomotic device with large diameter aortic puncher was developed.

Report

First, a vascular prosthesis is anastomosed onto the aorta without making a hole, then the aortic wall within the prosthesis is punched out using the device.

Discussion

After further refinement of the present device, endovascular surgery with debranching could be performed more safely and quickly.

Anaesthetic management in endovascular total aortic arch repair via needle-based in situ fenestration: a case series of 14 patients

Objective

Endovascular total aortic arch repair (ETAAR) via needle-based in situ fenestration (ISF) is a major challenge for anaesthesiologists because of haemodynamic instability and the risk of cerebral hypoxia. We herein summarise our experience with anaesthetic management of patients who underwent this procedure.

Methods

Fourteen patients who underwent ETAAR via ISF for arch pathologies involving the major supra-arch branches were included. Regional cerebral oxygen saturation was measured to monitor cerebral perfusion. Partial extracorporeal circulation (EC) support from the right common femoral vein to the right axillary artery was introduced to provide cerebral perfusion.

Results

During ISF, vessel rupture occurred in three patients and ventricular fibrillation occurred in one patient. The regional cerebral oxygen saturation significantly decreased during the potential risk period for cerebral ischaemia. Establishment of EC effectively prevented cerebral ischaemia.

Conclusions

During ETAAR, the risks of haemodynamic instability caused by the procedure and vessel rupture during ISF need to be overcome. Partial EC ensured good cerebral protection in our study, and regional cerebral oxygen saturation monitoring may help to reduce the rate of desaturation.

Off-the-Shelf Devices for Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases: Midterm Follow-up of TEVAR With Chimneys or Physician-Made Fenestrations

Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using chimney grafts (ch-TEVAR) or thoracic stent-grafts with fenestrations made on the back table (f-TEVAR) to treat thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 474 consecutive patients (mean age 62.3±10.7 years; 346 men) treated with either f-TEVAR (n=110) or ch-TEVAR (n=364) for 352 TADs (81 f-TEVAR and 271 ch-TEVAR) or 122 TAAs (29 f-TEVAR and 93 ch-TEVAR) from 2008 to 2016. The primary endpoints at 30 days and during follow-up were overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications. The secondary endpoints were endoleak and reintervention. The patency of the target branches, cost of hospitalization, and the use of antiplatelet drugs were also analyzed. Results: Intraoperative type I endoleaks were treated in 69 (14.6%) cases (4 f-TEVAR and 65 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01) to achieve 100% technical success. Four (0.8%) patients died within 30 days [1 (0.9%) f-TEVAR and 3 (0.8%) ch-TEVAR]. Perioperative cerebral ischemia (1 fatal stroke) occurred in 9 (1.9%) patients: (1 f-TEVAR and 8 ch-TEVAR, p=0.39). During the mean follow-up of 50.6±20.0 months (49.5±18.3 months in f-TEVAR and 50.9±20.6 months in ch-TEVAR), 11 (2.3%) patients died of an aorta-related event. Type I endoleak was present in 40 (8.4%) patients (1 f-TEVAR and 39 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01). Eleven (2.3%) patients experienced stent-graft migration and 13 (2.7%) had a retrograde dissection. One hundred (16.9%) of the 593 branch stents occluded (4/75 in the f-TEVAR group and 96/518 in the ch-TEVAR group, p<0.01). The branch reintervention rate was 7.2% (34/474). The f-TEVAR group had a significantly higher probability of freedom from branch occlusion (92%) than the ch-TEVAR group (83%, p=0.007). Conclusion: Off-the-shelf techniques employing chimney grafts and homemade fenestrations are both suitable options for TAD and TAA involving the supra-aortic branches, with a low incidence of reintervention. Fenestrated TEVAR seems to have more favorable short- and midterm outcomes. Further study of these off-the-shelf techniques for aortic arch repair is warranted.

Efficacy of ascending aortic banding technique concomitant with type I hybrid aortic arch repair in high-risk patients

Banding of the ascending aorta has been introduced as a less complex procedure to optimize the proximal landing zone of the stent graft in hybrid aortic arch surgery. However, data about the long-term results and effects of this technique are still limited. We aimed to study the efficacy of banding of the ascending aorta in hybrid aortic arch repair. The study included 11 high-risk patients with dilated ascending aorta (wider than 38 mm in diameter) undergoing ascending aortic banding for hybrid arch repair. Clinical outcomes, including technical success, endoleaks, perioperative mortality and morbidity, and sequential remodeling of the ascending aorta were investigated. The average diameter of the ascending aorta had been reduced (p = 0.02) from 42.1 mm (range = 39.0-46.4) to 37.2 mm (range = 35.6-38.6) after banding procedure. The technical success rate was 100.0%. No type I endoleak occurred, but 2 cases of distal stent graft-induced new entry required re-interventions. The 5-year survival and freedom from aortic events rates both were 81.8%. The ascending aortic diameter remained stable and no proximal migration of the stent graft was observed during the study period. The 5-year results validated the durability of this therapeutic modality, especially in high-risk patients.

Debranching of Supra-aortic Vessels via Femoral Artery Inflow for Late Ascending Aortic Rupture

A 56-year-old man with a history of Marfan's syndrome, total arch replacement, descending thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and twice redo sternotomy for pseudoaneurysm repair, presented with a pulsatile chest mass secondary to a contained rupture of the ascending aorta. The patient underwent supra-aortic debranching via the superficial femoral artery and ascending thoracic stent-graft placement under continuous transesophageal echocardiography. Completion angiography demonstrated successful exclusion of the contained rupture. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically intact, the pulsatile mass resolved, and the bypass grafts remained patent. Chronic respiratory failure and multidrug-resistant pneumonia led to late mortality. This case demonstrates that hybrid repair is effective in the emergent setting of ascending aortic rupture. Debranching of the ascending arch using the superficial femoral artery as inflow is feasible and provides adequate cerebral perfusion despite the length of the bypass. The use of transesophageal echocardiography during stent-graft deployment allows precise device placement in the high-risk area of the ascending aorta proximal to the innominate artery.

Status of branched endovascular aortic arch repair

Multiple medical device manufacturers are developing branched endografts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), to provide a minimally invasive alternative for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in patients who are deemed unfit for open or hybrid arch repair. Different branched endografts have been introduced, with varying number, size and orientation of the branches that redirect flow to the supra-aortic arteries. We present an overview of the currently investigated devices and review their outcomes. The results of branched TEVAR are promising, yet stroke remains the predominant periprocedural concern. For now, these procedures should be limited to select expert centers where the design and deployment procedure of branched endografts can be further developed to reduce the risk of stroke.

Cerebral embolic protection during endovascular arch replacement

Despite excellent results in high volume centers, open repair of aortic arch pathology is highly invasive, and can result in significant morbidity and mortality in high risk patients. Near-total and hybrid approaches to aortic arch disease states have emerged as an alternative for patients deemed moderate to high risk for conventional repair. Advantages of these approaches include avoidance of extracorporeal circulation and hypothermic circulatory arrest as well as avoidance of cross clamping, all of which are not well tolerated in high risk patients. Anatomically high-risk patients with anastomotic aneurysms from previous arch reconstruction may also benefit from these less invasive approaches. Medical devices designed specifically for the aortic arch are developing at a rapid pace and continue to evolve. Dedicated devices for zone 0-2 aortic arch repair are currently available under special access or being studied in clinical trials. Unfortunately, stroke continues to be the Achilles heel of endovascular approaches to the aortic arch, with cerebral embolism being the culprit in the majority of such cases. This perspective article describes the epidemiology, procedures, and mitigation strategies for current near-total and hybrid approaches to aortic arch pathology, and specifically addresses current means of embolic protection and future direction.