Single-center experience with an inner branched arch endograft

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch

PURPOSE

Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Anatomical Feasibility of the "Canaud Technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

PURPOSE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), originally conceived for deployment distal to the left subclavian artery (LSA), has been recently extended to more proximal landing zones. Among total endovascular solutions, the "Canaud technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts (C-PMEGs) has gained acceptance with good early results. The aim of this study is to report the proportion of patients with zone 0, 1, and 2 aortic arch lesions that could theoretically be treated with a C-PMEG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Computed tomography angiography (CTA) of all consecutive patient candidates to open, hybrid, or endovascular arch repair from January 2009 to July 2023 at our Institution were analyzed. The assessment of feasibility of C-PEMG was conducted following previously extensively described anatomical criteria.

RESULTS

During the study period, 209 consecutive patients were candidates for an open, hybrid, or endovascular aortic arch repair. Of them, 164 patients had a preoperative CTA scan eligible for analysis. One hundred twenty-six patients were male (76.8 %), with a mean age of 67 ± 10.8 years. Ninety-four patients (57.3%) were affected by atherosclerotic aneurysms, 48 post-dissecting aneurysms (29.3%) and 22 penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) (13.4%). Twenty patients (12.2%) were suitable for double-fenestrated C-PMEG, and 34 patients (20.7%) for single-fenestrated C-PMEG, totaling 32.9% of the entire cohort. The combination of supra-aortic trunks (SAT) bypass or the use of covered stent in IA or left common carotid artery (LCCA) as adjunctive maneuvers, would extend the C-PMEGs feasibility to 69 patients (42.1%). The use of an iliac graft conduit in 3 (1.8%) patients with inadequate ileo-femoral accesses would increase the C-PMEG suitability to 72 patients (43.9%). The main reason for exclusion was excessive ascending aortic diameter in 78 patients (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of C-PMEG was shown to be theoretically feasible in a percentage of patients ranging from 32.9 to 43.9% affected by aortic arch aneurysms, dissections, and PAU. The main reason for exclusion was the dimension of the ascending aorta. The C-PMEG technique is a viable option in aortic arch lesions endovascular treatment. An off-the-shelf device with similar characteristics could also be used in emergency, avoiding the limitations of physician modifications (such as time for back-table procedure, sterility, off-label use).

CLINICAL IMPACT

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been extended to more proximal landing zones for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysm, dissections, penetrating aortic ulcers. Among total endovascular solutions, the "Canaud technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts (C-PMEGs) has gained acceptance with good early results. The anatomical feasibility in 164 consecutive patients was 69 patients (42.1%), with the combination of supra-aortic trunks (SAT) bypass or the use of covered stent in IA or left common carotid artery (LCCA) as adjunctive maneuvers, showing that the C-PMEG technique is a viable option in aortic arch lesions endovascular treatment.

Open, endovascular or hybrid repair of aortic arch disease: narrative review of diverse strategies with diverse options

OBJECTIVES

The management of aortic arch disease is complex. Open surgical management continues to evolve, and the introduction of endovascular repair is revolutionizing aortic arch surgery. Although these innovative techniques have generated the opportunity for better outcomes in select patients, they have also introduced confusion and uncertainty regarding best practices.

METHODS

In New York, we developed a collaborative group, the New York Aortic Consortium, as a means of cross-linking knowledge and working together to better understand and treat aortic disease. In our meeting in May 2023, regional aortic experts and invited international experts discussed the contemporary management of aortic arch disease, differences in interpretation of the available literature and the integration of endovascular technology into disease management. We summarized the current state of aortic arch surgery in this review article.

RESULTS

Approaches to aortic arch repair have evolved substantially, whether it be methods to reduce cerebral ischaemia, improve haemostasis, simplify future operations or expand options for high-risk patients with endovascular approaches. However, the transverse aortic arch remains challenging to repair. Among our collaborative group of cardiac/aortic surgeons, we discovered a wide disparity in our practice patterns and our management strategies of patients with aortic arch disease.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to build unique institutional expertise in the context of complex and evolving management of aortic arch disease with open surgery, endovascular repair and hybrid approaches, tailored to the risk profiles and anatomical specifics of individual patients.

Sex Comparative Analysis of Branched and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Female sex is a risk factor for adverse events after endovascular aortic repair. Sex comparative early and midterm outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic arch repair (F/B-Arch) are presented.

METHODS

A single centre retrospective sex comparative analysis of consecutive patients managed with F/B-Arch was conducted according to STROBE. Primary outcomes were sex comparative technical success, death, and cerebrovascular morbidity at 30 days. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for follow up outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 209 patients, 38.3% were women. Coronary artery disease (p < .001) and previous myocardial infarction (p = .001) were more common in women. Non-native proximal aortic landing was higher in women (women: 51.3%; men: 31.8%, p = .005) and the aortic dissection rate was lower (28.8% vs. 48.1%, p = .005). Proximal landing to Ishimaru zones showed no difference (zone 0: p = .18; zone 1: p = .47; zone 2: p = .39). Graft configurations were equally distributed. In total, 416 supra-aortic trunks were bridged. The median number of revascularisations per patient was two (interquartile range 1, 3), with no difference between sexes (p = .54). Technical success (women: 97.5%; men: 96.9%, p = .80), 30 day mortality rate (women: 10%; men: 9.3%, p = .86), and cerebrovascular morbidity (women: 11.3%; men: 17.1%, p = .25) were similar. Women presented more access related complications (women: 32.5%; men: 16.3%, p = .006), without affecting access related re-interventions (p = .55). Survival (women: 81.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 76.3 - 85.9%; men: 79.8%, 95% CI 76.0 - 83.6%) and freedom from re-intervention (women: 56.6%, 95% CI 50.4 - 62.8%; men: 55.3%, 95% CI 50.1 - 60.5%) at 12 months were similar (log rank, p = .40 and p = .41, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both sexes presented similar outcomes after F/B-Arch. Appropriate patient selection may decrease the effect of sex in F/B-Arch outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Target Vessel-Related Outcomes in Patients Managed With Branch Thoracic Aortic Endovascular Repair

INTRODUCTION

Data on target vessel (TV)-related outcomes in patients managed with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (BTEVAR) are limited. This study aimed to present the TV-related outcomes of BTEVAR in patients managed for aortic arch pathologies at 30 days and during follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, with custom-made aortic arch endografts (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), presenting at least one branch configuration, were eligible. Primary outcomes were technical success, TV-related patency, and reinterventions at 30 days.

RESULTS

In total, 255 TVs were revascularized using branches: 107 innominate arteries (IAs), 108 left common carotid arteries (LCCAs), and 40 left subclavian arteries (LSAs). Covered stents were used as bridging stents of which 10.2% were balloon expandable. Relining, using bare-metal stents (BMS), was performed in 14.0% of IAs, 35.2% of LCCAs, and 22.5% of LSAs. Technical success on case basis was 99.2%; no failure was related to unsuccessful TV bridging. At 30 day follow-up, no TV occlusion was detected. In 5.6% of cases, a type Ic or III endoleak, attributed to TVs, was recorded. Two patients needed early branch-related reintervention. The mean follow-up was 18.3±9.2 months. Freedom from TV instability was 94.6% (standard error [SE] 2.5%] at 12 months. No TV stenosis or occlusion was detected up to 48 months of follow-up. Freedom from TV-related reinterventions was 95.4% [SE 2.4%] at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

TV stenosis or occlusion in BTEVAR cases is rare and TV-related reinterventions and instability events are mainly attributed to type Ic and III endoleak formation.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Previous studies focusing on target vessel (TV) outcomes after endovascular aortic arch repair are limited. In this study, including 255 TVs revascularized using branched arch devices, bridging was performed with covered stents, of which 90% were self-expanding. Relining was at the discretion of the operator and was 14% for the innominate, 35.2% for the left common carotid and 22.5% for the left subclavian artery branches. No 30-day occlusion was detected. The freedom from TV instability was almost 95% at 12 months. TV instability and reintervention were mainly attributed to endoleaks type Ic and IIIc.

Total Arch Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Double Fenestrated Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts: 100 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate early and medium-term outcomes of double fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts for total endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data included 100 patients, from January 2017 to December 2021, undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for zone 0. The fenestrations were a proximal larger fenestration that incorporated the brach2iocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery and a distal smaller fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA). Only the LSA fenestration was stented.

RESULTS

The median duration for stent-graft modification was 23±6 minutes. Of the 100 patients, 70 were men. The mean patient age was 70±10.5 years. Indications for treatment included degenerative aortic arch aneurysm (n=32), dissecting aortic arch aneurysm after type A dissections (n=23) and (n=19) after type B dissections, acute complicated type B dissection (n=16), and other pathologies (n=10). Technical success rate was 97%. The 30 day mortality was 2% (n=2). Four patients (4%) had minor stroke with full recovery. One patient (1%) had a type IA endoleak, 1 patient (1%) had a type IB endoleak, and 2 patients (2%) have a type II endoleak from the LSA. Eight patients (8%) required reintervention: 1 type IA endoleak, 1 type IB endoleak, 1 retrograde type A dissection, and 5 because of access-related complications. During a mean follow-up of 24±7.2 months, there were no aortic rupture, paraplegia, and all supra-aortic trunks were patent.

CONCLUSIONS

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is both feasible and effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The standout feature of this double fenestrated device is its simple handling during operation with the proximal fenestrations being directed to the orifices of the BT and LCCA automatically when the LSA fenestration is catheterized and secured by covered stent placement. The deployment algorithm actively steers the operator away from superfluous manipulations of the device within the arch and avoids guidewire manipulation in carotid arteries. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

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.

Assessment of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Relay Proximal Scallop: Results of a French Prospective Multicentre Study

OBJECTIVE

A proximal scallop design allows aortic arch repair without complex endovascular manipulation in the aortic arch. The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy at one year of the Relay proximal scallop stent graft.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study evaluated consecutive patients treated with the Relay proximal scallop stent graft in 10 French aortic centres. All consecutive patients eligible for elective thoracic endovascular repair with proximal scallop in the 10 participating centres between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Primary endpoints were 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) rates. Outcomes including safety and efficacy, technical and clinical success, all cause death, neurological events, vessel patency, and device specific complications were analysed. Survival and survival without severe complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Ten aortic centres treated 40 patients for thoracic aortic aneurysm (45%), penetrating atherosclerotic aneurysm (30%), and dissection (25%). Half of the procedures (50%) targeted zone 0 of the aortic arch (zone 0 in 17.5% and zones 0/1 in 32.5%), 37.5% targeted zone 2 (35% zone 2 alone; 2.5% zones 1/2), and 15% targeted zone 1 (12.5% zone 1 alone). Median follow up was one year. Thirty day mortality, stroke, and SCI rates were 10%, 5%, and 0% respectively. Primary technical success was 95%. Type Ia, Ib, and III endoleaks rates were 5.4%, 0%, and 0% respectively at one month. The overall mortality rate at one year was 17.5%. Aneurysm expansion was > 5 mm in one case at one year associated with type Ia endoleak (3%). There was no supra-aortic trunk thrombosis, one (2%) graft kink, and no migration.

CONCLUSION

One year outcomes showed that the Relay proximal scallop stent graft is an acceptable answer to thoracic aortic disease to deal with short proximal landing zones.

Endovascular arch repair of anastomotic aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm in patients after open repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch: a case series

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate the outcomes of branched endovascular arch repair (b-TEVAR) with a custom-made double- or triple-branched arch endograft in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients with anastomotic aneurysms after open surgical repair involving the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch treated with b-TEVAR. All patients were treated with a custom-made double or triple inner-branched arch endograft. Study end points were technical success, 30-day and follow-up mortality/morbidity and re-interventions.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 10 patients were treated with custom-made double- or triple-branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending aorta and/or proximal aortic arch replacement. Eight patients received a triple and 2 a double arch-branched endograft. Eight cases were performed electively and 2 urgently for contained rupture. Technical success was achieved in 9 cases (90%). All elective patients survived. Two patients treated due to contained ruptures expired. Within 30 postoperative days, 1 transient ischaemic attack occurred. No early endograft-related re-interventions were necessary. The median follow-up was 20 months. One patient died 2 months after discharge due to sepsis caused by pneumonia. No further deaths or endograft-related re-interventions were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch repair with double or triple inner-branched arch endograft for anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending and/or proximal arch replacement is technically feasible and a promising alternative in a patient cohort unfit for surgery.

Suitability of current off-the-shelf devices for endovascular TAAA repair: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study is to perform a systematic review of published papers regarding the suitability of the current off-the-shelf (OTS) devices for endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the MEDLINE database via PubMed was performed in March 2023. All studies reporting the outcomes of the three currently available OTS stent-grafts: the Zenith t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), the Gore Excluder thoracoabdominal branch endoprosthesis (TAMBE; W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) and the E-nside Multibranch Stent-Graft System (Artivion, Kennesaw, GA, USA), were retrieved and further analyzed. The main endpoints were technical success, reintervention rate, and primary branch patency. Theoretical feasibility studies of these OTS devices were also included and separately analyzed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 19 studies were published between 2014 and 2023. Thirteen clinical studies and six theoretical feasibility studies were included. Eleven studies reported the clinical outcomes of the t-Branch stent-graft, one detailed the observational results of the use of the E-nside endoprosthesis, and one described the TAMBE stent-graft results. The following data primarily involve the t-Branch device outcomes. A total of 1131 patients that underwent aneurysm repair using an OTS stent-graft were identified. Among those, 1002, 116 and 13 patients received a t-Branch, E-nside, and TAMBE stent-grafts, respectively. A total of 767 (67.8%) were men, with a mean age of 71.6±7.4 years old, and a mean Body Mass Index (BMI) of 26.3±3.8 kg/m2. Technical success ranged from 64% to 100%. A total of 4172 target visceral vessels (TVV) were planned for bridging, with a success rate ranging from 92 to 100%. The total of early and late reinterventions reported were 64 and 48, respectively, mainly due to endoleaks and visceral branch occlusions. Among the theoretical feasibility studies, six described the feasibility of the t-Branch device in a total of 661 patients, two described the E-nside and the TAMBE devices feasibility comprising 351 patients for each stent-graft. The overall feasibility of the t-Branch device varied from 39% to 88%, the E-nside from 43% to 75%, and the TAMBE stent-graft ranged from 33% to 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated a good suitability for the use of OTS endografts for the treatment of TAAA.

Expert opinion: How to treat type IA endoleakage

Type Ia endoleaks due to failed sealing or loss of landing zone and the adequate management thereof remain crucial for long-term therapeutic success following TEVAR. This expert opinion summarizes our institutional experience with endovascular, open surgical, and hybrid techniques in the context of recent scientific publications. The rapid turnover of technical innovations, but most importantly outcome data demonstrate the requirement for increasingly patient-tailored treatment strategies and the need for specialized aortic centers. The latter should offer a complete range of treatment options, an adequate perioperative management, and the highest level of multidisciplinary expertise.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.

CONCLUSION

Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

Feasibility of Total Endovascular Repair of the Aorta in Patients with Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Morphological Analysis of 119 Patients

(1) Background: This study aimed to morphologically analyze acute type A aortic dissection (aTAAD) patients for potential endovascular treatment candidates. The objective was to specify requirements for aTAAD endovascular devices. (2) Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis included aTAAD patients who underwent open surgical repair between November 2005 and December 2020. Preoperative CTA scans were used for morphological analysis, assessing endovascular repair eligibility. Statistical tests were performed. (3) Results: A total of 129 patients with aTAAD were studied, with 119 included. Entry tear (ET) locations were identified, mainly in the aortic root, 20 mm above the sinotubular junction (STJ) and within the ascending aorta (20 mm above STJ to -20 mm before the brachiocephalic trunk). Endovascular treatment was deemed feasible for 36 patients, with suggested solutions for the aortic arch and descending aorta. Significant differences were observed between eligible and noneligible groups for aortic diameter, false lumen diameter, distance between STJ and entry tear, and more. Dissection extension showed no significant difference. (4) Conclusions: Morphological analysis identified potential aTAAD candidates for endovascular treatment, highlighting differences between eligible and noneligible morphologies. This study offers insights for implementing endovascular approaches in aTAAD treatment and emphasizes the need for research and standardized protocols.

Advanced Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Pathology

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair have been shown to reduce blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, mortality, and morbidity compared with open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, there are anatomical constraints that limit the application of the endovascular approach in 30% to 40% of patients, including those with short necks, excessive angulation, or aneurysms with the involvement of aortic side branches such as supra-aortic trunks, arch aneurysms, visceral arteries, or internal iliac arteries.

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.

Avoiding Stroke in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: JACC Review Topic of the Week

As the bottleneck of endovascular aortic arch repair, early postoperative stroke remains a devastating complication in high-risk patients and a critical concern for the development of optimal endovascular techniques and devices. The incidence of early postoperative stroke varies widely among currently available endovascular techniques and devices, with reported rates ranging from 0.0% to 42.9%, and is significantly influenced by the severity of the patient's preexisting aortic atherosclerotic burden, air released from the endovascular device, and a variety of factors leading to cerebral perfusion insufficiency. Currently, preidentification of high-risk patients and careful perioperative management appear to play a critical role in reducing stroke incidence. Specific intraoperative prevention methods are still lacking, but embolic protection devices and carbon dioxide or high-volume saline flushing of endovascular devices appear promising. Detailed preoperative stroke risk stratification and screening for optimal endovascular techniques and devices for aortic arch treatment are unmet clinical needs.

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

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

Common Designs of Custom-Made Fenestrated Arch Devices and Applicability of an Off-the-Shelf Design

OBJECTIVES

To analyze device designs, similarities and overlaps of custom-made fenestrated arch endografts intended for mid/distal arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study analyzing custom-made anonymized graft plans was performed. Graft plans were included from a cohort of mid/distal aortic arch repairs using custom-made fenestrated aortic endografts treated at 8 centers. Grafts targeting >2 arteries were excluded. No patient/clinical data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed followed by an analysis of overlap of the designs to reach a common design in which the greatest number of grafts would overlap.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one graft plans were included. All grafts were custom-made grafts from the COOK Medical Fenestrated arch platform. Ninety-four (71.8%) had a scallop-and-single-fenestration design, 33 (25.2%) had a single fenestration and 4 (4.3%) a single scallop. For analysis purposes, these latter 4 grafts were excluded. Two main graft plans (Plans 1 and 2) were proposed after analysis with similar configuration (1 scallop with 30 mm width, 20 mm height, 12:00 position; 1 preloaded fenestration with 8 mm diameter, 26 mm from the top of the graft and 12:00 position; tapered, with a 193 mm length and 32 mm distal diameter) but with 2 different proximal diameters of 38 mm (Plan 1) and 44 mm (Plan 2), reaching an overall feasibility of 85.8% (n=109), being 47.2% (n=60) and 38.6% (n=49) for each design, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) graft designs was high. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In a multicenter study analyzing 127 fenestrated aortic arch endograft plans from 9 aortic centers, we found that the degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped arch graft designs was high and that 2 proposed graft designs would be theoretically applicable in 85.8% of cases. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

Mid-term outcomes of left subclavian artery revascularization with Castor stent graft in treatment of type B aortic dissection in left subclavian artery

Background

Here we analyzed mid-term data of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) surgery with Castor single-branched stent graft placement for the management of Stanford type B aortic dissection (STBAD) involving the left subclavian artery (LSA).

Methods

Between April 2014 and February 2019, 32 patients with STBAD involving a Castor single-branched stent graft were included. We analyzed their outcomes, including technical success rate (TSR), surgical duration (SD), presence of ischemia, perioperative complications, LSA patency, and survival rate (SR), using computed tomography angiography and clinical evaluation during mid-term follow-up.

Results

The mean patient age was 54.63 ​± ​12.37 years (range, 36-83 years). The TSR was 96.88% (n ​= ​31/32). The mean SD was 87.44 ​± ​10.89 with a mean contrast volume of 125.31 ​± ​19.30 ​mL. No neurological complications or deaths occurred during the study period. The patients had a mean hospital stay of 7.84 ​± ​3.20 days. At a mean follow-up of 68.78 ​± ​11.26 months, four non-aortic deaths (12.5%) were observed. The LSA patency rate was 100% (n ​= ​28/28). There was only one case of type I endoleak immediately after surgery (3.12%) (type I from LSA). However, none of the patients experienced type II endoleaks, and there were no cases of retrograde type A aortic dissection or stent graft-driven new distal entry. Finally, all patients exhibited good LSA patency.

Conclusion

TEVAR using a Castor single-branched stent graft may be a highly feasible and efficient procedure for the management of STBAD involving the LSA.

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

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

Anatomical feasibility of an endovascular aortic arch repair with the NEXUS endograft in patients treated with a frozen elephant trunk procedure for aortic arch pathology

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an endovascular repair, using the NEXUS™ Aortic Arch Stent Graft System, in a real-world cohort of patients, treated with a Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) procedure for pathology involving the aortic arch.

RESULTS

The preoperative computed tomography angiography scans of 37 patients were retrospectively analyzed using a dedicated workstation. In total, seven patients (N = 7/37; 18.9%) were eligible for endovascular repair. This number increased to eleven patients (N = 11/37; 29.7%) if an additional relining of the distal aorta would be performed. Device suitability was 47.1% in patients (N = 8/17; 47.1%) with aortic arch aneurysm, 12.5% (N = 1/8; 12.5%) in patients with an acute Stanford type A dissection and 50% (N = 2/4; 50%) in patients with Crawford type II thoraco-abdominal aneurysm. The stent graft was not suitable for any of the two patients with chronic type B dissection (N = 0/2; 0%). In 22 patients (N = 22/37; 59.5%) an endovascular repair with this type of stent graft was not feasible due to an inadequate proximal sealing zone. There was no suitable brachiocephalic trunk landing zone in 13 patients (N = 13/37; 35.1%). There was no suitable distal landing zone distal in 14 patients (N = 14/37; 36.8%). This number decreased to ten patients (N = 10/37; 27.0%) when considering an additional relining of the distal aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair with the NEXUS single branch stent graft is feasible in a minority of this real-world cohort that underwent a Frozen Elephant Trunk procedure. However, the applicability of this device probably improves in cases with isolated aortic arch aneurysms.

NEXUS Arch: A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Initial Experience With a Novel Aortic Arch Stent Graft System

OBJECTIVE

To assess the initial clinical experience with a novel endograft system (NEXUS Aortic Arch Stent Graft System) designed to treat aortic arch pathologies and address the morphology and hemodynamic challenges of the aortic arch.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The aortic arch remains the most challenging part of the aorta for both open and endovascular repair. Transcatheter aortic arch repair has the potential to significantly reduce surgical risks.

METHODS

Patients underwent transcatheter aortic arch repair with a single branch, 2 stent graft system, implanted over a through-and-through guidewire from the brachiocephalic trunk, to the descending aorta with an ascending aorta stent graft. The ascending aorta stent graft is deployed into a designated docking sleeve to connect the 2 stent grafts and isolate the aortic arch pathology. Proximal landing zone in all cases was in Zone 0. Anatomical inclusion criteria included adequate landing zone in the ascending aorta, brachiocephalic trunk, and descending thoracic aorta. Preparatory debranching procedure was performed in all patients with carotid-carotid crossover bypass and left carotid to left subclavian bypass, or parallel graft from descending aorta to left subclavian artery. Safety and performance were evaluated through 1 year. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients, 79% males, with a mean age of 72.2 ± 6.2 years were treated with 100% procedural success. Isolated aortic arch aneurysm was the principle pathology in 17 (60.7%) of patients, while chronic aortic dissection was the principle pathology in 6 (21.4%) of patients. The remaining 5 (17.8%) had combined or other pathologies. At 1 month, the vascular pathology was excluded in 25 of 26 alive patients (96.1%). The 30 days mortality rate was 7.1%, stroke rate was 3.6% (all nondisabling), and combined mortality/stroke rate was 10.7%. One-year mortality was 10.7%, without device or aneurysm-related death. Two patients (7.1%) reported stroke or transient ischemic attack at 1 year that recovered completely. One year combined mortality/stroke rate was 17.8%. There were 3 patients (10.7%) that had device-related unplanned reinterventions through 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The NEXUS Aortic Arch Stent Graft System, a novel single branch, 2 stent graft system used for endovascular aortic arch repair that requires landing in the ascending aorta, demonstrates a high success rate with excellent 1 year safety and performance.

Surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft for urgent an aortic arch aneurysm: case report

We report the case of an endovascular repair of an aortic arch aneurysm by a surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft with a single fenestration in a high-risk patient unfit for open surgery. A patient of 84 years, chronic ischemic cardiopathic, suffering from prostate adenocarcinoma in chemotherapy treatment, came to our hospital for post-traumatic fracture of the right femur. During the hospitalization, the patient exhibited dysphonia and respiratory disorders for several days, therefore, the patient performed Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) that found the presence of voluminous aneurysm of the aortic arch with a maximum diameter of about 74 mm. The patient was treated with a hybrid-staged procedure; in the first instance, with a carotid-carotid-succlavium bypass to preserve the cerebral and upper limb vascularization and then, the procedure was completed by implanting the surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft with stent delivery to the patient with a fenestration on the anonymous trunk. This surgeon-modified fenestrated endograft was created by modifying a standard endograft by a single fenestration following the three-dimensional reconstructions of the CTA images. The procedure was successfully completed and postoperative course was uneventful. Computed Tomography Angiography demonstrated the exclusion of the aneurysm, patency of the implanted endograft modules, and absence of signs of endoleaks and / or cerebral or medullary ischemic complications.

A Systematic Review of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: A Promising Technology

BACKGROUND

Total endovascular aortic arch repair (TEAAR) represents an emerging alternative for the treatment of aortic arch disease in patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery. A systematic review of TEAAR was performed to delineate early outcomes with this new technology.

METHODS

All studies (excluding single-patient case reports) of CE-certified "custom made" or "off-the-shelf" zone 0 stent graft deployments were included. The primary search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL registry was supplemented with searches of Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts (within last 3 years), and a hand search of citations within relevant articles. Articles underwent 2-stage screening by 2 independent reviewers before inclusion.

RESULTS

Fifteen relevant investigations were identified. Indications for TEAAR were chronic arch dissection with degenerative aneurysmal disease (54%, 148/273), pure arch aneurysm (41%, 112/273), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (2%, 5/273), and type IA endoleak from a zone 2 thoracic endograft (1%, 3/273). Double-branch (70%, 192/273), triple-branch (19%, 53/273), and single-branch (into innominate artery; 10%, 28/273) devices were used. Adjunct left carotid-subclavian bypass occurred in 90% of double- and single-branch procedures. Procedural success with TEAAR was 93% (95% CI 85.8%-96.3%). The proportion of all-cause mortality was 16% (95% CI 8%-26%), stroke 14% (8%-24%), peripheral vascular events 7% (1%-33%), and myocardial infarction 4% (2%-7%). Endoleaks were identified in 13% (7%-25%) of the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

TEAAR represents an emerging option for the management of aortic arch disease wth high procedural success rates and acceptable early outcomes in a high-risk patient population.

3D printing in the planning and teaching of endovascular procedures

BACKGROUND

The introduction of 3D printing in the medical field led to new possibilities in the planning of complex procedures, as well as new ways of training junior physicians. Especially in the field of vascular interventions, 3D printing has a wide range of applications.

METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

3D-printed models of aortic aneurysms can be used for procedural training of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), which can help boost the physician's confidence in the procedure, leading to a better outcome for the patient. Furthermore, it allows for a better understanding of complex anatomies and pathologies. In addition to teaching applications, the field of pre-interventional planning benefits greatly from the addition of 3D printing. Especially in the preparation for a complex endovascular aortic repair, prior orientation and test implantation of the stent grafts can further improve outcomes and reduce complications. For both teaching and planning applications, high-quality imaging datasets are required that can be transferred into a digital 3D model and subsequently printed in 3D. Thick slice thickness or suboptimal contrast agent phase can reduce the overall detail of the digital model, possibly concealing crucial anatomical details.

CONCLUSION

Based on the digital 3D model created for 3D printing, another new visualization technique might see future applications in the field of vascular interventions: virtual reality (VR). It enables the physician to quickly visualize a digital 3D model of the patient's anatomy in order to assess possible complications during endovascular repair. Due to the short transfer time from the radiological dataset into the VR, this technique might see use in emergency situations, where there is no time to wait for a printed model.

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.

A review: Single and multi-branch devices for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with proximal sealing in Ishimaru Zone 0

Recently published experience has shown that endovascular management of the aortic arch, including sealing in the proximal zones, can be a viable option for patients considered unfit for conventional open repair. Endograft designs vary and include single or multibranch devices, with or without the addition of surgical debranching. Initial reports show that both techniques can be performed with high technical success and acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates in high volume centers. Single branch devices, available off-the-shelf, may provide a treatment option for emergent presentations where patients cannot wait for the design and manufacture of a customized endograft. Double or triple branched endografts are now increasingly implanted in high-volume aortic centers. The purpose of this review is to describe the single and multibranched endovascular devices currently available for aortic arch repair, their associated published outcomes, and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.

[Status of the Inner Branches in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair]

Complex endovascular therapy of the aorta with fenestrated and branched endografts plays an essential role in modern vascular medicine. Innovative solutions for demanding aortic pathologies are therefore being constantly developed by the medical industry. The aim of this manuscript is to illustrate the growing importance of the inner branches in complex aortic repair and to show the advantages and limits of this technique with an overview of the current literature. The inner branches (iBEVAR) were therefore compared to the standard treatment options (fenestrations; [FEVAR], outer branches [BEVAR]) and the technical advantages of all platforms were evaluated. The widespread use of iBEVAR in the aortic arch stands in contrast to the thoracoabdominal aorta, which is mirrored by the scarce evidence for the thoracoabdominal inner branches. The published experience is based on smaller retrospective studies with a 1-year follow-up. The E-nside (Artivion, Hechingen, Germany) thoracoabdominal off-the-shelf inner-branch-based endograft was released 2 years ago. Its widespread deployment may increase the use of the inner branches in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Moreover, an ongoing industry-funded registry may provide new insights into the long-term durability of this innovative technique.

Hemodynamic numerical simulation of aortic arch modular inner branched stent-graft in eight early patients from the first-in-human case series

Background

The modular inner branched stent-graft (MIBSG) (WeFlow-Arch™) is an emerging device for challenging aortic arch pathologies. Hemodynamic numerical simulation is conducive to predicting long-term outcomes as well as optimizing the stent-graft design.

Objective

This study aims to analyze the hemodynamic characteristics of the MIBSG devices based on numerical simulation analyses.

Methods

From June 2019 to June 2021, MIBSGs were utilized in eight cases. Numerical simulation analyses of branch perfusion and indicators including the time-averaged wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index, and relative residence time were performed.

Results

Lesions involved Zone 1 (n = 2), Zone 2 (n = 4), and Zone 3 (n = 2). Branched stent-grafts were deployed in the innominate artery and left common carotid artery (n = 5) or in the innominate artery and left subclavian artery (n = 3). The hemodynamic change in common was increased perfusion in the descending aorta and left common carotid artery. Half of the patients had increased cerebral perfusion of 8.7% at most, and the other half of the patients showed a reduction of 5.3% or less. Case 3 was considered to have acquired the greatest improvement in hemodynamic features.

Conclusion

The MIBSG showed improved hemodynamic features in most cases. The design of the MIBSG could be partly modified to acquire better hemodynamic performance.

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

OBJECTIVE OR BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Anatomical analysis of the aortic arch and feasibility study of double and triple branched thoracic endografts in the treatment of isolated arch pathologies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing open arch repair who would be anatomically suitable for multi-branched endovascular arch repair.

METHODS

This study was a single-centre review of patients undergoing open arch repair between 2000 and 2020. Anatomical feasibility was determined by comparing arch measurements to the anatomical criteria of the Zenith® double and triple inner branched-arch endografts (Cook Medical) and the Relay® double arch branched device (Terumo-Aortic).

RESULTS

Ninety (90) patients were included in this study, with 43/90 presenting degenerative aneurysm. The distance between the sinotubular junction and the brachiocephalic trunk measured 114 ± 30 mm on the outer curvature, and the maximum diameter of the proximal landing zone (PLZ) was 41 ± 11mm. A total of 42/90 patients (47%) were anatomically suitable for at least 1 stent graft and 29/90 patients (32%) were eligible for a triple-branched endograft. The most important determinant factors of anatomical suitability were the PLZ diameter (Cramer's V = 0.743, P < 0.001) and length (Cramer's V = 0.777, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the proportion of patients who may be anatomically suitable for branched-arch repair remains limited. The PLZ dimensions tend to be the most important anatomical limitations and should receive more emphasis in the development of branched-arch devices.

Surgical Debranching versus Branched Endografting in Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization is recommended in patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with proximal zone 2 landing requiring coverage of the LSA. The gold-standard remains surgical LSA revascularization, but recently the feasibility of branched endografts has been demonstrated. We compared the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR with proximal zone 2 landing at a single center from 2014-2020 was performed. Patients were divided into cohorts for comparison: those undergoing surgical revascularization (SR-TEVAR group) and those undergoing thoracic branched endografting with an investigational device (TBE group). Patients who did not receive LSA revascularization were excluded. Perioperative outcomes including procedural success, death, stroke, limb ischemia, and length of stay were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared with the log-rank test. The cumulative incidences of device-related endoleak (type I and III) and device-related reintervention, accounting for death as a competing hazard, were compared with the Fine-Gray test.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included: 31 (56%) SR-TEVAR and 24 (44%) TBE. Preoperative demographics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. Procedural success was 100% in both cohorts, and there were no periprocedural strokes or left upper extremity ischemic events. One operative/30-day mortality (TBE 4.2% vs SR-TEVAR 3.2%, p=0.99) occurred in each cohort. Total operative time (minutes, TBE 203 ± 79 vs SR-TEVAR 250 ± 79 p=0.03) and total length of stay (days, TBE 5.2 ± 3.6 vs SR-TEVAR 9.9 ± 7.2, p=0.004) were both significantly shorter in the TBE group. There was no difference in mid-term survival (log-rank p=0.50), nor the cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (Fine-Gray p=0.51) or reintervention (Fine-Gray p=0.72). There have been no occlusions of the TBE graft nor surgical bypass/transpositions after a mean follow-up for 28 ± 16 and 34 ± 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic branched endografting can be performed with similar procedural success and comparable safety profile to TEVAR with surgical revascularization, while reducing total length of stay, in patients requiring proximal zone 2 coverage. Mid-term outcomes of each approach are also similar. Prospective, randomized comparisons of these techniques are warranted.

Management of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases have an increasing interest among cardiovascular specialists regarding diagnosis and management. Innovations in endovascular surgery and evolution of open surgery have extended the indications for treatment in patients previously considered unfit for surgery. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to present and analyze current cardiovascular guidelines for overlap and differences in their recommendations regarding ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases and the assessment of evidence.

METHODS

The English medical literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 2009 to December 2020. Recommendations on selected topics were analyzed, including issues from definitions and diagnosis (imaging and biomarkers) and indications for treatment to management, including surgical techniques, of the most important ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 2414 articles. After exclusion of duplicate or inappropriate articles, the final analysis included 5 articles from multidisciplinary, cardiovascular societies published between 2010 and 2019. The definition of non-A-non-B aortic dissection is lacking from most of the guidelines. There is a disagreement regarding the class of recommendation and level of evidence for the diameter of ascending aorta as an indication. The indication for treatment of aortic disease may be individualized in specific cases while the growth rate may also affect the decision making. The role of endovascular techniques has not been established in current guidelines except by 1 society. Supportive evidence level in the management of aortic arch diseases remains limited.

CONCLUSION

In current recommendations of cardiovascular societies, the ascending aorta and aortic arch remain a domain of open surgery despite the introduction of endovascular techniques. Recommendations of the included societies are mostly based on expert opinion, and the role of endovascular techniques has been highlighted only from 1 society. The chronological heterogeneity apparent among guidelines and the inconsistency in evidence level should be also acknowledged. More data are needed to develop more solid recommendations for the ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases.

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.

[Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - Endovascular Therapy Today and in the Future]

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early Results of a Novel Gutter-Free Chimney Stent-Graft System to Treat Aortic Arch Dissection: Single-Center Data from a Prospective Clinical Trial

AIMS

Discuss the clinical value, technique characteristics, and early follow-up results of a newly designed gutter-free chimney stent-graft system for aortic arch pathology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

About 13 patients with aortic arch dissection were enrolled in a clinical trial testing a novel gutter-free stent-graft between February 2019 and December 2020. All 13 patients were male, age 52.6±10.4 years. The implantation time was 14.0±6.9 minutes; total procedure time was 89.5±19.8 minutes. The volume of contrast was 79.6±7.2 ml. And 15 aortic stent-grafts were implanted, and all 13 patients had chimney branch stent-grafts implanted into the left subclavian artery (LSA). There were 3 (23.1%) cases of immediate type Ιa endoleak after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and 7.7% type Ιa endoleaks occurred in delayed fashion. Survival at 2 years was 100%, and the 2-year patency of chimney stent-grafts was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports early success with good freedom from endoleak using a novel stent-graft designed for chimney TEVAR to treat aortic arch dissection. Postoperative survival and patency of the branch stent-grafts were excellent. Additional data from this multicenter clinical trial will be forthcoming.

Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair with Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated Stent-Grafts on Zone 0 Landing for Aortic Arch Pathologies

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft on zone 0 landing for aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between June 2016 and October 2019, 37 consecutive patients underwent total endovascular arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, and branch artery patency.

RESULTS

During the study period, 37 patients were treated with total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft. Twenty-one (56.8%) patients were diagnosed with aortic dissections, 15 (40.5%) patients with aneurysms, and 1 (2.7%) patient required reintervention due to endoleak and sac expansion from previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysm. The proximal landing zone for all patients were in zone 0, and all branch arteries of aortic arch were reconstructed. Technical success was achieved in 34 cases (91.9%). Three (8.1%) patients had fenestrations misaligned with target arteries, and the chimney technique was applied as a complementary measure. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day stroke rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day reintervention rate was 2.7% (n=1). At a median follow-up of 20 months (range, 3-49 months), 5 (13.5%) patients died, including 2 aortic-related deaths, 1 nonaortic-related death, and 2 deaths of unknown reason. One (2.7%) patient had stroke. Four patients (10.8%) had reintervention during the follow-up, including 2 cases of left subclavian artery occlusion and 2 cases of type II endoleak. The estimated survival (±SE) at 2 years was 72.4%±9.7% (95% CI 53.4%-91.4%). The estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) at 2 years was 87.4%±5.9% (95% CI 75.84%-98.96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing is an alternate option for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in experienced centers.