Fenestrated endovascular repair for diseases involving the aortic arch

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.

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.

Factors Affecting Compression of the Left Subclavian Artery Bridging Stent In Zone 2 Fenestrated Endovascular Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

Left subclavian artery (LSA) preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been related to low morbidity. This study investigated the incidence of LSA stent compression in patients managed with fenestrated endovascular arch repair (f-Arch) and evaluated the impact of anatomic and technical factors on LSA stent outcomes.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of patients managed with single-fenestration devices (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) for LSA preservation, between January 1, 2012 and November 30, 2023, was conducted. Anatomic (arch type, bovine arch, distance between the LSA and most proximal bone structure, left common carotid artery and aortic lesion, take-off angle, diameter, thrombus, calcification, dissection, tortuosity) and technical parameters (stent type, diameter, length, relining, post-dilation) were evaluated. Stent compression was any ≥50% stenosis (using center luminal line) of the stent compared with its initial diameter. Clinical outcomes included stroke and upper limb ischemia at 30 days and follow-up. Technical outcomes included stent compression and need for reintervention.

RESULTS

Fifty-four cases were included. Only balloon-expandable covered stents were used, and relining during the index procedure was performed in 18%. No stroke or arm ischemia was recorded. One stent compression was detected at 30 days. During follow-up, no stroke or arm ischemia was diagnosed. Nine cases (18%) presented stent compression, with a mean time of stent-compression diagnosis at 18 months (interquartile range [IQR]=37, range=1-58 months) after the index procedure. Five (56%) underwent secondary relining. Follow-up after reintervention was uneventful. Lower distance to the nearest bone structure (compression group [CG]: 11.7±8.9 mm vs non-compression group [NCG]: 23.0±7.8 mm, p=0.003) and higher tortuosity index (CG: 1.3±0.4 vs NCG: 1.2±0.1, p=0.03) were associated with LSA stent compression.

CONCLUSION

LSA stent compression in patients managed with f-Arch affected 1 in 5 cases, without clinical consequences. Distance to the nearest bone structure and higher tortuosity were associated with LSA stent compression.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Fenestrated endovascular arch repair for the preservation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in patients needing landing within the aortic arch has been performed with encouraging outcomes. This analysis showed that LSA stent compression is met in 18% of patients, without though any clinical consequence. Pre-operative anatomic parameters, as lower distance to the nearest bone structure and higher tortuosity index affect negatively LSA stent performance while stent parameters seem to have no impact.

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.

Proximal sealing in the aortic arch for inner curve disease using the Custom Relay scalloped and fenestrated stent graft

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc.) in 10 Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary end points were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events, deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (ELs) and retrograde aortic dissection.

RESULTS

During the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The proximal landing zone was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) owing to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III EL were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, or retrograde dissection. Three minor strokes (6.1%) (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 ± 21.3 months the rate of types I to III ELs and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) from nonaortic causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

Evaluation of custom-made Relay® stent-grafts for aortic arch landing zones 0 and I: experience from two high-volume aortic centres

OBJECTIVES

To report experience with a Relay® stent-graft custom-made platform in treating different aortic arch pathology in 2 high-volume aortic centres.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients treated between July 2016 and July 2023 with custom-made Relay® stent-graft (custom-made device). Underlying aortic arch pathology was an aneurysm, penetrating aortic ulcer, and dissection. Three custom-made device designs were used: proximal scallop, fenestrations, and inner branches. The endpoints were technical success, perioperative stroke, death, and reintervention rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (89% males) with a mean age of 70 ± 11 years were treated.Indication for treatment was penetrating aortic ulcer in 14 patients (40%), aneurysm in 11 patients (31%) and aortic dissection in 10 patients (29%). The technical success rate was 100%. Twenty-eight patients (80%) had proximal sealing in zone 0, and 7 (20%) had proximal sealing in zone 1. Nine patients (25.6%) had proximal scallops, 9 (25.6%) had 1 big fenestration and 17 (48.8%) had a branched device; 1 with single branch, 15 with double branches and 1 with triple branches. Thirty patients (86%) had previous or simultaneous left subclavian artery revascularization. No patient died during 30 days. Two patients (5.7%) had stroke postoperatively; both recovered without disabling deficits. The mean follow-up was 35 ± 26 months. Six patients (17.1%) died during follow-up. One patient required reinforcement of the bridging stent in the left common carotid artery and one additional vascular plugging of the left subclavian artery. Three patients received distal extension.

CONCLUSIONS

The Relay® stent-graft custom-made platform showed a good performance in our study with a high technical success rate, low perioperative stroke and mortality, and low reintervention rates during the follow-up.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL IMPACT

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

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.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using In Situ Laser Fenestration

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to present single-center outcomes in patients treated with in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair (LFTEVAR) for various aortic arch pathologies and assess the impact of increasing experience.

METHODS

The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected single aortic center data was conducted, including baseline information and peri- and post-operative outcomes of consecutive patients managed with LFTEVAR for aortic arch pathologies. Patients were enrolled from April 1, 2017 to January 31, 2023. The cohort was dichotomized to compare early (2017-2019) and late experience (2020-2023). Primary outcomes were peri-operative mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included (63.3% males, mean age 69.8±9.6 years); 21.4% presented with aortic ruptures. Aortic aneurysm involving the aortic arch was the most frequent pathology (53.3%). Forty target vessels (TVs) were revascularized, including 19 left subclavian arteries (47.5%) and 17 left common carotid arteries (42.5%). Double fenestrations were performed in 10 patients. The proximal landing zone was Ishimaru zone 0 in 5 patients (16.7%) and zone 1 in 13 patients (43.3%). Technical success was 93%. No spinal cord ischemia was recorded, and 3 patients (10%) suffered a post-operative stroke, of which 1 was major (3.3%). The median follow-up was 12 months (range=1-48 months). Thirty-day and follow-up mortality rates were 13.5% and 15.3%, respectively. Target vessel instability was 10%, of which 3.8% required reintervention. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the early and late experience groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the aortic arch performed in experienced aortic centers is associated with low early mortality and stroke rates. It is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Custom-made devices for arch pathologies requiring urgent repair are not an option because of manufacturing delays. Off-the-shelf devices with single branch arch prostheses, and outside IFU techniques such as parallel-grafts and surgeon-modified endografts have been proposed in this setting. Another off-the-shelf alternative is in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular repair (LFTEVAR), which addresses many limitations of the other off-the-shelf options. Our study reports the outcomes of 30 patients treated with LFTEVAR, showing that it is a viable therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair acknowledging that sufficient experience with complex endovascular aortic repair is mandatory to achieve acceptable outcomes in these high-risk patients with challenging aortic anatomies.

Clinical comparative analysis of 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration and Castor integrated branch stent techniques in treating type B aortic dissections with inadequate proximal landing zones

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the clinical effects of two distinct surgical approaches, namely 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration and Castor integrated branch stent techniques, in treating patients with Stanford type B aortic dissections (TBAD) characterized by inadequate proximal landing zones.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 84 patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction at our center from January 2022 to July 2023. Based on the different surgical approaches, the patients were divided into two groups: the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration (n = 44) and the group using the castor integrated branch stent (n = 40). Clinical indicators: including general patient information, operative time, surgical success rate, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, re-intervention rate, and mortality, as well as postoperative aortic remodeling, were compared between the two groups. The endpoint of this study is the post-TEVAR mortality rate in patients.

RESULTS

The surgical success rate and device deployment success rate were 100% in both groups, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration had a significantly longer operative time (184.20 ± 54.857 min) compared to the group using the castor integrated branch stent (152.75 ± 33.068 min), with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.215, p = 0.002, P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign was significantly lower in the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration compared to the castor-integrated branch stent group, demonstrating statistical significance. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other postoperative complication rates and aortic remodeling (P > 0.05). Notably, computed tomography angiography images revealed the expansion of the vascular true lumen and the reduction of the false lumen at three specified levels of the thoracic aorta. The follow-up duration did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (10.59 ± 4.52 vs. 9.08 ± 4.35 months, t = 1.561, p = 0.122 > 0.05). Throughout the follow-up period, neither group experienced new endoleaks, spinal cord injuries, nor limb ischemia. In the castor-integrated branch stent group, one patient developed a new distal dissection, prompting further follow-up. Additionally, there was one case of mortality due to COVID-19 in each group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-intervention rate and survival rate (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR and castor-integrated branch stent techniques demonstrate good safety and efficacy in treating Stanford type B aortic dissection with inadequate proximal anchoring. The 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR technique has a lower incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign, while the castor-integrated branch stent technique has advantages in operative time.

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.

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.

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.

Systematic Review on In Situ Laser Fenestrated Repair for the Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Pathologies

Background: In situ laser-fenestrated thoracic aortic endovascular repair (FTEVAR) has emerged as a valuable alternative for aortic arch management. This review assessed the early and follow-up outcomes of in situ laser-FTEVAR in aortic arch pathologies. Methods: The PRISMA statement was followed. The English literature was searched, via Ovid, until 15 October 2022. Observational studies, published after 2000, reporting on early and follow-up outcomes for the in situ laser-FTEVAR were eligible. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were the technical success, stroke, and mortality at 30-days, and the secondary were the mortality and reintervention during follow-up. Results: Six retrospective studies from 591 and 247 patients were included. Fifty-nine (23.9%) patients were managed for aortic arch aneurysms and 146 (59.1%) for dissections; 22.6% of them for type A. Technical success was at 98% (range 90–100%). Eight patients died (3.2%) and 11 cases presented any type of stroke (4.5%) during the 30-day follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months (1–40 months). Ten deaths were reported (4.2%); one was aortic-related (10%). Thirteen re-interventions (6.0%) were performed. Conclusions: In situ laser-FTEVAR for aortic arch repair may be performed with high technical success and low 30-day and midterm follow-up mortality, stroke, and re-intervention rates when applied in well selected patients and performed by experienced teams.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone 0

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model.

Results

Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.

Timing of Intervention for Aortic Intramural Hematoma

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is one of the acute aortic syndromes along with acute aortic dissection and penetrating aortic ulcer. The three conditions can occur alone or in combination with overlapping presentation. Medical, open surgical, and endovascular treatment is tailored depending on clinical presentation, timing, and location within the aorta. Among patients who present with acute IMH affecting the ascending aorta (Type A), urgent open surgical repair is considered the primary line of treatment in patients who are suitable candidates and unstable. The management of IMH in the descending aorta and aortic arch (Type B) is similar to that applied to treat acute dissections in the same segment. Medical treatment with sequential imaging is recommended in patients with uncomplicated course, and endovascular repair is indicated in patients with rupture, persistent pain, end-organ ischemia, or rapid aortic enlargement. This review discusses the ideal timing for treatment of IMH.

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.

Single-center experience with a unibody single-branched stent graft for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

To provide an adequate proximal landing zone, left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction has become an important part of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study evaluates the short and medium term efficacy of a novel unibody single-branched stent graft for zone 2 TEVAR. Fifty-two patients (mean age, 56 ± 10.9 years; 42 men) with distal aortic arch lesions requiring LSA reconstruction received unibody single-branched stents from September 2019 to March 2021. Computed tomography angiography was performed 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery to observe stent morphology, branch patency, endoleaks, stent-related adverse events, and changes in the diameter of true and false lumens. All stents were deployed adequately, and the technical success rate was 100%. The mean operation time was 121.8 ± 47.0 min. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.2 ± 3.7 days, and the mean follow-up was 16.8 ± 5.2 months (range, 12–24 months). During follow-up, there were no deaths and complications such as stent displacement or fracture, stenosis, fracture, occlusion, and type Ia endoleaks. The patency rate of the branched segment was 100%. In 42 patients with aortic dissection (AD), the true lumen diameter of the aortic isthmus was 29.4 ± 2.9 mm after surgery, significantly larger than before surgery (20.6 ± 5.4 mm, P < 0.05). Postoperative aortic isthmus false lumen diameter was significantly smaller than that before operation (6.1 ± 5.2 mm vs. 16.0 ± 7.6 mm, P < 0.05). The new unibody single-branched stent for zone 2 TEVAR is safe and accurate, and its efficacy is good in the short and medium term.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Midterm Outcomes of an Adjustable Puncture Device for In Situ Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the midterm outcomes of in situ fenestration (ISF) with an adjustable puncture device for aortic arch branch preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

From October 2016 to April 2019, patients with complicated type B aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm > 5.5 cm in diameter, or aortic penetrating ulcer with a base > 20 mm or depth > 15 mm, who received TEVAR requiring a proximal sealing beyond zone 3 and underwent ISF using an adjustable puncture device, were included. After the procedure, patients were monitored at one, three, six, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Peri-operative and follow up data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty of 51 patients (98%) received successful ISFs. One, two, or three aortic arch branches were preserved in 44, six, and one patient, respectively. Intra-operatively, eight type Ia endoleaks and one type II endoleak were found on angiography. One patient died of cerebral hernia three days post-procedure from a severe stroke; one patient suffered from transient paraplegia but recovered in two weeks; one patient had a non-disabling stroke. The median follow up was 31 months (22.5 - 36.5 months). At six month follow up, all nine unmanaged endoleaks had disappeared. One new type Ia endoleak was identified in a patient at the one month follow up which resolved spontaneously one year later. All revascularised arteries were patent at the last follow up. No fractures, migrations, or bridging stent kinks were found.

CONCLUSION

In this largest mechanical based ISF study to date, an adjustable puncture device was shown to facilitate the procedure of ISF during endovascular repair of aortic diseases involving the aortic arch, with high success. The midterm outcome demonstrates the efficacy and safety of the device in assisting with preservation of aortic arch branches.

The End of Wire Wrapping: A Technique to Avoid Intertwining Preloaded Guidewires for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present a new technique for endovascular aortic arch repair for 1, 2, or 3 vessels using preloaded wires and precannulated target vessels without wire wrapping.

TECHNIQUE

This technique uses a prototype catheter with 2 parallel lumens to position through-and-through guidewires in the supra-aortic branches and an extra-stiff guidewire in the ascending aorta with no wrapping. This allows the introduction and advancement of the device with the already precannulated target vessels. The endograft is advanced to the aortic arch without twisting or wrapping. Covered stents are deployed to align the graft and target vessels.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, a technique that avoids wire wrapping has not been previously described. This technique allows safer and faster endovascular arch procedures and opens up new possibilities by enabling multi-vessel endovascular aortic arch repair with all precannulated target vessels.

Bail-out technique to detach a locked Viabahn endoprosthesis in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair

A 69-year-old female patient presented with a 5.8 cm thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm Crawford type II after partial arch replacement. She was treated by a branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedure using a branched arch endograft with one retrograde branch to the left subclavian artery. After deployment of a Viabahn as a bridging covered stent to the left subclavian artery, the deployment line did not detach and the delivery catheter could not be removed. With the use of a physician-modified sidehole catheter and balloon fixation, the pulling line could be released without displacement of the Viabahn endoprosthesis.

[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.

Perioperative and long-term outcome after ascending aortic and arch repair with elephant trunk and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcome of open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair following previous aortic arch repair including elephant trunk (ET) or frozen elephant trunk (FET) for acute and chronic pathologies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, multicenter study including 32 patients treated between 2006 and 2019 in two aortic centers using identical surgical protocols. Assessment focused on perioperative and long-term outcome, namely in-hospital morbidity and mortality, as well as procedure-related reintervention rate and aortic-related mortality rate. Kaplan-Meier curves with 95% confidence intervals were used to analyze the overall survival after surgery within the cohort.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (mean age, 45.0 ± 13.6 years; 20 males [62.5%]) were treated because of acute (34.38% [n = 11]) or chronic (65.62% [n = 21]) aortic pathologies, including residual dissection following acute, symptomatic type A dissection (n = 7) and symptomatic mega aortic syndrome (n = 4), as well as post-dissection TAAA (n = 18) and asymptomatic mega aortic syndrome (n = 3). Twenty-eight patients (87.5%) received type II repair, and 4 patients (12.5%) received type III repair after previous ascending aorta and arch repair including ET/FET. Concomitant infrarenal and iliac vessel repair was performed in 38.7% (n = 12) and 29.4% (n = 10), respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 18.75% (n = 6). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in two cases, both after one-stage emergency procedure with one case of permanent paraplegia. Temporary acute kidney injury occurred in 41.94% (n = 13). The estimated 1-year survival rate was 78.1% (95% confidence interval, 63.9%-95.6%), with a median follow-up time of 1.29 years (interquartile range, 0.26-3.88 years). No procedure-related reinterventions and one case of aortic-related mortality, namely sepsis because of graft infection, was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Open TAAA repair following aortic arch repair including ET or FET because of acute or chronic aortic pathologies is associated with a relevant perioperative morbidity and mortality rate. During follow-up, a low aortic-related mortality rate and procedure-related reintervention rate were observed.

Thoracic endograft placement using a transfemoral snare in a patient with angled aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

In complex anatomical challenges, endovascular endograft implantation to the thoracic aorta may not be performed. Various techniques have been put forward for endograft therapy. In this report, we present the effect of femoral snare support for a patient with an aortic arch angle.

METHOD

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was used for treating a 60-year-old male patient who suffered from severe angulation in the arcus aorta and aneurysmal enlargement of the left subclavian artery and descending aorta. The endovascular graft could not be advanced into the aortic arch with the guidewire because of the aortic arch angle. Therefore, the TEVAR graft distal end was caught with the snare advanced from the femoral artery, and the TEVAR graft was advanced into the aortic arch.

CONCLUSION AND RESULT

The femoral snare technique is a simple and successful method for endograft implantation of the aortic arch disease without the risk of heart trauma, especially in cases with aortic arch tortuosity.

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using the Terumo Aortic triple-branch arch endograft

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of total endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using a novel triple-branch arch endograft.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the clinical data and outcomes of 3 patients with arch aneurysms treated at a single institution using a custom-made triple-branch aortic endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) between 2015 and 2020. The device has 3 internal branches corresponding to the principal branches of the standard aortic arch, obviating the need for any surgical revascularization. This initial experience represents the first three cases ever performed in the world using this endograft.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically successful. There were no strokes, in-hospital, or 1 year mortality. All 3 patients required secondary re-interventions. One patient died 14 months after the index procedure due to endocarditis unrelated to the arch repair.

CONCLUSION

The initial experience with the Terumo Aortic triple-branch endograft for treatment aortic arch aneurysms showed that, while the procedure is technically feasible, there remain significant anatomic and mechanical challenges in the endovascular repair of this segment of the thoracic aorta. Further refinements of endograft design and identification of optimal bridging stent technology are needed.

Routine Stent-Bridging to the Supraaortic Vessels in Aortic Arch Replacement - 10 year-experience

BACKGROUND

The SAVSTEB technique (Supra-Aortic Vessel anastomosis STEnt Bridging) simplifies the reattachment of the supraaortic vessels in aortic arch surgery; however, follow-up data are limited. The study aimed to investigate the stent-related performance and complications.

METHODS

Between 02/2009 and 09/2020, 112 patients underwent total arch replacement with a tetrabranched graft and using the SAVSTEB technique. Mean age was 59.3±12.7 years, male gender prevailed. Nineteen percent suffered from acute aortic dissection extending into the supraaortic vessels, 12% showed chronic dissected vessels and 70% showed unaffected vessels. Left subclavian artery, left common carotid artery and innominate artery were bridged in 88%, 75% and 2%, respectively, an aberrant right subclavian artery in 2%.

RESULTS

Total stent experience was 341 stent-years, stent patency was found in 98%. Technical success was achieved in all but one case. One percent showed major stent thrombosis requiring reintervention. Minor stent thrombosis was found in 2%. No endoleak was found and the number of new onset dissections distally to the stent was 4%. Freedom from stent-related events was estimated 89.1±0.5% at 3 years. Stroke rate was 10% with highest incidence among non-dissected vessels. The vertebral artery was overstented in 15%, 2% were associated radiographically with stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVSTEB is a comparatively simple, safe and efficacious technique to create the anastomosis between tetrabranched arch grafts and the supra-aortic arteries in the short and intermediate term. Bleeding from the anastomoses, kinking and scar associated stenosis are negligible; however, vertebral overstenting remains a critical technical issue.

Endovascular aortic arch repair with a pre-cannulated double-fenestrated physician-modified stent graft: a benchtop experiment

OBJECTIVES

The critical step in total endovascular aortic arch repair is to ensure alignment of fenestrations with, and thus maintenance of flow to, supra-aortic trunks. This experimental study evaluates the feasibility and accuracy of a double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular graft [single common large fenestration for the brachiocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery and a distal small fenestration for left subclavian artery (LSA) with a preloaded guidewire for the LSA] for total endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

Eight fresh human cadaveric thoracic aortas were harvested. Thoracic endografts with a physician-modified double fenestration were deployed for total endovascular aortic arch repair in a bench test model. A guidewire was preloaded through the distal fenestration for the LSA. All experiments were undertaken in a hybrid room under fluoroscopic guidance with subsequent angioscopy and open evaluation for assessment.

RESULTS

Mean aortic diameter in zone 0 was 31.3 ± 3.33 mm. Mean duration for stent graft modification was 20.1 ± 5.8 min. Mean duration of the procedure was 24 ± 8.6 min. The Medtronic Valiant Captivia stent graft was used in 6 and the Cook Alpha Zenith thoracic stent graft in 2 cases. LSA catheterization was technically successful with supra-aortic trunk patency in 100% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a double-fenestrated stent graft with a preloaded guidewire appears to be a useful technical addition to facilitate easy and correct alignment of stent graft fenestrations with supra-aortic trunk origins.

Total Percutaneous Access for Deployment of a Custom Made Fenestrated Stent Graft in a 90 Year Old with a Large Symptomatic Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm

Introduction

Open surgical cut down has been the standard for gaining carotid access in most thoracic endovascular repairs of aortic aneurysm (TEVAR) cases; however, when suitable, total percutaneous repair can be beneficial.

Report

A relatively fit 90 year old man with few medical comorbidities presented with six months of worsening upper back pain and an Ishimaru zone 2 fusiform thoracic aortic aneurysm of 7.2 cm diagnosed on CT aortography. A total percutaneously inserted custom made device (CMD) with innominate artery (IA) scallop, left common carotid artery (LCCA) fenestration combined with left subclavian artery (LSA) occlusion provided an effective repair. Haemostasis was obtained with Abbott Perclose ProGlide suture-mediated devices. The patient was discharged on post-operative day two. Follow up CT at one month was unremarkable without any endoleak, and an improvement in symptoms.

Discussion

There are risks of cerebral ischaemia and other complications with open carotid cut down, hence it is worth considering avoiding if possible, especially for select patients. Retrograde carotid access and subsequent closure device deployment is not new, but in conjunction with CMD, TEVAR allowing for carotid stenting is feasible and less often described in the literature.

Endovascular Solutions for Aortic Arch Diseases: Total and Hybrid

Although the endovascular approach is the therapeutic option of choice for thoracic and abdominal aortic diseases, open surgery is still the treatment of choice for aortic arch diseases. While open surgical repair remains the gold standard treatment for complete aortic arch replacement, it continues to be burdened by high mortality and neurologic complications, especially for patients who require redo surgery. Therefore, in the era of endovascular surgery, it is not surprising that hybrid operating rooms, new technologies, and new approaches are strongly challenging open surgery. Less-invasive endovascular procedures, when used to treat aortic arch diseases, when feasible and indicated, have clear advantages over open surgery, primarily because there is no need for cardiopulmonary bypass, hypothermic circulatory arrest, or cerebral protection. Moreover, patients who have already been treated for acute type A aortic dissection continue to have a considerable risk for future aortic reintervention, which is associated with increased risk for short- and long-term mortality. In light of these advantages, it is clear how selected high-risk patients with aortic arch disease could benefit from the endovascular approach. However, the hemodynamic and anatomic characteristics of the aortic arch make the endovascular approach in this region challenging. In fact, uncorrected stent-graft placement can have fatal consequences for the patient and increase the risk of endoleaks and stroke. To minimize these potential risks, precise and accurate preoperative planning to achieve optimal stent-graft dimensions and implantation is essential together with careful patient selection. Endovascular options for the treatment of aortic arch disease include both hybrid procedures and total endovascular solutions. This manuscript provides an overview of the current strategies for endovascular aortic arch treatment, including the most recent available series on this topic. In addition, a literature search offers insight into the current state of the art.

Four-year results of the Bolton relay proximal scallop endograft in the management of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathology with unfavorable proximal landing zone

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a scallop design (scallop-TEVAR) is a useful treatment strategy to extend the proximal landing zone (PLZ), while maintaining perfusion to one or more of the supra-aortic trunks (SATs) when treating aortic pathology with an unfavorable PLZ. The durability of this approach with the Bolton Relay scallop endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Fla) has not been established.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients that received scallop-TEVAR in zones 0 to 2 at a tertiary aortic unit was undertaken. The main outcome was durability, characterized by survival estimates, freedom from reintervention to the thoracic aorta and PLZ, migration and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2019, 38 patients (71% male; median age, 70 years) underwent scallop-TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology (n = 28, 74%) or as a part of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair (n = 10 [26%]). The use of scallop-TEVAR significantly extended the PLZ (median, 5 mm preoperative PLZ vs 26 mm extended PLZ; P = .0001). A total of 41 SATs were perfused with a scallop, including the left subclavian artery (n = 25), left common carotid artery (n = 6), neo/innominate artery (n = 4), left subclavian artery, and vertebral artery (n = 1), innominate artery, and left common carotid artery (n = 2) in conjunction with 15 extra-anatomical bypasses. The PLZ was at Ishimaru zone 0 and 1 in 6 cases (16%), respectively, and zone 2 in 26 cases (68%). Technical success was 98%. The 30-day mortality was 5% (2/38; 1 death from myocardial infarction and 1 from multiorgan failure). A minor stroke occurred in three patients (8%) and temporary spinal cord ischemia in two patients (5%). The median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-10.53 years) during which two patients (5%) developed type Ia endoleak and required intervention to the PLZ (one from device-related migration and one from disease progression). All-cause and aorta-related survival were 72% and 85% and freedom from thoracic and PLZ reintervention was 92% and 97%, respectively. There were no cases of early or late thoracic aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection or SAT occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scallop-TEVAR offers a less invasive treatment option to extend the seal zone in selected patients with an unfavorable PLZ, allowing for a durable repair in terms of overall survival and reintervention. Periprocedural stroke remains a principle concern.

Technical Aspects of Fenestrated Arch TEVAR With Preloaded Fenestration

Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) has expanded the possibilities of endovascular arch repair, allowing treatment of pathologies involving the aortic arch that require sealing in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2. The growing number of implantations has increased physician experience and helped identify critical procedural points, mainly wire entanglement and device malrotation. Herein we describe a step-by-step approach to a f-TEVAR procedure with the Zenith fenestrated preloaded thoracic endograft, identifying potential pitfalls and suggesting problem-solving solutions.

Passing a Mechanical Aortic Valve With a Short Tip Dilator to Facilitate Aortic Arch Endovascular Branched Repair

PURPOSE

To present a novel technique to successfully cross a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis.

TECHNIQUE

A 55-year-old female patient with genetically verified Marfan syndrome presented with a 5-cm anastomotic aneurysm of the proximal aortic arch after previous ascending aortic replacement due to a type A aortic dissection in 2007. The patient also underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement in 1991. A 3-stage hybrid repair was planned. The first 2 steps included debranching of the supra-aortic vessels. In the third procedure, a custom-made double branched endovascular stent-graft with a short 35-mm introducer tip was implanted. The mechanical valve was passed with the tip of the dilator on the lateral site of the leaflet, without destructing the valve and with only mild symptoms of aortic insufficiency, as one leaflet continued to work. This allowed the implantation of the stent-graft directly distally of the coronary arteries. Postoperative computed tomography angiography showed no endoleaks and patent coronary and supra-aortic vessels.

CONCLUSION

Passing a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis at the proper position is feasible and allows adequate endovascular treatment in complex arch anatomy. However, caution should be taken during positioning of the endovascular graft as the tip may potentially damage the valve prosthesis.

Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions

BACKGROUND

Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques.

METHODS

The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid-subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.