Double fenestrated physician-modified stent-grafts for total aortic arch repair in 50 patients

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.

Hybrid management of descending thoracic pseudoaneurysm in a patient with DiGeorge syndrome

We present a case of a 42-year-old man with DiGeorge syndrome and congenital cardiac anomalies including a type B interrupted aortic arch who had previously undergone two bypasses between the ascending and descending thoracic aorta in childhood. He was found to have a 7.4-cm pseudoaneurysm of the descending thoracic aorta with the left subclavian artery arising from the aneurysm. The patient was treated with a single stage hybrid repair including left common carotid to subclavian bypass followed by thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

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.

Physician Modified Fenestrated Endografts for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair in Zone 0

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study aimed to assess the early and midterm outcomes of physician modified fenestrated endografts (PMEGs) for endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2022, a retrospective study was conducted in three centres of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0 with PMEGs. Endpoints included technical success, 30 day mortality rate, major adverse events, secondary interventions, stent stability, target vessel patency, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients (mean age 63 years; 45 males) with aortic arch pathology were included, comprising aortic dissections (n = 32; 59%) and aortic arch aneurysms (n = 22; 41%). Technical success was 98%. One patient died from stroke within 30 days. Major adverse events included stroke (n = 4; 7%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (n = 3; 6%), and acute kidney injury (n = 2; 4%). During a median follow up of 12 months, there were two deaths (4%) of unknown cause at one month and 1.5 months, and no aortic related death. Type Ia, type Ic, and type IIIc endoleaks were observed in two (4%), three (6%), and two (4%) patients, respectively. No vessel stenosis was observed. Re-intervention was required in 10 patients (19%). Estimates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at one year were 94.2% (standard error [SE] 3.3%), 81.8% (SE 6.0%), and 92.0% (SE 4.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the efficacy of PMEGs for zone 0 endovascular aortic arch repair, with acceptable technical success and mortality rates. Stroke, RTAD, and re-intervention rates remain a concern for endovascular therapy. A larger population and long term outcomes are required to assess the safety and durability of this technique as a beneficial choice for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialised centres.

Utilizing Single-Branched Stent in Combination With Fenestration or Chimney for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Lesions With Aberrant Subclavian Artery

OBJECTIVE

The study was to figure out the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a single-branched stent graft, namely Castor, in combination with fenestration or chimney in the context of aortic arch lesions presenting with aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and/or Kommerell's diverticulum (KD).

METHODS

All consecutive patients with aortic arch lesions and ASA and/or KD receiving Castor from June 2018 to June 2023 were investigated.

RESULTS

Incorporating 18 patients, the study encompassed 11 cases with KD, 3 cases with dysphagia; 2 cases of right-sided aortic arch with left-sided aberrant left subclavian artery (ALSA), and 16 cases of left-sided aortic arch with right-sided aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA). The mean operation time was 132±23 minutes. The mean measured proximal aortic diameter was 30.9±1.6 mm, and proximal diameter of Castor stent was 34 (32, 34.5) mm, with oversize of 9.1±1.6%; the mean measured branch diameter was 8.8±0.97 mm, and branch diameter of Castor stent was 10 (8, 10) mm, with oversize of 0.86±0.57 mm. Technical success rate was 100%, and no in-hospital mortality, no stroke, and no endoleak were identified. One (5.6%) case with spinal cord ischemia and one (5.6%) case with poor healing of operative site were identified. During the follow-up period, no aortic-related death or secondary intervention was recorded. The maximal aortic diameter was significantly reduced at the sixth postoperative month (padj=0.031); KD diameter was significantly reduced at the third (padj=0.001) and sixth (padj<0.001) postoperative month.

CONCLUSION

Totally endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions with ASA and KD via Castor stent in combination with fenestration or chimney is feasible, effective, and safe, which can achieve an encouraging medium-term outcome and provide excellent remodeling at the lesions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Single branched stent in combination with fenestration or chimney achieved a sufficient proximal landing zone and provided an encouraging medium-term outcome in this retrospective review of 18 patients receiving endovascular treatment of pathological aortic arch with aberrant subclavian artery and/or Kommerell's diverticulum. The authors suggest this time-saving and efficient technique to establish systematic experience for the treatment in this kind of patients.

Short-term results of fenestrated physician-modified endografts for type1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Objective

This study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of physician-modified fenestrated stent grafts (PMEGs) in treating type 1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in aortic arch pathologies.

Methods

Patients who developed a type 1a endoleak after conventional TEVAR were included in the study. They underwent treatment with fenestrated PMEGs, which involved single or double fenestration for the supra-aortic trunks.

Results

Twenty patients were treated with PMEGs between October 2018 and November 2023. Among them, 25% received single fenestrated PMEGs and 75% received double fenestrated PMEGs. The technical success rate was 100% for both types. Eighty percent of the PMEGs had a landing zone in zone 0, whereas 20% had a landing zone in zone 2. There were no in-hospital deaths. After 30 days, 1 patient died as the result of an aortic-related cause (retrograde dissection). The mean follow-up time was 16.5 months (range, 0-60 months). No major adverse events such as stroke or spinal ischemia were reported. No type 1 or type 3 endoleaks were observed, and one type 2 endoleaks required peripheral endovascular reintervention.

Conclusions

The treatment of type 1a endoleaks using fenestrated PMEGs after conventional TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies is a viable option. It is associated with acceptable rates of early and midterm major morbidity and mortality.

Endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies in patients unfit for open surgery: case series and literature review

The number of vascular centers performing endovascular repair of ascending aortic disease is constantly increasing. Accordingly to the guidelines, open surgical repair remains the gold standard for these pathologies. However, approximately one quarter of patients are deemed unfit for open surgery. In this study, we describe three cases of ascending thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) performed at our center. All the patients were deemed unfit for open surgery by the aortic team. Two patients had an ascending aortic pseudoaneurysm, and the third had a focal type A aortic dissection. In two cases, we used two abdominal aortic cuffs deployed from zone 0B to zone 0C, with no need for supra-aortic trunk debranching. In one case, we performed a "reverse" extrathoracic debranching, and we deployed a thoracic endograft from zone 0B to zone 2. Complications included one minor stroke and one inguinal hematoma. In one patient with an infected pseudoaneurysm, we performed ascending TEVAR as a bridge strategy for open repair. This patient developed a type Ia endoleak; however, clinical stabilization and infection control were obtained, and he was able to undergo heart surgery successfully. He underwent a second reintervention to treat superior mesenteric embolic occlusion. At 2 years of follow-up, all three patients were alive. Our preliminary experience demonstrates the technical feasibility and clinical appropriateness of ascending TEVAR using standard, commercially available endografts. However, no consensus has been reached regarding some critical aspects, such as the development of a standardized technique or the efficacy of the currently available devices. The improvements in graft design and the adoption of the "aortic team" approach could help in the near future to standardize the procedure, establish appropriate indications, and ensure good clinical outcomes.

Five-year outcomes of endovascular treatment for aortic dissection from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

OBJECTIVE

The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is an International prospective multicenter registry collecting real-world data on performance of Gore aortic endografts. The purpose was to analyze the long-term outcomes and patient survival rates, as well as device performance in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic and complicated or uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

From August 2010 to October 2016, 5014 patients were enrolled in the GREAT registry. The study population were patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair for TBAD through 5-year follow-up (days 0-2006). The primary outcomes for this analysis were all-cause and aortic-related mortality, stroke, aortic rupture, endoleaks, migration, fracture, compression, and any reintervention through 5 years.

RESULTS

We identified 265 patients. The mean age was 60.9 ± 11.9 years (range, 19-84 years; 211 males [79.6%]). Devices used were the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis. There were 228 patients (86.0%) who underwent primary endovascular treatment (144 off-label [54.3%]); 22 (8.3%) underwent reintervention after prior endovascular procedure and 15 (5.7%) underwent reintervention after prior open procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71.1%. Freedom from aortic-related mortality through 5 years was 95.8%. There was no significant difference in freedom from all-cause mortality during the follow-up period in complicated or uncomplicated disease. At 30 days and through 5 years, respectively, for all the following outcomes, the aortic rupture rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 1.9% (n = 5). The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 3) and 4.2% (n = 11). The spinal cord ischemic event rate was 1.5% (n = 4) and 2.6% (n = 7). Reinterventions were required in 6.4% (n = 17) and 21.1% (n = 56) of patients. The need for conversion to open repair was 0.4% (n = 1) and 2.6% (n = 7). Additional graft placement was required in 3 patients (1.1%) and 16 patients (6.0%). The endoleak rate at 30 days was 3.4% (n = 9); type IA (n = 1 [0.4%]), type IB (n = 4 [1.5%]), type II (n = 1 [0.4%]), type III (n = 1 [0.4%]), and unspecified (n = 4 [1.6%]). Through 5 years, the endoleak rate was 12.1% (n = 32); type IA (n = 7 [2.6%]), type IB (n = 10 [3.8%]), type II (n = 9 [3.4%]), type III (n = 2 [0.8%]), and unspecified (n = 12 [4.5%]). There were no cases of stent migration, compression or fracture through 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Results at the 5-year follow-up demonstrate that the use of the Gore TAG and Conformable Gore TAG Thoracic Endoprosthesis can be supported in treatment of TBAD (acute, chronic, complicated, and uncomplicated). These data demonstrate strong device durability, beneficial patient outcomes, and support for the treatment of thoracic aortic dissection with an endovascular approach. Complete 10-year follow-up in GREAT as planned will be advantageous.

Endovascular treatment for thoracic aortic disease from the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is an international prospective multicenter registry collecting real-world data on performance of W. L. Gore thoracic and abdominal aortic endografts. This analysis evaluated the long-term differences in patient survival and device performance in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for any thoracic aortic pathology.

METHODS

From August 2010 to October 2016, 5014 patients were enrolled in GREAT. The population of interest was comprised of only patients treated for thoracic aortic pathologies. Through 5 years, primary outcomes were all-cause and aortic-related mortality, stroke, aortic rupture, endoleaks, migration, fracture, compression, paraplegia, and any reintervention through 5 years, grouped by pathology. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and freedom from serious device- and aortic-related events.

RESULTS

The 578 patients with thoracic aortic pathologies enrolled in GREAT and identified for this analysis were categorized by common pathologies: thoracic aneurysm (n = 239), thoracic dissection (n = 203), arch (n = 26), and other (n = 110). The mean age of this population was 66.1 ± 12.8 years, and 64.7% were male. Procedure survival was 99.7%. In the overall group, at index procedure to 30 days and 31 days to 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from all-cause mortality were 99.6% and 66.4%, respectively, and for aortic-related mortality were 97.7% and 94.6%, respectively. Aortic rupture rate was 0.5% (n = 3) at 30 days and 1.4% (n = 8) through 5 years. Stroke and spinal cord ischemic events were 1.9% (n = 11) and 1.6% (n = 9) at 30 days and at 5 years were 3.6% (n = 20), 0.5% (n = 3), respectively. Reinterventions were required in 7.3% (n = 42) at 30 days and 12.4% (n = 69) through 5 years. The number of patients with endoleaks at 30 days was 2.1% (n = 12): n = 3 (1.1%) for each of types IA, 1B, and II; n = 2 (0.3%) for type III; and n = 4 (0.7%) for unspecified. Through 5 years, the percentage of patients was 8.3% (n = 40): n = 15 (3.1%) for type IA; n = 10 (2.1%) for type IB; n = 11 (2.3%) for type II; and n = 9 (1.9%) for unspecified. One patient (0.2%) had stent migration at 30 days (aneurysm group); none were reported through 5 years. There were no incidents of stent compression or fracture from index procedure through 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Data herein demonstrates durability and support for treatment of thoracic aortic disease with the GORE TAG conformable thoracic stent graft, including no incidents of stent compression/fracture and high freedom from aortic-related mortality. The planned analysis of follow-up to 10 years in GREAT will be beneficial.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Palliative Repair of a Mycotic Aortic Arch Pseudoaneurysm With a Physician-Modified Endograft and In-Situ Laser Fenestration

PURPOSE

Open aortic arch repair is the gold standard in the treatment of diseases involving the ascending aorta and aortic arch. However, due to the invasive nature of open repair, high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities are often not suitable candidates for open surgical repair. While endovascular aortic repair is far less invasive, endovascular arch repair remains a difficult challenge due to the aortic arch diameter and angulation, origin of the supra-aortic arteries, and the lack of commercially available thoracic branched devices in the United States.

CASE REPORT

Here we describe palliation of a mycotic aortic arch pseudoaneurysm with a physician-modified endograft and in situ laser fenestration. Our technique allowed for rapid repair of the pseudoaneurysm with minimal physiologic disturbances and no perioperative complications in a high-risk surgical patient.

CONCLUSION

Physician-modified endografts are feasible and may be an effective treatment option for palliation of acute aortic arch lesions in high-risk surgical patients.

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 Zone 1 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Fenestrated Surgeon-Modified Stent-Graft for Aortic Arch Pathologies

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of zone 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft (SMSG) for aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and November 2020, 34 consecutive patients underwent zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG for aortic arch pathologies. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative, and follow-up morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 34 patients were treated with zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG. Twenty-four (70.6%) patients presented with type B aortic dissections, 9 (26.5%) patients presented with aneurysms (7 located on the lesser curvature side of aortic arch), 1 (2.9%) patient presented with type Ia endoleak after previous TEVAR owing to traumatic aortic dissection. The proximal landing zone for all patients were in zone 1, and all supra-aortic trunks were reconstructed, except for one left subclavian artery. Technical success was achieved in all cases. The 30-day estimated survival (±SE) was 90.9% ± 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 77.0%-97.0%]. The 30-day estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) was 87.9% ± 5.7% (95% CI: 73.4%-95.3%). At a median follow-up of 48 months (range, 12-68 months), 2 patients died, including 1 aortic-related death and 1 non-aortic-related death. One patient had reintervention 13 months after the operation owing to type Ia endoleak. All supra-aortic trunks were patent. The estimated survival (±SE) during follow-up was 85.1% ± 6.2% (95% CI: 69.9%-93.6%). One (2.7%) patient had stroke. The estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) during follow-up was 84.2% ± 6.5% (95% CI: 69.9%-93.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG is an alternate option for treatment of aortic arch pathologies in experienced centers.

Zone 0 TEVAR with femoral artery inflow for an anastomotic pseudoaneurysm

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

Physician-Modified Endografts for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Pathologies Involving the Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive patients with thoracic aortic pathologies treated by PMEGs between February 2018 and May 2022. Data on baseline characteristics, operative procedure, and follow-up information were collected. The endpoints included technical success, complications, mortality, overall survival, re-intervention, and target vessel instability.

RESULTS

This study comprised 173 patients (mean age=58±13, range=28-83, 148 men) with thoracic aortic pathologies, including 44 thoracic aortic aneurysms, 113 aortic dissections (9 type A, 4 residual type A, 75 type B, 32 non-A non-B), 3 aortic intramural hematomas, and 13 penetrating aortic ulcers. Thirty-five of the patients had PMEGs with 3 fenestrations, 32 had 2 fenestrations, and 106 had 1 single fenestration. Technical success was 98% (170/173), and the 30-day mortality was 2% (3/173). Perioperative complications included stroke (n=3, 2%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD; n=3, 2%) and renal injury (n=3, 2%). Seven deaths (4%) were noted during a median follow-up of 11 (range=1-52) months. Eleven cases of re-intervention were stent-related. There were 5 type Ia endoleaks (3%), 2 type III endoleaks (1%) from the innominate artery (IA), and 3 type Ic endoleaks (2%) from the left subclavian arteries. One case of IA stent-graft (SG) stenosis was noted because of mural thrombus. Estimate rates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at 2 years were 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=88.7%-98.1%), 80.7% (95% CI=73.3%-88.1%), and 89.0% (95% CI=80.4%-97.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-modified endografts showed promising immediate therapeutic results in the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch. Our study demonstrates that the technique is feasible and produces acceptable results. Long-term outcomes are required for further refinement of this technical approach to confirm technical success and durability over time as a valuable option for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialized centers.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Our short- and mid-term outcomes of physician-modified endografts in 173 patients showed promising results compared to other branched/fenestrated techniques and backed up the endovascular repair of the aortic arch. Meanwhile, the technical expertise pointed out in our manuscript, including preloaded guidewire, diameter-reducing wire and inner mini-cuffs, provided reference and technical guidance for our peers. Most importantly, it demonstrated that the PMEG, as a device whose components were all commercially available, might be a better option for emergency surgery and for centers who had no access to custom-made devices.

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.

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.

Physician-Modified Stent Graft for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries: Do the Benefits Worth the Trouble?

BACKGROUND

Obtaining a suitable proximal landing zone in blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI) often necessitates coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA). This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) in this indication.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry including all patients who had undergone a thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for BTAI from October 2008 to October 2020. Starting in 2015, patients requiring coverage of the LSA were either treated using a physician-modified proximal scalloped or single-fenestrated stent graft. After an early postoperative computed tomography scan, follow-up was performed at 3 months, 6-months, and yearly.

RESULTS

Among 58 patients treated with TEVAR for BTAI, 23 (39.6%) patients required a zone 2 landing zone of which 10 (17.2%) patients were treated with PMEGs. The median age was 48 [31-64.5] years, and 78.2% (n = 18) patients were male. The median Injury Severity Score was 38 [27-55.5]. Coverage of the LSA was performed in 25.8% (n = 15) of the total population in which 5 patients had an LSA transposition. The median modification time was 18 [14-27] minutes. Technical success of PMEGs was 90.0% overall and 100% for fenestrated stent grafts. No stroke, paraplegia, or retrograde dissection was observed. The primary patency of the LSA in the PMEGs group was 90 % at 1 year and 28.8 % in the LSA coverage group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PMEGs is feasible and effective in the management of BTAI with a short proximal landing zone. Further evaluation of long-term outcomes and durability are awaited.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft for type B aortic dissections involving the aortic arch

Objectives

This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft (f-SMSG) for type B aortic dissections (TBAD) involving the aortic arch.

Methods

From March 2016 to April 2021, 47 consecutive patients were treated using TEVAR with f-SMSG. All patients were diagnosed with TBAD involving the aortic arch.

Results

In total, 47 patients with TBAD involving the aortic arch were treated with f-SMSGs. There were 21 zone 1 and 26 zone 2 TEVAR, and 65 arteries were revascularized successfully with fenestrations. Technical success was achieved in 46 patients (97.88%). The 30-day estimated survival (± SE) and reintervention was 93.6 ± 1.0% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 92.6-94.6%) and 91.5 ± 1.2% (95% CI, 90.3-92.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 51 months (range, 16-71 months), 1 patient died of rupture of aortic dissection (AD) and 3 patients died of non-aortic-related reasons. Reintervention was performed for four patients, including two patients of type IA entry flow and two patients of type IB entry flow. No occlusion of the supra-aortic trunk was observed. The estimated survival and reintervention (± SE) at 4 years was 88.7 ± 1.4% (95% CI, 87.3-90.1%) and 84.8 ± 1.5% (95% CI, 83.3-86.3%), respectively.

Conclusion

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with f-SMSG is an alternative treatment option for TBAD involving the aortic arch in high-volume centers.

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.

[Update on thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair : New stent graft designs]

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, new stent graft designs have evolved to tackle challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. A specific focus on access vessel issues has led to the introduction of new low-profile endograft designs for most of the major products.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available publications on new stent graft designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessing recent publications on the major reiterations of thoracic endografts, benefits and drawbacks are discussed.

RESULTS

Recent reiterations of major endografts for thoracic aortic endovascular repair have focused mainly on the development of low-profile devices. Through alterations on graft fabric as well as stent material and design, delivery systems were reduced in profile, thus, reducing access vessel complications or enabling an endovascular procedure altogether. Long-term data are already available for one endoprosthesis. Other refinements include in situ adaptation of the stent graft to the aortic arch curvature as well as the option of staged deployment to allow more precision and reduce manipulation close to supra-aortic branches.

CONCLUSIONS

Especially in the case of low-profile endografts, preliminary and long-term results of access vessel complications are promising. In order to draw final conclusions as to how durable the results of aneurysm exclusion are, more long-term studies are warranted.

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.

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.

Self-Radiopaque Markers Guiding Physician-Modified Fenestration (S-Fenestration) in Aortic Arch Endovascular Repair

Backgrounds and Objectives: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has currently become the “first-line choice” for descending aortic pathologies. For pathologies located at the aortic arch, TEVAR with physician-modified fenestration (PMF) has been gained popularity as an alternative choice. However, stent fenestration is an experience-dependent technique and comes with possible adverse events such as misalignment. This study aims to introduce the self-radiopaque PMF (SF), which uses the radiopaque marker as a guiding indicator.

Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study of 125 patients who underwent the SF-TEVAR in Second Xiangya Hospital from December 2015 to December 2020. Data include basic clinical information and technique records of SF-TEVAR with follow-up results.

Results: According to the SF-TEVAR protocol, we have performed the procedures on 125 patients and obtained an instant success rate of 98.4%. A total of 140 aortic stent-grafts and 44 bridging stents have been implanted in this study. The operation time is 64.6 ± 19.3 min, X-ray exposure time (from first digital subtraction angiography (DSA) to last DSA) is 25.6 ± 14.3 min, and contrast volume is 82.2 ± 22.6 ml. The success rate of PMF alignment is 98.4%. One bailout stent-graft was implanted into the left subclavian artery (LSA) by the chimney technique (0.8%). One fenestration was successfully and immediately corrected after misalignment (0.8%). Large simultaneous fenestration was performed in six patients (4.8%) for the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and LSA and in two patients (1.6%) for IA, LCCA, and LSA. One hundred twenty-two out of 125 patients' LSAs have been kept patent by the technique during the follow-up. The bridging stent group consists of 44 patients who received LSA stents, while the non-bridging stent group includes the other 81 patients. Type I endoleak has occurred in seven patients (5.6%) 1 week after the procedure. During follow-up (23 ± 18 months), survival rate is 95.7% and branch artery patent rate is 97.4%.

Conclusions: The SF-TEVAR technique, which utilizes the radiopaque marker in stent-graft as an indication for PMF in TEVAR, seems a likely safe, effective, and efficient procedure that brings acceptable survival rate and branch artery patency rate. SF-TEVAR serves as a progressive alternative method to keep the branch artery patent in aortic arch endovascular reconstruction.