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

Physician-modified endograft for symptomatic zone 2 penetrating ulcer of the aortic arch without bridging stenting of the left subclavian artery for vertebral preservation

We report the case of a 65-year-old male patient who was deemed unfit for open surgery and underwent zone 0 endovascular repair with a physician-modified fenestrated endograft for a symptomatic penetrating ulcer. A thoracic stent graft was modified creating a large fenestration for the innominate artery and the left common carotid artery, and a second small fenestration for the left subclavian artery and the left vertebral artery, which had a common origin. No bridging stent was used for the left subclavian artery to avoid coverage of the left vertebral artery. The postoperative course was uneventful, and no leaks nor other complications were detected on postoperative computed tomography angiography. Although long-term durability needs to be better assessed, our experience suggests that physician-modified fenestrated endografts are a feasible option for the emergent treatment of aortic arch lesions in unfit patients and provide satisfactory results in the short term.

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.

Endovascular Repair With Triple Inner-Branch Endograft for Aberrant Subclavian Artery Aneurysm: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) is the preferred option for the treatment of the distal arch and descending thoracic aorta. Fenestrated and branched TEVAR have become an option to treat pathologies of the aortic arch, avoiding sternotomy and cardiopulmonary arrest as well as total surgical debranching. We describe here the case of a symptomatic patient with an arteria lusoria aneurysm associated with Kommerel diverticulum who underwent total endovascular repair with a triple-branched TEVAR.

CASE REPORT

A 66-year-old male patient was treated for a symptomatic arteria lusoria artery associated with a Kommerel diverticulum, resulting in difficulty swallowing and choking. We used a custom-made triple inner-branch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) following implantation of a right-sided carotid-subclavian (C-S) bypass. The C-S bypass occluded in the interval time between the 2 procedures and required recanalization and stent-graft placement during the aortic arch procedure. The arteria lusoria was embolized with a vascular plug. No complications occurred and postoperative tomography showed exclusion and thrombosis of the Kommerel diverticulum and perfusion of the supra-aortic vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of arteria lusoria aneurysms can be performed with total endovascular arch inner-branch repair, avoiding increased risk of morbidity and mortality caused by open or hybrid procedures.

Midterm Outcomes of Multicenter Castor Single-Branch Stent Graft Use in the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the midterm efficacy and safety of a single-branch Castor stent graft in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of 106 patients with thoracic aortic disease treated with Castor single-branch stent graft at 3 centers were collected between May 2018 and June 2023. The indicators included technical success, stent-related complication, reintervention, retrograde dissection, endoleak, distal stent graft-induced entry (dSINE), branch patency, and mortality. The outcomes of the Castor stent graft for multibranch reconstruction above the arch was also analyzed.

RESULTS

The technical success was 98.1% (104/106), while the surgical success was 93.4% (99/106). The reintervention was 2.8% (3/106), consisting of a case of retrograde type A dissection, an endoleak, and a dSINE. The retrograde dissection was 1.9% (2/106), while type I endoleak was 1.9% (2/106). The new dSINE was 2.8% (3/106), and the branch patency rate was 100%. The mortality was 1.9% (2/106). The mean follow-up time was 29.1±17.7 months. The 2-year post-surgery cumulative survival rate was 91.0%±3.1%, while the cumulative branch patency rate was 96.2%±2.2%. In addition, the cumulative freedom from stent-related reintervention rate was 93.2%±2.8%. A comparison showed no significant difference in the stent-related complication, branch patency, endoleak, reintervention, and mortality when the proximal end of the Castor stent graft was anchored to zones 1 or 2 of the aorta.

CONCLUSION

Castor single-branch stent graft showed favorable early and midterm outcomes in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease. In addition, it was feasible to combine Castor stent graft with other advanced techniques for multibranch aortic arch reconstruction.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The Castor single-branch stent graft was approval by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration in 2017. However, there were few studies on the mid-term outcomes for thoracic aortic disease after launching, which mainly focused on small single-center retrospective study. In the study, we assessed the mid-term outcomes of Castor stent graft through multi-center cases, Castor stent graft combined with other advanced techniques (such as fenestration and hybrid) for multi-branch reconstruction of aortic arch were also conducted. We found Castor single-branch stent graft showed favorable early and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease. Additionally, it was feasible to combine Castor stent graft with other advanced technique for multi-branch aortic arch reconstruction. As an off-the-shelf branched stent graft with a wide range of models, it could be also used in most emergent situation. The Castor stent graft was expected to become more widely used in the future.

Anatomic Feasibility of In-Situ Fenestration for Isolate Left Subclavian Artery Preservation during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using an Adjustable Needle Puncturing System

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using the Ankura™ device (Lifetech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) with left subclavian artery (LSA) in-situ fenestration (ISF) using an adjustable puncture device system.

METHODS

It is a single center, retrospective, financially unsupported cohort study of TEVAR performed from 16 February 2007 to 10 January 2023. Inclusion criteria were isolate LSA revascularization for elective or urgent/emergent "zone 2" TEVAR, and the availability of the preoperative computed tomography angiography.

RESULTS

Post-hoc analysis identified 52 TEVARs. There were 39 (75.0%) males, and 13 (25.0%) females: median age was 74.5 years (IQR, 65.5-78). Index TEVAR was performed for atherosclerotic aneurysm in 27 (51.9%) cases, dissection-related diseases in 18 (34.6%), penetrating aortic ulcer in 5 (9.6%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury in 2 (3.8%). Access-vessel feasibility rate of TEVAR using the Ankura™ device would have been 98.1% (51/52). Considering the morphology of the aortic arch, ISF TEVAR feasibility would have been 61.5% (32/52). Binary logistic regression analysis identified LSA angulation (OR: 1.1, 95%CI: 1.03-1.14, p = 0.003) to be associated with ISF feasibility using this endograft and a self-centering adjustable needle-based puncture device.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential feasibility of TEVAR using the Ankura™ endograft with ISF using a self-centering adjustable needle system was 61.5%. Left subclavian artery angulation seems to be the most important and limiting anatomical constraint.

Comparison of surgical and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic aortic endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

TEVAR for aortic arch lesions combining physician-modified endograft and in-situ fenestration

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the outcomes of combining physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and in-situ fenestration (ISF) for aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in 12 patients with aortic arch pathologies who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with PMEG and ISF between June 2019 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Revascularizations of supra-aortic arteries were successfully performed in 91.7% patients (11/12). One patient with aberrant right subclavian artery was unsuccessful because of tortuosity and sharp angle. One patient received endovascular exclusion by Viabahn due to artery injury of the femoral access. During the follow-up (mean 22.7 months), one patient underwent Bentall surgery because of retrograde type A aortic dissection, and one patient received coils embolization due to occurrence of a type I endoleak. In addition, one patient died of myocardial infarction 13 months after surgery. Results obtained after computed tomography angiography confirmed patency of all the supra-aortic arteries.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining PMEG and ISF could be a feasible option for aortic arch lesions in selected patients. Long-term durability concerns require further evaluation.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review of Contemporary Outcomes from Aortic Arch In Situ Laser Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting. Outcomes of this technique, however, are poorly reported. We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of L-FEVAR in aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Cochrane guidelines. A search was conducted using Google, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies evaluating L-FEVAR. Two independent reviewers determined study inclusion. Case reports and series including < 10 patients were excluded. Reviewers also assessed the methodological quality and extracted data regarding outcomes. A meta-analysis of endoleak event rates was conducted using a fixed-effect model due to small sample size.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria between 2013 and 2021. Most studies were retrospective (87.5%) with median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range 10-42). There were 440 patients included (range 15-148), mostly men (64%). Mean age was 61 years (range 53-68). Included patients were all symptomatic with L-FEVAR being technically successful in 93.3% of cases. The main indication for aortic arch intervention was aortic dissection. Single fenestrations occurred most frequently (68%), followed by triple (22%) then double fenestrations (9%). Meta-analysis of 8 studies (n = 440) demonstrated an endoleak event rate of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.09, P < 0.001) with no observed statistically significant heterogeneity of effects (Q = 7.91, P = 0.34). The median operative time was 162 min (range 53-252) with median length of stay of 10 days (range 7-17). Primary branch patency was 96.6%. Secondary patency rate was 97%. Pooled complication rates such as endoleak occurred in 4.8%, stroke in 2.0%, spinal cord ischemia in 0.2%, retrograde dissection in 0.9%, and 30-day death in 2.0%. Access complications occurred in 0.4%. Antiplatelet regimen was poorly reported in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, safe, and effective approach to treat aortic arch disease in patients who are unsuitable for open or custom-made endovascular means. High technical success and excellent short-term branch patency can be achieved. These single-institution series exhibit promising short-term outcomes. In a similar paradigm to investigational device exemptions studies for custom-made and physician modified endografts, these preliminary data make a persuasive argument for larger long-term multi-institutional prospective study of this promising technique.

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.

Morphology of the left subclavian artery: implications for single-branched endovascular aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate the morphology of the aortic arch, focusing on the left subclavian artery (LSA), and to anticipate implications for single-branched endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

We performed a morphological analysis of computed tomography angiography scans of 322 patients between January 2002 and December 2018. Arch type and distance between arch vessels on the convexity were evaluated. We defined 3 morphological types: U-type distance between the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and LSA offspring >10 mm; V-type distance between the LCCA and LSA offspring <10 mm and W-type isolated left vertebral artery offspring from the aortic arch.

RESULTS

Most patients presented a type III arch [50% (n = 161)]. The median distance from the brachiocephalic trunk offspring to the LCCA offspring measured 2.5 mm (2.0-3.0 mm) and that between the LCCA offspring and the LSA offspring was 6.5 mm (4.0-11.0 mm). We observed no significant difference based on the morphological type (V versus U versus W) in the brachiocephalic trunk-LCCA distance, but there were significant differences in the LCCA-LSA distance between types V and U (P < 0.001) and between types V and W (P < 0.001). Interestingly, we found no significant difference in the LCCA-LSA distance between types U and W. We noted a significant difference in the median diameter of the LSA according to U, V and W types: V type versus U type, 12.5 vs 13.5 mm (P = 0.033) as well as U type versus W type, 13.5 vs 10.5 mm (P < 0.001) and V type versus W type, 12.5 vs 10.5 mm (P < 0.002). The distances between the LSA offspring and left vertebral artery offspring between types U and V did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our categorization of the U, V and W types of the LSA can help us anticipate shapes and distances and thereby function as an initial evaluation tool for predicting single branched endovascular aortic arch repair involving the LSA.

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.

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.