Early and midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a branched endograft for aortic arch pathologies: A retrospective single-center study

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

An early single-center experience with the Relay double inner-branch arch endograft

Background

Open surgery remains the gold standard technique for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies, although endovascular techniques offer a new opportunity for patients deemed unfit for open repair. This paper assesses the early outcomes of patients treated with a double inner-branched arch endograft in a single, tertiary-care institution.

Methods

All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay® (Terumo Aortic-Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA) double inner-branched endograft; an extra-anatomical bypass was associated in all cases to preserve the patency of supra-aortic trunks. Comorbidities, periprocedural data, immediate results and follow-up complications were analyzed.

Results

Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%.

Conclusions

Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.

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.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Terumo Relay®Branch aortic endovascular graft

Advances in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are enabling the treatment of increasingly proximal pathology. While the practice of vascular surgery has thus far been mostly limited to TEVAR in zone 2 or more distally, there are emerging devices for zone 1 and zone 0 repair that do not require any further arch debranching compared with a zone 2 repair. Moreover, such devices set forth repair options for patients unable to tolerate the insult of open surgery. One zone 0 device under evaluation is the Terumo Relay^®Branch (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) endovascular graft, which is an off-the-shelf device based on the Relay^®Pro platform (Terumo). This double branch device uniquely features a large gate, facilitating easy cannulation that contains two locking portal stents for the innominate artery (IA) and left common carotid artery (LCCA) branch grafts. Within our institution, we have had excellent technical success with Relay^®Branch (Terumo) device deployments as part of the Early Feasibility Study, and other centers outside of the USA have published results with this device in small patient series. Notably, there is still a concerning stroke rate associated with the Relay^®Branch (Terumo) device, with permanent stroke rates higher than expected but similar to those for open repair. Thus, these interventions must be undertaken with careful patient selection, thorough planning, and with the guidance of a proficient endovascular aortic team. In this article, we will outline the necessary preoperative workup, highlight device features, and detail the operative strategy, with tips for technical success. These guidelines from our experience will help facilitate successful utilization of this device when it becomes widely available in practice.

Effectiveness and Minimal-Invasiveness of Zone 0 Landing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Branched Endograft

Background: Zone 0 landing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch diseases has become a topic of interest. This study aimed to verify whether branced TEVAR (bTEVAR) is an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment by comparing the outcomes of bTEVAR and hybrid TEVAR (hTEVAR) in landing zone 0. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included 54 patients (bTEVAR, n = 25; hTEVAR, n = 29; median age, 78 years; median follow-up period, 5.4 years) from October 2012 to June 2018. The logistic Euro-SCORE was significantly higher in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group (38% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Results: There was no significant difference the in-hospital mortality between the bTEVAR and hTEVAR groups (0% vs. 3.4%, p = 1.00). The operative time (220 vs. 279 min, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days, p = 0.013) were significantly shorter in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group. The 7-year free rates of aorta-related deaths (bTEVAR [95.5%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.390) and aortic reintervention (bTEVAR [86.3%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.638) were not significantly different. Conclusions: The early and mid-term outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. bTEVAR might be superior to hTEVAR in that it is less invasive. Therefore, bTEVAR may be considered an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients.

From The RELAY® Family - A Story of Single Branched International Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgery over the last few decades has led to the development and widespread utilisation of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). TEVAR, due to its minimally invasive nature and potential superior outcomes, is now becoming a key focus of interest in treating pathologies of the aortic arch, which has traditionally been treated with open surgical repair (OSR). We present our findings of our international multi-centre dataset documenting the efficacy of the single-branched RELAY™ endograft in terms of technical success, post-operative outcomes, and reintervention rates.

METHODS

Prospective data was collected and retrospectively analysed with descriptive and distributive analysis between January 2019 and January 2022 from 17 patients treated with RELAY™ single-branched endoprostheses from centres across Europe. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of post-operative outcomes, target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all 17 patients (100%) and there were no postoperative disabling or non-disabling strokes in our single-branched RELAY™ cohort. The target vessel patency remained 100% during the first 30 days post-operatively, however, by the end of the follow-up period (24 months), target vessel patency was achieved in 93.7% of the patients. There were no reinterventions or deaths during the full study duration using the single-branched RELAY™ stent-graft.

CONCLUSION

These results with the single branched RELAY™ stent graft demonstrate favourable outcomes in comparison to the literature and demonstrate the feasibility of treatment of aortic pathology with this single-branched graft in the future. Further studies with larger patient cohorts will help us to accumulate evidence for the feasibility of the single branched RELAY™ stent graft for aortic arch surgery in the future.

RELAYTM Branched–International Results of Vessel Patency and Reintervention

Background

Surgical intervention remains the mainstay treatment for aortic arch aneurysm and dissection, but the high mortality and morbidity rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive alternatives to arch reconstruction. RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a viable option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair. We present multi-center data from Europe documenting the efficacy of the endograft in terms of its target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Methods

Prospective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple-branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Results

Technical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, target vessel patency was maintained in 80.2% (n = 118) of patients. Target vessel cannulation was achieved in 146 (99.3%) cases. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 30 reintervention procedures were required, of which 29 (97%) took place within the South Europe region which accounted for 19.6% (n = 29) of total cases. Zero reinterventions were required in patients that were treated with single- or triple-branched endoprostheses.

Discussion

The data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is a technically efficacious device for endovascular aortic arch repair and is associated with favorable target vessel patency and reintervention rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating reintervention and loss of vessel patency following endovascular aortic arch repair.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

In Vivo Quantification of Cardiac-Pulsatility-Induced Motion Before and After Double-Branched Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

The Relay^®Branch stent-graft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) offers a custom-made endovascular solution for complex aortic arch pathologies. In this technical note, a modified electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT)-based algorithm was applied to quantify cardiac-pulsatility-induced changes of the aortic arch geometry and motion before and after double-branched endovascular repair (bTEVAR) of an aortic arch aneurysm. This software algorithm has the potential to provide novel and clinically relevant insights in the influence of bTEVAR on aortic anatomy, arterial compliance, and stent-graft dynamics.

Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: From Dream to Reality

The gold-standard therapy for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies is conventional open surgery. Recently, total endovascular aortic arch replacement with branched stent-grafts has been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of reducing invasiveness especially in selected high-risk patients. The aim of this review is to describe the two most commonly used branched devices for endovascular arch stent-grafting: Nexus (Endospan, Herzlia, Israle) and RelayBranch (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, United Kingdom). Nexus is a CE-certified off-the-shelf, single branch, double stent graft system. It consists of two different components: a main module for the aortic arch and the descending aorta with a side-branch for the brachiocephalic artery (BCA), and a curved module for the ascending aorta that lands into the sino-tubular junction and connects to the main module through a side-facing self-protecting sleeve. Nexus may be used in urgent-emergency cases and also in patients with only one suitable supra-aortic target vessel but, on the other hand, it makes cerebral blood flow dependent on one source vessel only. The RelayBranch Thoracic Stent-Graft System is a custom made, double branched endograft with a wide window on its superior portion to accommodate two inner tunnels for BCA and left common carotid artery connection; bilateral cervical accesses are generally used to advance guidewires for catheterization of the inner tunnels in a retrograde fashion. RelayBranch can be customized on every patient’s specific anatomy and provides a double blood source for the brain, but it cannot be used in urgent-emergency conditions. Therefore, in order to optimize outcomes, the choice of the most appropriate device should be made considering pros and cons of each system and patient’s anatomy by an experienced aortic team. In conclusion, total endovascular aortic arch exclusion is a promising reality in selected high-risk patients.

Effectiveness of Proximal Landing Zones 0, 1, and 2 Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single Centre 12 Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is being accepted increasingly as a first line treatment for arch repair at the present authors' institution. This study aimed to clarify the effectiveness of zones 0, 1, and 2 landing hybrid TEVAR.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single centre case series. From April 2008 to March 2020, 348 patients (median age 72 years; interquartile range [IQR] 65, 77 years) were enrolled, with a median follow up period of 5.6 years (IQR 2.6, 8.7 years). The procedures included zone 0 in 135 patients (38.8%), zone 1 in 82 patients (23.6%), and zone 2 proximal landing zone (LZ) hybrid TEVAR in 131 patients (37.6%). The pathologies consisted of dissecting aortic aneurysms in 123 (35.3%) patients. Emergency procedures were performed in 39 (11.2%) patients.

RESULTS

The 30 day mortality (n = 2, 0.6%) and hospital deaths (n = 6, 1.7%) were registered. The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 4), while early and late endoleak rates were 4.8% (n = 17) and 1.7% (n = 6), respectively. Type 1a endoleak and retrograde type A dissection occurred in seven (2.0%) and three (0.9%) patients, respectively. The cumulative survival, freedom from aorta related deaths, and freedom from aortic events in 10 years were 75.0%, 97.2%, and 84.1%, respectively. The freedom from aortic events in each landing zone in 10 years was 82.3%, 81.4%, and 87.9% for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The 10 year survival rates were 82.5% and 73.6%; the 10 year aorta related death free rates were 94.9% and 98.6%, and the 10 year aortic event free rates were 82.3% and 85.5% in the zone 0 and zone 1 and 2 TEVAR, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory early and long term results of hybrid arch repair at zones 0, 1, and 2 were achieved. To avoid complications and aortic events, the treatment strategy of hybrid arch repair for aortic arch pathologies should be tailored using accurate pre-operative assessment of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing

PURPOSE

Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

Review of frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex Hybrid device

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