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

Hybrid and Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Pathology

The advent of endovascular aortic surgery has led to the rise of novel techniques and devices in treating pathologies of the aorta. While endovascular surgery has been well established in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta, the endovascular treatment of the aortic arch represents a new and exciting territory for aortic surgeons. This article will discuss the different aortic diseases amenable to endovascular treatment, currently available aortic arch stent grafts and their limitations, and the future of endovascular aortic arch therapies.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL IMPACT

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

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL IMPACT

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

Current techniques of repair of aortic arch pathologies and the role of the aortic team

The treatment of aortic arch pathologies is becoming progressively more complex and multidisciplinary. Despite progresses in open surgical techniques, the high rate of surgical morbidity and mortality, especially in frail and elderly patients, has led to the development of alternative treatment options to conventional open surgery such as hybrid and endovascular procedures. Our purpose is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and investigate the role of a dedicated aortic team in the choice of the most appropriate treatment for each patient.

Six-year clinical and computed tomography angiography follow-up after Nexus implantation

Endovascular aortic arch repair (Ar-TEVAR) with single-branch, off-the-shelf Nexus aortic arch system has shown promising early and 3-year outcomes. There is lack of data regarding long-term results of this specific device, particularly regarding patency of supra-aortic bypasses and stability of the connection between the 2 modules. This case report describes 6-year clinical and imaging follow-up of a 74-year-old patient who underwent Ar-TEVAR with Nexus. Over 6 years, the patient experienced minor complications unrelated to the device. The patency of supra-aortic bypasses and integrity of the device's connection were confirmed. Computed tomography angiography constantly showed exclusion of the aneurysm and reduction of the aneurysmal sac. In conclusion, although extended research and broader data are needed, this case provides encouraging evidence of long-term results of Ar-TEVAR with Nexus.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL IMPACT

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL IMPACT

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Acute aortic dissection: evidence, uncertainties, and future therapies

Remarkable progress has become especially apparent in aortic medicine in the last few decades, leading to essential changes in how thoracic aortic dissection is understood and treated. This state-of-the-art review article addresses the mechanisms of acute aortic dissection, explaining the role of its primary entry location, proximal, and distal dissection extension in their clinical presentation and impact on the decision-making process towards the best treatment approach. The latest evidence on novel treatment methods for acute aortic syndromes is presented, and the diverse dissection classification systems that remain uncertain are discussed, which reveals the need for shared terminology and more clarity. Finally, future aspects are discussed in treating acute aortic dissection, such as the endovascular treatment of aortic dissection Type A and biomarkers for acute aortic syndromes.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Nexus Endospan arch branch stent-graft

Aortic arch pathologies are commonly treated by open surgery which is still the gold standard. Patients that are unfit for surgery can be effectively treated mini-invasively with novel endovascular endograft specifically designed for the arch. Endovascular technology has remarkably improved in recent years and is a valid alternative option for the treatment of aortic arch. Available endografts on the market include fenestrated and branched (single, double, or triple). Most endograft designed for the aortic arch are custom-made and production time could be limiting. The aim of this study is to report our experience with the only single branch bi-modular off-the shelf device available on the market specifically designed for aortic arch aneurysms and dissections. We perform endovascular treatment of the arch in a multidisciplinary team together with dedicated anesthesiologist team, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Prior to the implantation of the endograft, a debranching procedure must be made to redirect the blood from brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) to the left common carotid artery and left subclavian artery. A through and through system from the right axillary artery to the femoral artery is required to deploy the main module. The ascending module is delivered over an extra stiff guidewire placed in the left ventricle. Molding of the endografts is performed with kissing balloon in rapid pacing. We performed 8 cases. Six of them came to our attention for residual dissection and has already been treated with ascending aorta replacement. Mean aortic diameter was 63 mm. All patients required complete debranching of the supra-aortic vessel and received a right common carotid -left subclavian artery bypass with reimplantation of the left common carotid artery on the graft. Timing of the debranching was a few days before the endovascular procedure in 76% of cases. Technical success of the endovascular intervention occurred in 100% of cases. In 2 cases the target supra-aortic trunk for the deployment of the main module BCT branch was the left subclavian artery with no adverse event related to this variation. No intraoperative adjunctive maneuvers have been registered, left subclavian artery have been embolized during the procedure in 5 cases. No access complications have been reported. We experienced 1 case of major stroke with permanent neurological impairments that lead to worsening of clinical condition and death at 6 months. No cardiological adverse event have been registered. Two cases of type 2 endoleak have been reported and required reintervention with embolization of the LSA. At 1 year follow-up no aorta-related adverse event has been reported. The use of this off-the-shelf device for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies requiring total debranching of the supra-aortic vessels seems to be safe and effective. Preliminary results are promising despite available data are insufficient and further data collection is mandatory.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Three-year follow-up of aortic arch endovascular stent grafting with the Nexus device: results from a prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aortic arch stent grafting with branched devices has shown initial promising results. The aim of this prospective, multicentre study was to evaluate 3-year outcomes of aortic arch stent grafting with NEXUS® Aortic Arch Stent Graft System (Nexus), a single-branch, bi-modular, off-the-shelf aortic arch stent graft system in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients treated with Nexus, either under the feasibility clinical study or as compassionate use procedures in 5 centres, were included in this study. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the incidence of procedure-related unplanned intervention, stroke, paraplegia and endoleak. Clinical and radiologic follow-up was performed at each study site at 30 days, 6 months and on a yearly basis thereafter up to 3 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

We analysed data from a total of 28 patients. The overall median follow-up was 1132 (interquartile range: 809-1537). There were no device or procedure-related deaths between 1 and 3 years. Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 89% and 71%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of unplanned reintervention at 1 and 3 years was 11% and 29%, respectively. There were no reports of stroke, paraplegia, aneurysm rupture, myocardial infarction or new aortic valve insufficiency. In this study's 1-3 year follow-up period, 1 type Ib (4%), 1 type II (4%) and 2 type III (8%; between Nexus' distal end and Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) extensions) endoleak were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch exclusion with the single-branch, off-the-shelf Nexus system provides promising clinical and radiologic results at 3-year follow-up in a high-risk patient cohort.

The Best Way to Deal Is with Cold Steel…Is It?-Ways of Dealing with Age and Ageing in Cardiac Surgery

Everyone knows from their own experience what ageing means [...].

Systematic review and meta-analysis of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery with a Castor stent graft

OBJECTIVE

Despite the rapid development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), it is still a challenge to maintain the blood flow of the branch arteries above the aortic arch in Stanford type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery (LSA). The Castor stent graft is an integrated, customized, single-branch stent that enables reconstruction of the LSA. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of the Castor stent graft for type B aortic dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive electronic literature search (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322146) was undertaken to identify all articles published up to August 2022 that described thoracic aortic repair with branch stents in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the LSA. The quality of the included studies was analyzed using the MINORS criteria. The primary outcome measures were the technical success rate, early mortality rate, endoleak rate, and 1-year survival rate. The secondary outcome measures were the stroke rate, left upper extremity ischemia rate, and target vessel patency rate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 415 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The LSA was successfully preserved in all procedures. The technical success rate was 97.5% (95% CI: 0.953-0.991); the intraoperative endoleak rate was 0.1% (95% CI: 0.000-0.012); the intraoperative LSA patency rate was 99.52%; the intraoperative LSA stent deformation and stenosis rate was 0.15% (95% CI: 0.000-0.051); the early type I endoleak rate was 1.6% (95% CI: 0.003-0.035); the 30-day mortality rate was 0.96%; the early reintervention rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.000-0.040); and the perioperative stroke rate was 0% (95% CI: 0.000-0.005). The 1-year survival rate was 99.7% (95% CI: 0.976-1.000). The half-year LSA patency rate was 99.3%, the 1-year LSA patency rate was 97.58%, and the 2-year LSA patency rate was 95.23%. During the follow-up period, the leakage rate was 0.3% (95% CI: 0.000-0.017), the incidence of left upper extremity ischemia rate was 0.5% (95% CI: 0.000-0.035), and the deformation and stenosis rate of the LSA stent was 2.2% (95% CI: 0.06-0.046).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection using the Castor stent-graft may be technically feasible and effective. However, this conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution, as the quality of evidence for all outcomes is between low and very low.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022322146].

Hybrid and endovascular approaches to the aortic arch

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch remains open total arch replacement. High-risk operative candidates may benefit from hybrid or completely endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some are fenestrated or scalloped, whereas others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Initial results for completely endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging. Current data estimates that rates of successful deployment of arch endografts ranges from 84.2% to 100%, whereas operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%.

SUMMARY

More data are necessary to compare hybrid and endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch to conventional open total arch replacement. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. However, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in high-risk patients with complex aneurysms and dissections of the aortic arch.

Protocol for Guo's aortIc Arch recoNstrucTion: a prospective, multicentre and single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the WeFlow-Arch modular inner branch stent-graft system for aortic arch lesions (GIANT study)

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of the entire aortic arch provides treatment opportunities for patients with aortic arch lesions who are intolerant to open surgery. However, the complex anatomical configuration, high-speed blood flow and long access from the femoral artery increase the difficulty of endovascular aortic arch repair. On the basis of our earlier studies, a new modular inner branch stent-graft system was developed specifically for lesions located in the aortic arch and part of the ascending aorta. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system in patients with aortic arch lesions who are unsuitable for open aortic arch replacement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective, multicentre, single-arm, clinical trial will enrol 80 patients with aortic arch lesions requiring intervention, namely, true aortic arch aneurysms, pseudo-aortic arch aneurysms and penetrating ulcers involving the aortic arch. Clinical information and CT angiography (CTA) images will be collected and analysed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the novel modular branch stent-graft system. Patients will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality and severe stroke within 12 months after the procedure. In addition, this trial will evaluate mid-term to long-term clinical and imaging outcomes through the annual clinical and CTA follow-up for 2-5 years postoperatively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We have registered the study on a registry website (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, physician newsletters, conferences and the mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04765592.

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.

Midterm clinical outcome of a case of aortic arch aneurysm treated with a novel arch stentgraft system

INTRODUCTION

Open surgery is the gold standard treatment for aortic arch disease. However, due to its complexity, open arch replacement is associated with considerable risk of mortality and morbidity.

METHOD

We report a case of 70-year-old gentlemen multiple comorbidities and symptomatic 7 cm aortic arch aneurysm who was treated with a single-stage carotid-carotid and left carotied-axillary bypass followed by zone 0 aortic arch stenting with bimodular Nexus™ stend graft.

RESULTS

Post-operatively, the patient suffered from a minor stroke with full neuruyological recovery. Follow-up computed tomography of the aorta 3 years post-stenting showed excellent stent position with no endoleak and complete resolution of the saccular aneurysm.

DISCUSSION

The midterm result of our patient who was successfully treated with an off-the-shelf single branch, bimodular stent graft system is excellent with complete resolution of the arch saccular aneurysm at 3-year after the operation.

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

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endovascular Solutions for Aortic Arch Diseases: Total and Hybrid

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