"First in Man" Total Percutaneous Aortic Arch Repair With 3-Inner-branch Endografts: A Report of Two Cases

Technical Aspects of Exclusive Transfemoral Route for Total Endovascular Arch Repair: A Custom-Made Device With Only Upward-Facing Inner Branches for Aortic Arch Treatment

PURPOSE

The purpose was to demonstrate a new arch endograft configuration to allow total endovascular aortic arch repair exclusive from transfemoral approach.

TECHNIQUE

The custom-made multi-branched arch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) features 3 inner branches (IBs) for supra-aortic vessels incorporation and complete endovascular arch repair. Traditionally, the innominate and left carotid branches are anterograde IBs, requiring upper access for incorporation of these vessels, and the left subclavian branch is an upward-facing IB that can be incorporated from transfemoral access. We report a novel device configuration with only upward-facing IBs, allowing exclusive transfemoral route for total endovascular arch repair. Technical aspects, implantation technique, and limitations are described thoroughly.

CONCLUSION

Herein is described an arch endograft configuration that simplifies endovascular aortic arch repair, allowing supra-aortic vessel incorporation through a transfemoral route only. This innovative design may serve as another alternative in selected patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This innovative endograft design, with only upward-facing inner branches, simplifies the total endovascular aortic arch repair by allowing for a exclusively transfemoral approach. This may reduce procedural complexity and minimizes risks associated with multiple access points. It provides another alternative, particularly beneficial for selected high-risk patients for open repair, potentially expanding the applicability of endovascular treatments for aortic arch pathologies.

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.

Total Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair With a Triple Inner-Branch Device (the Innominate Approach)

PURPOSE

To describe a completely percutaneous approach for endovascular arch repair (arch-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair [PEVAR]) with a triple inner-branch device: the "Innominate Approach."

TECHNIQUE

After right axillary and single common femoral arteries percutaneous access, the arch stent-graft is introduced and deployed transfemorally using fusion overlay. The brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the corresponding inner branch are cannulated from the axillary access. Through this access, a steerable-sheath guides antegrade cannulation of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) through its inner branch. Optionally, a wire preloaded through the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the LCCA branch, is snared from the BCA access providing LCCA through and through access. A 10 Fr sheath is then positioned from the BCA branch in the LCCA branch and a second, trans-axillary wire through the same sheath is used to catheterize the LCCA. The LCCA is then stented antegradely (regardless of approach). Finally, the BCA and LSA are bridged to complete the procedure. An additional novelty described is the use of VBX (W. L. Gore) as a bridging stent for the BCA.

CONCLUSION

Arch-PEVAR is feasible with the use of adjuncts that are well-known for physicians performing complex endovascular repair. The "Innominate Approach" avoids access and exposure of the carotid arteries.

CLINICAL IMPACT

We aim to describe the feasibility of the axillary artery as the main route to perform the brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the left common carotid artery bridging stenting in case of arch endovascular repair (arch-EVAR) with a triple Inner-Branch Device. According to the present "Innominate Approach", percutaneous arch-EVAR is feasible using either a steerable sheath or a preloaded through-&-through wire. The Innominate approach, including a VBX bridging stent for the BCA, avoids carotid access and exposure, reduces the number of vascular accesses, and allows the downsizing of the trans-axillary devices.

The Call for the "Interventional/Hybrid" Aortic Surgeon: Open, Endovascular, and Hybrid Therapies of the Aortic Arch

Aortic arch pathology is relatively rare but potentially highly fatal and associated with considerable comorbidity. Operative mortality and complication rates have improved over time but remain high. In response, aortic arch surgery is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of cardiac surgery in terms of surgical volume and improved outcomes. Moreover, there has been a surge in novel devices and techniques, many of which have been developed by or codeveloped with vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Nevertheless, the extent of arch surgery, the choice of nadir temperature, cannulation, and perfusion strategies, and the use of open, endovascular, or hybrid options vary according to country, centre, and surgeon. In this review article, we provide a technical overview of the surgical, total endovascular, and hybrid repair options for aortic arch pathology through historical developments and contemporary results. We highlight key information for surgeons, cardiologists, and trainees to understand the management of patients with aortic arch pathology. We conclude by discussing training paradigms, the role of aortic teams, and gaps in knowledge, arguing for the need for wire skills for the future "interventional aortic surgeon" and increased research into techniques and novel devices to continue improving outcomes for aortic arch surgery.

Anatomical suitability for branched endovascular aortic arch repair and balloon-expandable bridging stent grafts in a cohort of patients previously treated with a hybrid approach

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the suitability of two triple branch arch devices (aBranch) (Terumo aortic and Cook Medical) and a balloon-expandable covered stent (VBX, W. L. Gore & Associates, Johnson & Johnson) to incorporate the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) in a cohort previously treated with hybrid thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective, all-comers, preclinical suitability study. We conducted an analysis of preoperative computed tomography scans in surgical patients between 1999 and 2022 in a single vascular surgery unit. The primary outcome was the aortic suitability of aBranch devices and VBX as mating stent for BCT in previous hybrid TEVAR. Hybrid repair of the aortic arch included TEVAR, fenestrated or branched TEVAR associated with any surgical debranching of the supra-aortic trunks and chimney TEVAR with proximal landing in zones 0 to 2. Secondary outcomes included (i) suitability assessment when excluding minor instruction for use (IFU) criteria, (ii) a comparison of suitable and nonsuitable patients, (iii) risk factors analysis for nonsuitability, and (iv) a description of the exclusion causes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 120 patients were treated. Among elective patients (n = 73), the suitability of any aBranch was 82.2% (60/73) and VBX was suitable in 64.4% of BCTs (47/73). The aBranch suitable patients had a significantly longer sinotubular-BCT length (P = .017) and smaller distal ascending aorta (P = .043) as compared with nonsuitable ones. The suitability of Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical devices was 52.1% (38/73) and 46.6% (34/73), respectively. When minor IFU criteria were ignored, suitability increased to 82.2% (60/73) and 63.0% (46/73), respectively. Left common carotid artery diameter and sinotubular-BCT length were significant nonsuitability risk factors for Terumo Aortic aBranch in multivariable analysis. No associations were found for Cook Medical device. The outcomes were tested in the entire cohort demonstrating a global suitability of 82.9%, increasing to 86.3% when ignoring minor IFUs. VBX was anatomically suitable to use in BCT in 73.2% of patient BCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

aBranch devices are anatomically suitable in a vast majority of patients (86%) undergoing hybrid TEVAR. The innominate artery seems eligible for incorporation with VBX in almost two-thirds of patients. This mating stent may help to overcome some minor IFU restrictions.

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.

Emergent Total Endovascular Arch Repair for Contained Aortic Arch Rupture: Another Tool in the Box

To date, emergent total endovascular aortic arch repair has not been described in the literature. We present a 67-year-old female with a poorly differentiated posterior mediastinal sarcoma. Imaging obtained was concerning for intravascular extension of the tumor into the thoracic aorta. While awaiting radiation therapy, the patient complained of worsening chest and arm pain, vital signs demonstrating tachypnea and hypoxia. Subsequent imaging revealed an increase in vascular erosion, concerning for a contained rupture, with complete obliteration of the left mainstem bronchus. The patient was emergently taken for percutaneous endovascular repair of her aortic arch. A three-vessel physician modified fenestrated graft was created and deployed with concurrent stenting of the innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries. Interval computed tomography angiography revealed patency in all stented vessels, with no endoleak and no evidence of pseudoaneurysm. The patient was able to undergo chemotherapy with favorable decrease in tumor burden. Total endovascular aortic arch repair, when planned carefully, is an attractive option in high-risk patients who are otherwise not ideally suited for open total arch replacement.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Access to the First Versus Third Segment of Axillary Artery During Aortic Procedures

PURPOSE

This article aims at investigating the outcomes of percutaneous access via the first versus third axillary artery (AXA) segments with closure devices during aortic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients receiving percutaneous AXA access closed with Perclose ProGlide device (Abbott, Santa Clara, California) from 2008 to 2021 were included in a retrospective multicenter registry (NCT: 04589962). Efficacy endpoint was the technically successful percutaneous procedure (no open conversion). Safety endpoints were stroke and access complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 reporting standards. The first (AXA1) or third (AXA3) axillary puncture sites were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 412 percutaneous AXA accesses were included: 172 (42%) in AXA1 and 240 (58%) in AXA3. Left AXA was catheterized in 363 cases (76% of AXA1 vs 97% of AXA3, p<0.001) and 91% of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair (F/BEVAR) procedures were conducted from the left. A ≥12F internal diameter (ID) sheath was used in 49% of procedures. Open conversion rate was 1%, no major vascular complications occurred, and only one major non-vascular complication was recorded. Primary closure failure occurred in 18 AXA1 (11%) and 32 AXA3 accesses (13%), treated by covered (8.3%) or bare-metal (2.7%) stenting. Bailout stent patency was 100% at median follow-up of 12 months, with 6 of 6 stents still patent after >36 months of follow-up. Stroke rate was 4.4%. An introducer sheath >12F was independently associated with both access complications (p<0.001) and stroke (p=0.005), while a right-side access was associated with stroke only (p=0.034). Even after adjustment for covariates, AXA1 versus AXA3 showed an equal success rate (odds ratio [OR]=0.537, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.011-1.22 for AXA3, p=0.104). The combination of AXA3 and a >10F introducer sheath provided worse outcomes compared with >10F sheaths through AXA1 (OR for success=0.367, 95% CI=0.176-0.767, p=0.008). This was not confirmed for >12F sheaths, associated with similar outcomes (p=0.31 AXA 1 vs AXA 3).

CONCLUSION

Major local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach and ≤12F sheaths are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. Stroke risk remains an issue. First and third AXA segments are both amenable for access with good results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in AXA1.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Percutaneous access with vascular closure devices at the first or third axillary artery (AXA) segments during aortic procedures is burdened by a negligible risk of open conversion. Local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. First and third AXA segments are both amenable to access with excellent results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in the wider first AXA segment. In this setting, bailout stenting does not appear to be associated with mid-term stent occlusion.

Early Outcomes on Triple-Branch Arch Device With Retrograde Left Common Carotid Branch: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic arch repair using multibranch devices has been applied in patients considered at high risk for open repair. The aim of this case series was to report the early outcomes in patients managed with a new design 3 branch arch custom-made device, including a retrograde left common carotid artery (LCCA) branch.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Of CaSe Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were followed. All consecutive patients undergoing endovascular repair of an aortic arch lesion with a custom-made triple-branch device, including a retrograde LCCA branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), between October 27, 2022, and February 28, 2023, were included. The presence of an arch aneurysm (degenerative or post-dissection) with diameter ≥55 mm and high risk for a conventional open repair set the indication for treatment. The primary outcomes were technical success and mortality at 30 days. Early morbidity and reinterventions were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight elective patients (87.5% men, mean age 72.3±27.0 years) were included. Five of them (62.5%) had undergone a previous ascending aorta repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were asymptomatic, except one, with left recurrent laryngeal nerve compression. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 70.4±21.0 mm. Percutaneous femoral and axillary access was used in all cases except three in which a cut down for right carotid access was performed. Technical success was 100%. Femoral access to the LCCA and implantation of the bridging stent was performed without technical challenges. No death nor cerebrovascular event was recorded during the 30 day follow-up. Five patients (62.5%) presented major complications, 3 related to access needing reintervention and the remaining related to congestive heart failure (CHF), which were managed successfully with medical treatment. Follow-up (range 1-4 month) was uneventful, except for one patient who presented a secondary type Ia endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our early experience, the presence of a retrograde branch facilitated the revascularization of the LCCA through femoral access, decreasing the risk of cerebrovascular morbidity. Further analyses with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Data arising mainly from the retrograde branch for the revascularization of the LSA are encouraging from a variety of devices. The premiminary experience with a triple-branched arch device, with a retrograde branche for the LSA but also for the LCCA, was associated with no 30 day mortality and 100% technical success.The device's design allowed swift catheterization and completion of the LCCA revascularization using femoral access exclusively.

The Development of Totally Percutaneous Aortic Arch Repair With Inner-Branch Endografts: Experience From 2 Centers

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to present the experience of 2 centers undertaking total percutaneous aortic arch-branched graft endovascular repair using combination of femoral and axillary routes. The report summarizes the procedural steps, outcomes achieved, and the benefits of this approach, which eliminates the need for direct open surgical exposure of the carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries, thereby reducing the unnecessary associated surgical risks.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected data of 18 consecutive patients (15M:3F) undergoing aortic arch endovascular repair using a branched device between February 2021 and June 2022 at 2 aortic units. Six patients were treated for a residual aortic arch aneurysm following previous type A dissection with size range of (58-67 mm in diameter), 10 were treated for saccular or fusiform degenerative atheromatous aneurysm with size range of (51.5-80 mm in diameter), and 2 were treated for penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) with size range of (50-55 mm). Technical success was defined as completion of the procedure and satisfactory placement of the bridging stent grafts (BSGs) in the supra-aortic vessels percutaneously including the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) without the need for carotid, subclavian, or axillary cut down. The primary technical success was examined as primary outcome well as any other related complications and reinterventions as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary technical success with our alternative approach was achieved in all 18 cases. There was one access site complication (groin haematoma), which was managed conservatively. There was no incidence of death, stroke, or cases of paraplegia. No other immediate complications were noted. Postoperative imaging confirmed supra-aortic branch patency, with satisfactory position of the BSGs and immediate aneurysm exclusion except in 4 patients who had type 1C endoleak (Innominate: 2, LSA 2) detected on the first postoperative scan. Three of them were treated with relining/extension, and 1 spontaneously resolved after 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Total percutaneous aortic arch repair with antegrade and retrograde inner-branch endografts can be performed with promising early results. Dedicated steerable sheaths and appropriate BSG would optimize the percutaneous approach for aortic arch endovascular repairs.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This article provides an alternative and innovative approach to improve the minimally invasive techniques in the endovascular treatment of the aortic arch conditions.

Endovascular Options for the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - A Scoping Review

The gold standard for aneurysmal repair of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has been open surgery with an established track record of good results in suitable patients. In recent years, with innovations in the endovascular field alternative endovascular solutions for pathologies of the aortic arch and ascending aorta became available. At first reserved only for highly selected patients unfit for open surgery, endovascular aortic arch repair is now being offered to patients with suitable anatomy in high volume referral centers after discussion in an interdisciplinary team. The present scoping review aims at providing an overview on indications, available devices, technical aspects and feasibility studies of endovascular arch repair both in elective and emergent situations, including also experiences and considerations from our center.

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices.

METHODS

A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 - 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 - 12.1; p = .026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 9.6; p = .019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 - 20.7; p = .001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 - 9.0; p = .013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 - 13.8; p = .037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 - 31.1; p = .007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure.

Surgical treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

In the present report, we have described the outcomes of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B_{1-2, D}).

METHODS

Cases of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair performed between January 2015 and December 2019 for aortic dissection designated as B_{1-2, D} by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons classification were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at follow-up. The secondary end points included early mortality, early morbidities, and aortic-related late events. Kaplan-Meier curves were created to analyze survival from all-cause mortality and freedom from aortic-related late events in the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups. Propensity score matching and stratification (stratified by proximal dissection extension: B_{1, D} and B_{2, D}) were performed as sensitivity analyses to compare the outcomes among the three treatment patterns after controlling for major confounders.

RESULTS

The present study included 151 patients (men, 79.5%; mean age, 47.3 ± 10.5 years), with 72 (47.7%) in the endovascular group, 46 (30.5%) in the hybrid group, and 33 (21.8%) in the open group. No significant difference was noted in early mortality between the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups (1.4% vs 2.2% vs 3.0%; P = .791). The incidence of early endoleak was significantly greater (33.3% vs 13.0% vs 6.1%; P = .002) and the incidence of renal function deterioration was less (4.2% vs 26.1% vs 24.2%; P = .001) after endovascular repair vs hybrid arch repair and open surgery. After a median follow-up of 40.0 months (range, 0-84.0 months), no significant differences were found in all-cause mortality (5.6% vs 4.3% vs 3.0%; P = 1.0), aortic-related late events (16.7% vs 15.2% vs 12.1%; P = .834), or late endoleak (9.7% vs 4.3% vs 6.1%; P = .630) after endovascular, hybrid, and open surgery. The propensity score matching and stratification analyses displayed consistent outcomes for early mortality, all-cause mortality, and aortic-related late events among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The mid- to long-term outcomes after endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B_{1-2, D}) were favorable and comparable in selected patients. Extensive experience and multidisciplinary teamwork are prerequisites for individualized strategies for repair of B_{1-2, D}.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Cook Triple inner arch branch stent-graft

Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for treatment for aortic arch diseases, but these operations can be associated with wide heterogeneity in outcomes and significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in elderly patients with severe comorbidities or those who had prior arch procedures via median sternotomy. Endovascular repair has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair. The technique evolved with new device designs using up to three inner branches for incorporation of the supra-aortic trunks. This manuscript summarizes technical tips and clinical experience with the triple inner arch branch stent graft for total endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Patient selection and anatomical considerations for zone 0 endovascular aneurysm arch repair

Endovascular aortic arch repair has been widely used in select patients who are considered high risk for open surgical repair and have suitable anatomy. The anatomical challenges of placement of stent-grafts in the ascending aorta are many, including the curved configuration, short landing zone, proximity to the aortic valve and coronary arteries and need to incorporate the supra-aortic trunks. Stent-graft designs with fenestrations and/or directional branches are applicable to patients who have suitable landing zones in the aorta and supra-aortic trunks, adequate access and absence of significant atheromatous debris. These devices include single and multibranch concepts, which are used in combination or not with cervical debranching procedures. This article summarizes the most commonly used anatomical criterion with currently utilized arch branch stent-grafts.

Total Transfemoral Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Inner Branch Stent-Graft

Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. We illustrate total percutaneous transfemoral approach with a 3-vessel inner branch stent-graft to treat aortic arch aneurysm. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

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.