Endoanchor stenting for the repair of a Type I endoleak in the aortic arch following the endovascular repair of a Kommerrell's diverticulum

Alternative management of proximal aortic dissection: concept and application

Open surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for acute type A aortic dissection and should be offered to most patients. However, there are elderly patients in which surgical treatment may be deemed extremely high risk or futile. Endovascular treatment approaches have been applied to a small number of these patients and data are limited to case reports and small series. The application of endovascular therapies to ascending aorta is currently limited by anatomical and technical challenges posed by the dynamic motion of the ascending aorta and the proximity of vital structures to intended landing zones (aortic valve, coronary arteries, and supra-aortic branches) and lack of specially designed endografts to address these issues. While thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has replaced open aortic repair for a suitable lesion in distal aortic dissection, some selected patients with type A aortic dissection at high surgical may be candidates. Hence, there is potential because, in proximal (Stanford type A) dissections, 10–30% of patients are not accepted for surgery, and 30–50% are technically amenable for TEVAR. Recent experience has shown that carefully selected patients with favorable anatomical characteristics may be subject to endovascular stent-graft treatment as a last resort with mixed results. Technical improvement is necessary to offer. satisfactory endovascular options in non-surgical candidates.

Secondary Endoleak Management Following TEVAR and EVAR

Endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysm repair and are widely used to treat increasingly complex aneurysms. Secondary endoleaks, defined as those detected more than 30 days after the procedure and after previous negative imaging, remain a challenge for aortic specialists, conferring a need for long-term surveillance and reintervention. Endoleaks are classified on the basis of their anatomic site and aetiology. Type 1 and type 2 endoleaks (EL1 and EL2) are the most common endoleaks necessitating intervention. The management of these requires an understanding of their mechanics, and the risk of sac enlargement and rupture due to increased sac pressure. Endovascular techniques are the main treatment approach to manage secondary endoleaks. However, surgery should be considered where endovascular treatments fail to arrest aneurysm growth. This chapter reviews the aetiology, significance, management strategy and techniques for different endoleak types.

Evaluation of EndoAnchor Aortic Wall Penetration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.