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.

Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

Multicenter global early feasibility study to evaluate total endovascular arch repair using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts for aneurysms and dissections

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts for aneurysms and chronic dissections.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients treated by total endovascular aortic arch repair at eight academic centers using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) from 2016 to 2019. All patients received three-vessel designs with two antegrade and one retrograde inner branch, which was used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches were accessed via a carotid or an upper extremity approach. A preloaded catheter was used for access to the retrograde left subclavian artery branch via a transfemoral approach. The endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events, any stroke (minor or major) or transient ischemia attack, secondary interventions, target vessel patency, target vessel instability, aneurysm-related mortality, and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients (31 men [79%]; mean age, 70 ± 7 years) had undergone treatment of 14 degenerative (36%) and 25 chronic (64%) postdissection arch aneurysms. The clinical characteristics included American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥III in 28 patients (95%) and previous median sternotomy for ascending aortic repair in 28 patients (72%). The technical success rate was 100%. Two patients had died in-hospital or within 30 days (5%), and two patients had experienced a stroke (one minor). The combined mortality and any stroke rate was 8% (n = 3). Major adverse events occurred in 10 patients (26%), including respiratory failure in 4 (10%) and estimated blood loss >1 L, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury in 2 patients each (5%). The median follow-up was 3.2 months (interquartile range, 1-14 months). Of the 39 patients, 12 (31%) required secondary interventions to treat vascular access complications in 5, endoleak in 6 (three type II, one type Ic, one type Ia/Ib, one type IIIa), and target vessel stenosis in 1 patient. At 1 year, the primary and secondary patency rates and freedom from target vessel instability were 95% ± 5%, 100%, and 91% ± 5%, respectively. Freedom from aortic-related mortality and patient survival was 94% ± 4% and 90% ± 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from the present multicenter global experience have demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair for aneurysms and chronic dissections using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts. The mortality and stroke rates compare favorably with those after open surgical repair in a higher risk group of patients. However, the rate of secondary interventions was high (31%), emphasizing need for greater experience and longer follow-up.

Anatomical Suitability of the Aortic Arch Arteries for a 3-Inner-Branch Arch Endograft

PURPOSE

To analyze aortic arch anatomy of patients who were already treated with a 2-inner-branch arch endograft (2-IBAE) in order to assess the anatomical suitability of the supra-aortic arteries as target vessels for a 3-IBAE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three different configurations of the Cook Zenith Arch endograft were designed with distances of 110 mm (model 1), 90 mm (model 2), and 70 mm (model 3) between the orifices of the first and third inner branches. Preoperative measurements of the aortic arch anatomy from 104 consecutive patients treated electively with custom-made 2-IBAEs at 2 European centers between 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. A previously described standard methodology with a planning sheet was used. Data and measurements included the treatment indication for the aortic arch pathology, the type of landing zone, the type of arch, and the inner and outer lengths of the ascending aorta from the sinotubular junction to the innominate artery (IA). Additionally, the diameters and clock positions of the IA, left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) were assessed, along with the distances between the IA and the LCCA, the IA and the LSA, and the distal landing zone.

RESULTS

Type I was the most common arch configuration (75/104, 72%). The mean clock positions were 12:30±00:28 for the IA, 12:00±00:23 for the LCCA, and 12:15±00:29 for the LSA. The mean diameters were 14.2±2.2 mm for the IA, 8.8±1.8 mm for the LCCA, and 10.5±2 mm for the LSA. The mean distances between the IA and LCCA and between the IA and LSA were 14.7±5.8 mm and 33±9.4 mm, respectively. Model 2 (branch distance 90 mm) had the highest suitability (79%), while models 1 and 3 showed suitability rates of 73% and 68%, respectively. The most frequent exclusion criterion in all models was the diameter of the LSA, followed by the IA to LSA distance.

CONCLUSION

The suitability for a 3-IBAE among patients who had a 2-IBAE implanted is high, favoring a 90-mm distance between the retrograde LSA branch and baseline.

Technical Aspects of Branched Thoracic Arch Graft Implantation for Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

To describe the implantation steps and tips and tricks for the Inner Branch Arch Endograft designed to treat aortic arch aneurysm and chronic type A aortic dissection.

TECHNIQUE

Anatomical suitability criteria should be met in order to use this device. The proximal segment of the graft lands in the ascending aorta distally to the sinotubular junction and the distal segment lands in the descending aorta. The device includes 2 inner branches; the proximal branch is used for a connection to the innominate artery (positioned slightly posterior at 12:30 o'clock), while the second branch is positioned slightly anterior at 11:30 o'clock and is used as a connection to the left common carotid artery. Access, implantation technique, deployment of the device, and catheterization of the branches are described thoroughly.

CONCLUSION

This Inner Branch Arch Endograft is an appealing alternative to treat aortic arch pathology, especially in patients unsuitable for open repair. Nevertheless, complex aortic arch repair is associated with a learning curve. Meticulous preoperative planning and a high level of concentration intraoperatively are mandatory.