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

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.

Complete Endovascular Reconstruction of the Canine Ascending Aorta, Aortic Arch, and Supra-Aortic Vessels by Implanting a New Unibody Outer Double-Branched Stent-Graft

PURPOSE

We evaluated the feasibility and safety of using a new unibody outer double-branched stent-graft system to reconstruct the canine ascending aorta, aortic arch, and supra-aortic vessels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The outer-branched stent-graft was a unibody design. The branched stent-graft consisted of a main stent-graft and 2 branches. The introducer system included a tri-channel catheter, 2 detachable sleeves, a front fixing device, a constraining wire, and a curved outer sheath. The branched stent-graft was loaded into the introducer system. Ten adult mongrel dogs underwent general anesthesia, and the branched stent-grafts were deployed into the canine ascending aorta, aortic arch, and supra-aortic vessels by the introducer system. All animals were followed up for 3 months. At the end of the follow-up period, computed tomographic angiography (CTA) was performed to observe the patency of the branched stent-grafts.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 142.7±13.7 minutes. The mean fluoroscopy time was 20.73±2.22 minutes. The mean dosage of contrast agent was 95.9±8.7 mL. During the operation, the tri-channel catheters successfully paralleled the wires in the aorta. All 10 branched stent-grafts were successfully implanted into the canine ascending aorta and aortic arch. There were no symptoms of cerebral embolization and no incision infection during the follow-up period. Computed tomographic angiography and specimens showed that the branched stent-grafts and native vessels were patent, the inner surfaces of the branched stent-grafts were covered by neointima, and there was no retrograde aortic dissection in the ascending aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

This animal research demonstrated that the unibody outer double-branched stent-graft system could be applied to reconstruct the canine ascending aorta, aortic arch, and supra-aortic vessels.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has been the main treatment method for aortic aneurysms or dissections involving the descending thoracic aorta. However, the aortic arch and ascending aorta remain the last segments of the aorta without a validated and routinely used endovascular option. In this research, we designed a new unibody outer branched stent-graft system to reconstruct the distal ascending aorta, aortic arch and supra-aortic vessels. The unibody outer branched stent-graft system could be applied to treat aortic pathologies which involve the middle and distal proximal ascending aorta, aortic arch and proximal descending aorta.

Sex Related Anatomical Differences in Patients With Aortic Arch Pathology and Their Impact on the Feasibility of Double and Triple Branched Endografts

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sex based differences in ascending aorta and arch anatomy in patients with underlying proximal aortic disease and to evaluate their impact on feasibility for total endovascular repair with custom made, branched arch devices.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross sectional review of all patients undergoing open and or total endovascular arch repair due to distal ascending aorta and or aortic arch pathologies in a single high volume aortic centre between 2012 and 2022. Anatomical ascending aorta and aortic arch parameters were analysed on a flow centreline on a dedicated 3D workstation. Sex related differences of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and supra-aortic vessels were evaluated. Subsequently, four endovascular devices were assessed for feasibility: double and triple branched devices both for the Zenith (Cook Medical) and Relay (Terumo Aortic) platforms, first in accordance with the instructions for use and then considering the possibility of adjunctive cervical debranching. The primary endpoints were sex specific differences in aortic anatomy, while secondary endpoints included sex based feasibility of branched endograft devices.

RESULTS

During the study period, 395 patients underwent total aortic arch repair, of whom 152 (51 female, 33.5%) had high quality computed tomography angiograms available and were included in the study. Female patients had a shorter proximal landing zone than males (22 mm vs. 47 mm; p < .001). Left subclavian artery dissection was more frequent in men (24.8% vs. 3.9%; p < .001). Other anatomical parameters showed a similar distribution between sexes. Female patients presented a lower feasibility for double branched devices (35.3% vs. 58.4%; p = .015) as well as a tendency for lower feasibility rates for triple branched devices (31.4% vs. 47.5%; p = .081).

CONCLUSION

Although most ascending aortic and arch parameters showed similar trends in both sexes, the availability of a suitable proximal landing zone was lower in female patients. Consequently, female patients had lower feasibility rates for double arch branched endografts and, to lesser extent, for triple arch branched endografts.

Endovascular Repair With Triple Inner-Branch Endograft for Aberrant Subclavian Artery Aneurysm: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) is the preferred option for the treatment of the distal arch and descending thoracic aorta. Fenestrated and branched TEVAR have become an option to treat pathologies of the aortic arch, avoiding sternotomy and cardiopulmonary arrest as well as total surgical debranching. We describe here the case of a symptomatic patient with an arteria lusoria aneurysm associated with Kommerel diverticulum who underwent total endovascular repair with a triple-branched TEVAR.

CASE REPORT

A 66-year-old male patient was treated for a symptomatic arteria lusoria artery associated with a Kommerel diverticulum, resulting in difficulty swallowing and choking. We used a custom-made triple inner-branch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) following implantation of a right-sided carotid-subclavian (C-S) bypass. The C-S bypass occluded in the interval time between the 2 procedures and required recanalization and stent-graft placement during the aortic arch procedure. The arteria lusoria was embolized with a vascular plug. No complications occurred and postoperative tomography showed exclusion and thrombosis of the Kommerel diverticulum and perfusion of the supra-aortic vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of arteria lusoria aneurysms can be performed with total endovascular arch inner-branch repair, avoiding increased risk of morbidity and mortality caused by open or hybrid procedures.

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.

Ascending Aorta Nose-Cone Loop Technique as Bail Out for Precise Branched Endovascular Aortic Arch Endograft Delivery Without Valve Re-Crossing

PURPOSE

To describe a right carotid-femoral through-and-through (T&T) guidewire technique during branched thoracic endovascular aortic arch repair (B-TEVAR) to facilitate endograft delivery in a very tortuous aortic anatomy for a type Ia endoleak (EL) of a previous aortic endograft implantation.

TECHNIQUE

AT&T guidewire was established between the right common carotid artery and the right common femoral artery to facilitate a difficult endograft delivery. Once in the aortic arch, a loop in the ascending aorta was formed to allow the endograft to reach the desired position without losing tension on the guidewire. This maneuver allowed the T&T guidewire to be kept in place until the desired position was reached. The nose-tip of the endograft was curved over the looped guidewire pointing toward the innominate artery without crossing the valve. After endograft deployment, the T&T guidewire was released, and the branches were bridged in a standard fashion. Completion angiography documented correct deployment of the endograft and no sign of type I/III EL. The 1-month computed tomography angiography confirmed the correct deployment.

CONCLUSION

Carotid-femoral T&T guidewire to facilitate endograft delivery in difficult anatomies can be feasible even in B-TEVAR. Possible bailout maneuvers are available if the aortic valve needs to be crossed after endograft delivery.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. A through-and-through (T&T) guidewire for endovascular arch repair with a landing zone in zone 0 according to Ishimaru is usually performed through the externalization of the femoral guidewire through a transapical access, but this may not always be feasible in frail patients. A right carotid-femoral though-and-through guidewire with a loop formation in the ascending aorta is proposed to achieve the support of a T&T wire to pass tortuous aortoiliac anatomies and access the ascending aorta without the need for aortic valve crossing.

Endovascular arch repair of anastomotic aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm in patients after open repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch: a case series

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate the outcomes of branched endovascular arch repair (b-TEVAR) with a custom-made double- or triple-branched arch endograft in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients with anastomotic aneurysms after open surgical repair involving the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch treated with b-TEVAR. All patients were treated with a custom-made double or triple inner-branched arch endograft. Study end points were technical success, 30-day and follow-up mortality/morbidity and re-interventions.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 10 patients were treated with custom-made double- or triple-branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending aorta and/or proximal aortic arch replacement. Eight patients received a triple and 2 a double arch-branched endograft. Eight cases were performed electively and 2 urgently for contained rupture. Technical success was achieved in 9 cases (90%). All elective patients survived. Two patients treated due to contained ruptures expired. Within 30 postoperative days, 1 transient ischaemic attack occurred. No early endograft-related re-interventions were necessary. The median follow-up was 20 months. One patient died 2 months after discharge due to sepsis caused by pneumonia. No further deaths or endograft-related re-interventions were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch repair with double or triple inner-branched arch endograft for anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending and/or proximal arch replacement is technically feasible and a promising alternative in a patient cohort unfit for surgery.

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.

Common Designs of Custom-Made Fenestrated Arch Devices and Applicability of an Off-the-Shelf Design

OBJECTIVES

To analyze device designs, similarities and overlaps of custom-made fenestrated arch endografts intended for mid/distal arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study analyzing custom-made anonymized graft plans was performed. Graft plans were included from a cohort of mid/distal aortic arch repairs using custom-made fenestrated aortic endografts treated at 8 centers. Grafts targeting >2 arteries were excluded. No patient/clinical data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed followed by an analysis of overlap of the designs to reach a common design in which the greatest number of grafts would overlap.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one graft plans were included. All grafts were custom-made grafts from the COOK Medical Fenestrated arch platform. Ninety-four (71.8%) had a scallop-and-single-fenestration design, 33 (25.2%) had a single fenestration and 4 (4.3%) a single scallop. For analysis purposes, these latter 4 grafts were excluded. Two main graft plans (Plans 1 and 2) were proposed after analysis with similar configuration (1 scallop with 30 mm width, 20 mm height, 12:00 position; 1 preloaded fenestration with 8 mm diameter, 26 mm from the top of the graft and 12:00 position; tapered, with a 193 mm length and 32 mm distal diameter) but with 2 different proximal diameters of 38 mm (Plan 1) and 44 mm (Plan 2), reaching an overall feasibility of 85.8% (n=109), being 47.2% (n=60) and 38.6% (n=49) for each design, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) graft designs was high. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In a multicenter study analyzing 127 fenestrated aortic arch endograft plans from 9 aortic centers, we found that the degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped arch graft designs was high and that 2 proposed graft designs would be theoretically applicable in 85.8% of cases. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

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 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.

A canine model of aortic arch aneurysm created with autologous pericardium

Background

To establish a canine model of aortic arch aneurysm that is suitable for research on new devices and techniques applied to the aortic arch.

Materials and methods

Fifteen mongrel dogs underwent surgery. The autologous pericardial patch was sewn on the aortotomy site in the anterior wall of the aortic arch. The animals were followed up for 3 months postoperatively. Computed tomography angiography was used to visualize and measure the aneurysm model. Hematoxylin and eosin staining was used to observe the histological characteristics of the aneurysm model. Changes in aneurysm diameter over time were analyzed using analysis of variance.

Results

One dog died of hemorrhage during surgery. Fourteen dogs survived the surgical procedure. Two of them died on the first postoperative day because of ruptures at the suturing margin. The diameter of the aneurysm model was twice as large as that of the aortic arch. There was no significant change in the maximum diameter of the aneurysm model during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

We established a controllable and stable aortic arch aneurysm model created with an autologous pericardium patch. The aneurysm model can be used to research endoleaks after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and new endovascular techniques can be applied to the aortic arch.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

CT of Postoperative Repair of the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch

While many of the classic open surgical repairs are still used to repair the ascending aorta, management of the aortic arch has become more complex via implementation of newer open surgical and endovascular techniques. Furthermore, techniques are often combined in novel repairs or to allow extended anatomic coverage. As such, a framework that rests on understanding the expected postoperative appearance is necessary for the diagnostic radiologist to best interpret CT studies in these patients. After reviewing the imaging appearances of the common components used in proximal aortic repair, the authors present a structured approach that focuses on the key relevant questions that diagnostic radiologists should consider when interpreting CT studies in these patients. For repair of the ascending aorta, this includes determining whether the aortic valve has been repaired, whether the sinuses of Valsalva have been repaired, and how the coronary arteries were managed, when necessary. In repairs that involve the aortic arch, the relevant considerations relate to management of the arch vessels and the distal extent of the repair. In focusing on these questions, the diagnostic radiologist will be able to identify and describe the vast majority of repairs. Understanding these questions will also facilitate improved understanding of novel repairs, which often use these basic building blocks. Finally, complications-which typically involve infection, noninfectious repair breakdown, hemorrhage, problems with endografts, or disease of the remaining adjacent aorta-will be identifiable as deviations from the expected postoperative appearance. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

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.

Systematic Review on the Use of Physician-Modified Endografts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Diseases

BACKGROUND

The total endovascular approach is in current evolution, and many series have described variable outcomes for branched technology, chimney techniques, or fenestrated repair; and even a combination of some of them. We aim to describe the current outcomes on physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for this systematic review. The search was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used the following search terms in all possible combinations: home-made, physician-modified, surgeon-modified, on-table modification, hand-made, endograft, endovascular, aortic arch, and TEVAR: a thorough search of the English-language literature published until March 2020 was performed to identify studies using physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases. Only studies with treatment of 3 patients or more and with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were enrolled in the systematic review, whereas case reports were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Six articles participated in the systematic review after the exclusions, including a total of 239 patients for analysis. Four high-volume centers provided data including a high rate of single fenestrations in zone 2, accounting for nearly 70% of the cases. About 80.3% were males, and 67.4% received urgent treatment mainly for acute/subacute dissection (64.4%). Thoracic aortic aneurysm and/or postdissection arch aneurysm was the second leading cause of treatment with 25.9%. There was a technical success of 93.7% reaching up to 98.3% when additional procedures were performed. The 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, paraplegia, and stent-induced new entry rates were 2.9%, 2.1%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively; whereas, overall mortality of the study was 4.6% at a mean follow-up of 33.2 ± 14.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Endograft modification for aortic arch diseases' treatment demonstrates to be safe and highly effective, especially for aortic dissections needing single zone 2 fenestrations. Although outcomes achieved in the study seem encouraging, these are achieved at high-volume experienced centers, thus, they need to be judiciously evaluated, whereas proctoring may be a good alternative if one patient may benefit from the technique in an unexperienced center.