Hybrid versus in vitro fenestration for preserving the left subclavian artery in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair with unfavorable proximal landing zone

Comparison of surgical and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic aortic endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Mid-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Hybrid Procedures to Treat Complex Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

To compare the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies with an unfavorable proximal landing zone, and analyze the different indications of the 2 methods.

METHODS

We collected the clinical data from 59 patients with complex aortic arch pathologies who underwent endovascular or hybrid surgery from March 2018 to April 2020 at a single center. Among the patients, 45 were treated by branched or fenestrated surgery and 14 by hybrid surgery. The clinical data of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results were retrospectively analyzed and compared. The main study indexes were the branch patency rate and endoleakage rate during the follow-up period. The secondary study indexes included the operation success rate, operative time, hospital expenses, complication incidence, freedom from reintervention rate, mortality, etc.

RESULTS

The operation success rate of all the groups was 100%. The hospital expenses of the hybrid group were lower than those of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The operative time of the hybrid group was longer than that of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The incidence of anatomic variants in the hybrid group was 28.6%, which was significantly higher than that in the endovascular group (2.2%, p=0.011). However, there were no significant differences in operative bleeding, ventilator use duration, and treatment time in intensive care units between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Follow-up was conducted for a period of 12 to 34 months. Four patients of the hybrid group experienced numbness of the upper limb (28.57%); the proportion was higher than the endovascular group (0%, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of endoleaks, retrograde aortic dissection, target lesion, secondary operation, branch patency rate, paraplegia, cerebral apoplexy, renal failure, or other complications in either group (p>0.05). The mortality of the endovascular group was 6.67% (3/45). Overall cumulative survival at 1 year was 100% in the hybrid group and 93.3% in the endovascular group. There was no statistical difference in the increase of the true lumen between the 2 groups for vascular remodeling (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The hybrid surgery costs less and proves more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch. The endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.

Comparison of techniques for left subclavian artery preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of both endovascular and surgical revascularization

Background

Currently, the optimal technique to revascularize the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. Our study seeks to characterize early and late clinical results and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endovascular vs. surgical strategies for the preservation of LSA.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library searches were conducted under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses) standards. Only literature published after January 1994 was included. Studies reporting on endovascular revascularization (ER), surgical revascularization (SR) for LSA preservation were included. 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, restenosis rates, and rates of early and late reintervention are measured as outcomes.

Results

A total of 28 studies involving 2,759 patients were reviewed. All articles were retrospective in design. Single-arm analysis found no significant statistical differences in ER vs. SR in terms of 30-day mortality and perioperative complication rates. The mean follow-up time for the ER cohort was 12.9 months and for the SR cohort was 26.6 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed a higher risk of perioperative stroke (4.2%) and endoleaks (14.2%) with the chimney technique compared to the fenestrated and single-branched stent approaches. Analysis of the double-arm studies did not yield statistically significant results.

Conclusion

Both ER and SR are safe and feasible in the preservation of LSA while achieving an adequate proximal landing zone. Among ER strategies, the chimney technique may presents a greater risk of neurological complications and endoleaks, while the single-branched stent grafts demonstrate the lowest complication rate, and the fenestration method for revascularization lies in an intermediate position. Given that the data quality of the included studies were relatively not satisfactory, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to provide convincing evidence for optimal approaches to LSA revascularization in the future.