Zone 2 hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Is it a good option for all types of thoracic aortic disease?

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts, at least 3-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total aortic arch repair with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic arch repair combined with a homemade double-fenestrated stent graft from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

74 patients were treated for pathological arch conditions with a double-fenestrated PMEG. Of these, 81% were male, the mean age was 69.9 years, and 59% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiology 3 or 4. Thirty-five percent were treated for a postdissection aneurysm, 36% for a degenerative aneurysm, and 14% for acute type B dissection. Fifteen percent had supra-aortic trunk dissection. Fenestration on the subclavian artery was performed in 96%; if not, a carotid-subclavian bypass was carried out. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone is consistently in zone 0. Early outcomes revealed a 3% occurrence of type 1 endoleak, which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. One retrograde dissection occurred, and one patient died from hemorrhage on an iliac conduit. A 5% stroke rate was reported. During long-term follow-up (mean time 40.7 months), one type 1 endoleak appeared and was successfully treated; no type 2 or type 3 endoleak requiring intervention occurred. No stent fractures or migrations were reported. Four percent of patients required reintervention, but no surgical conversion to open surgical repair was needed on the aortic arch. No patient died from a cause related to the main procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for the main aortic pathologies. Moreover, it is easily available for emergency situations.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of carotid-left subclavian bypass graft infection complicated with mitral valve aneurysm and perforation following hybrid TEVAR: A case report

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been proved to be an effective and reliable treatment option for aortic arch diseases requiring extension of the proximal landing zone. However, hybrid TEVAR was associated with potential risk of post-operative complications, including cerebral infarction, endoleaks and paraplegia. Here we reported a rare case of bypass graft infection complicated with mitral valve aneurysm and perforation following landing zone 2 hybrid TEVAR procedure, who presented with symptoms of fever, major bleeding and anastomotic pseudoaneurysm and received emergency bypass graft removal and stent implantation with acceptable short and midterm follow-up results.

Zone 2 Aortic Arch Repair With Single-Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endografts, at Least 3 Years of Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to report the efficiency and safety of single-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in zone 2 aortic arch pathologies with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic repair combined with homemade single-fenestrated stent-graft from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed. The patients with a target vessel different from the left subclavian artery (LSA) were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were treated for a pathological arch in zone 2 with a single-fenestrated PMEG. 73% were male, and the mean age was 65 years old. 25% were treated for a degenerative aneurysm, 19% for a post dissection aneurysm and 24% for an acute type B dissection. 52% of the patients were treated as an emergency and half of those for an aortic rupture. The LSA fenestration was stented in 70%. During 30 days of follow-up, 2 strokes (3%) were reported, 6 patients (10%) died with 4 of those treated for aortic rupture and 1 had a retrograde aortic dissection. During at least 3 years of follow-up (median 49 months), no reintervention was needed for endoleaks, there was no stent fracture or stent migration. No patient died from an aortic cause. Subgroup analysis comparing the endovascular treatment for various aortic pathologies did not find significant differences in death rate or comorbidity including stroke. When comparing emergent and elective aortic repair, operating time was similar (64 vs 65 minutes), and the LSA fenestration was less frequently stented (52%) in the emergency group. There was no difference in stroke frequency. There was a higher rate of death in the emergency group at 30 days of follow-up, but no patient died from aortic cause in the long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch repair with single-fenestrated PMEGs for zone 2 pathological arch disease is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for emergency situations.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Single-fenestrated PMEG for the left subclavian artery is a safe and efficient option in the short and medium term for the treatment of the aortic arch in zone 2 with 98% technical success. It allows for aortic repair and subclavian artery revascularization in a single step for all patients. It is suitable for a range of main pathologies, including degenerative, dissection-related, isthmus rupture, and embolic pathologies. Additionally, it is always available and easily utilized in emergency cases.