Zone zero hybrid arch exclusion versus open total arch replacement

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.

Multicenter Comparison of Aortic Arch Aneurysms and Dissections Zone 0 Hybrid and Total Endovascular Repair

PURPOSE

Comparison of hybrid and total endovascular aortic arch repair at two tertiary vascular surgery centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing hybrid (HG) or total endovascular (TEG) total aortic arch repair for aneurysms or dissections were included (2008-2022). Primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were major complications, technical success (defined as absence of surgical conversion/mortality, high-flow endoleaks or branch/limb occlusion), clinical success (defined as absence of disabling clinical sequelae), late and aortic-related mortality/reinterventions, freedom from endoleaks, aortic diameter growth > 5 mm, graft migration and supra-aortic trunks (SAT) patency.

RESULTS

In total, 30 patients were included, 17 in HG and 13 in TEG. TEG presented shorter intervention time (240.5 vs 341 min, p = 0.01), median ICU stay (1 vs 4.5 days, p < 0.01) and median length of stay (8 vs 17.5 days, p < 0.01). No intraoperative deaths occurred. Technical success was 100%; clinical success was 70.6% in HG and 100% in TEG (p = 0.05). Thirty-day mortality was 13.3%, exclusively in HG (p = 0.11). Nine major complications occurred in 8 patients, 5 in HG and 3 in TEG (p = 0.99), among which five strokes, two in HG and three in TEG (p = 0.62). Late mortality was 38.5%, six patients in HG and four in TEG, p = 0.6. Two late aortic-related deaths occurred in HG (p = 0.9). Two aortic-related reinterventions, no graft migration or SAT occlusion was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular repair seems to shorten operative times and provide higher clinical success compared with hybrid solutions, without significant 30-day mortality differences. The most common major complication is stroke.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Total arch replacement versus hybrid operation for aortic arch aneurysm in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort analysis

Background

There is not sufficient evidence of the superiority of hybrid procedures over total arch replacement (TAR) for the aortic arch aneurysm of an elderly patients. This retrospective study aimed to compare total arch replacement and hybrid procedures for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms in patients aged ≥75.

Methods

This study was a multicenter retrospective investigation of peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing aortic arch aneurysm repair using either TAR or hybrid procedures between January 2012 and May 2021. Risk factors for mortality were evaluated using multivariate analyses.

Results

This study included 90 patients, of which 28 underwent hybrid procedures (hybrid group: frozen elephant trunk =9, zone 0 =6, zone 1 =1, zone 2 =12), and 62 underwent TAR (TAR group), and the mean duration of follow-up was 27.0±28.8 months. In patient characteristics, the incidence of chronic obstructive lung disease and chronic kidney disease in the TAR group was significantly higher than in the hybrid group, and other operative risk factors were not significantly different in both groups. No significant differences in the incidence of post-operative complications and mortality on hospitalization. Survival rates of both groups were not significantly different (P=0.31). However, re-intervention rates after aortic arch aneurysm repair were significantly higher in the hybrid group compared to the TAR group (freedom from re-intervention rates at 1, 3, 5 years: 100%, 93%, 93% in the TAR group, and 90%, 80%, 80% in the hybrid group, P=0.04).

Conclusions

There was no definitive evidence of the superiority of hybrid procedures over TAR, although the risk of re-intervention was higher in the former group. The surgical strategy for aortic arch aneurysms should be selected based on the patient's demographic and anatomical characteristics.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Zone 1-Landing Hybrid TEVAR by Comparing Its Outcomes with Those of Zone 2-Landing Hybrid TEVAR

Background: Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) without median sternotomy is increasingly being performed in high-risk patients with aortic arch disease. The outcomes of hybrid TEVAR were reported to be worse with a more proximal landing zone. This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR by comparing the outcomes of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. Methods: From April 2008 to October 2020, 213 patients (zone 1: zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 82, 38.5%; zone 2: zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 131, 61.5%) were enrolled (median age, 72 years; interquartile range [IQR], 65-78 years), with a median follow-up period of 6.0 years (IQR, 2.8-9.7 years). Results: The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 20.9 ± 14.8%: the logistic EuroSCORE of the zone 1 group (23.3 ± 16.1) was significantly higher than that of the zone 2 group (19.3 ± 12.4%, p = 0.045). The operative time and hospital stay of the zone 1 group were significantly longer than those of the zone 2 group. On the other hand, the in-hospital and late outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. There were no significant differences in cumulative survival (66.8% vs. 78.0% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.074), aorta-related death-free rates (97.6% vs. 99.2% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.312), and aortic event-free rates (81.4% vs. 87.9% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.257). Conclusions: Zone 1- and 2-landing hybrid TEVAR outcomes were satisfactory. Despite the high procedural difficulty and surgical risk, the outcomes of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR were equal to those of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. If the surgical risk is high, zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR should not be avoided.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Effectiveness and Minimal-Invasiveness of Zone 0 Landing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Branched Endograft

Background: Zone 0 landing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch diseases has become a topic of interest. This study aimed to verify whether branced TEVAR (bTEVAR) is an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment by comparing the outcomes of bTEVAR and hybrid TEVAR (hTEVAR) in landing zone 0. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included 54 patients (bTEVAR, n = 25; hTEVAR, n = 29; median age, 78 years; median follow-up period, 5.4 years) from October 2012 to June 2018. The logistic Euro-SCORE was significantly higher in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group (38% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Results: There was no significant difference the in-hospital mortality between the bTEVAR and hTEVAR groups (0% vs. 3.4%, p = 1.00). The operative time (220 vs. 279 min, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days, p = 0.013) were significantly shorter in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group. The 7-year free rates of aorta-related deaths (bTEVAR [95.5%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.390) and aortic reintervention (bTEVAR [86.3%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.638) were not significantly different. Conclusions: The early and mid-term outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. bTEVAR might be superior to hTEVAR in that it is less invasive. Therefore, bTEVAR may be considered an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients.

Effectiveness of Proximal Landing Zones 0, 1, and 2 Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single Centre 12 Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is being accepted increasingly as a first line treatment for arch repair at the present authors' institution. This study aimed to clarify the effectiveness of zones 0, 1, and 2 landing hybrid TEVAR.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single centre case series. From April 2008 to March 2020, 348 patients (median age 72 years; interquartile range [IQR] 65, 77 years) were enrolled, with a median follow up period of 5.6 years (IQR 2.6, 8.7 years). The procedures included zone 0 in 135 patients (38.8%), zone 1 in 82 patients (23.6%), and zone 2 proximal landing zone (LZ) hybrid TEVAR in 131 patients (37.6%). The pathologies consisted of dissecting aortic aneurysms in 123 (35.3%) patients. Emergency procedures were performed in 39 (11.2%) patients.

RESULTS

The 30 day mortality (n = 2, 0.6%) and hospital deaths (n = 6, 1.7%) were registered. The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 4), while early and late endoleak rates were 4.8% (n = 17) and 1.7% (n = 6), respectively. Type 1a endoleak and retrograde type A dissection occurred in seven (2.0%) and three (0.9%) patients, respectively. The cumulative survival, freedom from aorta related deaths, and freedom from aortic events in 10 years were 75.0%, 97.2%, and 84.1%, respectively. The freedom from aortic events in each landing zone in 10 years was 82.3%, 81.4%, and 87.9% for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The 10 year survival rates were 82.5% and 73.6%; the 10 year aorta related death free rates were 94.9% and 98.6%, and the 10 year aortic event free rates were 82.3% and 85.5% in the zone 0 and zone 1 and 2 TEVAR, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory early and long term results of hybrid arch repair at zones 0, 1, and 2 were achieved. To avoid complications and aortic events, the treatment strategy of hybrid arch repair for aortic arch pathologies should be tailored using accurate pre-operative assessment of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing

PURPOSE

Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

Long-term results of hybrid aortic arch repair using landing zone 0: a single-centre study

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been gradually extended to the aortic arch region, with improved results. However, the rates of strokes and endoleaks in a hybrid TEVAR remain high. The goal of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing using our treatment strategy.

METHODS

From April 2008 to March 2020, a total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 3.2 years. The procedures included total debranching TEVAR with graft replacement of the ascending aorta in 62 patients, total debranching TEVAR with ascending aorta banding in 19 patients and total debranching TEVAR without ascending aorta banding in 21 patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality and hospital deaths were 1.0% (n = 1) and 3.9% (n = 4), respectively. The rates of aortic complications and endoleaks during the first 30 days postoperatively were 8.8% (n = 9) and 4.9% (n = 5), respectively. There was no type 1a endoleak, whereas retrograde type A dissection occurred in 2 (2.0%) patients. The rate of late aortic events was 3.9% (n = 4); there were no late endoleaks or aneurysm ruptures. The 10-year survival rate was 73.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3-83.8%]. The 10-year rates of aorta-related deaths and aortic events when performing a competitive-risk analysis were 29.4% (95% CI 16.3-42.5%) and 7.2 (95% CI 23.0-51.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory early and long-term results of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing were achieved using our treatment strategy. When performing hybrid TEVAR in zone 0, postoperative aortic events may be reduced by accurate preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta.

Type II hybrid arch repair versus total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk: a propensity score-matched analysis

 

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective outcomes of type II hybrid arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET).

METHODS

Data from 528 patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2017 to June 2019 were collected, which consisted of 175 type II HAR and 353 TAR with FET. The propensity score-matched analysis identified a subgroup of 90 pairs. Perioperative data and mid-term follow-up results were assessed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the composite adverse events (type II HAR, 20.6%, 36/175 vs TAR with FET, 17.8%, 63/353, P = 0.450). Multivariable logistic analysis of the 528 patients showed that the procedure type (type II HAR or TAR with FET) was not associated with composite adverse events, 30-day mortality or stroke. The 3-year survival rates were 84.8% in the type II HAR group and 90.1% in the TAR with FET group (P = 0.12). The 3-year reintervention-free rates in the type II HAR and TAR with FET groups were 98.7% and 96.5% (P = 0.22), respectively. After matching, no significant difference was found in the incidence of composite adverse events or the 3-year survival and reintervention-free rates.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant clinical differences were found in the early and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR and TAR with FET. The long-term outcomes remain to be investigated. Careful patient selection for individualized approaches is the key to taking full advantage of the 2 surgical procedures.

Arch replacement with collared elephant trunks: The Siena approach

Objective

To illustrate our experience and results in patients with diffuse aneurysmal disease treated with arch replacement using the Siena collared graft, a device designed in 2002 to improve the elephant trunk technique. Results of the first step surgical implant and the subsequent treatment strategies, with extensive use of endovascular techniques, are reported.

Methods

All aortic arch–replacement procedures using the Siena graft between February 2002 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed for early and late clinical outcomes.

Results

Of 146 patients (54 women, 36.9%) with a median age of 69.1 years (interquartile range 58.4-75.0 years), 55 (37.6%) had acute/chronic dissection with false lumen aneurysmal dilatation, 91 (62.3%) had degenerative aneurysms, 45 (30.8%) were redo operations, and 14 (9.5%) had connective tissue disease. First-stage outcomes: 10.9% 30-day mortality (n = 16); 5.4% stroke (n = 8, 6 disabling, 2 nondisabling; 3 fatal); and 0.6% paraplegia. Outcomes for 113 second-stage procedures (77.3%, n = 97 endovascular [66.4%], n = 16 surgical [10.9%]) were 5.3% and 8.8% 30-day and 180-day mortality; no stroke; 10.6% paraplegia. Median follow-up was 5.7 years (range: 0-18.02 years) median survival was 16.65 years (95% lower confidence limit, 10.06 years) with no significant difference between aneurysm and dissection patients. Freedom from further treatment was 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.9%-94.7%) at 5 years and 71.4% (95% confidence interval, 71.4%-84.7%) at 10 years; median time to reintervention was 2.59 years (interquartile range, 0.52-5.20 years) with no difference (P = .22) between dissection and aneurysm groups.

Conclusions

Siena collared graft represents a reliable platform for the treatment of diffuse aneurysmal disease. This device offers the flexibility required in the treatment of extended aortic lesions and guarantees the choice of the most appropriate approach for treatment completion. In this context, the availability of hybrid grafts has not modified the role of this device in arch surgery.

Zone 1 Aortic Arch Hybrid Endovascular Repair with Extra-anatomical Bypass: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the morbidity and mortality outcomes of adult patients with aortic arch disease managed with extra-anatomical bypass avoiding median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass, with simultaneous or staged hybrid zone 1 endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were carried out to identify relevant studies on zone 1 hybrid arch repair. Extracted data were analyzed by random effects models. Primary outcomes included 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Longitudinal survival was analyzed up to 7 years from date of operation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital morbidity, as well as late endoleak and reintervention.

RESULTS

Twenty studies incorporating 348 patients were included. In-hospital or 30-day mortality was 10.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.7-14.9%). Overall operative technical success was 89.8% (83.7-93.8%). Early type 1 endoleak rate was 14.0% (7.4-24.7%). Stroke prevalence was 9.5% (6.1-14.3%). Spinal cord paraplegia prevalence was 3.8% (1.9-7.6%). Retrograde aortic dissection prevalence was 4.1% (1.5-10.6%). Survival at 1 year postoperatively was 77.2% (66.1-85.4%). Survival at 3 years postoperatively was 73.7% (59.2-84.4%). Survival beyond 4 years postoperatively (range 58-80 months) was 65.9% (53.6-76.4%). Late type 1 endoleak prevalence was 11.8% (5.5-23.7%). Overall rate of reintervention was 11.6% (6.4-20.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 1 hybrid repair has evidence for satisfactory short- and long-term morbidity/mortality outcomes and may be considered as an alternative approach to aortic arch disease.

Early and midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a branched endograft for aortic arch pathologies: A retrospective single-center study

Background

Zone 0 landing hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) includes a few moderately invasive surgical procedures. To reduce invasiveness, TEVAR with a branched aortic arch stent-graft can be considered. This study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of performing TEVAR using a Bolton (Bolton Medical, Inc, Sunrise, Fla) branched endograft by analyzing early and midterm results.

Methods

We enrolled 28 patients (mean age, 78.4 years) who underwent TEVAR with the Bolton branched endograft in Osaka University Hospital between October 2012 and June 2018 with a mean follow-up period of 4.0 years. Double-side and single-side branched devices were used in 24 (85.7%) and 4 (14.3%) patients, respectively.

Results

All procedures were successful; no cases of endoleak or conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The perioperative stroke rate was 14.3% (4 out of 28); midterm stroke was not detected. All patients with perioperative stroke had atheroma grade ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery. No type 1a endoleak was reported during the early or midterm results. The cumulative survival rate, aorta-related death-free rate, and aortic event-free survival rate at 5 years were 80.8%, 95.8%, and 81.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

We achieved satisfactory early and midterm results by using a Bolton branched endograft for high-risk patients with arch pathologies except for high postoperative stroke. Although this treatment method is associated with postoperative stroke, performing strict evaluation of atheroma may prevent such complication. By preventing intraoperative stroke, TEVAR with this custom-made Bolton branched endograft may be considered a less-invasive treatment.

Art of operative techniques: treatment options in arch penetrating aortic ulcer

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) of the arch has a focal extent which often represents an adequate anatomic target for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, the anatomic constraints represented by the supra-aortic vessels pose either clinical or technical challenges that increase when the PAU develops proximally in the arch. Currently, different types of endografts are commercially available and have been used to treat aortic arch lesions. These include branched/fenestrated endografts for a total endovascular approach, and standard devices that can be used in combination with open/hybrid surgical operations, with the aim to exploit the minimally invasive nature of TEVAR by extending the proximal landing zone when necessary. We describe several current techniques adopted in such settings.

Closing the gap between type A and type B aortic dissections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given its rarity little is known about natural history, surgical indications, and results of acute non-A non-B dissections. With this review, we aim to review the current knowledge of this subject.

RECENT FINDINGS

non-A non-B aortic dissections should be differentiated from type B aortic dissections. A strikingly high proportion of these patients have a complicate course requiring treatment and the mortality of patients treated with medical therapy is substantially higher compared to type B dissections. Surgical and endovascular treatment can be accomplished safety, with very good results in terms of mortality and morbidity also in the acute setting. Several treatments options are available including endovascular repair with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) associated with Chimney grafts or carotid to subclavian by pass, open arch replacement mainly by means of the frozen elephant trunk technique and hybrid arch repair with debranching of the supra-aortic vessel and zone 0 TEVAR.

SUMMARY

considering the high rate of complication, the high mortality of patients managed medically and the safety of surgical and endovascular repair, early invasive treatment of non-A non-B dissections may be further considered. The treatment should be tailored to the morphology of the dissected aorta with TEVAR reserved to more distal lesions and open arch replacement with the FET technique for more proximal lesions.