Anatomical aspects and feasibility of endovascular repair for chronic post-dissection arch and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

A Systematic Review and an Updated Meta-Analysis of Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair of Chronic Post-Dissection Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

The objective of this study is to present the current outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair (F/BEVAR) for post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (PDTAAAs). A systematic review of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines up to October 2023 was conducted (protocol CRD42023473403). Studies were included if ≥10 patients were reported and at least one of the major outcomes was stated. A total of 10 studies with 585 patients overall were included. The pooled estimate for technical success was 94.3% (95% CI 91.4% to 96.2%). Permanent paraplegia developed with a pooled rate of 2.5% (95% CI 1.5% to 4.3%), whereas a cerebrovascular event developed with a pooled rate of 1.6% (95% CI 0.8% to 3.0%). An acute renal function impairment requiring new-onset dialysis occurred with a pooled rate of 2.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 3.8%). Postoperative respiratory failure was observed with a pooled estimate of 5.5% (95% CI 3.8% to 8.1%). The pooled estimate for 12-month overall survival was 90% (95% CI 85% to 93.5%), and the pooled estimates for 24-month and 36-month survival were 87.8% (95% CI 80.9% to 92.5%) and 85.5% (95% CI 76.5% to 91.5%), respectively. Freedom from reintervention was estimated at 83.9% (95% CI 75.9% to 89.6%) for 12 months, 82.8% (95% CI 68.7% to 91.4%) for 24 months and 76.1% (95% CI 60.6% to 86.8%) for 36 months. According to the present findings, F/BEVAR can be performed in PD-TAAAs with high rates of technical success and good mid-term results.

Theoretical Feasibility of Using Arch Branched Endograft Devices for Repair of Post Type A Aortic Dissection in Patients With Prior Ascending Aortic Replacement

PURPOSE

Ascending aortic replacement is a common emergency procedure for treating acute type A aortic dissection. Secondary open or endovascular interventions for residual arch pathologies is difficult because of adhesions, short prosthetic grafts, and distorted anatomies. Aortic arch branched stent grafts have emerged as a potential solution for these patients if they have suitable anatomical conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the theoretical anatomical and technical feasibility of 2 currently used aortic arch branch endografts in patients who had prior replacement of the ascending aorta.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who had a prosthetic ascending aortic or hemiarch replacement for acute type A dissection in a single institution between January 2013 and December 2018 were included. Contrast computed tomography images on the most recent follow-up were analyzed on a 3-dimensional workstation. Morphological parameters were measured individually for the ascending aorta, aortic arch, supra-aortic branches, and access iliac arteries. The computed tomography scan of each patient was individually evaluated for anatomical suitability for the arch branched and double-branch devices according to set selection criteria.

RESULTS

Computed tomography images of 56 patients (median age of 57 years, 45 males) were reviewed. Based on our evaluation, 26 patients (46.4%) were good candidates for an endovascular arch branched device. It would be feasible for 13 patients (23.2%), but prudent preoperative planning was required due to complicated anatomy. The other 17 patients (30.4%) were unsuitable because they met at least 1 exclusion criterion. Short prosthetic grafts, extreme graft angulations, and extensive dissections in the supra-aortic branches were the main reasons for exclusion.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair using arch branched endografts is feasible in patients with prior ascending aortic arch or hemiarch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection. The most common anatomical conditions that may influence the feasibility of the arch branched endograft procedure include insufficient proximal seal length, severe angulation of the graft, and extensive aortic dissection within the supra-aortic vessels.

Open vs. endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: tale of the tape

Open surgical repair persists as the gold-standard operation for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm; however, endovascular repair has become commonplace. Technical considerations in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm treatment are particularly complex, insofar as it involves critical branching arteries feeding the visceral organs. Newer, low-profile devices make total endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair more feasible and, thus, appealing. For younger and low-risk patients, the choice between open and endovascular therapy remains controversial. Despite the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, data suggest that endovascular aortic repair incurs a greater risk of spinal cord deficit, and the durability of endovascular aortic repair remains unclear. It is difficult to compare outcomes between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, primarily because of the current investigational status of endovascular devices, the variety of approaches to endovascular repair, differing patient populations, lack of prospective randomized studies, and minimal medium- and long-tern follow-up data on endovascular repair. When deciding between open and endovascular approaches, one should consider which is more suitable for each patient. Older patients generally benefit from a less invasive approach. Open repair should be considered for young patients and those with heritable thoracic aortic disease. Infection and fistulae are best treated by open repair, although endovascular intervention as a lifesaving bridge to definitive repair has evolved to become a critical component of initial treatment. It is crucial to have technical expertise in both open and endovascular procedures to provide the best aortic repair for the patient. This may require dedicated aortic programs at tertiary institutions.