Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysms with the Najuta Thoracic Stent-Graft System

What is the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone of the Stent Graft in Treatment of Aortic Type B Dissection?

PURPOSE

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) represents a serious complication of endovascular treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To avoid RTAD, it is recommended to land the proximal end of the stent graft in a non-dissected aortic segment. In this study, we investigated whether landing in the dissection area increased the number of events at the proximal site.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of endovascular treatments for TBAD at a single institution between 2009 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: group A, with a proximal landing zone entirely within the dissected area, and group B, with the proximal extent of the seal zone in the non-dissected area. We evaluated the occurrence of proximal events, including RTAD, and examined long-term outcomes to assess the validity of landing in the dissection area.

RESULTS

The study included eighty-nine patients who underwent endovascular treatment for TBAD. New intimal tears in the proximal landing site occurred in 3 cases (3.4%), with 1 case (2%) in group A and 2 cases (5.1%) in group B, showing no significant difference. Among the three cases, one (1.1%) in group B with zone 2 landing resulted in RTAD. At 60 months, the overall survival was 85%, and freedom from aorta-related mortality was 88%, with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Even if the proximal landing is in a dissected area, a treatment strategy performed in zone 3 without proximal landing in zone 2, seeking a non-dissected area, can still provide sufficient therapeutic effects. Level of Evidence 3 Retrospective single-center cohort analysis.

Open, endovascular or hybrid repair of aortic arch disease: narrative review of diverse strategies with diverse options

OBJECTIVES

The management of aortic arch disease is complex. Open surgical management continues to evolve, and the introduction of endovascular repair is revolutionizing aortic arch surgery. Although these innovative techniques have generated the opportunity for better outcomes in select patients, they have also introduced confusion and uncertainty regarding best practices.

METHODS

In New York, we developed a collaborative group, the New York Aortic Consortium, as a means of cross-linking knowledge and working together to better understand and treat aortic disease. In our meeting in May 2023, regional aortic experts and invited international experts discussed the contemporary management of aortic arch disease, differences in interpretation of the available literature and the integration of endovascular technology into disease management. We summarized the current state of aortic arch surgery in this review article.

RESULTS

Approaches to aortic arch repair have evolved substantially, whether it be methods to reduce cerebral ischaemia, improve haemostasis, simplify future operations or expand options for high-risk patients with endovascular approaches. However, the transverse aortic arch remains challenging to repair. Among our collaborative group of cardiac/aortic surgeons, we discovered a wide disparity in our practice patterns and our management strategies of patients with aortic arch disease.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to build unique institutional expertise in the context of complex and evolving management of aortic arch disease with open surgery, endovascular repair and hybrid approaches, tailored to the risk profiles and anatomical specifics of individual patients.

Total Arch Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Double Fenestrated Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts: 100 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate early and medium-term outcomes of double fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts for total endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data included 100 patients, from January 2017 to December 2021, undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for zone 0. The fenestrations were a proximal larger fenestration that incorporated the brach2iocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery and a distal smaller fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA). Only the LSA fenestration was stented.

RESULTS

The median duration for stent-graft modification was 23±6 minutes. Of the 100 patients, 70 were men. The mean patient age was 70±10.5 years. Indications for treatment included degenerative aortic arch aneurysm (n=32), dissecting aortic arch aneurysm after type A dissections (n=23) and (n=19) after type B dissections, acute complicated type B dissection (n=16), and other pathologies (n=10). Technical success rate was 97%. The 30 day mortality was 2% (n=2). Four patients (4%) had minor stroke with full recovery. One patient (1%) had a type IA endoleak, 1 patient (1%) had a type IB endoleak, and 2 patients (2%) have a type II endoleak from the LSA. Eight patients (8%) required reintervention: 1 type IA endoleak, 1 type IB endoleak, 1 retrograde type A dissection, and 5 because of access-related complications. During a mean follow-up of 24±7.2 months, there were no aortic rupture, paraplegia, and all supra-aortic trunks were patent.

CONCLUSIONS

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is both feasible and effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The standout feature of this double fenestrated device is its simple handling during operation with the proximal fenestrations being directed to the orifices of the BT and LCCA automatically when the LSA fenestration is catheterized and secured by covered stent placement. The deployment algorithm actively steers the operator away from superfluous manipulations of the device within the arch and avoids guidewire manipulation in carotid arteries. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up.

RESULTS

Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.

CONCLUSION

F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.

Endovascular aortic arch repair: A comparison of outcomes and current trends

OBJECTIVE

Application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to the aortic arch has been met with the development of purpose-made endoprostheses for on-label use in the aortic arch. An appraisal of the clinical efficacy of each major device is therefore useful towards informing clinical decision making for patients eligible for endovascular arch repair (EAR) rather than open surgical reconstruction.

METHODS

A literature review of publications outlining clinical experience with the RELAY™ Branched and Zenith™ devices was undertaken, and the results therefrom analysed to evaluate the clinical efficacies of each device.

RESULTS

Early- and long-term mortality rates associated with EAR appear favourable, especially compared against open surgical repair. EAR is also associated with good neurological outcomes and target vessel patency rates. However, EAR continues to be associated with substantial reintervention rates.

CONCLUSIONS

At the present stage, EAR represents a promising alternative option to open surgical reconstruction in patients that meet its eligibility criteria. Though there remains a substantial learning curve associated with EAR, its favourable outcome profile is likely to increase its applicability in the future.

Avoiding Stroke in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: JACC Review Topic of the Week

As the bottleneck of endovascular aortic arch repair, early postoperative stroke remains a devastating complication in high-risk patients and a critical concern for the development of optimal endovascular techniques and devices. The incidence of early postoperative stroke varies widely among currently available endovascular techniques and devices, with reported rates ranging from 0.0% to 42.9%, and is significantly influenced by the severity of the patient's preexisting aortic atherosclerotic burden, air released from the endovascular device, and a variety of factors leading to cerebral perfusion insufficiency. Currently, preidentification of high-risk patients and careful perioperative management appear to play a critical role in reducing stroke incidence. Specific intraoperative prevention methods are still lacking, but embolic protection devices and carbon dioxide or high-volume saline flushing of endovascular devices appear promising. Detailed preoperative stroke risk stratification and screening for optimal endovascular techniques and devices for aortic arch treatment are unmet clinical needs.

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.

Clinical outcomes of Najuta thoracic stent graft system for arch aneurysms

Objectives

We aimed to elucidate the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system with fenestrations for supra-aortic vessels.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated the perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes of 20 patients treated for arch or distal arch aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system during the period from May 2019 to February 2023.

Results

The technical success rate of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system was 95%. Of the 20 patients, 17 patients (85.0%) underwent concomitant extra-anatomical supra-aortic bypass. Postoperative CT revealed type Ia (n = 2) and type II (n = 3) endoleaks which disappeared on follow-up. The postoperative complications were stroke (n = 2, 10.0%), paraplegia (n = 1, 5.0%), and paraparesis (n = 1, 5.0%). In a very old patient, a blood transfusion was performed from the common iliac artery using the retroperitoneal approach. There were no aorta-related complications such as retrograde type A dissection or distal stent graft-induced new entry.

Conclusions

We treated arch or distal arch thoracic aneurysms by inserting a tube-type stent graft as a scaffold on the peripheral site and placing the Najuta thoracic stent graft on the proximal site. By extending the landing zone to Zone 0 and using a low radial force, which is a feature of the Najuta thoracic stent graft system, postoperative bird-beak and aorta-related complications were avoided. The treatment of arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system showed acceptable perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Najuta thoracic stent graft system may be a potential treatment option for arch and distal arch aortic aneurysms, warranting further studies.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of the total endovascular aortic repair in aortic arch

Background: The total endovascular repair of the aortic arch is becoming more and more an acceptable alternative to the open repair in selected patients. The aim of the present study is to perform a meta-analysis of the available data on the outcomes of the various endovascular techniques used to treat the pathologies in this challenging anatomical area. Patients and methods: An extensive electronic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct Databases, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. All papers published up to January 2022 on the endovascular techniques in the aortic arch (chimney-thoracic endovascular aortic repair (ChTEVAR), fenestrated/branched grafts as custom made devices (CMD) and surgeon modified TEVAR (SM TEVAR) providing information about at least one of the essential outcomes defined in the inclusion criteria. Results: Out of the 5078 studies found through the search in the databases and registers, 26 studies with a total number of patients of 2327 with 3497 target vessels were included in the analysis. The studies reported a high technical success rate with an estimated proportion of 95.8% (95% CI, 93-97.6%). Moreover, the pooled estimation of the early type Ia/III endoleak was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.4-12.1%). The pooled mortality was 4.6% (95 CI, 3.2-6.6%) with a significant heterogeneity and the stroke had an estimated proportion (major and minor combined) of 4.8% (95% CI, 3.5-6.6%). A meta-regression analysis showed no significant variation between the groups in mortality (P=.324) showed however a significant difference between the therapeutic methods regarding stroke P<.001 (lower rate in ChTEVAR and SM vs. CMD). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis could demonstrate good short- and long-term outcomes of the multiple total endovascular repair methods used in the aortic arch.

Driving Technology for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: An International Analysis of Single-versus Double-Branch RELAY Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The introduction of endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) represents a paradigm shift in the management of complex arch pathologies usually treated with open surgical repair (OSR). This shift in treatment of aortic arch disease has also been accompanied with a rise in commercial interest in EAR resulting in the development of several endografts. However, the RELAY™ Branched by Terumo Aortic can be considered the prime endograft choice. In this international original study, a retrospective comparative analysis of international prospective outcomes data on the single- and double-branch RELAY stent grafts is provided.

METHODS

International data on EAR procedures carried out from January 2019 to January 2022 using the single- and double-branch RELAY endograft configurations were collected prospectively. Follow-up data were collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were included, out of which 17 (13.6%) received the single-branch RELAY and 108 the double-branch device. In the single-branch group, no mortalities, strokes, or reinterventions were recoded over 24 months of follow-up. The rates of these outcomes were higher in the other group; however, the differences did not reach significance. Target vessel patency was maintained at 100% throughout the study period with the single-branched RELAY. Overall, our Kaplan-Meier analyses proved that both configurations of RELAY Branched yield excellent short- and mid-term survival and freedom from reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our series has clearly demonstrated that EAR using RELAY Branched is a highly efficacious strategy that yields very favorable results which can be considered superior to other EAR devices as well as OSR. Nevertheless, it seems that clinical outcomes with the single-branch RELAY are more optimal than with the double-branch device.

A technical review of bail-out procedures to place Najuta stent-graft into the ascending aorta

BACKGROUND

The Najuta stent-graft (Kawasumi Laboratories Inc., Tokyo, Japan) is usually easily advanced to the correct deployment position in the ascending aorta thanks to the pre-curved delivery J-sheath with all fenestrations automatically oriented towards the supra-aortic vessels. Aortic arch anatomy and delivery system stiffness could however represent limitations for proper endograft advancement, especially when the aortic arch bends sharply. The aim of this technical note is to report a series of bail-out procedures that could be useful to overcome the difficulties encountered during the Najuta stent-graft advancement up to the ascending aorta.

MAIN BODY

The insertion, positioning and deployment of a Najuta stent-graft requires a through-and-through guidewire technique using a .035″ 400 cm hydrophilic nitinol guidewire (Radifocus™ Guidewire M Non-Vascular, Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with right brachial and both femoral accesses. When standard maneuver to put the endograft tip into the aortic arch, some bail-out procedures can be applied to obtain proper positioning. Five techniques are described into the text: positioning of a coaxial extra-stiff guidewire; positioning of a long introducer sheath down to the aortic root from the right brachial access; inflation of a balloon inside the ostia of the supra-aortic vessels; inflation of a balloon inside the aortic arch (coaxial to the device); and transapical access technique. This is a troubleshooting guide for allowing physicians to overcome various difficulties with the Najuta endograft as well as for other similar devices.

SHORT CONCLUSION

Technical issues in advancing the delivery system of Najuta stent-graft could occur. Therefore, the rescue procedures described in this technical note could be useful to guarantee the correct positioning and deployment of the stent-graft.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch

PURPOSE

Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

[Status of the Inner Branches in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair]

Complex endovascular therapy of the aorta with fenestrated and branched endografts plays an essential role in modern vascular medicine. Innovative solutions for demanding aortic pathologies are therefore being constantly developed by the medical industry. The aim of this manuscript is to illustrate the growing importance of the inner branches in complex aortic repair and to show the advantages and limits of this technique with an overview of the current literature. The inner branches (iBEVAR) were therefore compared to the standard treatment options (fenestrations; [FEVAR], outer branches [BEVAR]) and the technical advantages of all platforms were evaluated. The widespread use of iBEVAR in the aortic arch stands in contrast to the thoracoabdominal aorta, which is mirrored by the scarce evidence for the thoracoabdominal inner branches. The published experience is based on smaller retrospective studies with a 1-year follow-up. The E-nside (Artivion, Hechingen, Germany) thoracoabdominal off-the-shelf inner-branch-based endograft was released 2 years ago. Its widespread deployment may increase the use of the inner branches in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Moreover, an ongoing industry-funded registry may provide new insights into the long-term durability of this innovative technique.

Does endovascular duration impact clinical outcomes in aortic arch repair? The RELAY™ branched international stance

Background

The high mortality and morbidity rates in surgical aortic arch repair are a barrier to therapy for a considerable proportion of patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. There is hence a demand for the development and adoption of a minimally invasive alternative to aortic arch repair, such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Procedural duration is a key factor in the pathogenesis of complications in surgical aortic arch repair. Herein, we evaluate whether endovascular duration impacts neurological outcomes, target vessel patency, and reintervention rates in aortic arch TEVAR with RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK), which is specifically developed for on-label use within the aortic arch.

Methods

Prospective data was collected between January 2019 and January 2022 on the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for aortic arch dissection and aneurysm with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe. They were then retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data on the incidence of disabling stroke (DS), target vessel patency, and reintervention from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperative was included in the analysis.

Results

147 (99.3%) of all 148 cases were successful. Over the 24 month follow-up period, in total 6 (4.1%) patients suffered DS, 24 (16.3%) required reintervention, and target vessel patency was exhibited in 118 (80.2%) patients. The modal endovascular duration was 100-150 min (in 64.6%, n = 95 cases). Analysis revealed that endovascular duration was associated with a lower likelihood of reintervention at 30 days, 6-, and 12 months (P = 0.011, P = 0.019, P = 0.037), a greater likelihood of target vessel patency at 6- and 24 months (P = 0.032, P = 0.035). No relationship between endovascular duration and DS was revealed.

Discussion

The data demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with promising clinical outcomes for on-label aortic arch TEVAR. The underlying mechanism linking endovascular duration and reintervention rates, or target vessel patency is likely multifactorial and complex. Given that TEVAR is carried out under general anesthetic only, it is unlikely that prolonged procedural duration has any major effect over neurological outcomes for arch TEVAR.

RELAYTM Branched–International Results of Vessel Patency and Reintervention

Background

Surgical intervention remains the mainstay treatment for aortic arch aneurysm and dissection, but the high mortality and morbidity rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive alternatives to arch reconstruction. RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a viable option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair. We present multi-center data from Europe documenting the efficacy of the endograft in terms of its target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Methods

Prospective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple-branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Results

Technical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, target vessel patency was maintained in 80.2% (n = 118) of patients. Target vessel cannulation was achieved in 146 (99.3%) cases. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 30 reintervention procedures were required, of which 29 (97%) took place within the South Europe region which accounted for 19.6% (n = 29) of total cases. Zero reinterventions were required in patients that were treated with single- or triple-branched endoprostheses.

Discussion

The data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is a technically efficacious device for endovascular aortic arch repair and is associated with favorable target vessel patency and reintervention rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating reintervention and loss of vessel patency following endovascular aortic arch repair.

Endovascular Solutions for Aortic Arch Diseases: Total and Hybrid

Although the endovascular approach is the therapeutic option of choice for thoracic and abdominal aortic diseases, open surgery is still the treatment of choice for aortic arch diseases. While open surgical repair remains the gold standard treatment for complete aortic arch replacement, it continues to be burdened by high mortality and neurologic complications, especially for patients who require redo surgery. Therefore, in the era of endovascular surgery, it is not surprising that hybrid operating rooms, new technologies, and new approaches are strongly challenging open surgery. Less-invasive endovascular procedures, when used to treat aortic arch diseases, when feasible and indicated, have clear advantages over open surgery, primarily because there is no need for cardiopulmonary bypass, hypothermic circulatory arrest, or cerebral protection. Moreover, patients who have already been treated for acute type A aortic dissection continue to have a considerable risk for future aortic reintervention, which is associated with increased risk for short- and long-term mortality. In light of these advantages, it is clear how selected high-risk patients with aortic arch disease could benefit from the endovascular approach. However, the hemodynamic and anatomic characteristics of the aortic arch make the endovascular approach in this region challenging. In fact, uncorrected stent-graft placement can have fatal consequences for the patient and increase the risk of endoleaks and stroke. To minimize these potential risks, precise and accurate preoperative planning to achieve optimal stent-graft dimensions and implantation is essential together with careful patient selection. Endovascular options for the treatment of aortic arch disease include both hybrid procedures and total endovascular solutions. This manuscript provides an overview of the current strategies for endovascular aortic arch treatment, including the most recent available series on this topic. In addition, a literature search offers insight into the current state of the art.