"Loss of landing zone"-Stabilizing endovascular treatment solutions in the aortic arch after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Addressing proximal complications that arise after endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection, such as type Ia endoleaks, "bird-beaking" of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) stent, retrograde type A dissection, and postdissection aneurysms, bears considerable complexities. We present a novel and safe method for open arch repair that can ensure a secure and efficient approach for TEVAR complications. The key element of the operative technique is approximating the grafted stent portion to the aortic wall and the arch prosthesis. The technique has successfully been implemented in 11 patients, who received secondary open arch repair from 2019 to 2022 after TEVAR for type B dissection. Our objective is not only to introduce this reliable concept but also to provide a comprehensive demonstration of its advantages and disadvantages compared with currently used open treatment methods and discuss patient outcomes after secondary open arch repair.

Endovascular aortic arch repair with chimney technique for pseudoaneurysm

BACKGROUND

Aortic pseudoaneurysm is a life-threatening clinical condition, and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been reported to have a relatively satisfactory effect in aortic pathologies. We summarized our single-centre experience using chimney TEVAR for aortic arch pseudoaneurysms with inadequate landing zones.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from October 2015 to August 2020, 32 patients with aortic arch pseudoaneurysms underwent chimney TEVAR to exclude an aortic lesion and reconstruct the supra-aortic branches, including 3 innominate artery, 12 left common carotid arteries and 29 left subclavian arteries. Follow-up computed tomography was suggested before discharge; at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly thereafter.

RESULTS

The median age of 32 patients was 68.0 years (range, 28-81) with the mean max diameter of aneurysm of 47.9 ± 12.0 mm. Forty-four related supra-aortic branches were well preserved, and the technical success rate was 100%. The Type Ia endoleaks occurred in 3 (9%) patients. Two patients were lost to follow-up and 4 patients died during the follow-up period. The mean follow-up times was 46.5 ± 14.3 months. One patient died due to acute myocardial infarction just 10 days after chimney TEVAR and the other 3 patients passed away at 1.5 months, 20 months, and 31 months with non-aortic reasons. The 4.5-year survival estimate was 84.4%. The primary patency rate of the target supra-arch branch vessels was 97.7% (43/44), and no other aorta-related reinterventions and severe complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

For aortic arch pseudoaneurysms with inadequate landing zones for TEVAR, the chimney technique seems to be feasible, with acceptable mid-term outcomes, and it could serve as an alternative minimally invasive approach to extend the landing zone. Slow flow type Ia endoleak could be treated conservatively after chimney TEVAR. Additional experience is needed, and the long-term durability of chimney TEVAR requires further follow-up.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Transarterial Embolisation of Proximal Type I Endoleaks Post-EVAR

PURPOSE

To describe the long-term outcomes following transarterial embolisation for type Ia endoleaks (ELIa) in patients who failed or were unsuitable for standard endovascular/surgical options.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-centre observational study was performed between October 2010 and April 2018. Technical success rates and long-term outcomes were evaluated. A sub-analysis was performed comparing outcomes of covered aortic endografts and Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing systems.

RESULTS

A total of 34 transcatheter embolisations were performed for ELIa in 27 patients (13 endografts and 14 patients with Nellix systems). A combination of Onyx and coils was used most frequently (18/34), followed by Onyx alone (14/34) and coils alone (2/34). Technical success was achieved in 33/34 (97%) procedures . Seven early complications occurred with no immediate mortality, 5 of which involved migration/reflux of embolic into the endograft-all successfully managed via endovascular approach. Following the surveillance period (mean 25 months), 13/26 (50%) of patients were free from recurrent endoleak. Sac expansion occurred in 42% (11/26). 21/26 patients died; 6 due to aneurysm sac rupture, 10 due to unrelated causes, and 5 had no cause of death available. No significant difference in survival was found between patients with an endograft or Nellix graft-Chi-squared value - 0.011 (p < 0.05 = 3.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter embolisation for type Ia endoleaks is a safe and effective option in a select patient cohort-where traditional endovascular and surgical options are unsuitable or have failed. The procedure may prevent recurrence in some whilst delaying rupture and death in others.

Innovative solutions for endovascular aneurysm sealing-delayed Nellix type 1a endoleak

A delayed Nellix (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) type 1a endoleak from endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is particularly challenging to treat owing to the restrictions and scarcity of the technical options available. We have described two viable endovascular solutions, with and without the availability of the Nellix endograft inventory. A Nellix-in-Nellix apparatus with multivisceral chimney, covered stent extensions and internal reinforcements can be used if Nellix endografts are available (patient 1). In the absence of Nellix endografts, we used a Viabahn-in-Nellix apparatus, also with multiple chimney stents, as an alternative and timely treatment for patient 2. Our patients remained well and free of endoleaks at 19 and 11 months after treatment.

Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts After Failed Endovascular Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Type Ia Endoleak

OBJECTIVE

Failed endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to development of late type Ia endoleak exposes patients to the risk of rupture and should be treated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for treatment of failed EVAR with type Ia endoleak.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, a prospective multicentre study was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04532450) that included 85 consecutive patients who had undergone F/BEVAR to treat a type Ia endoleak following EVAR. The primary outcome was overall freedom from any re-intervention or death related to the F/BEVAR procedure.

RESULTS

In 30 cases (35%) EVAR was associated with a short < 10 mm or angulated (> 60°) infrarenal aortic neck, poor placement of the initial stent graft (n = 3, 4%), sizing error (n = 2, 2%), and/or stent graft migration (n = 7, 8%). Type Ia endoleak was observed after a period of 59 ± 25 months following EVAR. The authors performed 82 FEVAR (96%) and three BEVAR (4%) procedures with revascularisation of 305 target arteries. Overall technical success was 94%, with three failures including one persistent Type Ia endoleak and two unsuccessful stent graft implantations. Intra-operative target artery revascularisation was successful in 303 of 305 attempts. The in hospital mortality rate was 5%. Cardiac, renal and pulmonary complications occurred in 6%, 14%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Post-operative spinal cord ischaemia occurred in four patients (4.7%). At three years, the survival rate was 64% with overall freedom from any re-intervention or aneurysm related death of 40%, and freedom from specific F/BEVAR re-intervention of 73%. At three years, the secondary patency rate of the target visceral arteries was 96%. During follow up, 27 patients (33%) required a revision procedure of the fenestrated (n = 11) or index EVAR stent graft (n = 16), including six open conversions.

CONCLUSION

While manufactured F/BEVAR was effective in treating type Ia endoleak in patients with failed EVAR, it was at the cost of a number of secondary endovascular and open surgical procedures.