Hybrid Repair of Complex Thoracic Aortic Arch Pathology: Long-Term Outcomes of Extra-anatomic Bypass Grafting of the Supra-aortic Trunk

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using fenestrated stent grafts in patients with thoracic aortic distal arch aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch aneurysms is challenging because of anatomical restrictions and the presence of cervical branches. Revascularization of the cervical branch is required when conventional commercial stent grafts are used. TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts (FSG) often does not require additional procedures to revascularize cervical branches. This study aimed to evaluate the features and initial and midterm outcomes of TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts.

METHODS

From April 2007 to December 2016, 101 consecutive patients underwent TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts for distal aortic arch aneurysms at a single centre. Technical success, complications, freedom from aneurysm-related death, secondary intervention and aneurysm progression were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

All the patients underwent TEVAR using fenestrated stent grafts. The 30-day mortality rate was zero. Cerebral infarction, access route problems and spinal cord injury occurred in 4, 3 and 2 patients, respectively. Each type of endoleak was observed in 38 of the 101 patients during the course of the study; 20/38 patients had minor type 1 endoleaks at the time of discharge. The endoleak disappeared in 2 patients and showed no significant change in 8 patients; however, the aneurysm expanded over time in 10 patients. Additional treatment was performed in 8 of the 10 patients with type 1 endoleaks and dilatation of the aneurysm. The rate of freedom from aneurysm-related death during the observation period was 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with FSG is a simple procedure, with few complications. Additional treatment has been observed to reduce aneurysm-related deaths, even in patients with endoleaks and enlarged aneurysms. Based on this study, the outcomes of endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using a fenestrated stent graft seem acceptable.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with low incidence but high mortality. The objective of this study is to report the incidence, mortality, potential risk factors, clinical manifestation and diagnostic modalities, and medical and surgical treatments.

METHODS

A systematic review and single-arm and two-arm meta-analyses evaluated all published reports of RTAD post-TEVAR through January 2021. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. Outcomes of interest were procedural data (implanted stent-grafts type, and proximal stent-graft oversizing), the incidence of RTAD, associated mortality rate, clinical manifestations, diagnostic workouts and therapeutic management.

RESULTS

RTAD occurred in 285 out of 10,600 patients: an estimated RTAD incidence of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.9-2.8); incidence of early RTAD was approximately 1.8 times higher than late. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing showed that the proportion of RTAD patients with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) was significantly higher than those with chronic TBAD (P = .008). Pooled meta-analysis showed that the incidence of RTAD with proximal bare stent TEVAR was 2.1-fold higher than with non-bare stents: risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.87-2.75; P = .13). Single arm meta-analysis estimated a mortality rate of 42.2% (95% CI: 32.5-51.8), with an I2 heterogeneity of 70.11% (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

RTAD is rare after TEVAR but with high mortality, especially in the first month post-TEVAR with acute TBAD patients at greater risk as well as those treated with proximal bare stent endografts.

Triple-Branched Stent Graft Implantation for Acute Non-A-non-B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection remains controversial. Triple-branched stent graft (TBSG) implantation has been used to treat acute type A aortic dissection. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TBSG as a treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection.

METHODS

Fifty patients with non-A-non-B dissection received TBSG implantation in our center between January 2014 and December 2019. Early mortality, morbidity, and dissected aorta remodeling during follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

There were no deaths in-hospital or within 30 days. Postoperative complications included pneumonia (n = 12), acute kidney injury (n = 6; preoperative renal malperfusion, n = 4), transient cerebral injury (n = 6; preoperative cerebral malperfusion, n = 4), pleural effusion (n = 4), and pericardial effusion (n = 2). During follow-up, 1 patient experienced a stroke, and 2 patients required secondary interventional therapy for residual dissection below the level of the TBSG. All implanted TBSGs had good positioning, and all sidearm stent graft grafts were fully patent. No retrograde aortic dissection or type I endoleak was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

TBSG implantation for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection had a low incidence of mortality and morbidity, featuring good remodeling of the dissected aortic wall during follow-up. The early outcomes of this technique were satisfactory.

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.

Celiac Artery Coverage After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Procedure: A Meta-Analysis of Early and Late Results

BACKGROUND/AIM

Clinical outcomes of celiac artery (CA) coverage during aortic procedures are often contradicting and the fate of this additional maneuver is still unclear. This study summarizes the results of available literature and aims to clarify the impact of CA coverage during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) in patients with inadequate distal sealing zone.

METHODS

Prospective and retrospective, observational original articles focused on CA coverage during elective/urgent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic pathology (DTAP) were included. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were examined to identify articles published from January 2007 to December 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines. Early and late visceral (any sign or symptom reported) and neurological (both transient and permanent) complications were considered as primary outcomes. Onset of any endoleak, type IB endoleak, need of reintervention, and TEVAR-related mortality were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 5618 articles were extracted for analysis and 13 studies were finally included in the synthesis. A total of 178 CAs were covered during 2653 TEVAR (7%). Spinal cord ischemia was 8% (95% CI, 5-14%, I² 0%) Any endoleak and type IB endoleak was observed in 12% (95% CI, 6-21%, I² 17%) and 5% (95% CI, 2-11%, I² 0%), respectively. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair-related reoperation was necessary in 8% (95% CI, 4-14%, I² 0%), the majority of which (14/18, 78%) performed for distal sealing failure; mortality rate was 9% (95% CI, 5-14%, I² 0%). Out of 178 patients, 168 (94%) were available for follow-up, ranged 12 to 42 months. Visceral complications, any endoleak, and type IB endoleak were identified in 15% (95% CI, 10-23%, I² 45%), 20% (95% CI, 13-29%, I² 8%), and 8% (95% CI, 4-15%, I² 0%), respectively. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair-related reintervention was required in 8% (95% CI, 4-14%, I² 0%). Mortality rate was 17% (95% CI, 12-25%, I² 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Celiac artery coverage in DTAP should be regarded as a "bailout" procedure especially in urgent/emergent settings but requires caution in elective cases. Even if transient visceral ischemia is frequent, life-threatening complications are rare. Early and late mortality rates are similar to standard TEVAR although the risk of type IB endoleak and reintervention may be an issue.

Comparison of Open Repair vs. the One-Stage Hybrid Extra-Anatomic Technique for Distal Aortic Arch Disease Treatment: Mid-term Outcomes With a Risk-Adjusted Analysis

Objective: This study aims to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stented elephant trunk (SET) procedure combined with supra-arch branch reconstruction and one-stage hybrid arch repair combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in the management of distal arch disease.

Methods: From January 2009 to January 2019, 97 patients underwent one-stage hybrid arch repair combined with TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (HAR group), and 206 patients underwent the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction (SET group). We used inverse-probability-of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust baseline differences.

Results: Before IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference in operative mortality between the two groups (5.2 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.064). The incidences of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and endoleak also showed no significant differences (4.1 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.066; 2.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000; 0 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.831; 6.2 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.113, respectively). After IPTW adjustment, the incidences of stroke, SCI, and AKI showed no significant differences between the two groups (1.8 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.138; 0.8 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.448; and 0 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.148, respectively). However, the HAR group tended to have higher operative mortality and incidence of endoleak than the SET group (12.4 vs. 1.3%, P = 0.01; 9.9 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.031, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, open repair decreased the risks of endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 0.171, 95% CI, 0.060–0.401; P < 0.001) and operative mortality (OR, 0.093, 95% CI, 0.027–0.238; P < 0.001). The overall survival and event-free survival of the HAR group were significantly lower than those of the SET group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: One-stage hybrid arch repair combined TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass and the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction both provided good postoperative treatment outcomes for distal arch disease. However, hybrid arch repair increased the risks of endoleak and operative mortality. The SET procedure provided better mid-term survival than hybrid arch repair without increasing operative mortality. Carefully selecting the indications for the procedure, while receiving close long-term follow-up, may improve the survival rate of patients undergoing hybrid arch repair.

Analysis of clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure without thoracotomy for aorta lesion involving distal aortic arch

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure for aortic lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 99 consecutive patients who underwent the hybrid procedure (thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with supra-arch branch vessel bypass) in our center between April 2009 and January 2020 for lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

RESULTS

Median age was 64.0 (57.0-69.0) years, and 83 (83.8%) patients were male. There were five deaths in the perioperative period (three due to cerebral infarction and two due to intimal rupture). During the median follow-up of 41.0 months, 20 patients died, three had endoleak, one had a newly formed intimal tear, and two had femoral artery pseudoaneurysm. The 5- and 10-year survival rates of the total population were 72.2% and 48.8%, respectively. Additionally, there was no difference in the 5-year survival rate among the four groups according to different pathologies (Type B aortic dissection, aortic ulcer, aortic aneurysm, aortic pseudoaneurysm: 74.7%, 78.2%, 61.1%, and 75.5%, respectively, p = .58). Furthermore, there was no difference in the 5- and 10-year survival rates between the two groups according to the different bypass methods (right axillary artery [RAA]-left axillary artery [LAA] vs. RAA-LAA-left common carotid artery: 74.1% vs. 68.9%, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although one-staged hybrid procedure has fewer complications in high-risk patients with lesions involving the distal aortic arch, the long-term survival rate is not optimistic.

The midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a precurved fenestrated endograft in zone 0-1

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch disease remains challenging due to certain anatomical and haemodynamic features. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm results of TEVAR with a second-generation fenestrated endograft for aortic arch disease.

METHODS

This non-randomized, interventional study was part of a multicentre clinical trial conducted between 2010 and 2011 and was designed to assess the effectiveness of a second-generation precurved fenestrated endograft for aortic arch disease. Midterm data collected during the fifth postoperative year from 205 patients treated with this endograft with the proximal landing of zone 0 or 1 were assessed regarding survival, reoperation and complications.

RESULTS

The initial and technical success rates were 94% and 91%, respectively. Ninety-seven percent of patients were treated using zone 0. The rate of in-hospital deaths was 3%. Overall survival was 71% at 5 years; thoracic aorta-related death-free survival rates at 1 and 5 years after surgery were 99.5% and 97.8%, respectively. Aneurysm-related event-free survival rates at 1 and 5 years after surgery were 86.8% and 77.1%, respectively. Reoperation-free survival rates at 5 years were 86.6%. The most frequent reason for reoperation was type Ia endoleak (5%), followed by type II endoleak (2%). Incidences of cerebral infarction, device migration, spinal cord ischaemia and supra-aortic branch stenosis were 6%, 1%, 1% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The precurved fenestrated endograft provided appropriate conformability to the aortic arch and made zone 0 landing possible with simplified, less-invasive manipulations. The midterm results of TEVAR with this endograft suggest this method is a valuable endovascular treatment option for aortic arch disease.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007213.

Long-Term Outcome of Chimney Technique Using a Balloon-Expandable Bare-Metal Stent to Preserve Supra-Arch Branches in Type B Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

This study was performed to investigate the long-term effect of chimney technique using balloon-expandable bare-metal stents (BMSs) to preserve the supra-arch branches in type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Fifty patients with TBAD treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the chimney technique (chTEVAR) using balloon-expandable BMSs from July 2009 to December 2013 were retrospectively assessed. Follow-up computed tomography angiography was performed to assess the postoperative outcomes. The primary end point was a persistent type Ia endoleak (ELIa). The secondary endpoints were chimney stent (CS)-based complications (stenosis, occlusion, fracture, or transposition), all-cause mortality, reintervention, and stroke.

RESULTS

Fifty supra-arch branches (left common carotid artery, n = 11; left subclavian artery, n = 39) were preserved via the chimney technique with 50 balloon-expandable BMSs. The technical success rate was 100%. An immediate ELIa was discovered in 9 (18%) patients. The median survival duration during follow-up was 77.3 months. Five (10%) patients had a persistent ELIa; 3 of these patients had an immediate ELIa. Asymptomatic CS-based complications were found in 3 (6%) patients. The all-cause mortality rate was 8% (4/50); 2 deaths were aortic-related deaths. Five (10%) patients underwent a reintervention. During the estimated 36-month survival period, the survival rate, the rate of freedom from persistent ELIa, and the rate of freedom from reintervention were 93.87%, 89.48%, and 95.56%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term outcomes showed that chTEVAR using balloon-expandable BMSs was safe and feasible for preservation of the supra-arch branches. Evaluation of more patients with a longer follow-up period is needed.

Determining the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone for TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: Comparing the Occurrence of the Bird-Beak Phenomenon in Zone 0 vs Zones 1 and 2

Purpose: To identify the optimal proximal landing zone for thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) of aortic arch pathologies so as to avoid the bird-beak phenomenon that leads to type Ia endoleak. Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center review was conducted of 164 patients (mean age 70.3±10.8 years, range 29–93; 127 men) who underwent repairs of the aortic arch using hybrid TEVAR from April 2008 to March 2017. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the proximal landing zone: 43 zone 0 patients (26.2%) had total debranching TEVAR (n=18) or total endovascular aortic repair (n=25) while 121 patients (73.8%) had TEVAR landing in zones 1 (n=41) or 2 (n=80). Bird-beak configurations, endoleaks, and stent migrations were assessed on the postoperative and latest computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans. Overall survival and freedom from the bird-beak configuration, aorta-related death, and aortic events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: All procedures were successful, without any 30-day mortality. There were 3 early complications (1.8%; all strokes) and 10 early endoleaks (6.1%; no type Ia). On the first postoperative CTA, 42 patients (25.6%) had a bird-beak configuration. The zone 0 patients had significantly fewer (p<0.001), shorter (p<0.004), and less angulated (p<0.001) bird-beak configurations than in zones 1–2. The mean follow-up period was 4.2 years (range 0.5–8.8). There were 18 late deaths (11.0%); only one was related to the aorta (rupture due to a type Ib endoleak in a zone 0 patient). The 5-year freedom from aorta-related death was not significantly different between groups (zone 0: 96.9% vs zones 1–2: 100%, p=0.080). On the latest CTA, 51 (31.0%) patients had a bird-beak configuration; of those, 22 (13.4%) showed >3-mm progression. The freedom from bird-beak configuration estimate was significantly higher in the zone 0 group (95.4%) vs zones 1–2 (57.8%; HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.31, p<0.001). There were 9 late endoleaks (4 type Ia; none in the zone 0 group). The rate of stent-graft migration was significantly lower in the zone 0 group (2.3% vs 14.1% in zones 1–2, p=0.035). Conclusion: Early and most late results in zone 0 TEVAR were equal to those in zones 1 and 2; however, there were no late type Ia endoleaks and fewer bird-beak configurations associated with zone 0 TEVAR, which suggests that zone 0 landing is advantageous for preventing these complications.

Endovascular Repair of an Aortic Arch Aneurysm in a Patient with a Hypoplastic Left Vertebral Artery Terminating into the Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery

We present a 76-year-old male with an aortic arch aneurysm and a hypoplastic left vertebral artery (VA). Endovascular repair with left subclavian artery (SCA) closure was planned. The right VA was dominant, while the left VA was hypoplastic, barely connected to the basilar artery, and appeared to terminate at the posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA). The VA sizes and flow patterns during ultrasonography confirmed these findings. Therefore, we performed endovascular repair with left SCA reconstruction to prevent ischemia of the PICA perfusion area. After the operation, he experienced no difficulty with brain perfusion.

Single Institution Experience with Hybrid Endovascular and Surgical Repairs Involving the Distal Aortic Arch

BACKGROUND

A hybrid approach of aortic arch and descending aorta pathology, involving surgical debranching of the great vessels after endovascular stenting, has been increasingly used as an alternative to entirely open surgical repair. This study reviews and reports our single-center experience with hybrid aortic arch repair over the span of a decade.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair from 2005 to 2015 were identified. Key endpoints included the presenting pathology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64.9 years at the commencement of surgery (61.4% men [n = 27] and 38.6% women [n = 16]). Presenting pathologies included aneurysms (77%), dissections (16%), pseudoaneurysms (5%), and transections (2%). While most procedures were multistaged, single-stage interventions were completed for 16.3% (n = 7) of patients. Emergent surgeries were performed in 23.3% of cases; the remaining 76.7% of cases were elective. The proximal extents of endovascular repair were zone 0 (n = 4), zone 1 (n = 12), zone 2 (n = 20), and zone 3 (n = 1). The remaining 6 patients had had aberrant or anomalous distal origins of a great vessel that required debranching. Technical success rates of surgical revascularizations and subsequent endovascular stenting were both 100%. The 30-day perioperative event rates for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events were 7.0% (n = 3), 4.7% (n = 2), and 9.3% (n = 4), respectively. At the end of 2-year follow-up, total mortality and stroke rates were 11.6% (n = 5) and 7.0% (n = 3), respectively. The 2-year primary patency of the revascularizations was 97.8%, and the associated primary-assisted patency was 100%. Secondary interventions were necessary for 32% (n = 12) of the patients, 67% of which (n = 8) were warranted because of endoleaks. The remaining secondary interventions were required to resolve device migration (n = 1), stent graft stenosis (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid approaches are viable alternatives to entirely open surgical treatments of acute and chronic aortic arch pathology and may be particularly attractive for high-risk patients. Surgical revascularizations appear durable, but endovascular reintervention is not uncommon and highlights the need for careful surveillance after repair.

Open aortic arch surgery: the gold standard method

Aortic arch pathologies are complex and treating them requires close team collaboration and technical skills to provide safe outcomes with low morbidity and mortality rates. Such challenges are facing both aortic and vascular surgeons. Open aortic arch repair has been the standard method of practice in all cases of aortic arch pathologies for the last four decades since the very first successful published case series by Griepp et al. during 1975. However, since then, repair of multi-segmented thoracic aortic pathologies has been explored through endovascular techniques; this is with or without open repair as a one-stage procedure especially in high-risk and elderly patients. Although the role of endovascular techniques in thoracoabdominal aorta is well established, its utilization as solo technique in aortic arch pathologies remains debatable. In this review, we highlight current evidences behind using open, endovascular, and hybrid procedures in aortic arch surgery.

Measuring the greater curvature length of virtual stent graft can provide accurate prediction of stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of predicting stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair by measuring three lengths of the virtual stent graft: smaller curvature (SC), center lumen line (CL), and greater curvature (GC).

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2016, patients treated at our institution were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who were treated with more than two devices, patients treated for aortic dissection, and cases without complete preoperative or postoperative computed tomography (CT) data were excluded. From the preoperative CT data, the virtual stent graft image based on the SC (SCVS) was created so that its SC length matched that of the stent graft actually used. In the same manner, virtual stent graft images based on the CL (CLVS) and GC (GCVS) were created. These virtual stent graft images were created using SYNAPSE VINCENT software (Fujifilm Co, Tokyo, Japan) and superimposed on the postoperative CT image to measure the misalignment between these virtual stent graft images and the actual stent graft. These misalignments were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. In addition, the actual length (AL) of the stent graft was measured on the basis of the CL from postoperative CT data and compared with its original length (OL).

RESULTS

A total of 35 cases were analyzed. Twenty-six patients were men. The average age of the patients was 72.4 ± 13.0 years. The proximal landing zone were located at the descending aorta (n = 11) and the aortic arch (n = 24). The misalignment between SCVS, CLVS, and GCVS and actual stent graft position was -47.8 ± 18.1 mm, -21.5 ± 9.4 mm, and 5.3 ± 7.4 mm, respectively. The difference in means between the three groups was significant (P < .001). The relationship between the AL based on CL and OL was represented by the formula AL = OL * 0.92 - 0.05 (in the descending aorta) and AL = OL * 0.77 + 9.85 (in the aortic arch).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLVS and SCVS, GCVS was the most accurate predictor of stent graft position for thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Endovascular total arch replacement techniques and early results

During the last 20 years, a clear shift has been observed towards thoracic endovascular aortic repair for different aortic pathologies. However, total endovascular repair of the aortic arch remains technically demanding. Simultaneous perfusion of all supra-aortic arteries without longer cerebral ischemia time, whilst trying to avoid cerebral embolization, labels endovascular aortic arch repair with highest level of technical difficulty and surgical expertise. The aim of this article is to present an overview of the current technical options for endovascular aortic arch repair and their early results. Currently, early results are reported from four endovascular arch replacement techniques: hybrid repair, total endovascular approach, chimney grafts and in-situ fenestration. The early results of these different arch replacement techniques are promising, especially the total arch replacement with custom-made fenestrated or branched stent-grafts. Long-term results are unknown, and larger series results and comparative studies are needed to determine safety and efficacy.

Hybrid and total endovascular repair of the aortic arch

Background

Recent advances in endovascular technology have enabled minimally invasive repair of the aortic arch, with specifically designed stent-grafts. This article reviews hybrid and total endovascular repair in the management of aortic arch pathology.

Methods

Studies relating to aortic arch management were identified using MEDLINE and Embase, focusing on endovascular repair.

Results

Hybrid arch repair is associated with an early mortality rate of some 12 per cent, and carries significant risk of stroke (up to 15 per cent), paraplegia (up to 6 per cent), retrograde dissection (up to 6·5 per cent) and proximal endoleak (6 per cent). Despite patients being of overall higher perioperative risk, hybrid repair has morbidity and early mortality rates comparable to those of open arch replacement. However, rates of freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention are significantly lower in the longer term, owing to the incidence of endoleak. Total endovascular arch repair may be achieved by the use of parallel stents or in situ fenestration in the emergency setting, or use of custom-made devices (scalloped, fenestrated or branched stent-grafts) in the elective setting. Reports of these relatively novel technologies suggest acceptable short-term outcomes, but long-term data are still awaited.

Conclusion

Repair of aortic arch pathology presents a formidable challenge for endovascular technology. Open aortic arch repair remains the standard in younger, fitter patients, but endovascular technology and experience continue to evolve with encouraging early outcomes and expanding indications.

Hybrid Approach of Aortic Diseases: Zone 1 Delivery and Volumetric Analysis on the Descending Aorta

Introduction

Conventional techniques of surgical correction of arch and descending aortic diseases remains as high-risk procedures. Endovascular treatments of abdominal and descending thoracic aorta have lower surgical risk. Evolution of both techniques - open debranching of the arch and endovascular approach of the descending aorta - may extend a less invasive endovascular treatment for a more extensive disease with necessity of proximal landing zone in the arch.

Objective

To evaluate descending thoracic aortic remodeling by means of volumetric analysis after hybrid approach of aortic arch debranching and stenting the descending aorta.

Methods

Retrospective review of seven consecutive patients treated between September 2014 and August 2016 for diseases of proximal descending aorta (aneurysms and dissections) by hybrid approach to deliver the endograft at zone 1. Computed tomography angiography were analyzed using a specific software to calculate descending thoracic aorta volumes pre- and postoperatively.

Results

Follow-up was done in 100% of patients with a median time of 321 days (range, 41-625 days). No deaths or permanent neurological complications were observed. There were no endoleaks or stent migrations. Freedom from reintervention was 100% at 300 days and 66% at 600 days. Median volume reduction was of 45.5 cm³, representing a median volume shrinkage by 9.3%.

Conclusion

Hybrid approach of arch and descending thoracic aorta diseases is feasible and leads to a favorable aortic remodeling with significant volume reduction.

Hybrid operation versus the chimney technique for reconstruction of a single aortic arch branch: a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

Both hybrid and chimney techniques are used for reconstruction of supra-arch branches during thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR). Our objective was to summarize our experience with reconstruction of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) or left subclavian artery (LSA) and evaluate the indications for these 2 strategies.

METHODS

The records of patients treated with hybrid or chimney TEVAR when 1 aortic branch (LSA/LCCA) needed to be covered were reviewed retrospectively. The angulations of the LSA and the LCCA were measured for analysis.

RESULTS

The average ages of the patients in the hybrid (n = 26) and chimney groups (n = 31) were 52.6 (SD 12.7) and 55.4 (SD 11.3) years, respectively. The immediate type I endoleak rate was significantly higher in the chimney group (58.1% vs 15.4%, P = 0.001). No in-hospital deaths occurred in either group, and the follow-up mortality rate was 11.5% in the hybrid group and 3.2% in the chimney (P = 0.32) group, whereas the aortic-related mortality rates were 3.8% and 0%, respectively (P = 0.46). The rates of type I endoleaks were significantly higher if the angles of the LSA/LCCA were larger than 38.3°/37.9° [LSA: >38.3°, 100% (10 of 10) vs < 38.3°, 10% (1 of 10), P < 0.001; LCCA: >37.9°, 100% (6 of 6) vs < 37.9°, 20% (1 of 5), P = 0.015].

CONCLUSIONS

Branch angulation and oversizing are crucial factors for type I endoleaks and should be taken into account when choosing the surgical procedure. Our results indicated that the chimney TEVAR is more suitable in cases with small target branch angulation. Additional oversizing may help to prevent post-TEVAR endoleaks.

Complications and Perioperative Management of Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Endovascular treatments have become increasingly common for patients with a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies. Although considered less invasive than traditional open surgical approaches, they are nonetheless complex procedures. Patients undergo manipulation of an often calcified aorta near the origin of the carotid and subclavian vessels and have stents placed in a curved vessel adjacent to a perpetually beating heart. These stents can obstruct blood flow to the spinal cord, induce an inflammatory response, and in rare cases erode into the adjacent trachea or esophagus. Renal complications range from contrast-induced nephropathy to hypotension and ischemia to dissection. Emboli can lead to strokes and mesenteric ischemia. These patients have complex medical histories, and skilled perioperative management is critical to achieving the best clinical outcomes. Here, we review the medical management of the most common complications in these patients including stroke, spinal cord ischemia, renal injury, retrograde dissections, aortoesophageal and aortobronchial fistulas, postimplantation syndrome, mesenteric ischemia, and endograft failure.

Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a potentially lethal complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, data are limited regarding the development of RTAD post‐TEVAR. This systematic review aims to define the incidence, mortality, and potential risk factors of RTAD post‐TEVAR.

Methods and Results

Multiple electronic searches were performed. Fifty publications with a total of 8969 patients were analyzed. Pooled estimates for incidence and mortality of RTAD were 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–3.1) and 37.1% (95% CI, 23.7–51.6), respectively. Metaregression analysis evidenced that RTAD rate was associated with hypertension (P=0.043), history of vascular surgery (P=0.042), and American Surgical Association (P=0.044). The relative risk of RTAD was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.04–3.14) for acute dissection (relative to chronic dissection) and 5.33 (95% CI, 2.70–10.51) for aortic dissection (relative to a degenerative aneurysm). Incidence of RTAD was significantly different in patients with proximal bare stent and nonbare stent endografts (relative risk [RR]=2.06; 95% CI, 1.22–3.50). RTAD occurrence rate in zone 0 was higher than other landing zones.

Conclusions

The pooled RTAD rate after TEVAR was calculated at 2.5% with a high mortality rate (37.1%). Incidence of RTAD is significantly more frequent in patients treated for dissection than those with an aneurysm (especially for acute dissection), and when the proximal bare stent was used. Rate of RTAD after TEVAR varied significantly according to the proximal Ishimaru landing zone. The more‐experienced centers tend to have lower RTAD incidences.

A Rare Complication of TEVAR Performed for Complex Acute Stanford B Aortic Dissection

Management of aortic dissection with a novel endovascular technique known as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) paired with surgical debranching as a less invasive alternative to conventional repair has gained widespread acceptance. However, experience for complicated, Stanford type B dissection involving the aortic arch is still limited.

Treatment of an Aortic Arch Aneurysm with Scalloped and Fenestrated Thoracic Stent Graft and Left Carotid to Subclavian Artery Bypass

We report a successful treatment of thoracic arch aneurysm using a combination of hybrid approach and a customized stent graft in a frail patient with challenging anatomy and concomitant large retrosternal goiter. The patient is an 82-year-old lady with multiple comorbidities who presented to her general practitioner for anorexia and significant weight loss. She was incidentally found to have a 6.6-cm saccular distal aortic arch aneurysm, a 5.5-cm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, and a large goiter adjacent to the left common carotid artery (CCA) with retrosternal extension. The arch aneurysm was successfully managed with an open left common carotid to left subclavian bypass followed by thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a Cook stent graft customized to the patient's anatomy incorporating a proximal scallop for the brachiocephalic artery and a fenestration for the left CCA, and Amplatzer plug for occlusion of the ostium of the left subclavian artery. There was no endoleak and she was discharged uneventfully. She is planned for staged EVAR of her abdominal aortic aneurysm at a later date. In the presence of difficult arch aneurysm anatomies, the hybrid approach with bespoke stent grafts is a feasible alternative to open aortic arch replacement.

Short- and Long-term Results of Hybrid Arch and Proximal Descending Thoracic Aortic Repair

Purpose: To evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of hybrid repair of the arch and proximal descending aorta in a single tertiary center for aortic disease. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 55 patients (median age 67 years; 36 men) who underwent hybrid repair of thoracic aortic pathology with involvement of the arch between January 2005 and May 2015 at a single tertiary center. The pathologies included 40 (73%) with aneurysmal disease, 10 (18%) acute type B aortic dissections, 2 with acute aortic syndrome, an acute type A dissection, and left and aberrant right subclavian artery aneurysms. Seven (13%) procedures were performed as an emergency. Demographics and procedure characteristics were collected for analysis of survival and reinterventions. Results: Complete aortic debranching was performed in 14 (25%) to facilitate endograft placement in zone 0; debranching was partial in 20 (36%) patients for zone 1 deployments and 21 (38%) for zone 2. Primary technical success was achieved in 51 (93%) cases. One patient died in-hospital from aneurysm rupture following aortic debranching prior to stent-graft repair. In another, the stent-graft procedure proved infeasible and was abandoned. The other 2 technical failures were due to type Ia endoleaks. Five (9%) patients died in-hospital (4 of 48 elective and 1 of 7 emergency cases); 2 of these patients died within 30 days (4%). Eight (14%) patients had a stroke, 6 of 48 elective and 2 of the 7 emergency patients. Spinal cord ischemia was reported in 3 (6%) patients. Mean follow-up was 74.6 months. Overall cumulative survival was 70% at 1 year, 68% at 2 years, and 57% at 5 years. Reintervention to the proximal landing zone for type Ia endoleak was required in 6% of cases. The overall rate of aortic reintervention was 18% at 1 year, 21% at 2 years, and 36% at 5 years. Overall extra-anatomic graft patency was 99%. Conclusion: Hybrid repair of the aortic arch and proximal descending thoracic aorta is technically feasible, with acceptable short-term mortality. There is a low rate of proximal landing zone reintervention when hybrid techniques are used to create an adequate proximal landing zone. Extra-anatomic bypass grafts have good long-term patency. Ongoing disease progression means that further distal aortic interventions are often necessary in patients with extensive disease.

Comparison of Total Arch and Partial Arch Transposition During Hybrid Endovascular Repair for Aortic Arch Disease

OBJECTIVE

Total arch transposition (TAT) during hybrid endovascular repair for aortic arch disease is believed to allow a better landing zone, but also to be associated with higher peri-operative mortality than partial arch transposition (PAT). Information on this issue is limited.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective analysis. All 53 consecutive patients with aortic arch disease (41 males, mean age 65.0 years) who underwent hybrid endovascular repair with TAT (zone 0, n=20) or PAT (zone 1 or 2, n=33) from 2008 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The peri-operative and late outcomes of these two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including EuroSCORE II results, were similar in the two groups. After procedures, peri-operative mortalities and stroke rates were similar in the two groups (5.0% vs. 9.1%, p=1.000, and 10.0% vs. 6.1%, p=.627). Interestingly, all four strokes occurred in patients with a type III aortic arch irrespective of transposition type. Primary success rates (80.0% vs. 69.7%, p=.527) and type I endoleak incidences (20.0% vs. 27.3%, p=.744) were not significantly different. During follow up (mean duration 36.9 months), overall survival (89.7% vs. 87.4% at 1 year and 89.7% vs. 79.3% at 3 years; p=.375) and re-intervention free survival rates (78.6% vs. 92.0% at 1 year; 72.0% vs. 62.2% at 3 years, p=.872) were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality were high within the first year of hybrid endovascular therapy for aortic arch disease, implying that candidates for hybrid procedures need to be selected carefully. Hybrid endovascular repair with TAT was found to have peri-operative mortality, stroke, and long-term survival rates comparable with PAT, so hybrid endovascular repair may be considered, irrespective of type of arch reconstruction, when clinically indicated.

Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors of Cerebral Infarction in 439 Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

The aim of the study is to identify the potential risk factors of cerebral infarction associated with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). TEVAR was developed as a less invasive surgical alternative to conventional open repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm treatment. However, outcomes following TEVAR of aortic and distal arch aneurysms remain suboptimal. Cerebral infarction is a major concern during the perioperative period. We included 439 patients who underwent TEVAR of aortic aneurysms at a high-volume teaching hospital between July 2006 and June 2013. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify perioperative cerebral infarction risk factors. Four patients (0.9%) died within 30 days of TEVAR; 17 (3.9%) developed cerebral infarction. In univariate analysis, history of ischemic heart disease and cerebral infarction and concomitant cerebrovascular disease were significantly associated with cerebral infarction. "Shaggy aorta" presence, left subclavian artery coverage, carotid artery debranching, and pull-through wire use were identified as independent risk factors of cerebral infarction. In multivariate analysis, history of ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] 6.49, P = 0.046) and cerebral infarction (OR 43.74, P = 0.031), "shaggy aorta" (OR 30.32, P < 0.001), pull-through wire use during surgery (OR 7.196, P = 0.014), and intraoperative blood loss ≥800 mL (OR 24.31, P = 0.017) were found to be independent risk factors of cerebral infarction. This study identified patient- and procedure-related risk factors of cerebral infarction following TEVAR. These results indicate that patient outcomes could be improved through the identification and management of procedure-related risk factors.

Evolving practice pattern changes and outcomes in the era of hybrid aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVE

The role of hybrid repair in the management of aortic arch pathology, and long-term outcomes with these techniques, remains uncertain. We report a decade of experience with hybrid arch repair (HAR) and assess institutional practice patterns with regard to the use of hybrid and open techniques.

METHODS

Hybrid and open total and distal arch procedures performed between July 2005 and January 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional aortic surgery database. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival were calculated. Hybrid and open procedural volumes over the study period were assessed to evaluate for potential practice pattern changes.

RESULTS

During the study period 148 consecutive procedures were performed for repair of transverse and distal aortic arch pathology, including 101 hybrid repairs and 47 open total or distal arch repairs. Patients in the hybrid repair group were significantly older with a greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Perioperative mortality and outcomes were not significantly different between the hybrid and open groups, aside from decreased median length of stay after hybrid repair. Need for subsequent reintervention was significantly greater after hybrid repair. Unadjusted long-term survival was superior after open repair (70% 5-year survival open vs 47% hybrid; P = .03), although aorta-specific survival was similar (98% 5-year aorta-specific survival open vs 93% hybrid; P = .59). Institutional use of HAR decreased over the final 3 years of the study, with an associated increased use of open total or distal arch repairs. This was primarily the result of decreased use of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. Concurrent with this apparent increased stringency around patient selection for HAR, perioperative morbidity and mortality was reduced, including avoidance of retrograde type A dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

HAR remains a viable option for higher-risk patients with transverse arch pathology with perioperative outcomes and long-term aorta-specific survival similar to open repair, albeit at a cost of increased reintervention. This observational single-institution study would suggest decreased use in more recent years in favor of open repair due to avoidance of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. This decline in the institutional use of native zone 0 hybrid repairs was associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

Hybrid treatment of aortic arch disease

Introduction

The management of thoracic aortic disease involving the ascending aorta, aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta are technically challenging and is an area in constant development and innovation.

Objective

To analyze early and midterm results of hybrid treatment of arch aortic disease.

Methods

Retrospective study of procedures performed from January 2010 to December 2012. The end points were the technical success, therapeutic success, morbidity and mortality, neurologic outcomes, the rate of endoleaks and reinterventions.

Results

A total of 95 patients treated for thoracic aortic diseases in this period, 18 underwent hybrid treatment and entered in this study. The average ages were 62.3 years. The male was present in 66.7%. The technical and therapeutic success was 94.5% e 83.3%. The perioperative mortality rate of 11.1%. There is any death during one-year follow- up. The reoperation rates were 16.6% due 2 cases of endoleak Ia and one case of endoleak II. There is any occlusion of anatomic or extra anatomic bypass during follow up.

Conclusion

In our study, the hybrid treatment of aortic arch disease proved to be a feasible alternative of conventional surgery. The therapeutic success rates and re- interventions obtained demonstrate the necessity of thorough clinical follow-up of these patients in a long time.

One-stage hybrid procedure without sternotomy for treating thoracic aortic pathologies that involve distal aortic arch: a single-center preliminary study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the initial results of a hybrid procedure without sternotomy for treating descending thoracic aortic disease that involves distal aortic arch. It also intends to report our initial experience in performing this procedure.

METHODS

A total of 45 patients (35 males and 10 females) with descending thoracic aortic disease underwent a hybrid procedure, namely, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) combined with supra-arch branch vessel bypass, in our center from April 2009 to August 2014. Right axillary artery to left axillary artery bypass (n=20) or right axillary artery to left common carotid artery (LCCA) and left axillary artery bypass (n=25) were performed. The conditions of all patients were followed up from the 2(nd) month to the 65(th) month postoperative (mean, 26.0±17.1). Mortality within 30 days, complications such as endoleak after the hybrid procedure, and stenosis or blockage of the bypass graft during the follow-up period was assessed.

RESULTS

All the patients underwent a one-stage procedure. One case of death and one case of cerebral infarction were reported within 30 days. One patient died of the sudden drop in blood pressure during the 2(nd) day of operation. Meanwhile, another patient suffered from cerebral infarction. Two patients underwent open surgery, and one of them had to undergo a second TEVAR during the follow-up period. Moreover, endoleak occurred in two patients and a newly formed intimal tear was observed in one patient. Overall, 93.2% of the patients survived without any complication related to the hybrid procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial results suggest that the one-stage hybrid procedure is a suitable therapeutic option for thoracic aortic pathologies that involve distal aortic arch. However, this procedure is not recommended for type-B aortic dissection, in which a tear is located in the greater curvature or near the left subclavian artery (LSA), because of the high possibility of endoleak occurrence.

Spinal cord injury following thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repairs

Objective

To discuss the currently available approaches to prevent spinal cord injury during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repairs.

Methods

We carried out a PubMed search up to 2013 using the Medical Subject Headings: “aortic aneurysm/surgery” and “spinal cord ischemia”; “aortic aneurysm, thoracic/surgery” and “spinal cord ischemia”; “aneurysm/surgery” and “spinal cord ischemia/cerebrospinal fluid”; “aortic aneurysm/surgery” and “paraplegia”. All 190 original articles satisfying our inclusion criteria were analyzed for incidence, predictors, and other pertinent variables related to spinal cord injury, and we compared the results in recent publications with those in earlier reports.

Results

The mean age of the 38,491 patients was 65.3 ± 4.9 years. The overall incidence of paraplegia and/or paraparesis was 7.1% ± 6.1% (range 0%–32%). The incidence of spinal cord injury before 2000, from 2001 to 2007, and 2008–2013 was 9.0% ± 6.7%, 7.0% ± 6.1%, and 5.9% ± 5.2%, respectively ( p = 0.019). Various predictors of spinal cord injury were identified, extent of disease being the most common. Modification of surgical techniques, use of adjuncts, and better understanding of spinal cord perfusion physiology were attributed to the decrease in postoperative spinal cord injury in recent years.

Conclusions

Spinal cord injury after thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repair poses a real challenge to cardiovascular surgeons. However, with evolving surgical strategies, identification of predictors, and use of various adjuncts over the years, the incidence of spinal cord injury after thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic repair has declined. Embracing a multimodality approach offers a good insight into combating this grave complication.