Cervical Debranching in the Endovascular Era: A Single Centre Experience

Endovascular Repair With Triple Inner-Branch Endograft for Aberrant Subclavian Artery Aneurysm: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) is the preferred option for the treatment of the distal arch and descending thoracic aorta. Fenestrated and branched TEVAR have become an option to treat pathologies of the aortic arch, avoiding sternotomy and cardiopulmonary arrest as well as total surgical debranching. We describe here the case of a symptomatic patient with an arteria lusoria aneurysm associated with Kommerel diverticulum who underwent total endovascular repair with a triple-branched TEVAR.

CASE REPORT

A 66-year-old male patient was treated for a symptomatic arteria lusoria artery associated with a Kommerel diverticulum, resulting in difficulty swallowing and choking. We used a custom-made triple inner-branch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) following implantation of a right-sided carotid-subclavian (C-S) bypass. The C-S bypass occluded in the interval time between the 2 procedures and required recanalization and stent-graft placement during the aortic arch procedure. The arteria lusoria was embolized with a vascular plug. No complications occurred and postoperative tomography showed exclusion and thrombosis of the Kommerel diverticulum and perfusion of the supra-aortic vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of arteria lusoria aneurysms can be performed with total endovascular arch inner-branch repair, avoiding increased risk of morbidity and mortality caused by open or hybrid procedures.

Outcome of Revascularizing the Left Subclavian Artery via Carotid-Subclavian Bypass

BACKGROUND

 Endovascular thoracic aortic treatment frequently requires extending the proximal landing zone up into the aortic arch with consecutive covering of the left subclavian artery orifice. Our aim was to report on our outcome of left subclavian artery revascularization using carotid-subclavian bypass via lateral access to the subclavian artery.

METHODS

 Patients' charts in our aortic center were screened for all those who had undergone carotid-subclavian bypass during endovascular thoracic aortic repair procedures. We analyzed perioperative complications such as cervical plexus nerve or phrenic nerve injury, bleeding, and primary and follow-up graft patency.

RESULTS

 Between 2001 and 2020, 118 patients underwent carotid-subclavian bypass implantation. Postoperative complications included left-sided stroke in 3% and axillary, phrenic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in 3, 2, and 3%, respectively. Carotid-subclavian bypass-related death rate was 0%. Bypass patency was 92 ± 7% at 5 years. We documented nine (8%) bypass late occlusions with one left upper extremity ischemia and one late stroke due to an embolized thrombus formed at the bypass anastomosis. All others were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

 Carotid-subclavian bypass surgery is associated with very low risk of death, stroke, or any nerve palsy. Lateral access to the left subclavian artery reduces the risk of phrenic nerve injury.

Open Versus Zone 0/1 Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysm: A Propensity Score-Matched Study from the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although open surgical repair (OSR) is the gold standard for treating arch aneurysms, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may be a less invasive alternative. However, it remains unclear which of the 2 methods yields better outcomes. In this study, we compared the perioperative outcomes of both procedures for arch aneurysms using a nationwide surgical database.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent elective aortic repair for true arch aneurysms were extracted from the National Clinical Database of Japan. Patients who underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores and their mortality and morbidity rates were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2,815 and 1,125 patients underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR, respectively. After propensity score matching, 1,058 patients were included in both groups. Compared with OSR, Zone 0/1 TEVAR was associated with a significantly higher incidence of stroke (5.8 vs. 10.0%, P < 0.001) and paraplegia/paraparesis (1.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the 30-day and operative mortality rates between the 2 groups (2.2 vs. 2.7% and 4.5 vs. 5.4%, respectively). In the Zone 0/1 TEVAR group, postoperative computed tomography was performed in 92.4% of patients, and types I and III endoleaks were identified in 6.4% and 1.1% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 0/1 TEVAR has higher incidences of stroke and paraplegia/paraparesis than OSR, with a risk of postoperative endoleaks. Resolving these problems is the key for expanding the application of Zone 0/1 TEVAR and in the meantime OSR remains the gold standard for surgically fit patients.

Diagnosis and treatment of carotid-left subclavian bypass graft infection complicated with mitral valve aneurysm and perforation following hybrid TEVAR: A case report

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been proved to be an effective and reliable treatment option for aortic arch diseases requiring extension of the proximal landing zone. However, hybrid TEVAR was associated with potential risk of post-operative complications, including cerebral infarction, endoleaks and paraplegia. Here we reported a rare case of bypass graft infection complicated with mitral valve aneurysm and perforation following landing zone 2 hybrid TEVAR procedure, who presented with symptoms of fever, major bleeding and anastomotic pseudoaneurysm and received emergency bypass graft removal and stent implantation with acceptable short and midterm follow-up results.

Use of Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis to Rescue Inadvertent False Lumen Deployment of the Innominate Branch Stent During Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Aortic Arch Repair

A 70-year-old male with a history of 3 prior median sternotomies and on anticoagulation presented with acute chest and back pain associated with a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending and aortic arch in the setting of residual dissection involving the innominate, proximal right carotid, and subclavian arteries. A physician-modified triple vessel fenestrated-branched arch endograft was deployed. The innominate branch stent was deployed from the right carotid cut down, while the left carotid and left subclavian branch stents were placed from a femoral approach. Postoperatively, the innominate branch was found to be deployed in the false lumen of the dissected native innominate artery, leading to continued pressurization of the pseudoaneurysm. This was rescued by placing a Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) into the innominate branch through a temporary conduit sewn to the right carotid artery with a right subclavian branch placed via a brachial artery cut down into the internal iliac gate. The use of IBE allowed branch stent extension past the dissected native vessels. The patient had an uneventful recovery without neurologic complications. At 3-month follow-up, the patient remains well with an excluded pseudoaneurysm, and patent bifurcated innominate, bilateral carotid, and subclavian artery branches. A Gore IBE can be utilized in a dissected innominate artery to create an innominate branch device during fenestrated-branched endovascular arch repair.

Comparison of surgical and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic aortic endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Endovascular arch repair of anastomotic aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm in patients after open repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch: a case series

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate the outcomes of branched endovascular arch repair (b-TEVAR) with a custom-made double- or triple-branched arch endograft in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients with anastomotic aneurysms after open surgical repair involving the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch treated with b-TEVAR. All patients were treated with a custom-made double or triple inner-branched arch endograft. Study end points were technical success, 30-day and follow-up mortality/morbidity and re-interventions.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 10 patients were treated with custom-made double- or triple-branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending aorta and/or proximal aortic arch replacement. Eight patients received a triple and 2 a double arch-branched endograft. Eight cases were performed electively and 2 urgently for contained rupture. Technical success was achieved in 9 cases (90%). All elective patients survived. Two patients treated due to contained ruptures expired. Within 30 postoperative days, 1 transient ischaemic attack occurred. No early endograft-related re-interventions were necessary. The median follow-up was 20 months. One patient died 2 months after discharge due to sepsis caused by pneumonia. No further deaths or endograft-related re-interventions were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch repair with double or triple inner-branched arch endograft for anastomotic aneurysms after open ascending and/or proximal arch replacement is technically feasible and a promising alternative in a patient cohort unfit for surgery.

Cervical Debranching: Regional versus General Anesthesia for Carotid-Subclavian Bypass. A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

We report here the first cohort study comparing regional and general anaesthesia for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients who underwent cervical debranching with carotid-subclavian bypass before aortic repair from February 2018 to May 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of anesthesia: Regional anesthesia (RA) versus general anesthesia (GA). Primary endpoints included the following: 1) technical success of RA and 2) neurological complications (NCs) (stroke and peripheral neurological lesions). Secondary endpoints included postoperative bleeding, wound complications, 30-day reintervention rate, and midterm events.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were included in the study. The mean age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR]:13.5) and 69% were male. Thirty-seven patients (44.5%) were performed under RA. Technical success of RA was 89.2%. Two minor strokes (2.4%) were observed in the GA group (P = 0.199). Peripheral neurological disorders occurred in 4 patients (4.8%) (RA group n = 1 (2.7%), GA group n = 3 (6.5%), P = 0.491). 30-day complication rate was 27.7% (n = 23, GA: n = 15 (32.6%), RA: n = 8 (21.6%), P = 0.266). 30-day reintervention rate was 14.5% (n = 12) ten bleeding complications (12%) (RA group n = 3 (8.1%), GA group n = 7 (15.2%), P = 0.323), and 2 seroma evacuations (2.4%) in the RA group. The incidence of superficial wound infections was n = 6 (7.2%) (RA group n = 2 (5.4%), GA group n = 4 (8.7%), P = 0.565). Median follow-up time was 22 months (IQR 22 min/max 1-44).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, RA for carotid subclavian bypass surgery proved to be a feasible and effective anesthetic procedure compared with GA.

Expert opinion: How to treat type IA endoleakage

Type Ia endoleaks due to failed sealing or loss of landing zone and the adequate management thereof remain crucial for long-term therapeutic success following TEVAR. This expert opinion summarizes our institutional experience with endovascular, open surgical, and hybrid techniques in the context of recent scientific publications. The rapid turnover of technical innovations, but most importantly outcome data demonstrate the requirement for increasingly patient-tailored treatment strategies and the need for specialized aortic centers. The latter should offer a complete range of treatment options, an adequate perioperative management, and the highest level of multidisciplinary expertise.

Common Designs of Custom-Made Fenestrated Arch Devices and Applicability of an Off-the-Shelf Design

OBJECTIVES

To analyze device designs, similarities and overlaps of custom-made fenestrated arch endografts intended for mid/distal arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study analyzing custom-made anonymized graft plans was performed. Graft plans were included from a cohort of mid/distal aortic arch repairs using custom-made fenestrated aortic endografts treated at 8 centers. Grafts targeting >2 arteries were excluded. No patient/clinical data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed followed by an analysis of overlap of the designs to reach a common design in which the greatest number of grafts would overlap.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one graft plans were included. All grafts were custom-made grafts from the COOK Medical Fenestrated arch platform. Ninety-four (71.8%) had a scallop-and-single-fenestration design, 33 (25.2%) had a single fenestration and 4 (4.3%) a single scallop. For analysis purposes, these latter 4 grafts were excluded. Two main graft plans (Plans 1 and 2) were proposed after analysis with similar configuration (1 scallop with 30 mm width, 20 mm height, 12:00 position; 1 preloaded fenestration with 8 mm diameter, 26 mm from the top of the graft and 12:00 position; tapered, with a 193 mm length and 32 mm distal diameter) but with 2 different proximal diameters of 38 mm (Plan 1) and 44 mm (Plan 2), reaching an overall feasibility of 85.8% (n=109), being 47.2% (n=60) and 38.6% (n=49) for each design, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) graft designs was high. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In a multicenter study analyzing 127 fenestrated aortic arch endograft plans from 9 aortic centers, we found that the degree of overlap between the studied fenestrated and/or scalloped arch graft designs was high and that 2 proposed graft designs would be theoretically applicable in 85.8% of cases. Future studies analyzing these designs in a real-world cohort of patients are needed to further address off-the-shelf feasibility.

A review: Single and multi-branch devices for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with proximal sealing in Ishimaru Zone 0

Recently published experience has shown that endovascular management of the aortic arch, including sealing in the proximal zones, can be a viable option for patients considered unfit for conventional open repair. Endograft designs vary and include single or multibranch devices, with or without the addition of surgical debranching. Initial reports show that both techniques can be performed with high technical success and acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates in high volume centers. Single branch devices, available off-the-shelf, may provide a treatment option for emergent presentations where patients cannot wait for the design and manufacture of a customized endograft. Double or triple branched endografts are now increasingly implanted in high-volume aortic centers. The purpose of this review is to describe the single and multibranched endovascular devices currently available for aortic arch repair, their associated published outcomes, and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.

One-year outcome of postoperative stroke and nerve injury after supraclavicular revascularization of the left subclavian artery for proximal landing zone extension in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcome of stroke and nerve injury after supraclavicular revascularization of the left subclavian artery for proximal landing zone extension in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing left-sided carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) and subclavian-carotid transposition (SCT) with simultaneous or staged TEVAR between January 2010 and June 2019. Endpoints were perioperative cerebrovascular events and nerve injuries, patency and re-intervention due to the debranching, and mortality at 30 days and during follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (median age 66 years, 81 % male) had 25 (52%) CSB and 23 (48%) SCT. TEVAR was performed simultaneously in 39 (81%) patients, eleven (23%) of them in an emergent setting. There were seven (15%) re-interventions within 30 days: three due to local hematoma, one for bypass occlusion, two for stenosis (of which one was not confirmed intraoperatively), and one after initially abandoned SCT with subsequent CSB on the next day. Thirty-day mortality was 2%; one patient died on the first postoperative day after emergency coronary artery bypass surgery and multiorgan failure. Four (8%) patients suffered postoperative strokes; three occurred after simultaneous emergency procedures and none was fatal. There were nine (19%) left neck nerve injuries in eight patients, five patients had SCT and three CSB. During a median follow-up of 37.5 months (IQR 23-83) with a Follow-up Index of 0.77, there were no reinterventions or occlusions, and no graft infections. Primary patency was 90% and primary assisted patency 98% during follow-up. Eight patients died during follow-up, all of them with patent cervical debranching.

CONCLUSION

Supraclavicular LSA revascularization for proximal landing zone extension in TEVAR is safe with an acceptable rate of early re-interventions. There is higher risk for perioperative stroke during concomitant emergency LSA revascularization and TEVAR. Left neck nerve injuries are common complications but resolve completely in vast majority of the cases during first postoperative year. During follow-up, excellent patency could be expected.

Morphology of the left subclavian artery: implications for single-branched endovascular aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate the morphology of the aortic arch, focusing on the left subclavian artery (LSA), and to anticipate implications for single-branched endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

We performed a morphological analysis of computed tomography angiography scans of 322 patients between January 2002 and December 2018. Arch type and distance between arch vessels on the convexity were evaluated. We defined 3 morphological types: U-type distance between the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and LSA offspring >10 mm; V-type distance between the LCCA and LSA offspring <10 mm and W-type isolated left vertebral artery offspring from the aortic arch.

RESULTS

Most patients presented a type III arch [50% (n = 161)]. The median distance from the brachiocephalic trunk offspring to the LCCA offspring measured 2.5 mm (2.0-3.0 mm) and that between the LCCA offspring and the LSA offspring was 6.5 mm (4.0-11.0 mm). We observed no significant difference based on the morphological type (V versus U versus W) in the brachiocephalic trunk-LCCA distance, but there were significant differences in the LCCA-LSA distance between types V and U (P < 0.001) and between types V and W (P < 0.001). Interestingly, we found no significant difference in the LCCA-LSA distance between types U and W. We noted a significant difference in the median diameter of the LSA according to U, V and W types: V type versus U type, 12.5 vs 13.5 mm (P = 0.033) as well as U type versus W type, 13.5 vs 10.5 mm (P < 0.001) and V type versus W type, 12.5 vs 10.5 mm (P < 0.002). The distances between the LSA offspring and left vertebral artery offspring between types U and V did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our categorization of the U, V and W types of the LSA can help us anticipate shapes and distances and thereby function as an initial evaluation tool for predicting single branched endovascular aortic arch repair involving the LSA.

Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

Bail-out technique to detach a locked Viabahn endoprosthesis in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair

A 69-year-old female patient presented with a 5.8 cm thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm Crawford type II after partial arch replacement. She was treated by a branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedure using a branched arch endograft with one retrograde branch to the left subclavian artery. After deployment of a Viabahn as a bridging covered stent to the left subclavian artery, the deployment line did not detach and the delivery catheter could not be removed. With the use of a physician-modified sidehole catheter and balloon fixation, the pulling line could be released without displacement of the Viabahn endoprosthesis.

[Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - Endovascular Therapy Today and in the Future]

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.

Pre-Loaded Fenestrated Thoracic Endografts for Distal Aortic Arch Pathologies: Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Short and Mid Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine short and midterm outcomes of a pre-loaded fenestrated thoracic endograft (f-TEVAR) for exclusion of distal aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, retrospective study including consecutive patients from six experienced European vascular centres undergoing f-TEVAR for distal arch pathologies. Primary endpoints included peri-operative mortality and peri-operative stroke and/or spinal cord ischaemia rates. Secondary outcomes were technical success and mid to late events, including death and re-interventions. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 26. Mid to late term events were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 68 ± 11 years, 70% men). A total of 38% (n = 42) had a prior history of aortic dissection, and 24% (n = 26) prior aortic surgery. The mean aneurysm diameter was 59 ± 12 mm and the most frequent indication for treatment was post-dissection aneurysms (n = 42, 39%). Technical success was 99% (n = 107) despite intra-operative wire entanglement occurring in 29% (n = 31). The 30 day mortality rate was 3.7% (n = 4), with a 5.6% major stroke incidence (n = 6) and 3.7% (n = 4) spinal cord ischaemia rate. Three cases of retrograde dissection occurred (two of which were fatal), all in post-type B dissecting aneurysm patients without prior aortic surgery (three of 19, 15.8%). Median follow up was 12 months (range, 1 - 26). Endoleaks were documented during follow up, with 3.5% type Ia (4/104) and 2.9% type Ib (3/104) as a result of persistent false lumen perfusion. The one, two, and three year survivals and freedom from re-intervention rates were 93.2% and 92.1%, 89.1% and 86.3%, and 84.4% and 73%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study shows that treatment of the distal aortic arch by f-TEVAR is feasible, with promising 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia rates.

Multicenter global early feasibility study to evaluate total endovascular arch repair using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts for aneurysms and dissections

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts for aneurysms and chronic dissections.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients treated by total endovascular aortic arch repair at eight academic centers using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) from 2016 to 2019. All patients received three-vessel designs with two antegrade and one retrograde inner branch, which was used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches were accessed via a carotid or an upper extremity approach. A preloaded catheter was used for access to the retrograde left subclavian artery branch via a transfemoral approach. The endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events, any stroke (minor or major) or transient ischemia attack, secondary interventions, target vessel patency, target vessel instability, aneurysm-related mortality, and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients (31 men [79%]; mean age, 70 ± 7 years) had undergone treatment of 14 degenerative (36%) and 25 chronic (64%) postdissection arch aneurysms. The clinical characteristics included American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥III in 28 patients (95%) and previous median sternotomy for ascending aortic repair in 28 patients (72%). The technical success rate was 100%. Two patients had died in-hospital or within 30 days (5%), and two patients had experienced a stroke (one minor). The combined mortality and any stroke rate was 8% (n = 3). Major adverse events occurred in 10 patients (26%), including respiratory failure in 4 (10%) and estimated blood loss >1 L, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury in 2 patients each (5%). The median follow-up was 3.2 months (interquartile range, 1-14 months). Of the 39 patients, 12 (31%) required secondary interventions to treat vascular access complications in 5, endoleak in 6 (three type II, one type Ic, one type Ia/Ib, one type IIIa), and target vessel stenosis in 1 patient. At 1 year, the primary and secondary patency rates and freedom from target vessel instability were 95% ± 5%, 100%, and 91% ± 5%, respectively. Freedom from aortic-related mortality and patient survival was 94% ± 4% and 90% ± 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from the present multicenter global experience have demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair for aneurysms and chronic dissections using three-vessel inner branch stent-grafts. The mortality and stroke rates compare favorably with those after open surgical repair in a higher risk group of patients. However, the rate of secondary interventions was high (31%), emphasizing need for greater experience and longer follow-up.

Technical Aspects of Fenestrated Arch TEVAR With Preloaded Fenestration

Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) has expanded the possibilities of endovascular arch repair, allowing treatment of pathologies involving the aortic arch that require sealing in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2. The growing number of implantations has increased physician experience and helped identify critical procedural points, mainly wire entanglement and device malrotation. Herein we describe a step-by-step approach to a f-TEVAR procedure with the Zenith fenestrated preloaded thoracic endograft, identifying potential pitfalls and suggesting problem-solving solutions.

Hybrid Repair versus Conventional Open Repair Approaches for Aortic Arch Disease: a Comprehensive Review

Objective

To investigate whether hybrid repair has supremacy over conventional open repair in aortic arch diseases.

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken in two major databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) to identify all studies comparing the two surgical techniques in five years, up to December 2018, that met the established criteria in this study. The search returned 310 papers, and 305 were selected after removing duplicates. The abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed, resulting in 15 studies that went to full-text analysis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers remained for the final revision.

Results

Eight studies met the criteria, with the inclusion of 1,837 patients. From a short-term perspective, hybrid repair and conventional open repair had similar outcomes in terms of postoperative mortality and acute neurological events. Hybrid repair was associated with less respiratory complications and risk of new intervention, as well as reduced hospital length of stay. Conventional open repair showed better mid- and long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Hybrid repair should be used in selected patients, with a high risk or very high-risk profile for conventional surgery. Finally, since most of the current data were obtained from limited to large samples, with narrow follow-up and had great heterogeneity, the best approach to the aortic arch is still variable. Therefore, the decision of the approach should be individualized and evaluated by the whole Heart Team, considering the expertise of the surgical team.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed.

RESULTS

Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.

One-stage hybrid procedure for distal aortic arch disease: mid-term experience at a single center

Background

This study analyzes the outcomes of a one-stage hybrid procedure combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in patients with distal aortic arch disease.

Methods

This retrospective study collected 103 hybrid procedures combining TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (mean age, 62.2±9.3 years; 90 males) performed from January 2009 to January 2019 at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. We analyzed 30-day and mid-term outcomes including survival rate and the incidence of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and endoleak.

Results

Five deaths (4.6%) occurred within 30 days, including type I endoleak in Zone 1 (n=1), hemorrhagic shock (n=1), stroke (n=2), and stent migration (n=1). Two patients developed SCI. The median follow-up time was 39.5 (interquartile range, 13.6-69.0) months. In all, 14 late deaths occurred; these were due to stroke (n=2), severe pneumonia (n=1), aortic rupture caused by type I endoleak (n=3), and sudden death (n=8). Six late endoleaks occurred including three type I and one type II in Zone 1 and two type I in Zone 2. In a competing risks analysis, the incidences of reintervention at 7 years, late death, and survival without reintervention were 8%, 22%, and 70%, respectively. In a Cox risk model, stroke (HR, 21.602; 95% CI: 2.798–166.796; P=0.003) was the only risk factor for 30-day mortality. Stroke (HR, 19.484; 95% CI: 5.245–72.380; P<0.001), SCI (HR, 15.548; 95% CI: 2.754–87.786; P=0.002), and endoleak (HR, 4.626; 95% CI: 1.068–20.040; P=0.041) were independent risk factors for long-term mortality.

Conclusions

The one-stage hybrid procedure provides acceptable mid-term results with good mid-term patency of extra-anatomic bypass. Strict selection of patients suitable for hybrid repair can effectively improve the survival rate and reduce the incidence of complications. At the same time, close follow-up patients should receive close long-term follow-up after hybrid procedure.

Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions

BACKGROUND

Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques.

METHODS

The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid-subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.

"Modern Endovascular Therapy"

INTRODUCTION

The past 25 years have been witness to a revolution in how vascular care is delivered. The majority of arterial and venous interventions have converted from open surgery to minimally invasive percutaneous endovascular procedures.

METHODS

This surgical innovations symposium article reviews current endovascular therapy in multiple vascular beds with a primary focus on carotid artery occlusive disease, aortic pathologies, and lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. Mesenteric arterial occlusive disease and lower extremity venous endovascular therapies are also briefly discussed. Indications for intervention, treatment examples and outcomes analysis are presented. While not reviewed in this article, endovascular therapy has also become first line in the treatment of coronary artery disease, chronic mesenteric arterial occlusive disease, superficial venous reflux, central vein occlusion, and acute venous thrombus intervention when indicated.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular therapies are used in all vascular beds to treat the full spectrum of vascular pathologies. Aneurysm disease, atherosclerotic arterial occlusive disease, acute arterial and venous thrombosis, ongoing hemorrhage, and venous reflux are among the issues which can be addressed by endovascular means. The minimally invasive nature of endovascular treatments in what is largely a very co-morbid patient cohort is an attractive method of avoiding major procedural related morbidity and mortality.

Anatomical Suitability of the Aortic Arch Arteries for a 3-Inner-Branch Arch Endograft

PURPOSE

To analyze aortic arch anatomy of patients who were already treated with a 2-inner-branch arch endograft (2-IBAE) in order to assess the anatomical suitability of the supra-aortic arteries as target vessels for a 3-IBAE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three different configurations of the Cook Zenith Arch endograft were designed with distances of 110 mm (model 1), 90 mm (model 2), and 70 mm (model 3) between the orifices of the first and third inner branches. Preoperative measurements of the aortic arch anatomy from 104 consecutive patients treated electively with custom-made 2-IBAEs at 2 European centers between 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. A previously described standard methodology with a planning sheet was used. Data and measurements included the treatment indication for the aortic arch pathology, the type of landing zone, the type of arch, and the inner and outer lengths of the ascending aorta from the sinotubular junction to the innominate artery (IA). Additionally, the diameters and clock positions of the IA, left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) were assessed, along with the distances between the IA and the LCCA, the IA and the LSA, and the distal landing zone.

RESULTS

Type I was the most common arch configuration (75/104, 72%). The mean clock positions were 12:30±00:28 for the IA, 12:00±00:23 for the LCCA, and 12:15±00:29 for the LSA. The mean diameters were 14.2±2.2 mm for the IA, 8.8±1.8 mm for the LCCA, and 10.5±2 mm for the LSA. The mean distances between the IA and LCCA and between the IA and LSA were 14.7±5.8 mm and 33±9.4 mm, respectively. Model 2 (branch distance 90 mm) had the highest suitability (79%), while models 1 and 3 showed suitability rates of 73% and 68%, respectively. The most frequent exclusion criterion in all models was the diameter of the LSA, followed by the IA to LSA distance.

CONCLUSION

The suitability for a 3-IBAE among patients who had a 2-IBAE implanted is high, favoring a 90-mm distance between the retrograde LSA branch and baseline.

Aneurysms and dissections - What is new in the literature of 2019/2020 - a European Society of Vascular Medicine annual review

More than 6,000 publications were found in PubMed concerning aneurysms and dissections, including those Epub ahead of print in 2019, printed in 2020. Among those publications 327 were selected and considered of particular interest.

Trends and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open concomitant cervical debranching

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the most common surgical procedure for treatment of descending thoracic aortic pathology. Cervical debranching in the form of carotid-subclavian bypass or transposition (CSBT) and carotid-carotid bypass (CCB) has enabled the use of TEVAR for the treatment of more complex anatomy involving the arch. The present study examined the effects of concomitant cervical bypass on the perioperative outcomes of TEVAR.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files (2005-2017) were reviewed. Using the Current Procedural Terminology codes, all patients who had undergone TEVAR were identified and were divided into three groups: TEVAR, TEVAR with one bypass (CSBT or CCB), and TEVAR with two bypasses (CSBT and CCB). The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of the three groups were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3281 patients had undergone TEVAR and 10% had also undergone one or more debranching procedure (one bypass, 9%; two bypasses, 1%). The frequency of debranching had increased from 3.4% to 10.9% (P = .01) during the study period. Significant differences were found among the three groups in age, sex, smoking history, urgency of surgery, and anesthesia technique. The patients who had undergone TEVAR with cervical debranching had had significantly greater morbidity, longer operating times, and longer hospital stays compared with those who had undergone TEVAR alone. The mortality of TEVAR with two bypasses (22.6%) was significantly greater than that of TEVAR alone (7.5%) and TEVAR with one bypass (6.8%; P < .01). The total morbidity (30.9% vs 35.1% vs 67.7%; P < .001) and stroke rate (3% vs 7.5% vs 12.9%; P < .0001) increased with the increasing number of bypasses. A subgroup analysis of patients who had undergone TEVAR with one bypass showed no significant differences in mortality between TEVAR plus CSBT (6.6%) vs TEVAR plus CCB (8.8%; P = .63). Multivariable analysis showed that TEVAR with two bypasses was associated with significantly increased mortality compared with TEVAR alone (odds ratio [OR], 4.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-10.73) and TEVAR with one bypass (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.24-9.51). Older age (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13), dependent functional status (OR, 1.48; 1.00-2.19), dialysis (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.57-4.33), and emergent status (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.73-4.90) were also associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with concomitant cervical debranching has been increasingly used to treat complex aortic pathology but is associated with significantly worse outcomes than TEVAR alone. As advanced endovascular technology to treat the aortic arch emerges, the outcomes of open surgical debranching in the present study constitute an important benchmark for comparison.

Early and Long-term Results of ePTFE (Gore TAG®) versus Dacron (Relay Plus® Bolton) Grafts in Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare early and late results of an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE-Gore TAG®, group A) mesh structured endograft versus a Dacron one (Relay Plus® Bolton, group B) in thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

A prospective database was used to extract information from anonymous patients who underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAAs) between February 2005 and February 2019 at 3 referral university hospitals. Cases treated by means of ePTFE endograft (Gore TAG, group A) and Dacron graft (Relay Plus Bolton, group B) in elective and urgent settings were included. Early and late outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 129 consecutive patients were included (115 men and 14 women). ePTFE-Gore TAG® and Dacron-Relay Plus® Bolton were used in 56 (43.4%) and 73 (56.5%) patients, respectively. Preoperative characteristics of patients were similar. Technical success was 100%. Urgent procedures were 22.4%. Mean aortic coverage and partial debranching were 217.5 ± 91.3 and 37.2%, respectively. Early mortality and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) were 8.5% and 2.3%, respectively, without differences between the 2 groups. Early reintervention was required in 5.4% (group A) and 11% (group B), P = 0.29. Median follow-up was 32 months (interquartile range 12-55 months, range 1-156 months), similar between the 2 groups. Type I endoleak (EL), type II EL, and type III EL were observed in 16.3%, 10.9%, and 3.1% of cases, respectively, without significant differences between the groups. The rate of sac shrinkage was 28.6% in group A vs. 39.7% in group B (P = 0.19). Freedom from reintervention in group A versus group B at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 94.0% vs. 97.1%, 94.0% vs. 95.5%, 90.8% vs. 86.9%, and 81.1% vs. 80.4%, respectively (log-rank 0.35, Breslow 0.54). Rate of survival at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 96.0% vs. 94.2%, 89.3% vs. 86.8%, 76.5% vs. 77.5%, and 63.3% vs. 64.2%, respectively (log-rank 0.30, Breslow 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

ePTFE-Gore TAG and Dacron-Relay Plus Bolton in DTAA presented similar early and late results in terms of mortality, SCI, EL, and TEVAR-related reinterventions. Effectiveness of TEVAR procedure was confirmed by the high rate of sac shrinkage and it was not influenced by endograft fabric.

Systematic Review on the Use of Physician-Modified Endografts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Diseases

BACKGROUND

The total endovascular approach is in current evolution, and many series have described variable outcomes for branched technology, chimney techniques, or fenestrated repair; and even a combination of some of them. We aim to describe the current outcomes on physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for this systematic review. The search was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used the following search terms in all possible combinations: home-made, physician-modified, surgeon-modified, on-table modification, hand-made, endograft, endovascular, aortic arch, and TEVAR: a thorough search of the English-language literature published until March 2020 was performed to identify studies using physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases. Only studies with treatment of 3 patients or more and with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were enrolled in the systematic review, whereas case reports were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Six articles participated in the systematic review after the exclusions, including a total of 239 patients for analysis. Four high-volume centers provided data including a high rate of single fenestrations in zone 2, accounting for nearly 70% of the cases. About 80.3% were males, and 67.4% received urgent treatment mainly for acute/subacute dissection (64.4%). Thoracic aortic aneurysm and/or postdissection arch aneurysm was the second leading cause of treatment with 25.9%. There was a technical success of 93.7% reaching up to 98.3% when additional procedures were performed. The 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, paraplegia, and stent-induced new entry rates were 2.9%, 2.1%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively; whereas, overall mortality of the study was 4.6% at a mean follow-up of 33.2 ± 14.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Endograft modification for aortic arch diseases' treatment demonstrates to be safe and highly effective, especially for aortic dissections needing single zone 2 fenestrations. Although outcomes achieved in the study seem encouraging, these are achieved at high-volume experienced centers, thus, they need to be judiciously evaluated, whereas proctoring may be a good alternative if one patient may benefit from the technique in an unexperienced center.

Role of Endoluminal Techniques in the Management of Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

In recent guidelines of international societies, the most frequent indication for treatment after chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD) is aneurysmal dilatation. Endovascular repair is recommended in patients with moderate to high surgical risk or with contraindications to open repair. During the last decade, many advances have been made in the field of endovascular techniques and devices. The aim of this article is to address the current status of endoluminal techniques for the management of cTBAD including standard thoracic endovascular repair, new devices, fenestrated and branched abdominal aortic devices and false lumen occlusion techniques.

Off-the-Shelf Devices for Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases: Midterm Follow-up of TEVAR With Chimneys or Physician-Made Fenestrations

Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using chimney grafts (ch-TEVAR) or thoracic stent-grafts with fenestrations made on the back table (f-TEVAR) to treat thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 474 consecutive patients (mean age 62.3±10.7 years; 346 men) treated with either f-TEVAR (n=110) or ch-TEVAR (n=364) for 352 TADs (81 f-TEVAR and 271 ch-TEVAR) or 122 TAAs (29 f-TEVAR and 93 ch-TEVAR) from 2008 to 2016. The primary endpoints at 30 days and during follow-up were overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications. The secondary endpoints were endoleak and reintervention. The patency of the target branches, cost of hospitalization, and the use of antiplatelet drugs were also analyzed. Results: Intraoperative type I endoleaks were treated in 69 (14.6%) cases (4 f-TEVAR and 65 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01) to achieve 100% technical success. Four (0.8%) patients died within 30 days [1 (0.9%) f-TEVAR and 3 (0.8%) ch-TEVAR]. Perioperative cerebral ischemia (1 fatal stroke) occurred in 9 (1.9%) patients: (1 f-TEVAR and 8 ch-TEVAR, p=0.39). During the mean follow-up of 50.6±20.0 months (49.5±18.3 months in f-TEVAR and 50.9±20.6 months in ch-TEVAR), 11 (2.3%) patients died of an aorta-related event. Type I endoleak was present in 40 (8.4%) patients (1 f-TEVAR and 39 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01). Eleven (2.3%) patients experienced stent-graft migration and 13 (2.7%) had a retrograde dissection. One hundred (16.9%) of the 593 branch stents occluded (4/75 in the f-TEVAR group and 96/518 in the ch-TEVAR group, p<0.01). The branch reintervention rate was 7.2% (34/474). The f-TEVAR group had a significantly higher probability of freedom from branch occlusion (92%) than the ch-TEVAR group (83%, p=0.007). Conclusion: Off-the-shelf techniques employing chimney grafts and homemade fenestrations are both suitable options for TAD and TAA involving the supra-aortic branches, with a low incidence of reintervention. Fenestrated TEVAR seems to have more favorable short- and midterm outcomes. Further study of these off-the-shelf techniques for aortic arch repair is warranted.