Supra-aortic hybrid endovascular procedures for complex thoracic aortic disease: Single center early to midterm results

Aortic Arch Debranching and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of type B aortic dissections (TBADs). However, the proximal aspect of the aortic pathology treated may infringe on the origin of the left subclavian artery or even more proximally. Hence, to ensure durable outcomes, the origin of these vessels needs to be covered, but an extra-anatomical bypass is required to perfuse vital branches, known as aortic arch debranching. This series aims to describe and delineate the disparities of aortic arch debranching during TEVAR for TBAD.

METHODS

A retrospective review and analysis of a multicenter international database was conducted to identify patients with TBAD treated with TEVAR between 2005 and 2021. Data analyzed included patient demographics, disease characteristics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes with follow-up on mortality and reintervention. All statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS 26. Patient survival was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the analysis, of which 27 (46.6%) presented with complicated disease and 31 were uncomplicated, of which 10 (17.2%) were classed as high risk and 21 (36.2%) low risk. Zone 2 was the most common proximal landing zone for the stent graft. Left subclavian artery bypass was performed selectively (26%), with 1 stroke occurring, likely due to embolic reasons. A further 6 underwent more proximal aortic debranching before TEVAR (10%) and was a significant risk factor for mortality and the number of stents deployed. The overall rates of reintervention and mortality were 17.2% (n = 10) and 29.3% (n = 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch debranching and TEVAR for TBAD is associated with significant mortality. Future developments to treat aortic arch pathology could incorporate branched graft devices, eliminating the need for debranching, improving stroke rates, and reducing future reinterventions.

Analysis of Spinal Ischemia after Frozen Elephant Trunk for Acute Aortic Dissection: An Observational, Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

This observational study aimed to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients who underwent aortic repair with the frozen elephant trunk technique (FET) after acute aortic Stanford A dissection.

METHODS

From May 2015 to April 2019, 31 patients underwent aortic arch replacement with the FET technique, and spinal ischemia was observed in 4 patients. The risk factors for postoperative SCI were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients with acute aortic dissection was 57.1 years, and 29.4% were female. Four patients developed SCI. There were no significant differences in characteristics such as age and body mass index. The female gender was associated with most of the SCI cases in the univariate analysis (75%, p = 0.016). Known perioperative and intraoperative risk factors were not related to postoperative SCI in our study. Patients who developed SCI had increased serum postoperative creatinine levels (p = 0.03). Twenty-four patients showed complete false lumen thrombosis up to zones 3-4, five patients up to zones 5-6 and two patients up to zones 7-9, which correlates with the postoperative development of SCI (p = 0.02). The total number of patent intercostal arteries was significantly reduced postoperatively in SCI patients (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative acute kidney injury, the reduction in patent intercostal arteries after surgery and the extension of false lumen thrombosis up to and beyond zone 5 may play a significant role in the development of clinically relevant spinal cord injury after FET.

Evaluating the effectiveness of using negative pressure wound therapy in the preservation of the infected prosthetic aortic graft

BACKGROUND

Infected deep sternal infection due to an associated infection of the prosthetic aortic graft is a devastating condition. Standard management requires the removal of the graft and substituting it with a new one. Often, removal of the prosthetic graft is close to impossible. Negative pressure wound therapy is currently the treatment of choice for patients with deep sternal infection. However, its use in deep sternal infection with exposed infected prosthetic aortic graft has not been well described.

METHODS

Eight patients were included in this study. All had type A aortic dissection of the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch.

RESULTS

There were 7 men and 1 woman. The median age was 53 years old (range 33-81 years old). The median number of days from the initial aortic operation to the diagnosis of infection was 20 days (range 14-52). The median length of stay in the intensive care unit was 17 days (range 6-338 days). The median time interval from the initial debridement to reconstruction was 20 days (range 6-43 days). The median number of times negative pressure wound therapy was changed was 4 (range 2-9). The most common flap used for reconstruction was the pectoralis major musculocutaneous flap in 7 patients, a free antero-lateral thigh flap in 1 patient, and pedicled omental flap in combination with pectoralis major musculocutaneous flap in 1 patient. One patient had persistent recurrent infection of the graft despite negative pressure wound therapy and flap reconstruction. The median length of follow-up was 38.5 months (range 4-120 months).

CONCLUSION

This small study suggests that negative pressure wound therapy could be used successfully for the management of deep sternal infection due to infected prosthetic aortic grafts. In most cases, it eliminated the need to replace the infected prosthetic aortic graft in high-risk patients.

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.

Zone 1 Aortic Arch Hybrid Endovascular Repair with Extra-anatomical Bypass: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the morbidity and mortality outcomes of adult patients with aortic arch disease managed with extra-anatomical bypass avoiding median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass, with simultaneous or staged hybrid zone 1 endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were carried out to identify relevant studies on zone 1 hybrid arch repair. Extracted data were analyzed by random effects models. Primary outcomes included 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Longitudinal survival was analyzed up to 7 years from date of operation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital morbidity, as well as late endoleak and reintervention.

RESULTS

Twenty studies incorporating 348 patients were included. In-hospital or 30-day mortality was 10.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.7-14.9%). Overall operative technical success was 89.8% (83.7-93.8%). Early type 1 endoleak rate was 14.0% (7.4-24.7%). Stroke prevalence was 9.5% (6.1-14.3%). Spinal cord paraplegia prevalence was 3.8% (1.9-7.6%). Retrograde aortic dissection prevalence was 4.1% (1.5-10.6%). Survival at 1 year postoperatively was 77.2% (66.1-85.4%). Survival at 3 years postoperatively was 73.7% (59.2-84.4%). Survival beyond 4 years postoperatively (range 58-80 months) was 65.9% (53.6-76.4%). Late type 1 endoleak prevalence was 11.8% (5.5-23.7%). Overall rate of reintervention was 11.6% (6.4-20.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 1 hybrid repair has evidence for satisfactory short- and long-term morbidity/mortality outcomes and may be considered as an alternative approach to aortic arch disease.

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.

Methods and clinical outcomes of in situ fenestration for aortic arch revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Despite endovascular advances in fenestrated and branched devices, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for arch pathologies remains challenging. The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary review on the current evidence for in situ fenestration during TEVAR and to evaluate its short- and mid-term clinical outcome in the management of arch pathology.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on in situ fenestration of thoracic aortic stent-graft from January 2003 to September 2018 was performed under the instruction of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 169 studies, of which 21 articles were relevant to the topic and were finally included. One hundred and forty-five in situ fenestration procedures in 99 patients were reviewed, involving 25 innominate arteries (17%), 33 left common carotid arteries (23%) and 87 left subclavian arteries (60%). Twelve patients (12/99, 12%) had two-vessel fenestration and three-vessel fenestration was performed in 17 patients (17/99, 17%). Technical success was achieved in 136 arteries (136/145, 93%). Talent/Valiant with monofilament twill woven polyester fabric was the most common (50/99, 51%) stent-graft used for fenestration. Three methods reported for in situ fenestration were needle, laser and radiofrequency. Needle was the most frequently used device for fenestration, which was performed in 60 patients (60/99, 61%). Three patients (3/99, 3%) died with 30 days, none were in situ fenestration TEVAR procedure-related. Perioperative complications including one (1%) retrograde type A aortic dissection, two (2%) type II endoleaks, and three (3%) strokes were reported. The pooled estimate for overall technical success, perioperative mortality and stroke was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.6%-93.9%), 5.9% (95% CI, 2.5%-13.4%) and 9.5% (95% CI, 4.1%-20.6%), respectively. Four patients (4/96, 4%) died during follow-up, none were aortic-related. All the fenestration bridging stents were reportedly patent, with only 1 (1/96, 1%) asymptomatic left subclavian stent stenosis. Two patients (2/96, 2%) with type II endoleak from left subclavian artery required secondary intervention.

CONCLUSION

In situ fenestration appeared to be a feasible and effective method to extend proximal landing zone during TEVAR. It had an acceptable short-term result with high technical success and low fenestration related morbidity. Long-term durability data were lacking, and there was no high level evidence to recommend the routine use of in situ fenestration TEVAR for the management of arch pathology.

Hybrid Open-Endovascular Repair in a Patient With Giant Contained Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

Contained rupture of an aortic aneurysm is a high-mortality condition that requires immediate repair. Open repair has been the gold standard; however, endovascular and hybrid open-endovascular repair techniques have also emerged as less invasive solutions to this vascular emergency. Here. we present a patient with a giant 14.0 cm contained rupture of a Thoracic aortic aneurysm and 7.4 cm juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm who was successfully treated with hybrid open-endovascular repair.

Arch branch endografts for arch aneurysms associated with bovine anomaly

Bovine aortic arch is known to be associated with an increased rate of aortic arch expansion. The most frequently observed human variant of bovine aortic arch is a common origin of the innominate trunk and left common carotid artery. This is a report of two patients who had successful custom-made arch branch endograft treatment for an arch aneurysm associated with bovine arch anomaly. Modular endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms using an inner-branched device adds to the armamentarium of treatment options, and is a minimally invasive management modality without the need for sternotomy or intraoperative extracorporeal bypass.

Treatment of aortic arch aneurysms: Open surgery or hybrid procedure?

Background

This study aims to compare the results of hybrid procedure and open surgery for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms.

Methods

Twenty-six p atients (21 m ales, 5 females; m ean a ge 56.6±12.4 years; range, 20 to 83 years) who underwent total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm between January 2004 and January 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: open conventional surgery group (group 1, n=15) and hybrid procedure (total debranching of the aortic arch and simultaneous endovascular stent) group (group 2, n=11). Survival rates and need for reoperation were compared between the groups.

Results

The hybrid procedure was found to be more favorable in terms of postoperative revision, extubation period, and drainage amounts. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the survival rates, need for reoperation, and major adverse cardiovascular events between the groups.

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that conventional open surgery and hybrid procedure are similar in terms of survival and short-to-mid-term results in patients undergoing total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm.

Alternative management of the left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic dissection: a single-center experience

Background

Since the new 2009 guidelines for left subclavian artery (LSA) management using thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), a few studies have been published about alternative LSA management. The objective of this study was to present the follow-up results of covered or revascularized LSA during TEVAR.

Methods

From January 2010 to August 2012, 109 consecutive patients were treated with TEVAR at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, for aortic dissection extending near the LSA. After evaluating the bilateral vertebral arteries, fifty-two LSAs were covered and not revascularized (covered group), while 57 LSAs were preserved (revascularized group). Complications were stratified according to the time of occurrence after surgery.

Results

Emergency operations were more common (17.3 vs. 3.5 %, P = 0.017) and operation time was shorter (96.9 ± 16.3 vs. 135.3 ± 38.4 min, P < 0.001) in the covered group. Pulselessness and intermittent claudication of the left arm occurred in most patients in the covered group (P < 0.001). Incidence of stroke and cold shoulder feeling were higher in the covered group compared with the revascularized group (P = 0.026 and <0.001, respectively). There were five aorta-related deaths in the covered group and one in the revascularized group. Eight endoleaks were observed in the revascularized group (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that due to occurrence of complications, LSA should be preserved or revascularized to reduce complications and to improve patients’ quality of life.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch pathology

The objective was to evaluate a 13-year single-centre experience of arch endovascular aortic repair using the hybrid approach. Between 1999 and 2013, 491 patients were treated with endografts for thoracic aortic pathologies. The aortic arch was involved in 179 (36.5%) patients (128 men; mean age 70.2 ± 10.8 years, range 27-84). A hybrid approach was performed for all Zone 0 and 1 procedures and in nearly half of Zone 2 procedures. Early and mid-term outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. Overall primary technical success (24 h) was achieved in 162 (90.5%) of the 179 cases; 2 deaths and 15 Type 1 endoleaks were observed. Clinical success at 30 days was achieved in 161 (89.9%) of the 179 patients, with a mortality rate of 4.5% (8/179). Short-term clinical success at 6 months was achieved in 169 (94.4%) of the 179 patients; the rates for the different landing zones did not differ significantly. At a mean follow-up of 27.3 ± 15.7 months (range 1-94), the mid-term clinical success was 165 (92.2%) of the 179 patients; the rates among the different proximal zones did not differ significantly. In selected patients, early and mid-term outcomes of arch endovascular aortic repair using the hybrid approach are promising; however, mortality and morbidity are not negligible. Our results may have practical implications for the ongoing evaluation of the hybrid procedure in the aortic arch, as well as for patients fit for traditional surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hybrid aortic arch replacement

BACKGROUND

Evolution in the endovascular era has influenced the management of aortic arch pathologies. Several studies have described the use of a combined endovascular and open surgical approach to the treatment of arch diseases. Hybrid repair of arch pathologies has been considered as a less invasive method, and is therefore an appealing option for high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open repairs. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of hybrid techniques in patients with aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Extensive electronic literature search was undertaken to identify all articles published up to December 2012 that described hybrid aortic arch repair with intrathoracic supra-aortic branch revascularisation and subsequent stent graft deployment. Eligible studies were divided into two groups: group I included studies on the aortic arch debranching procedure and group II included studies that reported an elephant trunk technique (either "frozen" or stented). Separate meta-analyses were conducted in order to assess technical success, stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal failure requiring dialysis, and cardiac and pulmonary complications rate, as well as 30-day/in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were eligible for the present meta-analysis: 26 studies with a total of 956 patients reported aortic arch debranching procedures, and 20 studies with 1,316 patients performed either 'frozen' or stented elephant trunk technique. The pooled estimate for 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 11.9% for the arch debranching group and 9.5% for the elephant trunk group. Cerebrovascular events of any severity were found to have occurred postoperatively at a pooled rate of 7.6% and 6.2%, while irreversible spinal cord injury symptoms were present in a pooled estimate of 3.6% and 5.0% in the arch debranching and elephant trunk group, respectively. Renal failure requiring dialysis occurred at 5.7% and 3.8% in both groups, while cardiac complications rate was 6.0% in the arch debranching cohort and pulmonary complication was 19.7% in the elephant trunk cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid arch techniques provide a safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and mid-term results. However, stroke and mortality rates remain noteworthy. Future prospective trials that compare open conventional techniques with the hybrid method or the entirely endovascular methods are needed.

Deployment of proximal thoracic endograft in zone 0 of the ascending aorta: treatment options and early outcomes for aortic arch aneurysms in a high-risk population

OBJECTIVES

Open repair of aortic arch aneurysms can be technically challenging. Hybrid approaches have been developed to facilitate arch repairs and improve their clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. We examined treatment options and early outcomes in patients whose thoracic endografts were deployed to include Zone 0.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2011, a hybrid approach in which the endograft was deployed in the ascending aorta was used in 29 patients (median age 67 years, range 32-85 years). The indication for surgery was saccular arch aneurysm in 11 patients (37.9%), fusiform arch aneurysm with or without involvement of the proximal descending aorta in 10 (34.5%), proximal Type I endoleak after endovascular repair of the descending aorta in 5 (17.2%), chronic Type III (Type B) aortic dissection with aneurysmal arch formation in 2 (6.9%) and acute Type I (Type A) dissection with prior repair of an extent I thoracoabdominal aneurysm in 1 (3.4%). Six patients (20.7%) had previously undergone a sternotomy. One-, two- or three-branch aortobrachiocephalic de-branching, with or without concomitant heart surgery, was performed in 28 patients and extra-anatomic bypass in 1.

RESULTS

Two patients (6.9%) died during postoperative hospitalization. Overall survival during the follow-up period (median 411 days) was 79.3%. Five neurological events occurred: one extensive stroke, two minor strokes (10.3%) and two episodes of paraparesis (6.9%), one with partial recovery and one with full recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid approach enables the treatment of aortic arch disease in high-risk individuals. Long-term follow-up data are needed.

Systematic review of clinical outcomes in hybrid procedures for aortic arch dissections and other arch diseases

OBJECTIVE

Available data on clinical outcomes of hybrid aortic arch repair are limited, especially for patients with aortic dissection. The objective of this review was to provide pooled analysis of periprocedural mortality and neurologic outcomes in hybrid procedures involving the aortic arch for dissection and other aortic diseases.

METHODS

Studies involving hybrid aortic arch procedures (2002-2011) were systematically searched and reviewed. End points were periprocedural mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia.

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies including 1886 patients were included. Perioperative mortality ranged from 1.6% to 25.0% with a pooled event ratio of 10.8% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 9.3-12.5). Perioperative stroke, regardless of severity, ranged from 0.8% to 25.0% (pooled ratio 6.9%; 95% CI, 5.7%-8.4), and spinal cord ischemia, including permanent and transitory events, ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% (pooled ratio, 6.8%; 95% CI, 5.6-8.2). Neurologic but no mortality risk was affected by timing and center volume with decreased rates in more recent and higher volume studies. In dissected aorta, perioperative mortality rate was 9.8% (95% CI, 7.7-12.4), stroke 4.3% (95% CI, 3.0-6.3), and spinal cord ischemia 5.8% (95% CI, 4.2-7.9). Perioperative mortality was higher in diseases that extended to the ascending aorta (15.1% vs 7.6%; odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.17-6.7; P = .021), whereas there were no significant differences in the neurologic risks of stroke or spinal cord ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid repair of the aortic arch carries not negligible risks of perioperative mortality and neurologic morbidity. Risk of neurologic complications has decreased with timing and center volume and may be limited in dissection repairs. However, contemporary information on aortic hybrid arch procedures is mainly provided by small case series or retrospective studies with wide range of results.

Treatment of residual type A aortic dissection with implantation of the Djumbodis system: is purely endovascular treatment becoming a reality?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the usefulness of a new transfemoral device to avoid major complications related to residual type A aortic dissection following ascending aortic replacement.

CASE REPORTS

Three men (aged 60, 61, and 72 years, respectively) with a residual type A aortic dissection following replacement of the ascending aorta 1, 4, and 5 years prior, respectively, were treated with the Djumbodis Dissection System. The residual dissection developed at the distal anastomosis of the aortic graft and involved all the aortic arch. The Djumbodis Dissection System is an uncovered steel stent, available in 3 lengths (40, 90, 140 mm), pre-mounted on a low pressure (0.3 bars) balloon catheter. The mesh of the device is sufficiently large to bring together the dissected layers without occluding main vital branches. The device was implanted through the femoral artery over a stiff guidewire to exclude the residual false lumen. Satisfactory aortic remodeling was documented in all cases at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

The Djumbodis Dissection System might be a purely endovascular treatment to replace open surgery for residual type A aortic dissection. More cases and longer follow-up are required.

How to manage the left subclavian artery during endovascular stenting for thoracic aortic dissection? An assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Despite the publication of recent guidelines for management of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during endovascular stenting procedures of the thoracic aorta, specific management for those presenting with dissection remains unclear. This systematic review attempts to address this issue.

METHODS

Systematic assessment of the published data on thoracic aorta dissection was performed identifying 46 studies, which incorporated 1,275 patients. Primary outcomes included the prevalence of left arm ischemia, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, endoleak, stent migration, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without LSA coverage and revascularization incorporating factors such as the number of stents used, length of aorta covered, urgency of intervention, and type of dissection (acute or chronic). Statistical pooling techniques, χ(2) tests, and Fisher's exact testing were used for group comparisons.

RESULTS

As compared with other outcomes, LSA coverage without revascularization in the presence of aortic dissection is much more likely to be complicated by left arm ischemia (prevalence increased from 0.0% to 4.0% [p = 0.021]), stroke (prevalence increased from 1.4% to 9.0% [p = 0.009]), and endoleak (prevalence increased from 4.0% to 29.3% [p = 0.001]). However, revascularization was not shown to reverse these effects. Longer aortic coverage (≥ 150 mm) was associated with an increased prevalence of spinal cord ischemia (from 1.3% to 12.5% [p = 0.011]) and mortality (from 1.3% to 15.6% [p = 0.003]).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing endovascular stenting for thoracic aortic dissection, in cases where LSA coverage is necessary, revascularization should be considered before the procedure to avoid complications such as left arm ischemia, stroke, and endoleak, and where feasible, an appropriate preoperative assessment should be carried out.

Endografting in the aortic arch - does the proximal landing zone influence outcome?

OBJECTIVES

To analyse early and midterm results of thoracic aortic endografting (TEVAR) in the aortic arch.

METHODS

Between January 1997 and February 2009 178 patients received TEVAR in the aortic arch at our institution. This population was subdivided into four groups according to the proximal landing zone (LZ) classification in the aortic arch by Ishimaru et al. and a retrospective analysis regarding perioperative mortality, morbidity and endoleak formation was performed.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14% with no statistical significant difference between LZ's 0-3 (p=0.274). Renal insufficiency (hazard ratio (HR) 2.5; p=0.0119), age >75 years (HR 3.1; p=0.0019) and emergency procedures (HR 8.9; p < 0.0001) were independent predictors of death. There was no significant difference regarding type I (p=0.07) or type III (p=0.49) endoleaks between the proximal LZs, but a significant difference regarding the development of type II endoleaks (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed no influence of the proximal LZ on perioperative mortality and morbidity rate. Furthermore it did not influence relevant (type I/III) endoleak formation.