Homemade fenestrated physician-modified stent-grafts for arch aortic degenerative aneurysms

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aortic Arch Penetrating Atherosclerotic Ulcer Using Castor Single-Branched Stent-Graft With Zone 2 Landing

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) using Castor single-branched stent-graft with zone 2 landing.

METHODS

Between May 2020 and April 2022, a total of 25 aortic arch PAU patients were treated by TEVAR with Castor single-branched stent-graft. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, and patency of left subclavian artery (LSA).

RESULTS

All patients had aortic arch PAU with intramural hematoma (IMH). The proximal landing zone for all patients was in zone 2, which was between the distal edge of the left common carotid artery and proximal edge of LSA, in all cases. Technical success was achieved in all cases. During hospitalization after the operation, 1 patient died of gastrointestinal bleeding, and 2 patients (8.0%) had ischemic stroke. At a median follow-up of 29 months (interquartile range [IQR], 24-30 months), 2 (8.0%) patients died, including 1 ischemic stroke and 1 hemorrhagic stroke. One patient (4.0%) had reintervention owing to retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) 2 months after the operation, and was successfully treated with aortic root remodeling, ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk procedure. No endoleak or LSA occlusion occurred. The maximal diameter of aorta at proximal (30.2±2.4 mm vs 31.2±3.0 mm; p>0.05) and distal (25.7±2.8 mm vs 24.5±2.3 mm; p>0.05) landing zone showed no significant difference before and after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The TEVAR for aortic arch PAU using Castor single-branched stent-graft is a safe and efficient option with zone 2 landing.

CLINICAL IMPACT

For patients with diagnosis of PAU with IMH, TEVAR with Castor single-branched stent-graft presents low mid-term mortality and morbidity rate, which should be considered as an optimal option when proximal landing zone is insufficient and revascularization of left subclavian artery (LSA) is needed. With Castor single-branched stent-graft, LSA could be revascularized easily and accurately.

Influence of Left Subclavian Artery Stent Graft Geometry on Blood Hemodynamics in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

The objective of this research is to analyze the hemodynamic differences in five configurations of left subclavian artery (LSA) stent grafts after LSA endovascular reconstruction in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). For numerical simulation, one three-dimensional thoracic aortic geometry model with an LSA stent graft retrograde curved orientation was reconstructed from post-TEVAR computed tomography angiography (CTA) images, and four potential LSA graft configurations were modified and reconstructed: three straight (0, 2, and 10 mm aortic extension) and one anterograde configuration. The blood perfusion of the LSA, flow field, and hemodynamic wall parameters were analyzed. The vortex evolution process was visualized by the Liutex method which enables accurate extraction of the pure rigid rotational motion of fluid and is highly suitable for identifying the vortex structure of blood flow near the vessel wall. The average flow in the retrograde configuration decreased by 11.2% compared to that in the basic configuration. When the LSA stent graft extends in the aortic lumen, flow separation is observed, and vortex structures begin to form at the proximal inferior arterial geometry and the wall of the extension in late systole. A greater extension length and inflow angle upstream resulted in a greater oscillatory shear index (OSI) and relative residence time (RRT) on the nearby wall of the posterior flow field of the extension. Shorter intra-aortic extension length (<10 mm) and smaller LSA stent graft inflow angle (<120 deg) may be recommended in TEVAR, considering LSA perfusion and minimized flow field disturbance.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with unibody single-branched stent-graft for type B aortic dissection: a real-world multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcome of TEVAR for TBAD and revascularization of LSA with Castor single-branched stent-graft.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

One-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and revascularization of left subclavian artery (LSA) of type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with off-the-shelf stent-graft is limited.

METHODS

A multicenter study consisting of consecutive patients from four different centers in China treated with Castor single-branched stent-graft for TBAD was conducted. Rate of technical success, mortality, complications, and reinterventions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between September 2018 and April 2022, 180 consecutive patients with TBAD received TEVAR with Castor single-branched stent-graft. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The mean oversize ratio at the proximal landing zone was 4.9±3.8% (median, 3.7; IQR, 2.0-6.9%). Five patients died within the first 30 days after the operation or during hospitalization. Early reintervention was performed in one case. The median follow-up was 18.0 months (IQR, 13-24 months). Five patients died during follow-up, including three cases of respiratory failure, one case of immune thrombocytopenia purpura, and one case of a cerebral hemorrhage. Three patients had reintervention. In total, three cases of stroke were recorded, which were all within 30 days after the operation. Image data at 1 year presented complete thrombosis in 97.1% cases for the false lumen covered by the stent-graft.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with Castor device for treatment of TBAD and revascularization of LSA is a feasible and safe technique. The deployment procedure is safe, easy, and accurate. Castor devices meets the hemodynamical and biomechanical requirement of elastic aorta and could restore the physiological blood flow pattern of LSA.

Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Zones 0 to 2 Using Physician-Modified Endografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to collect all the available evidence concerning technical success and early and mid-term clinical outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify all the eligible studies that reported outcomes to the PMEGs for aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2 and then conducted a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of the results. The main outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke rate, bridging stents' complications, and reintervention rate. We estimated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 134 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 14 (zone 0 n=6; zone 1 n=1; zones 1 t o2: n=7) were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 777 patients (80% male; 62±6 years) were identified among the eligible studies. The pooled technical success for the PMEG in zone 0 was 96.6% (95% CI=93.9%-98.2%), whereas in zones 1 to 2 was 95.9% (95% CI=92.9%-97.6%). The pooled 30-day mortality was 4.6% (95% CI=2.0%-10%) and 4.3% (95% CI=2.2%-8.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas the prevalence of late mortality was 8.2% (95% CI=4.7%-14%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.9%-6%). The pooled stoke rate was 3.7% (95% CI=2.1%-6.4%) in zone 0 and 2.7% (95% CI=1.4%-5%) in zones 1 to 2. The early reintervention rate was 3.5% (95% CI=1.5%-8.0%) and 4.2% (95% CI=2.4%-7.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas during the mean follow-up of 26 months was 8.5% (95% CI=3.0%-21%) and 1.9% (95% CI=0.8%-4.3%). The pooled bridging's stent instability was 3.9% (95% CI=1.1%-12.9%) in zone 0 and 3.2% (95% CI=1.8%-5.8%) in zones 1 to 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies using PMEGs seems to present a satisfactory level of technical success and a low mortality rate. To attain clearer conclusions, further research employing randomized controlled trials, longer-term follow-up, and consistent reporting of results is warranted.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed the short- and mid-term outcomes of aortic arch aneurysm and/or dissection using physician-modified endografts. It separately examined the outcomes from zones 0 and 1-2 of the aortic arch. Fourteen studies (n=777 patients) were included. Overall technical success rates were 96.6% for zone 0 and 95.9% for zone 1-2. Regarding early mortality and stroke rates, no significant differences were observed, while late mortality was higher in patients in zone 0. The late reintervention rate favored patients treated with PMEGs in zone 1-2. The physician-modified technique appears to be an excellent and rapidly available alternative for the treatment of aortic arch diseases.

Physician Modified Endograft for Ruptured Dissecting Aortic Arch Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) in elective settings has demonstrated successful clinical outcomes. However, life-threatening conditions such as rupture are more often managed with open surgical repair due to the high complexity of arch endovascular repair, lack of available off-the-shelf devices, and limited long-term data.

CASE SUMMARY

A 49-year-old female with a recent history of prior ascending aortic repair for Type A10 aortic dissection presented with chest pain and dyspnea. Chest computed tomography angiogram (CTA) revealed acute bilateral pulmonary emboli and a 6.2 cm post dissection aneurysm of the posterior aortic arch with the dissection extending to the right iliac artery. She was treated with thrombolysis and subsequently became hemodynamically unstable. Repeat CTA revealed a massive left hemithorax with concern for aortic arch rupture. Given significant cardiorespiratory compromise and recent open repair, she was considered unfit for redo open repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) was planned. An Alpha Zenith endograft was modified adding an internal branch for the innominate artery and a fenestration for the left common carotid artery. The left subclavian artery was occluded with a microvascular plug and coil embolization up to the level of the vertebral artery. TEVAR PMEG extension to the celiac artery was performed followed by deployment of a Zenith dissection stent to the aortic bifurcation. Completion angiogram demonstrated successful aneurysm exclusion and patency of target vessels.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular treatment of ruptured TAA with PMEGs is feasible. This approach may be an alternative for unfit patients for open repair in emergent settings.

Physician-modified endograft for symptomatic zone 2 penetrating ulcer of the aortic arch without bridging stenting of the left subclavian artery for vertebral preservation

We report the case of a 65-year-old male patient who was deemed unfit for open surgery and underwent zone 0 endovascular repair with a physician-modified fenestrated endograft for a symptomatic penetrating ulcer. A thoracic stent graft was modified creating a large fenestration for the innominate artery and the left common carotid artery, and a second small fenestration for the left subclavian artery and the left vertebral artery, which had a common origin. No bridging stent was used for the left subclavian artery to avoid coverage of the left vertebral artery. The postoperative course was uneventful, and no leaks nor other complications were detected on postoperative computed tomography angiography. Although long-term durability needs to be better assessed, our experience suggests that physician-modified fenestrated endografts are a feasible option for the emergent treatment of aortic arch lesions in unfit patients and provide satisfactory results in the short term.

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Physician Modified Fenestrated Endografts for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair in Zone 0

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study aimed to assess the early and midterm outcomes of physician modified fenestrated endografts (PMEGs) for endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2022, a retrospective study was conducted in three centres of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0 with PMEGs. Endpoints included technical success, 30 day mortality rate, major adverse events, secondary interventions, stent stability, target vessel patency, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients (mean age 63 years; 45 males) with aortic arch pathology were included, comprising aortic dissections (n = 32; 59%) and aortic arch aneurysms (n = 22; 41%). Technical success was 98%. One patient died from stroke within 30 days. Major adverse events included stroke (n = 4; 7%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (n = 3; 6%), and acute kidney injury (n = 2; 4%). During a median follow up of 12 months, there were two deaths (4%) of unknown cause at one month and 1.5 months, and no aortic related death. Type Ia, type Ic, and type IIIc endoleaks were observed in two (4%), three (6%), and two (4%) patients, respectively. No vessel stenosis was observed. Re-intervention was required in 10 patients (19%). Estimates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at one year were 94.2% (standard error [SE] 3.3%), 81.8% (SE 6.0%), and 92.0% (SE 4.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the efficacy of PMEGs for zone 0 endovascular aortic arch repair, with acceptable technical success and mortality rates. Stroke, RTAD, and re-intervention rates remain a concern for endovascular therapy. A larger population and long term outcomes are required to assess the safety and durability of this technique as a beneficial choice for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialised centres.

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts, at least 3-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total aortic arch repair with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic arch repair combined with a homemade double-fenestrated stent graft from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

74 patients were treated for pathological arch conditions with a double-fenestrated PMEG. Of these, 81% were male, the mean age was 69.9 years, and 59% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiology 3 or 4. Thirty-five percent were treated for a postdissection aneurysm, 36% for a degenerative aneurysm, and 14% for acute type B dissection. Fifteen percent had supra-aortic trunk dissection. Fenestration on the subclavian artery was performed in 96%; if not, a carotid-subclavian bypass was carried out. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone is consistently in zone 0. Early outcomes revealed a 3% occurrence of type 1 endoleak, which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. One retrograde dissection occurred, and one patient died from hemorrhage on an iliac conduit. A 5% stroke rate was reported. During long-term follow-up (mean time 40.7 months), one type 1 endoleak appeared and was successfully treated; no type 2 or type 3 endoleak requiring intervention occurred. No stent fractures or migrations were reported. Four percent of patients required reintervention, but no surgical conversion to open surgical repair was needed on the aortic arch. No patient died from a cause related to the main procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for the main aortic pathologies. Moreover, it is easily available for emergency situations.

Short-term results of fenestrated physician-modified endografts for type1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Objective

This study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of physician-modified fenestrated stent grafts (PMEGs) in treating type 1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in aortic arch pathologies.

Methods

Patients who developed a type 1a endoleak after conventional TEVAR were included in the study. They underwent treatment with fenestrated PMEGs, which involved single or double fenestration for the supra-aortic trunks.

Results

Twenty patients were treated with PMEGs between October 2018 and November 2023. Among them, 25% received single fenestrated PMEGs and 75% received double fenestrated PMEGs. The technical success rate was 100% for both types. Eighty percent of the PMEGs had a landing zone in zone 0, whereas 20% had a landing zone in zone 2. There were no in-hospital deaths. After 30 days, 1 patient died as the result of an aortic-related cause (retrograde dissection). The mean follow-up time was 16.5 months (range, 0-60 months). No major adverse events such as stroke or spinal ischemia were reported. No type 1 or type 3 endoleaks were observed, and one type 2 endoleaks required peripheral endovascular reintervention.

Conclusions

The treatment of type 1a endoleaks using fenestrated PMEGs after conventional TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies is a viable option. It is associated with acceptable rates of early and midterm major morbidity and mortality.

Zone 2 Aortic Arch Repair With Single-Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endografts, at Least 3 Years of Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to report the efficiency and safety of single-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in zone 2 aortic arch pathologies with at least 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic repair combined with homemade single-fenestrated stent-graft from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed. The patients with a target vessel different from the left subclavian artery (LSA) were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were treated for a pathological arch in zone 2 with a single-fenestrated PMEG. 73% were male, and the mean age was 65 years old. 25% were treated for a degenerative aneurysm, 19% for a post dissection aneurysm and 24% for an acute type B dissection. 52% of the patients were treated as an emergency and half of those for an aortic rupture. The LSA fenestration was stented in 70%. During 30 days of follow-up, 2 strokes (3%) were reported, 6 patients (10%) died with 4 of those treated for aortic rupture and 1 had a retrograde aortic dissection. During at least 3 years of follow-up (median 49 months), no reintervention was needed for endoleaks, there was no stent fracture or stent migration. No patient died from an aortic cause. Subgroup analysis comparing the endovascular treatment for various aortic pathologies did not find significant differences in death rate or comorbidity including stroke. When comparing emergent and elective aortic repair, operating time was similar (64 vs 65 minutes), and the LSA fenestration was less frequently stented (52%) in the emergency group. There was no difference in stroke frequency. There was a higher rate of death in the emergency group at 30 days of follow-up, but no patient died from aortic cause in the long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch repair with single-fenestrated PMEGs for zone 2 pathological arch disease is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for emergency situations.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Single-fenestrated PMEG for the left subclavian artery is a safe and efficient option in the short and medium term for the treatment of the aortic arch in zone 2 with 98% technical success. It allows for aortic repair and subclavian artery revascularization in a single step for all patients. It is suitable for a range of main pathologies, including degenerative, dissection-related, isthmus rupture, and embolic pathologies. Additionally, it is always available and easily utilized in emergency cases.

Physician-Modified Single-Fenestrated EndoSuture Aneurysm Repair (FESAR) for Urgent Juxtarenal AAA Repair

PURPOSE

To describe the endovascular treatment of a symptomatic juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) using a combination of endoanchors (Heli-FX EndoAnchor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and a physician-modified single-fenestrated endograft.

TECHNIQUE

An 85 year-old patient unfit for open aortic repair presented for a symptomatic JAAA, characterized by an infrarenal neck with 0.6 cm in length and 23 mm in diameter. A 28 mm-diameter Endurant aortic cuff (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was modified with a single fenestration for the left renal artery (LRA) and diameter-reducing tie, then re-sheathed and deployed. The LRA was cannulated with a 7F sheath and the constraining wire was withdrawn. Being the shortest neck length on the right side of the cuff, the endograft was anchored to the aortic wall on this side with 2 endoanchors. The LRA was stented and flared, then a distal physician-modified (without free-flow) bifurcated Endurant graft (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was overlapped with the proximal cuff and stabilized with 6 endoanchors. Correct positioning with complete aneurysm exclusion was confirmed with a 30 day and 9 month computed tomography angiograms.

CONCLUSIONS

In extremely selected cases, association of endoanchors and single-fenestrated physician-modified graft may be useful to treat complex urgent aortic aneurysm using readily available devices.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This technical note demonstrates the feasibility of a single-fenestrated physician-modified Endurant endograft deployed in combination with endosuture fixation (FESAR), to urgently treat a juxtarenal aortic aneurysm unfit for open repair and not suitable for standard endovascular repair nor off-the-shelf endografts.

Physician-Modified Endografts for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Pathologies Involving the Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive patients with thoracic aortic pathologies treated by PMEGs between February 2018 and May 2022. Data on baseline characteristics, operative procedure, and follow-up information were collected. The endpoints included technical success, complications, mortality, overall survival, re-intervention, and target vessel instability.

RESULTS

This study comprised 173 patients (mean age=58±13, range=28-83, 148 men) with thoracic aortic pathologies, including 44 thoracic aortic aneurysms, 113 aortic dissections (9 type A, 4 residual type A, 75 type B, 32 non-A non-B), 3 aortic intramural hematomas, and 13 penetrating aortic ulcers. Thirty-five of the patients had PMEGs with 3 fenestrations, 32 had 2 fenestrations, and 106 had 1 single fenestration. Technical success was 98% (170/173), and the 30-day mortality was 2% (3/173). Perioperative complications included stroke (n=3, 2%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD; n=3, 2%) and renal injury (n=3, 2%). Seven deaths (4%) were noted during a median follow-up of 11 (range=1-52) months. Eleven cases of re-intervention were stent-related. There were 5 type Ia endoleaks (3%), 2 type III endoleaks (1%) from the innominate artery (IA), and 3 type Ic endoleaks (2%) from the left subclavian arteries. One case of IA stent-graft (SG) stenosis was noted because of mural thrombus. Estimate rates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at 2 years were 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=88.7%-98.1%), 80.7% (95% CI=73.3%-88.1%), and 89.0% (95% CI=80.4%-97.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-modified endografts showed promising immediate therapeutic results in the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch. Our study demonstrates that the technique is feasible and produces acceptable results. Long-term outcomes are required for further refinement of this technical approach to confirm technical success and durability over time as a valuable option for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialized centers.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Our short- and mid-term outcomes of physician-modified endografts in 173 patients showed promising results compared to other branched/fenestrated techniques and backed up the endovascular repair of the aortic arch. Meanwhile, the technical expertise pointed out in our manuscript, including preloaded guidewire, diameter-reducing wire and inner mini-cuffs, provided reference and technical guidance for our peers. Most importantly, it demonstrated that the PMEG, as a device whose components were all commercially available, might be a better option for emergency surgery and for centers who had no access to custom-made devices.

Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency.

RESULTS

24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0 min vs. 90.8 min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0 min vs. 33.4 min p = 0.614).

CONCLUSIONS

The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

Physician-Modified Endovascular Graft for Left Subclavian Artery Fenestration during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of physician-modified endovascular graft for preservation of left subclavian artery during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

From June 2019 to October 2022, 66 patients with a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified endovascular graft left subclavian artery fenestration to achieve adequate proximal landing zone. The details of surgical techniques were described. The perioperative morbidity, mortality, and the outcomes of mid-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients (men: women, 53:13; age, 55.18 [55.18 ± 10.62] years), 53 (80.30%) presented with type B aortic dissection, 10 (15.15%) with thoracic penetrating aortic ulcer, 2 (3.03%) with thoracic aortic aneurysm, and 1 (1.52%) with left subclavian artery aneurysm. All of them underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified endovascular graft left subclavian artery fenestration on the sterile back table. The technique success rate was 96.97% (n = 64). Total operation time was 92 min (interquartile range, 86-118), graft modification time was 19 min (interquartile range, 17-21), fluoroscopy time was 49 min (interquartile range, 41-62), and contrast agent dosage was 165 mL (interquartile range, 155-185). 30-day perioperative morbidities were 3 (4.55%) strokes, 1 (1.52%) retrograde type A aortic dissection, 1 (1.52%) aortic intimal intussusception, 1 (1.52%) left arm ischemia, and 3 (4.55%) type Ia endoleaks. Postoperative 30-day mortality and reintervention rates were 1.52% and 4.55%, respectively. Among the 63 patients included in the follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range, 7.75-18.25), the primary patency of left subclavian artery fenestration stents was 100%. Late complications were 1 (1.59%) distal stent graft-induced new entry and 1 (1.59%) death due to retrograde type A aortic dissection during the follow-up. The stent graft-induced new entry patient was observed with stable false lumen.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endovascular graft for left subclavian artery revascularization is a safe, feasible, and efficacious technique associated with high success rate. Further study is needed for long-term outcome investigation.

Chimney endovascular aneurysm repair-induced mesenteric ischemia: a report of an extremely rare complication

The chimney endovascular aneurysm repair (Ch-EVAR) technique has progressively increased in popularity in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms. However, the long-term results of this technique still must be assessed, especially in comparison to custom-made solutions. The patency of chimney grafts has always been one of the important issues with the Ch-EVAR technique. However, interactions between nonstented aortic side branches and chimney stent grafts have rarely been discussed. In the present case report, we describe a rare case of mesenteric ischemia due to superior mesenteric artery ostium coverage by the misalignment of a renal stent graft in a Ch-EVAR.

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

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

Systematic Review on In Situ Laser Fenestrated Repair for the Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Pathologies

Background: In situ laser-fenestrated thoracic aortic endovascular repair (FTEVAR) has emerged as a valuable alternative for aortic arch management. This review assessed the early and follow-up outcomes of in situ laser-FTEVAR in aortic arch pathologies. Methods: The PRISMA statement was followed. The English literature was searched, via Ovid, until 15 October 2022. Observational studies, published after 2000, reporting on early and follow-up outcomes for the in situ laser-FTEVAR were eligible. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were the technical success, stroke, and mortality at 30-days, and the secondary were the mortality and reintervention during follow-up. Results: Six retrospective studies from 591 and 247 patients were included. Fifty-nine (23.9%) patients were managed for aortic arch aneurysms and 146 (59.1%) for dissections; 22.6% of them for type A. Technical success was at 98% (range 90–100%). Eight patients died (3.2%) and 11 cases presented any type of stroke (4.5%) during the 30-day follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months (1–40 months). Ten deaths were reported (4.2%); one was aortic-related (10%). Thirteen re-interventions (6.0%) were performed. Conclusions: In situ laser-FTEVAR for aortic arch repair may be performed with high technical success and low 30-day and midterm follow-up mortality, stroke, and re-intervention rates when applied in well selected patients and performed by experienced teams.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft for type B aortic dissections involving the aortic arch

Objectives

This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft (f-SMSG) for type B aortic dissections (TBAD) involving the aortic arch.

Methods

From March 2016 to April 2021, 47 consecutive patients were treated using TEVAR with f-SMSG. All patients were diagnosed with TBAD involving the aortic arch.

Results

In total, 47 patients with TBAD involving the aortic arch were treated with f-SMSGs. There were 21 zone 1 and 26 zone 2 TEVAR, and 65 arteries were revascularized successfully with fenestrations. Technical success was achieved in 46 patients (97.88%). The 30-day estimated survival (± SE) and reintervention was 93.6 ± 1.0% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 92.6-94.6%) and 91.5 ± 1.2% (95% CI, 90.3-92.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 51 months (range, 16-71 months), 1 patient died of rupture of aortic dissection (AD) and 3 patients died of non-aortic-related reasons. Reintervention was performed for four patients, including two patients of type IA entry flow and two patients of type IB entry flow. No occlusion of the supra-aortic trunk was observed. The estimated survival and reintervention (± SE) at 4 years was 88.7 ± 1.4% (95% CI, 87.3-90.1%) and 84.8 ± 1.5% (95% CI, 83.3-86.3%), respectively.

Conclusion

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with f-SMSG is an alternative treatment option for TBAD involving the aortic arch in high-volume centers.