Applicability of endovascular branched and fenestrated aortic arch repair devices to treat residual type A dissection after ascending replacement

Anesthetic Considerations for Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta

Thoracic aorta pathologies, especially those of the ascending aorta and aortic arch, were traditionally approached via open surgical repair. This carries risk of ischemic end-organ damage and other complications. Endovascular repair of ascending aorta and aortic arch pathologies is becoming more successful and widespread, thereby posing numerous challenges to the anesthesiologist. This article reviews the anesthesia-pertinent pathophysiology, repair techniques, preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, and postoperative care of patients presenting for endovascular repair of thoracic aorta pathologies.

General Information and Applications of Najuta Fenestrated Stent Grafts for Aortic Arch Aneurysms

Endovascular stent graft repair was developed to minimize the invasiveness of open surgery for thoracic and abdominal aortic diseases. This approach involves covering the diseased segment with a stented artificial graft. However, in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases, special consideration is needed to preserve the aortic arch vessels. Standard stent grafts often require additional procedures, such as bypass surgery, to reconstruct the arch vessels. The semi-custom-made Najuta fenestrated stent graft was developed to address this issue. It is a three-dimensional patient-specific stent graft with fenestrations that allow for the preservation of the arch vessels. This study discusses the unique features of the Najuta stent graft and the techniques for its deployment, and it provides an analysis of treatment outcomes based on the current literature.

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Outcome of Different Endovascular Aortic Arch Procedures

Objectives: There are several endovascular treatment options to treat aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts. This study seeks to assess endovascular treatment methods for aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), comparing different treatment methods and evaluating technical success, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes. Methods: All patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies, with no acceptable landing zone for standard TEVAR, between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2024, at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. An acceptable landing zone was defined as a minimum of 2 cm for sufficient sealing. All patients were not suitable for open surgery. Patients were categorized by an endovascular treatment method for a comprehensive comparison of pre-, intra- and postoperative variables. IBM SPSS29 was used for data analysis. Results: The patient cohort comprised 21 patients, predominantly males (81%), with an average age of 70.9 ± 9 years with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard TEVAR procedure. The most treated aortic pathologies were penetrating aortic ulcers and chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Patients were sub-grouped according to the applied procedure as follows: five patients with chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (chTEVAR), seven patients with in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (isfTEVAR), six patients with custom-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmfTEVAR) and three patients with custom-made branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmbTEVAR). Emergency procedures involved two patients. There were significant differences in the total procedure and fluoroscopy time, as well as in contrast agent usage among the treatment groups. cmfTEVAR had the shortest total procedure time, while chTEVAR exhibited the highest contrast agent usage. The overall mortality rate among all procedures was 9.5% (two patients) and 4.7% for elective procedures, respectively. Deaths were associated with either retrograde type A dissection or stent graft infection. Both patients were treated with chTEVAR. There was one minor and one major stroke; these patients were treated with isfTEVAR. No endoleak occurred during any procedure. The reintervention rate for chTEVAR was 20% and 0% for all other procedures during the in-hospital stay. The patients who were treated with cmfTEVAR had no complications, the shortest operating and fluoroscopy time, and less contrast agent was needed in comparison with other treatment methods. Conclusions: Complex endovascular procedures of the aortic arch with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts offer a safe solution, with acceptable complication rates for patients who are not suitable for open aortic arch repair. In terms of procedure-related parameters and complication rates, a custom-made fenestrated TEVAR is potentially advantageous compared to the other endovascular techniques.

Endovascular reconstruction of the aortic arch with new-generation dual-branch and triple-branch endograft: design, applicability, indications, outcomes, and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Repair of aortic arch pathologies such as degenerative aneurysms and dissections still represents a significant challenge for vascular and cardiac surgeons. We focused on the design, evolution, implementation, and prospects of endovascular dual branch technology for treatment of pathologies in the aortic arch.

AREAS COVERED

The literature search was conducted in a non-systematic fashion through the PubMed and Scopus databases; articles deemed relevant to the scope of the work and fully published in English language from January 12,000 until December 2023 were considered for inclusion. Two companies so far have developed and launched in market a dedicated arch dual branch platform: Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical.

EXPERT OPINION

A common limitation to the available technology is represented by the fact that urgent cases (i.e. large or rapidly growing aneurysms, symptomatic patients) cannot be treated because the customization process generally takes between 6 and 8 weeks, and there is an inherent risk for aorta-related adverse events to happen during the waiting time. While the future holds much promise, several technical hurdles still exist and further developments (in device design, operators' skills, patients' selection, and outcomes assessment) are needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of treatment particularly over the long-run.

Endovascular repair of the aortic arch

Objectives

The gold standard for the treatment of pathologies of the aortic arch remains the open surgical reconstruction of the affected segments. However, endovas-cular treatment options have emerged that eliminate the need for invasive open surgery. Several endograft devices - with fenestrations or branches for the supraaortic vessels - are currently available to address different pathologies and anatomical variations. Parallel-graft techniques and in situ fenestrations expand the treatment options for emergent cases. In this selective review of the literature of 2020 and 2021, we summarize the current chances and challenges of endovascular aortic repair.

Content

Reported mortality rates range from 0 to 13.2 %. Although technical success rates for fenestrated and branched devices are promising (98 %), stroke rates remain a relevant issue (10 and 3 % for BTEVAR and FTEVAR respectively). The reported technical success rate for in situ fenestrations is also encouraging (94 %) and the stroke rates acceptable (5 %). Parallel-graft techniques are associated with high early and late endoleak rates (early 76 %; late 31 %), but still hold a valuable place in the treatment of emergent cases or in bail-out situations.

Summary and Outlook

The endovascular repair of the aortic arch expands the range of patients with pathologies of the arch eligible for treatment to those unfit for open surgery offering a minimally invasive, yet technically challenging procedure. More data and meta-analyses are needed to define the benefits and drawbacks of this promising treatment option in an aging population with increasing co-morbidities.

Endovascular Options for the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch: A Scoping Review

The gold standard for aneurysmal repair of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has been open surgery with an established track record of good results in suitable patients. In recent years, with innovations in the endovascular field alternative endovascular solutions for pathologies of the aortic arch and ascending aorta became available. At first reserved only for highly selected patients unfit for open surgery, endovascular aortic arch repair is now being offered to patients with suitable anatomy in high-volume referral centers after discussion in an interdisciplinary team. The present scoping review aims at providing an overview on indications, available devices, technical aspects, and feasibility studies of endovascular arch repair both in elective and emergent situations, including also experiences and considerations from our center.

Complete zone 0-10 aortic endovascular reconstruction

To the best of our knowledge, the present report is the first on the safety and efficacy of complete endovascular aortic reconstruction from zone 0 to 10 using a standardized approach and parallel stent graft configurations in high-risk patients considered unfit for surgery. During a 7-year period, five patients with complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissections involving zone 0-10 presented with rupture (n = 1; 20%), were symptomatic (n = 2; 40%), or had an aortic pseudoaneurysm (n = 2; 40%) and underwent complete endovascular zone 0-10 reconstruction using off-the-shelf stent grafts in parallel configurations that included chimneys, periscopes, and endovascular docking stations. The zone 0-5 complete arch chimney thoracic endovascular repair included chimneys that extended from the ascending thoracic aorta to the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries and a thoracic stent graft extending from zone 0 to 5. The zone 5-10 aortic reconstructions were staged. Stage 1 included either thoracic stent graft and antegrade four visceral chimney placement or abdominal aortic stent graft and retrograde four visceral chimney placement. Stage II included completion of the remainder of the aortic reconstruction with cerebrospinal fluid drainage. A total of 15 aortic procedures included 34 chimneys (14 aortic arch and 20 visceral). Two patients (40%) underwent zone 0-5 aortic reconstruction first, and three patients (60%) underwent zone 5-10 aortic reconstruction first. The incidence of 30-day mortality, spinal cord ischemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and visceral ischemia was 0%. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 3.1 years, the aortic reconstruction-related mortality was 0%. All-cause mortality was 20%; one patient had died of pneumonia at 3 years postoperatively. Two endoleaks each occurred in zone 0-5 and zone 5-10 (40% for both groups). All endoleaks were treated with coil embolization. Complete endovascular zone 0-10 aortic reconstruction using parallel stent grafts with a docking station is a feasible and relatively safe technique that offers the ability to customize off-the-shelf devices for the treatment of high-risk patients with limited morbidity and mortality.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Nexus Endospan arch branch stent-graft

Aortic arch pathologies are commonly treated by open surgery which is still the gold standard. Patients that are unfit for surgery can be effectively treated mini-invasively with novel endovascular endograft specifically designed for the arch. Endovascular technology has remarkably improved in recent years and is a valid alternative option for the treatment of aortic arch. Available endografts on the market include fenestrated and branched (single, double, or triple). Most endograft designed for the aortic arch are custom-made and production time could be limiting. The aim of this study is to report our experience with the only single branch bi-modular off-the shelf device available on the market specifically designed for aortic arch aneurysms and dissections. We perform endovascular treatment of the arch in a multidisciplinary team together with dedicated anesthesiologist team, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Prior to the implantation of the endograft, a debranching procedure must be made to redirect the blood from brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) to the left common carotid artery and left subclavian artery. A through and through system from the right axillary artery to the femoral artery is required to deploy the main module. The ascending module is delivered over an extra stiff guidewire placed in the left ventricle. Molding of the endografts is performed with kissing balloon in rapid pacing. We performed 8 cases. Six of them came to our attention for residual dissection and has already been treated with ascending aorta replacement. Mean aortic diameter was 63 mm. All patients required complete debranching of the supra-aortic vessel and received a right common carotid -left subclavian artery bypass with reimplantation of the left common carotid artery on the graft. Timing of the debranching was a few days before the endovascular procedure in 76% of cases. Technical success of the endovascular intervention occurred in 100% of cases. In 2 cases the target supra-aortic trunk for the deployment of the main module BCT branch was the left subclavian artery with no adverse event related to this variation. No intraoperative adjunctive maneuvers have been registered, left subclavian artery have been embolized during the procedure in 5 cases. No access complications have been reported. We experienced 1 case of major stroke with permanent neurological impairments that lead to worsening of clinical condition and death at 6 months. No cardiological adverse event have been registered. Two cases of type 2 endoleak have been reported and required reintervention with embolization of the LSA. At 1 year follow-up no aorta-related adverse event has been reported. The use of this off-the-shelf device for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies requiring total debranching of the supra-aortic vessels seems to be safe and effective. Preliminary results are promising despite available data are insufficient and further data collection is mandatory.