Results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with physician-manufactured partial micropore stent grafts for aortic arch pathologies

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been used extensively in the management of thoracic aortic diseases. Numerous efforts have been made to enhance clinical outcomes through the use of stent grafts. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of physician-manufactured partial micropore stent grafts (PSMGs) in TEVAR.

METHODS

Between December 2017 and June 2022, data were collected from 56 patients who underwent TEVAR using physician-manufactured PSMGs. The evaluation encompassed technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, stroke incidence, and branch artery patency.

RESULTS

In this investigation, 56 patients received treatment with physician-manufactured PSMGs. Of these patients, 46 were male, with a mean age of 62.1 ± 11.2 years. Aortic pathologies comprised aortic dissection (n = 31 [55.4%]), aortic aneurysms (n = 10 [17.9%]), penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 8 [14.3%]), and intramural hematoma (n = 7 [12.5%]). During a median follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range, 13-25 months), the stroke rate, supra-aortic branch patency rate, and endoleak rate were 0%, 100%, and 7.1%, respectively. There were no occurrences of all-cause mortality, stroke, or the necessity for open conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with physician-manufactured PSMGs is a viable alternative for addressing aortic arch pathologies in proficient medical centers. The approach demonstrates favorable branch patency, a low complication rate, and minimal postoperative mortality.

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.

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.

Six-year clinical and computed tomography angiography follow-up after Nexus implantation

Endovascular aortic arch repair (Ar-TEVAR) with single-branch, off-the-shelf Nexus aortic arch system has shown promising early and 3-year outcomes. There is lack of data regarding long-term results of this specific device, particularly regarding patency of supra-aortic bypasses and stability of the connection between the 2 modules. This case report describes 6-year clinical and imaging follow-up of a 74-year-old patient who underwent Ar-TEVAR with Nexus. Over 6 years, the patient experienced minor complications unrelated to the device. The patency of supra-aortic bypasses and integrity of the device's connection were confirmed. Computed tomography angiography constantly showed exclusion of the aneurysm and reduction of the aneurysmal sac. In conclusion, although extended research and broader data are needed, this case provides encouraging evidence of long-term results of Ar-TEVAR with Nexus.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Total Arch Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Double Fenestrated Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts: 100 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate early and medium-term outcomes of double fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts for total endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data included 100 patients, from January 2017 to December 2021, undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for zone 0. The fenestrations were a proximal larger fenestration that incorporated the brach2iocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery and a distal smaller fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA). Only the LSA fenestration was stented.

RESULTS

The median duration for stent-graft modification was 23±6 minutes. Of the 100 patients, 70 were men. The mean patient age was 70±10.5 years. Indications for treatment included degenerative aortic arch aneurysm (n=32), dissecting aortic arch aneurysm after type A dissections (n=23) and (n=19) after type B dissections, acute complicated type B dissection (n=16), and other pathologies (n=10). Technical success rate was 97%. The 30 day mortality was 2% (n=2). Four patients (4%) had minor stroke with full recovery. One patient (1%) had a type IA endoleak, 1 patient (1%) had a type IB endoleak, and 2 patients (2%) have a type II endoleak from the LSA. Eight patients (8%) required reintervention: 1 type IA endoleak, 1 type IB endoleak, 1 retrograde type A dissection, and 5 because of access-related complications. During a mean follow-up of 24±7.2 months, there were no aortic rupture, paraplegia, and all supra-aortic trunks were patent.

CONCLUSIONS

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is both feasible and effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Double homemade fenestrated TEVAR is effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair avoiding the need for anatomical and extra-anatomical surgical revascularization. The standout feature of this double fenestrated device is its simple handling during operation with the proximal fenestrations being directed to the orifices of the BT and LCCA automatically when the LSA fenestration is catheterized and secured by covered stent placement. The deployment algorithm actively steers the operator away from superfluous manipulations of the device within the arch and avoids guidewire manipulation in carotid arteries. The long-term durability will need to be assessed in studies with long-term follow-up.

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.

Anatomical suitability for branched endovascular aortic arch repair and balloon-expandable bridging stent grafts in a cohort of patients previously treated with a hybrid approach

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the suitability of two triple branch arch devices (aBranch) (Terumo aortic and Cook Medical) and a balloon-expandable covered stent (VBX, W. L. Gore & Associates, Johnson & Johnson) to incorporate the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) in a cohort previously treated with hybrid thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective, all-comers, preclinical suitability study. We conducted an analysis of preoperative computed tomography scans in surgical patients between 1999 and 2022 in a single vascular surgery unit. The primary outcome was the aortic suitability of aBranch devices and VBX as mating stent for BCT in previous hybrid TEVAR. Hybrid repair of the aortic arch included TEVAR, fenestrated or branched TEVAR associated with any surgical debranching of the supra-aortic trunks and chimney TEVAR with proximal landing in zones 0 to 2. Secondary outcomes included (i) suitability assessment when excluding minor instruction for use (IFU) criteria, (ii) a comparison of suitable and nonsuitable patients, (iii) risk factors analysis for nonsuitability, and (iv) a description of the exclusion causes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 120 patients were treated. Among elective patients (n = 73), the suitability of any aBranch was 82.2% (60/73) and VBX was suitable in 64.4% of BCTs (47/73). The aBranch suitable patients had a significantly longer sinotubular-BCT length (P = .017) and smaller distal ascending aorta (P = .043) as compared with nonsuitable ones. The suitability of Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical devices was 52.1% (38/73) and 46.6% (34/73), respectively. When minor IFU criteria were ignored, suitability increased to 82.2% (60/73) and 63.0% (46/73), respectively. Left common carotid artery diameter and sinotubular-BCT length were significant nonsuitability risk factors for Terumo Aortic aBranch in multivariable analysis. No associations were found for Cook Medical device. The outcomes were tested in the entire cohort demonstrating a global suitability of 82.9%, increasing to 86.3% when ignoring minor IFUs. VBX was anatomically suitable to use in BCT in 73.2% of patient BCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

aBranch devices are anatomically suitable in a vast majority of patients (86%) undergoing hybrid TEVAR. The innominate artery seems eligible for incorporation with VBX in almost two-thirds of patients. This mating stent may help to overcome some minor IFU restrictions.

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.

Assessment of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Relay Proximal Scallop: Results of a French Prospective Multicentre Study

OBJECTIVE

A proximal scallop design allows aortic arch repair without complex endovascular manipulation in the aortic arch. The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy at one year of the Relay proximal scallop stent graft.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study evaluated consecutive patients treated with the Relay proximal scallop stent graft in 10 French aortic centres. All consecutive patients eligible for elective thoracic endovascular repair with proximal scallop in the 10 participating centres between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Primary endpoints were 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) rates. Outcomes including safety and efficacy, technical and clinical success, all cause death, neurological events, vessel patency, and device specific complications were analysed. Survival and survival without severe complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Ten aortic centres treated 40 patients for thoracic aortic aneurysm (45%), penetrating atherosclerotic aneurysm (30%), and dissection (25%). Half of the procedures (50%) targeted zone 0 of the aortic arch (zone 0 in 17.5% and zones 0/1 in 32.5%), 37.5% targeted zone 2 (35% zone 2 alone; 2.5% zones 1/2), and 15% targeted zone 1 (12.5% zone 1 alone). Median follow up was one year. Thirty day mortality, stroke, and SCI rates were 10%, 5%, and 0% respectively. Primary technical success was 95%. Type Ia, Ib, and III endoleaks rates were 5.4%, 0%, and 0% respectively at one month. The overall mortality rate at one year was 17.5%. Aneurysm expansion was > 5 mm in one case at one year associated with type Ia endoleak (3%). There was no supra-aortic trunk thrombosis, one (2%) graft kink, and no migration.

CONCLUSION

One year outcomes showed that the Relay proximal scallop stent graft is an acceptable answer to thoracic aortic disease to deal with short proximal landing zones.

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.

Anatomical feasibility of a 'semi-custom' unibody single-branch endograft in previous zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of a subclavian unibody single-branch endograft among patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in landing zone 2 (LZ2).

METHODS

This is a pre-clinical, single-centre, real-world, all-comers, retrospective cohort study. Patients treated with TEVAR in LZ2 with an available preoperative computed tomography angiography were included. The primary outcome was the anatomical feasibility of the Castor endograft in patients receiving endovascular treatment in LZ2 between 1999 and 2022. Secondary outcomes were: a comparison of feasible and unfeasible patients; frequencies and description of exclusion causes; non-feasibility risk factor analysis; and analysis of the stent graft configurations necessary to treat 75% of the patients. A logistic regression model was used to find associations between baseline morphological data and non-feasibility.

RESULTS

A total of 473 procedures were performed and 72 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. The mean distance between the left carotid artery and left subclavian artery (or between innominate artery and bovine trunk) was 12.4 ± 5.2 mm and its average diameter was 33.0 ± 10.6 mm. The pre-vertebral left subclavian artery's diameter and length were 11.3 ± 2.5 and 38.7 ± 10.8 mm. Forty-nine (68.1%) patients were suitable for Castor implantation. Twenty-one configurations were required to treat 75% of feasible patients and might be lowered to 12 configurations applying less strict criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Castor endograft was anatomically feasible in several patients requiring TEVAR in LZ2. Three-quarters of feasible patients could be treated with a reasonable number of configurations, paving the path for future off-the-shelf applications.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.

CONCLUSION

Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

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.

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.

Thoracic aortic emergencies involving the aortic arch: An integrated cardiovascular surgical treatment approach

Thoracic aortic emergencies involving the aortic arch are potentially fatal conditions that require the entire surgical repertoire of conventional surgery, such as complete aortic arch replacement using the frozen-elephant-trunk technique, through hybrid procedures, to full surgical endovascular options with conventional or delivered/fenestrated stent-grafts. An interdisciplinary aortic team should choose the optimal treatment of the pathologies of the aortic arch, considering the morphology of the entire aorta, from the root to beyond the bifurcation, as well as the clinical comorbidities. The treatment goal is a complication-free postoperative result and lasting freedom from aortic reinterventions. Irrespective of the selected therapy method, patients should then be connected to a specialized aortic outpatient clinic. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of pathophysiology and current treatment options in emergencies of the thoracic aorta, also involving the aortic arch. We wanted to summarize the preoperative considerations, intraoperative settings, and strategies, as well the postoperative follow-up.

Three-Dimensional Printing to Guide Fenestrated/Branched TEVAR in Triple Aortic Arch Branch Reconstruction With a Curative Effect Analysis

PURPOSE

To summarize experience with and the efficacy of fenestrated/branched thoracic endovascular repair (F/B-TEVAR) using physician-modified stent-grafts (PMSGs) under 3D printing guidance in triple aortic arch branch reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2018 to April 2022, 14 cases of aortic arch aneurysms and 30 cases of aortic arch dissection (22 acute aortic arch dissection and 8 long-term aortic arch dissection)were treated by F/B-TEVAR in our department, including 34 males and 10 females, with an average age of 59.84 ± 11.72 years. Three aortic arch branches were affected in all patients. A 3D-printed model was made according to computed tomography angiography images and used to guide the fabrication of PMSGs. All patients were followed up.

RESULTS

A total of 132 branches were successfully reconstructed with no case of conversion to open surgery. The average operation time was 4.97 ± 1.40 hours, including a mean 44.05 ± 7.72 minutes for stent-graft customization, the mean postoperative hospitalization duration was 9.91 ± 4.47 days, the average intraoperative blood loss was 480.91 mL (100-2810 mL), and the mean postoperative intensive care unit monitoring duration was 1.02 days (0-5 days). No deaths occurred within 30 days of surgery. Postoperative neurological complications occurred in 1 case (2.3%), and retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1 case (2.3%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional surgery, triple aortic arch branch reconstruction under the guidance of 3D printing is a minimally invasive treatment method with the advantages of accurate positioning, rapid postoperative recovery, few complications, and reliable short- to mid-term effects.

CLINICAL IMPACT

At present the PMSG usually depend on imaging data and software calculation. With the guidance of 3D printing technology, image data could be transformed into 3D model, which has improved the accuracy of the positioning of the fenestrations. The diameter reduction technique and the internal mini cuff technique have made a complement to the slimed-down fenestration selection process and the low rate of endoleak. As reproducible study, our results may provide reference for TEVAR in different cases.

Acute aortic dissection: evidence, uncertainties, and future therapies

Remarkable progress has become especially apparent in aortic medicine in the last few decades, leading to essential changes in how thoracic aortic dissection is understood and treated. This state-of-the-art review article addresses the mechanisms of acute aortic dissection, explaining the role of its primary entry location, proximal, and distal dissection extension in their clinical presentation and impact on the decision-making process towards the best treatment approach. The latest evidence on novel treatment methods for acute aortic syndromes is presented, and the diverse dissection classification systems that remain uncertain are discussed, which reveals the need for shared terminology and more clarity. Finally, future aspects are discussed in treating acute aortic dissection, such as the endovascular treatment of aortic dissection Type A and biomarkers for acute aortic syndromes.

Endovascular Repair of Penetrating Thoracic Aortic Ulcers Using Tubular Stent Grafts Versus Stent Grafts With a Proximal Scallop

PURPOSE

In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

Type 1 Endoleak: Management following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

The best treatment option for type IA endoleak after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is its avoidance by understanding the underlying disease process, having/creating adequate landing zones, as well as respecting anatomy in combination with knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the TEVAR device used.

Three-year follow-up of aortic arch endovascular stent grafting with the Nexus device: results from a prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aortic arch stent grafting with branched devices has shown initial promising results. The aim of this prospective, multicentre study was to evaluate 3-year outcomes of aortic arch stent grafting with NEXUS® Aortic Arch Stent Graft System (Nexus), a single-branch, bi-modular, off-the-shelf aortic arch stent graft system in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients treated with Nexus, either under the feasibility clinical study or as compassionate use procedures in 5 centres, were included in this study. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the incidence of procedure-related unplanned intervention, stroke, paraplegia and endoleak. Clinical and radiologic follow-up was performed at each study site at 30 days, 6 months and on a yearly basis thereafter up to 3 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

We analysed data from a total of 28 patients. The overall median follow-up was 1132 (interquartile range: 809-1537). There were no device or procedure-related deaths between 1 and 3 years. Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 89% and 71%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of unplanned reintervention at 1 and 3 years was 11% and 29%, respectively. There were no reports of stroke, paraplegia, aneurysm rupture, myocardial infarction or new aortic valve insufficiency. In this study's 1-3 year follow-up period, 1 type Ib (4%), 1 type II (4%) and 2 type III (8%; between Nexus' distal end and Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) extensions) endoleak were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic arch exclusion with the single-branch, off-the-shelf Nexus system provides promising clinical and radiologic results at 3-year follow-up in a high-risk patient cohort.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms with the Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis

OBJECTIVE

Aortic aneurysms involving aortic arch vessels are anatomically unsuitable for standard thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) without cervical debranching of the arch vessels. Three year outcomes of a single branched thoracic endograft following previous publication of peri-operative and one year outcomes are reported.

METHODS

This was a multicentre feasibility trial of the GORE TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE), a thoracic endovascular graft incorporating a single retrograde branch for aortic arch vessel perfusion. The first study arm enrolled patients with an intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysm extending to the distal arch with left subclavian artery (LSA) incorporation (zone 2). The second arm enrolled patients with arch aneurysms requiring incorporation of the left carotid or innominate artery (zone 0/1) and extra-anatomic surgical revascularisation of the remaining aortic arch vessels. Outcomes at three years are reported.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 40 patients (31 zone 2, nine zone 0/1). The majority were male (52%). Mean follow up was 1 408 ± 552 days in the zone 2 and 1 187 ± 766 days in the zone 0/1 cohort. During three year follow up there was no device migration, fracture, or aortic rupture in either arm. In the zone 2 arm, freedom from re-intervention was 97% at one and three years but there were two side branch occlusions. Two patients had aneurysm enlargement > 5 mm without documented endoleak or re-intervention. Freedom from death at one and three years was 90% and 84%. In the zone 0/1 arm there were no re-interventions, loss of branch patency, or aneurysm enlargement at three years. Cerebrovascular events occurred in three patients during follow up: two unrelated to the device or procedure, and one of unknown relationship. Two patients in this arm died during the follow up period, both unrelated to the procedure or the aneurysm.

CONCLUSION

Initial three year results of the TBE device for endovascular repair of arch aneurysms show favourable patency and durability with low rates of graft related complications.

Total Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair With a Triple Inner-Branch Device (the Innominate Approach)

PURPOSE

To describe a completely percutaneous approach for endovascular arch repair (arch-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair [PEVAR]) with a triple inner-branch device: the "Innominate Approach."

TECHNIQUE

After right axillary and single common femoral arteries percutaneous access, the arch stent-graft is introduced and deployed transfemorally using fusion overlay. The brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the corresponding inner branch are cannulated from the axillary access. Through this access, a steerable-sheath guides antegrade cannulation of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) through its inner branch. Optionally, a wire preloaded through the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the LCCA branch, is snared from the BCA access providing LCCA through and through access. A 10 Fr sheath is then positioned from the BCA branch in the LCCA branch and a second, trans-axillary wire through the same sheath is used to catheterize the LCCA. The LCCA is then stented antegradely (regardless of approach). Finally, the BCA and LSA are bridged to complete the procedure. An additional novelty described is the use of VBX (W. L. Gore) as a bridging stent for the BCA.

CONCLUSION

Arch-PEVAR is feasible with the use of adjuncts that are well-known for physicians performing complex endovascular repair. The "Innominate Approach" avoids access and exposure of the carotid arteries.

CLINICAL IMPACT

We aim to describe the feasibility of the axillary artery as the main route to perform the brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the left common carotid artery bridging stenting in case of arch endovascular repair (arch-EVAR) with a triple Inner-Branch Device. According to the present "Innominate Approach", percutaneous arch-EVAR is feasible using either a steerable sheath or a preloaded through-&-through wire. The Innominate approach, including a VBX bridging stent for the BCA, avoids carotid access and exposure, reduces the number of vascular accesses, and allows the downsizing of the trans-axillary devices.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch

PURPOSE

Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

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.

[Status of the Inner Branches in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair]

Complex endovascular therapy of the aorta with fenestrated and branched endografts plays an essential role in modern vascular medicine. Innovative solutions for demanding aortic pathologies are therefore being constantly developed by the medical industry. The aim of this manuscript is to illustrate the growing importance of the inner branches in complex aortic repair and to show the advantages and limits of this technique with an overview of the current literature. The inner branches (iBEVAR) were therefore compared to the standard treatment options (fenestrations; [FEVAR], outer branches [BEVAR]) and the technical advantages of all platforms were evaluated. The widespread use of iBEVAR in the aortic arch stands in contrast to the thoracoabdominal aorta, which is mirrored by the scarce evidence for the thoracoabdominal inner branches. The published experience is based on smaller retrospective studies with a 1-year follow-up. The E-nside (Artivion, Hechingen, Germany) thoracoabdominal off-the-shelf inner-branch-based endograft was released 2 years ago. Its widespread deployment may increase the use of the inner branches in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Moreover, an ongoing industry-funded registry may provide new insights into the long-term durability of this innovative technique.

From The RELAY® Family - A Story of Single Branched International Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgery over the last few decades has led to the development and widespread utilisation of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). TEVAR, due to its minimally invasive nature and potential superior outcomes, is now becoming a key focus of interest in treating pathologies of the aortic arch, which has traditionally been treated with open surgical repair (OSR). We present our findings of our international multi-centre dataset documenting the efficacy of the single-branched RELAY™ endograft in terms of technical success, post-operative outcomes, and reintervention rates.

METHODS

Prospective data was collected and retrospectively analysed with descriptive and distributive analysis between January 2019 and January 2022 from 17 patients treated with RELAY™ single-branched endoprostheses from centres across Europe. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of post-operative outcomes, target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all 17 patients (100%) and there were no postoperative disabling or non-disabling strokes in our single-branched RELAY™ cohort. The target vessel patency remained 100% during the first 30 days post-operatively, however, by the end of the follow-up period (24 months), target vessel patency was achieved in 93.7% of the patients. There were no reinterventions or deaths during the full study duration using the single-branched RELAY™ stent-graft.

CONCLUSION

These results with the single branched RELAY™ stent graft demonstrate favourable outcomes in comparison to the literature and demonstrate the feasibility of treatment of aortic pathology with this single-branched graft in the future. Further studies with larger patient cohorts will help us to accumulate evidence for the feasibility of the single branched RELAY™ stent graft for aortic arch surgery in the future.

Favorable neurological outcomes in thoracic endovascular aortic repair with RELAY™ branched-An international perspective

BACKGROUND

While open surgical repair continues to be the mainstay option for aortic arch reconstruction, the associated mortality, morbidity, and high turn-down rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive options for aortic arch repair. Though RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a promising option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair, neurological complications remain a pertinent risk. Herein we seek to present multicenter data from Europe documenting the neurological outcomes associated with RELAY™ Branched.

METHODS

Prospective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple-branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data from 30 days and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively were included. Patient follow-up was evaluated for the onset of disabling stroke (DS) and non-disabling stroke (NDS).

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, in total, six (4.1%) patients suffered DS, and eight (5.4%) patients suffered NDS after undergoing aortic arch repair with RELAY™. All patients that developed postoperative DS had been treated with the double-branched RELAY™ endoprosthesis.

DISCUSSION

The data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with favorable neurological outcomes and excellent technical success rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating neurological complications following endovascular aortic arch repair.

Single-center experience with a unibody single-branched stent graft for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

To provide an adequate proximal landing zone, left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction has become an important part of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study evaluates the short and medium term efficacy of a novel unibody single-branched stent graft for zone 2 TEVAR. Fifty-two patients (mean age, 56 ± 10.9 years; 42 men) with distal aortic arch lesions requiring LSA reconstruction received unibody single-branched stents from September 2019 to March 2021. Computed tomography angiography was performed 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery to observe stent morphology, branch patency, endoleaks, stent-related adverse events, and changes in the diameter of true and false lumens. All stents were deployed adequately, and the technical success rate was 100%. The mean operation time was 121.8 ± 47.0 min. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.2 ± 3.7 days, and the mean follow-up was 16.8 ± 5.2 months (range, 12–24 months). During follow-up, there were no deaths and complications such as stent displacement or fracture, stenosis, fracture, occlusion, and type Ia endoleaks. The patency rate of the branched segment was 100%. In 42 patients with aortic dissection (AD), the true lumen diameter of the aortic isthmus was 29.4 ± 2.9 mm after surgery, significantly larger than before surgery (20.6 ± 5.4 mm, P < 0.05). Postoperative aortic isthmus false lumen diameter was significantly smaller than that before operation (6.1 ± 5.2 mm vs. 16.0 ± 7.6 mm, P < 0.05). The new unibody single-branched stent for zone 2 TEVAR is safe and accurate, and its efficacy is good in the short and medium term.

Does endovascular duration impact clinical outcomes in aortic arch repair? The RELAY™ branched international stance

Background

The high mortality and morbidity rates in surgical aortic arch repair are a barrier to therapy for a considerable proportion of patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. There is hence a demand for the development and adoption of a minimally invasive alternative to aortic arch repair, such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Procedural duration is a key factor in the pathogenesis of complications in surgical aortic arch repair. Herein, we evaluate whether endovascular duration impacts neurological outcomes, target vessel patency, and reintervention rates in aortic arch TEVAR with RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK), which is specifically developed for on-label use within the aortic arch.

Methods

Prospective data was collected between January 2019 and January 2022 on the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for aortic arch dissection and aneurysm with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe. They were then retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data on the incidence of disabling stroke (DS), target vessel patency, and reintervention from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperative was included in the analysis.

Results

147 (99.3%) of all 148 cases were successful. Over the 24 month follow-up period, in total 6 (4.1%) patients suffered DS, 24 (16.3%) required reintervention, and target vessel patency was exhibited in 118 (80.2%) patients. The modal endovascular duration was 100-150 min (in 64.6%, n = 95 cases). Analysis revealed that endovascular duration was associated with a lower likelihood of reintervention at 30 days, 6-, and 12 months (P = 0.011, P = 0.019, P = 0.037), a greater likelihood of target vessel patency at 6- and 24 months (P = 0.032, P = 0.035). No relationship between endovascular duration and DS was revealed.

Discussion

The data demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with promising clinical outcomes for on-label aortic arch TEVAR. The underlying mechanism linking endovascular duration and reintervention rates, or target vessel patency is likely multifactorial and complex. Given that TEVAR is carried out under general anesthetic only, it is unlikely that prolonged procedural duration has any major effect over neurological outcomes for arch TEVAR.

Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Hybrid type II and frozen elephant trunk in acute Stanford type A aortic dissections

Objectives. Composite frozen elephant trunk is an increasingly popular solution for complex aortic pathologies. This review aims to compare outcomes of zone 0 type II hybrid (hybrid II) with the composite frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique in managing acute Stanford type A aortic dissections. Methods. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched using PRISMA protocol. 11 relevant studies describing the outcomes of hybrid II arch repair and FET techniques in patients with type A aortic dissection were included in the meta-analysis. The study focused on early post-operative 30-day outcomes analysing mortality, stroke, spinal cord injury, renal impairment requiring dialysis, bleeding and lung infection. Results. 1305 patients were included in the analysis - 343 receiving hybrid II repair and 962 treated with the FET. Meta-analysis of proportions showed Hybrid II was associated with less early mortality [5.0 (CI 3.1-7.8) vs 8.1 (CI 6.5-10.0) %], stroke [2.3 (CI 1.1-4.6) vs 7.0 (CI 5.5-8.8) %], spinal cord injury [2.0 (CI 0.9-4.3) vs 3.8 (CI 2.8-5.3) %], renal impairment requiring dialysis [7.9 (CI 5.5-11.2) vs 11.8 (CI 9.8-14.0) %], reoperation for bleeding [3.9 (CI 1.8-8.4) vs 10.6 (CI 8.1-13.8) %] and lung infection [14.8 (CI 10.8-20.0) vs 20.7 (CI 16.9-25.1) %]. Conclusion. Hybrid II should be considered in favour of FET technique in acute Stanford type A dissection patients who are at higher risk due to age and comorbidities.

Anatomical analysis of the aortic arch and feasibility study of double and triple branched thoracic endografts in the treatment of isolated arch pathologies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing open arch repair who would be anatomically suitable for multi-branched endovascular arch repair.

METHODS

This study was a single-centre review of patients undergoing open arch repair between 2000 and 2020. Anatomical feasibility was determined by comparing arch measurements to the anatomical criteria of the Zenith® double and triple inner branched-arch endografts (Cook Medical) and the Relay® double arch branched device (Terumo-Aortic).

RESULTS

Ninety (90) patients were included in this study, with 43/90 presenting degenerative aneurysm. The distance between the sinotubular junction and the brachiocephalic trunk measured 114 ± 30 mm on the outer curvature, and the maximum diameter of the proximal landing zone (PLZ) was 41 ± 11mm. A total of 42/90 patients (47%) were anatomically suitable for at least 1 stent graft and 29/90 patients (32%) were eligible for a triple-branched endograft. The most important determinant factors of anatomical suitability were the PLZ diameter (Cramer's V = 0.743, P < 0.001) and length (Cramer's V = 0.777, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the proportion of patients who may be anatomically suitable for branched-arch repair remains limited. The PLZ dimensions tend to be the most important anatomical limitations and should receive more emphasis in the development of branched-arch devices.