Outcomes of single physician-modified fenestrated stent grafts for endovascular repair of thoracic aortic lesions involving the distal aortic arch

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 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.

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.

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.