Management of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines

Endovascular Technique for Ascending Aorta Repair Based on TEVAR and TAVI Procedures

PURPOSE

Ascending aorta (AAo) acute pathology still has an open-surgery indication with a high mortality rate associated to cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. In these cases, the endovascular aortic approach could be an excellent option. The aim of the present study is to detail an optimized technique for the endovascular treatment of AAo diseases, based on thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures.

TECHNIQUE

The procedure implies the usual preparation for TEVAR and TAVI implants. A transient pacemaker lead is necessary to deliver the prosthesis under "rapid pacing." As in the TAVI technique, a final high-support guidewire is placed at the left ventricle. The proximal landing zone is the sinotubular junction (zone 0B). Transesophageal echocardiography is essential to ensure aortic valve function and patency in coronary arteries during the delivery. To assess a potential occlusion of the brachiocephalic artery, a guidewire is positioned in the descending aorta from the axillary artery. Finally, a noncovered stent is implanted to stabilize the AAo prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

The technique presented here can standardize a safe and reproducible procedure to endovascular repair of AAo diseases. However, new devices specifically designed for the AAo could facilitate the transcatheter approach.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Ascending aorta acute pathology still has an open-surgery indication with high mortality rate associated to cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Moreover, near 30% of patients are not considered suitable for surgery because of age, critical situation or the presence of severe comorbidities. The present study provides a detailed and optimized technique for the endovascular treatment of ascending aorta disease, based on TEVAR and TAVI procedures.

Endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies in patients unfit for open surgery: case series and literature review

The number of vascular centers performing endovascular repair of ascending aortic disease is constantly increasing. Accordingly to the guidelines, open surgical repair remains the gold standard for these pathologies. However, approximately one quarter of patients are deemed unfit for open surgery. In this study, we describe three cases of ascending thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) performed at our center. All the patients were deemed unfit for open surgery by the aortic team. Two patients had an ascending aortic pseudoaneurysm, and the third had a focal type A aortic dissection. In two cases, we used two abdominal aortic cuffs deployed from zone 0B to zone 0C, with no need for supra-aortic trunk debranching. In one case, we performed a "reverse" extrathoracic debranching, and we deployed a thoracic endograft from zone 0B to zone 2. Complications included one minor stroke and one inguinal hematoma. In one patient with an infected pseudoaneurysm, we performed ascending TEVAR as a bridge strategy for open repair. This patient developed a type Ia endoleak; however, clinical stabilization and infection control were obtained, and he was able to undergo heart surgery successfully. He underwent a second reintervention to treat superior mesenteric embolic occlusion. At 2 years of follow-up, all three patients were alive. Our preliminary experience demonstrates the technical feasibility and clinical appropriateness of ascending TEVAR using standard, commercially available endografts. However, no consensus has been reached regarding some critical aspects, such as the development of a standardized technique or the efficacy of the currently available devices. The improvements in graft design and the adoption of the "aortic team" approach could help in the near future to standardize the procedure, establish appropriate indications, and ensure good clinical outcomes.

Differences in In-Hospital and Follow-Up Outcomes Between Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection and Type B Aortic Dissection Treated by Endovascular Based Treatment

OBJECTIVES

Non-A non-B aortic dissection (AD) is a rare and life-threatening medical emergency, and it has been controversial whether it should be managed as type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The study aims to compare in-hospital and follow-up outcomes between patients with non-A non-B AD and those with TBAD treated by endovascular based treatment (EBT).

METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2021, 96 consecutive patients with non-A non-B AD met the inclusion criteria and underwent EBT. Patients with TBAD were matched to patients with non-A non-B AD at a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching analysis to correct for baseline confounding factors. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Aortic-related events were defined as dissection-related death, aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak.

RESULTS

Patients with non-A non-B AD required more TEVAR-related adjunctive procedures compared to TBAD patients during EBT and they required a longer ICU length of stay (36.0 vs 24.0 hours, P < .05) as well as a longer hospitalization (8.0 vs 7.0 days, P < .05) after EBT. There was no statistical difference in overall survival after EBT for patients with TBAD and non-A non-B AD. However, compared to patients with TBAD, non-A non-B AD patients had a higher rate of reintervention and experienced more aortic-related late events during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Patients with non-A non-B acute AD who are treated with EBT do not have higher in-hospital or follow-up mortality rates compared to patients with type B AD. However, there is an increased risk of reintervention and aortic-related late events after the intervention during follow-up.

Early Outcomes on Triple-Branch Arch Device With Retrograde Left Common Carotid Branch: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic arch repair using multibranch devices has been applied in patients considered at high risk for open repair. The aim of this case series was to report the early outcomes in patients managed with a new design 3 branch arch custom-made device, including a retrograde left common carotid artery (LCCA) branch.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Of CaSe Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were followed. All consecutive patients undergoing endovascular repair of an aortic arch lesion with a custom-made triple-branch device, including a retrograde LCCA branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), between October 27, 2022, and February 28, 2023, were included. The presence of an arch aneurysm (degenerative or post-dissection) with diameter ≥55 mm and high risk for a conventional open repair set the indication for treatment. The primary outcomes were technical success and mortality at 30 days. Early morbidity and reinterventions were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight elective patients (87.5% men, mean age 72.3±27.0 years) were included. Five of them (62.5%) had undergone a previous ascending aorta repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were asymptomatic, except one, with left recurrent laryngeal nerve compression. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 70.4±21.0 mm. Percutaneous femoral and axillary access was used in all cases except three in which a cut down for right carotid access was performed. Technical success was 100%. Femoral access to the LCCA and implantation of the bridging stent was performed without technical challenges. No death nor cerebrovascular event was recorded during the 30 day follow-up. Five patients (62.5%) presented major complications, 3 related to access needing reintervention and the remaining related to congestive heart failure (CHF), which were managed successfully with medical treatment. Follow-up (range 1-4 month) was uneventful, except for one patient who presented a secondary type Ia endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our early experience, the presence of a retrograde branch facilitated the revascularization of the LCCA through femoral access, decreasing the risk of cerebrovascular morbidity. Further analyses with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Data arising mainly from the retrograde branch for the revascularization of the LSA are encouraging from a variety of devices. The premiminary experience with a triple-branched arch device, with a retrograde branche for the LSA but also for the LCCA, was associated with no 30 day mortality and 100% technical success.The device's design allowed swift catheterization and completion of the LCCA revascularization using femoral access exclusively.

Current knowledge and contemporary management of non-A non-B aortic dissections

Non-A non-B aortic dissection (AAD) is an infrequently documented condition, comprising of only a small proportion of all AADs. The unique anatomy of the aortic arch and the failure of the existing classifications to adequately define individuals with non-A non-B AAD, have led to an ongoing controversy around the topic. It seems that the clinical progression of acute non-A non-B AAD diverges from the typical type A and B dissections, frequently leading to serious complications and thus mandating early intervention. Currently, the available treatment methods in the surgical armamentarium are conventional open, endovascular techniques and combined hybrid methods. The optimum approach is tailored in every individual case and may be determined by the dissection’s location, extent, the aortic diameter, the associated complications and the patient’s status. The management of non-A non-B dissections still remains challenging and a unanimous consensus defining the gold standard treatment has yet to be reached. In an attempt to provide further insight into this perplexing entity, we performed a minireview of the literature, aiming to elucidate the epidemiology, clinical course and the optimal treatment modality.

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.