Application of triple-chimney technique using C-TAG and Viabahn or Excluder iliac extension in TEVAR treatment of aortic arch dilation diseases

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Single-Center Preliminary Experience with Gutter-Plugging Chimney Stent-Graft for Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

To report the early 2-year results and experience of a novel gutter-plugging chimney stent-graft in a single center that participated in the clinical trial of Prospective Study for Aortic Arch Therapy with stENt-graft for Chimney technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with aortic dissection were treated with the novel chimney stent-grafts named Longuette™ for the left subclavian artery revascularization. Primary study outcomes were the incidence of freedom from major adverse events within 30 days and success rate of the operation over 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients were enrolled between September 2019 and December 2020. The immediate technical success rate (stent-grafts successfully deployed without fast-flow type Ia or type III endoleak intraoperatively) was 100%, and there were no conversions to open repair. Type Ia and type II endoleaks were noted in three patients (8.8%) and one patient (2.9%) at discharge, respectively. One patient (2.9%) with type Ia endoleak underwent coil embolization at 12 months because of false lumen dilation, and one (2.9%) case of type Ia endoleak resolved spontaneously at 24 months. One chimney stent (2.9%) was revealed with stenosis at discharge and occluded with thrombosis at 6 months postoperatively. During the 2-year follow-up, there was no death, rupture, stroke, paraplegia, left arm ischemia, retrograde dissection, stent-graft induced new entry, or stent migration.

CONCLUSION

The initial results of the Longuette™ stent-graft for revascularization of the left subclavian artery are encouraging with a high technical success rate. Further multicenter follow-up outcomes are required to assess the long-term durability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

Tratamiento endovascular con técnica de chimenea para patologías del arco aórtico

Introducción. La patología del arco aórtico se ha tratado principalmente con cirugía por vía abierta, pero con una alta morbimortalidad. Las técnicas endovasculares híbridas y las reconstrucciones en “chimenea” son una técnica válida y segura para disminuir el riesgo y la mortalidad. Métodos. Se presentan dos pacientes con patología del arco aórtico y contraindicación de manejo quirúrgico abierto, atendidos en el Servicio de Cirugía Vascular, Hospital Universitario Clínica de San Rafael, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Resultados. Se realizaron dos procedimientos endovasculares del arco aórtico para tratar un aneurisma torácico roto y una úlcera aórtica sintomática, con cubrimiento de los troncos supra aórticos con una endoprótesis y canalización de los vasos supra aórticos con prótesis cubiertas y uso de la “técnica de chimenea”, de manera exitosa. Discusión. La patología del arco aórtico es de alta complejidad y se asocia con una morbimortalidad elevada por lo que, en los últimos 20 años se han desarrollado diferentes técnicas utilizando procedimientos percutáneos. Conclusión. La “técnica de chimenea” se puede realizar de una manera mínimamente invasiva en pacientes con patología del arco aórtico, no candidatos para cirugía abierta, con resultados exitosos.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing

PURPOSE

Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

Endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients are concerned. Endovascular treatments for this disease are under evaluation and some reports exist. We investigated the current use of catheter-based treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch repair.

METHODS

We searched in PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of June 2020 for studies on endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch. Data on demographic, procedure and stent graft (SG) details, access route, mortality with cause of death, complications and follow-up were extracted. A systematic review on the employed technology, procedure and outcome was performed.

RESULTS

A total number of 15 articles (13 retrospective reports and 2 case reports) were deemed eligible and were included in the study. In total, 140 patients (mean age: 56.7 years in 106 cases) received endovascular treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch (unspecific aortic dissection: 14; acute and subacute type A aortic dissection: 88; chronic type A aortic dissection: 23; type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A dissection: 15). The procedure strategy included unspecific thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (n = 8), TEVAR + supra-aortic debranching (n = 2), TEVAR + cervical bypass (n = 8), TEVAR + periscope SG (n = 12), TEVAR + chimney graft (n = 8), TEVAR + branched SG (n = 21) and TEVAR + fenestration (n = 81). Procedural success rate was 95.6% for 116 reported cases. Complications included endoleaks (postoperative: 2; late: 5), stroke (n = 4), late SG-induced new entry (n = 3) and new false lumen formation (n = 1). Hospital mortality was 5% (6 cases) in 13 reports (120 patients). The mean follow-up time was 26.2 ± 29.4 months and 2 patients died during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

As an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with a dissected proximal aortic arch, the endovascular treatment seems to be promising in highly selected cases. Further studies with long-term results and specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.

Pre-fenestration endovascular repair of aortic diseases in patients with zone 2 segment: A single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to analyze the outcomes of three cases of pre-fenestration and branch stent-graft endovascular repair of aortic disease with zone 2 aortic lesions.

METHODS

From August 2017 to June 2018, three patients with zone 2 aortic lesions underwent thoracic endovascular repair with innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery recannulation using pre-fenestration and branched stent-grafts to preserve the patency of the aortic arch branches.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100%. One patient had a proximal type I endoleak with no need for additional treatment. The overall mortality was 0%. All branches were patent. The follow-up period lasted for 2-15 months, with one patient lost to follow-up. There were no conversions to open surgical repair, aortic rupture, paraplegia, or retrograde type A aortic dissection.

CONCLUSION

The use of a pre-fenestration and branch stent-graft for the thoracic endovascular repair of zone 2 aortic lesions is a feasible and effective method for aortic arch branch revascularization. The risk of this surgical procedure is high, requiring significant expertise. The procedure should be conducted only in experienced centers. Durability concerns should be assessed in future studies with long-term follow-up.

Endovascular Outcomes in Aortic Arch Repair with Double and Triple Parallel Stent Grafts

PURPOSE

To report early and midterm outcomes of treating thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and aortic dissection (AD) involving zone 1 and zone 0 with multiple parallel stent grafts (PSGs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2011 to August 2018, 31 of 1,806 patients (1.7%) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with double PSGs (DPSGs) (n = 20) or triple PSGs (TPSGs) (n = 11) were retrospectively reviewed. Procedures were performed in high-risk patients who had TAA or AD involving zone 1 or zone 0.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (48.4%) who presented with symptomatic or impending rupture underwent urgent or emergent TEVAR with DPSGs or TPSGs. Nineteen patients (61.3%) were treated for zone 0 disease. Technical and clinical success rates were 70.0% for DPSG cohort and 45.5% for TPSG cohort. Intraoperative type Ia endoleak was observed in 30% of DPSG cohort and 45.5% of TPSG cohort. One patient in the DPSG cohort died of aortic sinus rupture intraoperatively. Minor stroke during the 30-day postoperative period was more frequent in the TPSG cohort (P = .042). Mean duration of follow-up was 28.9 months ± 17.7. The TPSG cohort had a higher incidence of major adverse events (72.7% vs 25.0%, P = .021). The most common adverse events were endoleaks (12.9%), endograft migration (9.7%), PSG stenosis or occlusion (6.5%), retrograde dissection (6.5%), and stroke (3.2%). Endograft migrations were more common in TPSG cohort (27.3%, P = .037). Overall mortality rate was 16.1% (5/31) perioperatively and during follow-up. There were no statistical differences in overall survival and reintervention-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of TEVAR with multiple PSGs for aortic arch repair, TPSGs may have a high risk of major complications.

Early and midterm results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a branched endograft for aortic arch pathologies: A retrospective single-center study

Background

Zone 0 landing hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) includes a few moderately invasive surgical procedures. To reduce invasiveness, TEVAR with a branched aortic arch stent-graft can be considered. This study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of performing TEVAR using a Bolton (Bolton Medical, Inc, Sunrise, Fla) branched endograft by analyzing early and midterm results.

Methods

We enrolled 28 patients (mean age, 78.4 years) who underwent TEVAR with the Bolton branched endograft in Osaka University Hospital between October 2012 and June 2018 with a mean follow-up period of 4.0 years. Double-side and single-side branched devices were used in 24 (85.7%) and 4 (14.3%) patients, respectively.

Results

All procedures were successful; no cases of endoleak or conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The perioperative stroke rate was 14.3% (4 out of 28); midterm stroke was not detected. All patients with perioperative stroke had atheroma grade ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery. No type 1a endoleak was reported during the early or midterm results. The cumulative survival rate, aorta-related death-free rate, and aortic event-free survival rate at 5 years were 80.8%, 95.8%, and 81.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

We achieved satisfactory early and midterm results by using a Bolton branched endograft for high-risk patients with arch pathologies except for high postoperative stroke. Although this treatment method is associated with postoperative stroke, performing strict evaluation of atheroma may prevent such complication. By preventing intraoperative stroke, TEVAR with this custom-made Bolton branched endograft may be considered a less-invasive treatment.

Endovascular aortic repairs combined with looping-chimney technique for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) combined with looping chimney technique (LCT) for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery.

Methods

Total of 14 patients (mean age 52.86±14.46 years; range, 27–79; 10 men, 4 women) were included in the study from December 2016 to December 2018. Aortic arch pathologies of all patients with insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) were repaired by TEVAR under local anesthesia, before TEVAR, the left common carotid artery (LCCA) was protected by the guiding sheath from the retrograde brachial access, after aortic stent graft deployed, chimney graft was implanted to restore LCCA by LCT if necessary. All patients underwent computed tomography angiograph (CTA) 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery.

Results

Pathology results of 14 patients included: type B aortic dissection (n=8), penetrating aortic ulcers (n=1), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=1), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=2), and thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm (n=2). In all patients, aortic arch lesions were repaired by TEVAR; while LCCA were successfully reconstructed by the LCT. In one case, the innominate artery (IA) was simultaneously reconstructed through the same percutaneous right brachial artery (RBA) access. Coiling eliminated type Ia endoleak in 3 patients, and type II endoleak vanished by plugging left subclavian artery (LSA) in 2 patients. In four patients, the chimney stent (CG) of LCCA was partially compressed and then another bare stent was implanted to restore patency rate. The mean follow-up duration was 9.77±6.64 months (range, 0–24) and no combinations were observed in 13 patients; except in one patient who died of cerebral hemorrhage due to abnormal coagulation function.

Conclusions

TEVAR combined with LCT has shown to be suitable surgical approach for aortic arch lesions. Either covered intentionally or inadvertently, the LCCA could be safely and effectively reconstructed via percutaneous RBA access. Short-term follow-up demonstrated satisfactory morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients; however, longer follow-up is required to assess the effectiveness and durability of this innovative endovascular procedure.