Aortic Arch Pathology Research Articles

A Retrospective Analysis of 10-year Experience on Branched and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

This study aimed to present the early and mid-term outcomes of fenestrated/branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f/bTEVAR) for aortic arch pathologies. f/bTEVAR represents a less invasive treatment option for aortic arch diseases. Previous published series showed decreased early mortality and morbidity compared to open repair. A single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed with f/bTEVAR (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) between 01.09.11and 30.06.22 was conducted. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30-day mortality and stroke. Data during follow-up and factors affecting early mortality and stroke were analyzed. 209 patients were included (38.3% females; mean age 69.8±3.4years; mean aortic diameter 61±4.7mm); 14.4% were managed urgently. Fenestrations/scallop configuration was used in 39.7%, branched devices in 55.5% and branch/scallop combination in 4.8%. Landing to zone 0 was performed in 65.5% and in zone 1 in 32.1%. Non-native aortas were used for landing in 39.2%. Technical success was 97.1% and 30-day mortality 9.5%. Strokes were identified in 10%; 5.7% major. Non-native proximal aortic landing zone was an independent protective factor for stroke (P=0.002). Post-operative stroke (P<0.001) and pericardial effusion (P<0.001) were independently related to 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up was 21±8 months. The estimated survival and freedom from reintervention rates were 79.5% (standard error; SE3.1%) and 47.1% (SE 4.3%) at 24months, respectively. f/bTEVAR presented high technical success and acceptable 30-day mortality. Non-native proximal landing zone was related to lower stroke rate. Half of patients needed a reintervention within the 24-month follow-up.

Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis

The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves ahybrid approach using aleft carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of athoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures. Aretrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues. Atotal of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was € 666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of € 132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, atotal revenue of € 659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents arevenue decrease of € 16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by € 65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in asaving of 74occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care. Acost coverage seems probable with achange in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.

In Situ Fenestration and Carotid-Subclavian Bypass for Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

PurposeTo evaluate the safety and feasibility of left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization techniques during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)—the in situ needle fenestration (ISNF) technique and the carotid-subclavian bypass (CS-Bp)—for complicated aortic pathologies.MethodsA retrospective single-center observational study was conducted to identify all patients with thoracic aortic pathologies who underwent TEVAR with LSA revascularization using either CS-Bp or ISNFs from January 2014 to December 2020.ResultsOne hundred and twelve consecutive patients who received TEVAR with LSA revascularization were included. Among them, 69 received CS-Bp and 43 received ISNF (29 using the Futhrough adjustable puncture needles, 14 using the binding stent-graft puncture systems). Technical success, defined as achieving aortic arch pathology exclusion and LSA preservation, was attained in 99.1% patients. Early mortality was 0.9%. Major adverse events within 30 days, including one cerebral hemorrhage, one cervical incision hemorrhage, one stroke and two paraplegia, were exclusively observed in the CS-Bp group. Immediate type I, II and III endoleaks occurred in 0%, 4.7% and 2.3% in the ISNF group, respectively, compared to 0%, 2.9% and 0% in the CS-Bp group.One hundred and eight (97.2%) patients were available for follow-up at a median 50 (maiximum of 103) months, revealing a LSA patency rates of 99.1%. Six patients died during follow-ups—five in the CS-Bp group and one in the ISNF group. Cause of death include one aortic-related stent-graft infection, three non-related and two with unknow causes. The survival exhibited no significantly different between the ISNF (97.7%) and CS-Bp (89.9%) groups (p = 0.22).ConclusionsBoth CS-Bp and ISNF are feasible techniques for LSA reconstruction in TEVAR. ISNF, whether using Futhrough or BPS, seems to be competitive with CS-Bp.Graphical

Short-term results of fenestrated physician-modified endografts for type1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of physician-modified fenestrated stent grafts (PMEGs) in treating type 1a endoleak after conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in aortic arch pathologies. MethodsPatients who developed a type 1a endoleak after conventional TEVAR were included in the study. They underwent treatment with fenestrated PMEGs, which involved single or double fenestration for the supra-aortic trunks. ResultsTwenty patients were treated with PMEGs between October 2018 and November 2023. Among them, 25% received single fenestrated PMEGs and 75% received double fenestrated PMEGs. The technical success rate was 100% for both types. Eighty percent of the PMEGs had a landing zone in zone 0, whereas 20% had a landing zone in zone 2. There were no in-hospital deaths. After 30 days, 1 patient died as the result of an aortic-related cause (retrograde dissection). The mean follow-up time was 16.5 months (range, 0-60 months). No major adverse events such as stroke or spinal ischemia were reported. No type 1 or type 3 endoleaks were observed, and one type 2 endoleaks required peripheral endovascular reintervention. ConclusionsThe treatment of type 1a endoleaks using fenestrated PMEGs after conventional TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies is a viable option. It is associated with acceptable rates of early and midterm major morbidity and mortality.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using In Situ Laser Fenestration.

The aim of this study is to present single-center outcomes in patients treated with in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair (LFTEVAR) for various aortic arch pathologies and assess the impact of increasing experience. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected single aortic center data was conducted, including baseline information and peri- and post-operative outcomes of consecutive patients managed with LFTEVAR for aortic arch pathologies. Patients were enrolled from April 1, 2017 to January 31, 2023. The cohort was dichotomized to compare early (2017-2019) and late experience (2020-2023). Primary outcomes were peri-operative mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity. Thirty patients were included (63.3% males, mean age 69.8±9.6 years); 21.4% presented with aortic ruptures. Aortic aneurysm involving the aortic arch was the most frequent pathology (53.3%). Forty target vessels (TVs) were revascularized, including 19 left subclavian arteries (47.5%) and 17 left common carotid arteries (42.5%). Double fenestrations were performed in 10 patients. The proximal landing zone was Ishimaru zone 0 in 5 patients (16.7%) and zone 1 in 13 patients (43.3%). Technical success was 93%. No spinal cord ischemia was recorded, and 3 patients (10%) suffered a post-operative stroke, of which 1 was major (3.3%). The median follow-up was 12 months (range=1-48 months). Thirty-day and follow-up mortality rates were 13.5% and 15.3%, respectively. Target vessel instability was 10%, of which 3.8% required reintervention. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the early and late experience groups. Laser fenestration thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the aortic arch performed in experienced aortic centers is associated with low early mortality and stroke rates. It is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair. Custom-made devices for arch pathologies requiring urgent repair are not an option because of manufacturing delays. Off-the-shelf devices with single branch arch prostheses, and outside IFU techniques such as parallel-grafts and surgeon-modified endografts have been proposed in this setting. Another off-the-shelf alternative is in situ laser fenestration thoracic endovascular repair (LFTEVAR), which addresses many limitations of the other off-the-shelf options. Our study reports the outcomes of 30 patients treated with LFTEVAR, showing that it is a viable therapeutic option in patients considered unfit for open repair acknowledging that sufficient experience with complex endovascular aortic repair is mandatory to achieve acceptable outcomes in these high-risk patients with challenging aortic anatomies.

Current techniques of repair of aortic arch pathologies and the role of the aortic team.

The treatment of aortic arch pathologies is becoming progressively more complex and multidisciplinary. Despite progresses in open surgical techniques, the high rate of surgical morbidity and mortality, especially in frail and elderly patients, has led to the development of alternative treatment options to conventional open surgery such as hybrid and endovascular procedures. Our purpose is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and investigate the role of a dedicated aortic team in the choice of the most appropriate treatment for each patient.

Target Vessel-Related Outcomes in Patients Managed With Branch Thoracic Aortic Endovascular Repair.

Data on target vessel (TV)-related outcomes in patients managed with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (BTEVAR) are limited. This study aimed to present the TV-related outcomes of BTEVAR in patients managed for aortic arch pathologies at 30 days and during follow-up. A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, with custom-made aortic arch endografts (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), presenting at least one branch configuration, were eligible. Primary outcomes were technical success, TV-related patency, and reinterventions at 30 days. In total, 255 TVs were revascularized using branches: 107 innominate arteries (IAs), 108 left common carotid arteries (LCCAs), and 40 left subclavian arteries (LSAs). Covered stents were used as bridging stents of which 10.2% were balloon expandable. Relining, using bare-metal stents (BMS), was performed in 14.0% of IAs, 35.2% of LCCAs, and 22.5% of LSAs. Technical success on case basis was 99.2%; no failure was related to unsuccessful TV bridging. At 30 day follow-up, no TV occlusion was detected. In 5.6% of cases, a type Ic or III endoleak, attributed to TVs, was recorded. Two patients needed early branch-related reintervention. The mean follow-up was 18.3±9.2 months. Freedom from TV instability was 94.6% (standard error [SE] 2.5%] at 12 months. No TV stenosis or occlusion was detected up to 48 months of follow-up. Freedom from TV-related reinterventions was 95.4% [SE 2.4%] at 12 months. TV stenosis or occlusion in BTEVAR cases is rare and TV-related reinterventions and instability events are mainly attributed to type Ic and III endoleak formation. Previous studies focusing on target vessel (TV) outcomes after endovascular aortic arch repair are limited. In this study, including 255 TVs revascularized using branched arch devices, bridging was performed with covered stents, of which 90% were self-expanding. Relining was at the discretion of the operator and was 14% for the innominate, 35.2% for the left common carotid and 22.5% for the left subclavian artery branches. No 30-day occlusion was detected. The freedom from TV instability was almost 95% at 12 months. TV instability and reintervention were mainly attributed to endoleaks type Ic and IIIc.

Endovascular aortic arch repair under monitored anaesthesia care: maximizing microinvasiveness.

Patients with aortic arch pathologies after surgery for type-A acute aortic dissection represent a challenging population since open surgery is associated with a non-negligible rate of mortality and complications. Microinvasive endovascular aortic arch repair Arch-Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (Ar-TEVAR) has shown promising results in high-risk patients. Ar-TEVAR is usually performed under general anaesthesia. We report the case of an 83-year-old man with a history of ascending aorta replacement for type-A acute aortic dissection who was referred for an anastomotic pseudoaneurysm. Ar-TEVAR using an off-the-shelf single-branch aortic arch stent graft was chosen. In order to further minimize procedural invasiveness, monitored anaesthesia care (local anaesthesia with sedation and analgesia) was performed since it provides less stress on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and overall leads to a faster recovery especially in elderly patients.

Comparative study of left vertebral artery revascularization in patients with and without aberrant left vertebral anatomy

ObjectiveLeft vertebral artery revascularization is indicated in surgery involving zone 2 of the aortic arch and is typically accomplished indirectly via subclavian artery revascularization. For aberrant left vertebral anatomy, direct revascularization is indicated. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of direct vertebral artery revascularization with indirect subclavian artery revascularization for treating aortic arch pathology and to identify predictors of mortality. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital, including patients who underwent open or endovascular vertebral artery revascularization from 2005 to 2022. Those who underwent direct vertebral revascularization were compared with those who were indirectly revascularized via subclavian artery revascularization. The outcomes of interest were a composite outcome (any of death, stroke, nerve injury, and thrombosis) and mortality. Univariate logistic regression models were fitted to quantify the strength of differences between the direct and indirect revascularization cohorts. Cox regression was used to identify mortality predictors. ResultsOf 143 patients who underwent vertebral artery revascularization, 21 (14.7%) had a vertebral artery originating from the aortic arch. The median length of stay was 10 days (interquartile range, 6-20 days), and demographics were similar between cohorts. The incidence of composite outcome, bypass thrombosis, and hoarseness was significantly higher in the direct group (42.9% vs 18.0%, P = .019; 33.3% vs 0.8%, P < .0001; 57.1% vs 18.0%, P < .001, respectively). The direct group was approximately three times more likely to experience the composite outcome (odds ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.28, 9.08); similarly, this group was approximately six times more likely to have hoarseness (odds ratio, 5.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.21, 15.62). There was no significant difference in mortality rates at 30 days, 1, 3, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Age, length of hospital stay, and congestive heart failure were identified as predictors of higher mortality. After adjusting for these covariates, the group itself was not an independent predictor of mortality. ConclusionsDirect vertebral revascularization was associated with higher rates of composite outcome (death, stroke, nerve injury, and thrombosis), bypass thrombosis and hoarseness. Patients with aberrant vertebral anatomy are at higher risks of these complications compared with patients with standard arch anatomy. However, after adjusting for other factors, mortality rates were not significantly different between the groups.

One-year outcomes of total arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk using the E-vita Open NEO.

In this cohort study, we aimed to assess the 1-year clinical outcomes of using the E-vita Open NEO™ hybrid prosthesis for total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (FET) to repair extensive aortic pathologies. We reviewed individuals who underwent thoracic aortic surgery between April 2021 and March 2023 from the Gangnam Severance Aortic Registry. Exclusion criteria included ascending aortic replacement, 1 or 2 partial arch replacement, descending aortic replacement and total arch replacement without an FET. Finally, all consecutive patients who underwent total arch replacement and FET with E-vita Open NEO for aortic arch pathologies between April 2021 and March 2023 were included in this cohort study. The patients were divided into 3 groups based on their pathology: acute aortic dissection, chronic aortic dissection and thoracic aortic aneurysm. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. The secondary end points during the postoperative period comprised stroke, spinal cord injury and redo sternotomy for bleeding. Additionally, the secondary end points during the follow-up period included the 1-year survival rate, 1-year freedom from all aortic procedures and 1-year freedom from unplanned aortic interventions. The study included 167 patients in total: 92 patients (55.1%) with acute aortic dissection, 20 patients (12.0%) with chronic aortic dissection and 55 patients (32.9%) with thoracic aortic aneurysm. The in-hospital mortality was 1.8% (n = 3). Strokes occurred in 1.8% (n = 3) of the patients, spinal cord injury in 1.8% (n = 3) and redo sternotomy for bleeding was performed in 3.0% (n = 5). There were no significant differences between the pathological groups. The median follow-up period (quartile 1-quartile 3) was 198 (37-373) days, with 1-year survival rates of 95.9%. At 1 year, the freedom from all aortic procedures and unplanned aortic interventions were 90.3% and 92.0%, respectively. The 1-year clinical outcomes of total arch replacement with FET using the E-vita Open NEO were favourable. Long-term follow-up is required to evaluate the durability of the FET.

Short-midterm results of hybrid and endovascular surgery for aortic arch pathology

Short-midterm results of hybrid and endovascular surgery for aortic arch pathology

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

ObjectiveThoracic 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. MethodsBetween 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. ResultsIn 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. ConclusionsTEVAR 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.

Aortic remodeling following hybrid arch repair with zone 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs for complex arch and descending thoracic aortic pathologies

ObjectiveFor high-risk patients with aortic arch pathology, hybrid aortic arch repair with simultaneous or staged thoracic endovascular repair of the descending aorta may be a viable alternative to open repair. However, data on postintervention aortic remodeling remain limited. We report the short-term outcomes of remodeling of the thoracoabdominal aorta after hybrid arch repair + thoracic endovascular repair. MethodsAll patients undergoing hybrid arch repair with planned zones 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular repair from January 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography angiography scans preoperatively, after hybrid aortic arch repair, and on long-term follow-up were analyzed for thoracoabdominal aorta remodeling. Mean change in aortic true luminal diameter and full luminal diameter was calculated at every level, and paired-samples t test was used to compare means. ResultsOf 39 patients, 38 had follow-up data at a mean duration of 14.9 months. There were a total of 3 (7.7%) deaths, 0 (0.0%) strokes, and 0 (0.0%) paralysis. For the 35 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular repair for aortic dissection, at follow-up, there was a significant increase in the mean true luminal diameter at each level (P < .05), except at the aortic bifurcation and common iliac arteries. The largest increase in mean true luminal diameter (P < .01) was observed at the level of the left inferior pulmonary vein (mean difference +13.22 mm, 95% CI, 10.38-16.07), tracheal carina (mean difference +13.06 mm, 95% CI, 10.05-16.07), and inferior left atrium (mean difference +11.19 mm, 95% CI, 7.84-14.53). ConclusionsHybrid arch repair with zones 0 to 5 leads to improved true lumen augmentation in zones 0 to 8 with complete false lumen thrombosis down to zone 5 at short-term follow-up. Zones 9 to 11, if involved, may require adjunctive treatment strategies for total aortic remodeling and complete false lumen obliteration.

Outcomes of Clampless Real Chimney Technique with Dacron Graft and Sleeve Banding of the Ascending Aorta for Total Debranching Endovascular Arch Repair

Background: Hybrid aortic arch repair with debranching of the supra-aortic vessels carries a high risk of cerebral infarction and fatal complications associated with side clamping of the ascending aorta. A previous study had reported the “real chimney” technique, a novel method for clamp-free total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the ascending aortic sleeve banding with dacron. In this study, we aim to build upon this foundation by presenting our experience with the early and midterm outcomes of this technique. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 61 consecutive older adult patients with aortic arch pathologies and a high risk of open repair who underwent total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the real chimney technique at our institution between January 2014 and June 2022. This technique was used to anastomose the ascending aorta with the main trunk of the triple-branched prosthetic graft. Results: The mean patient age was 75.1 years, and 54% of patients were transferred from medical facilities with cardiothoracic surgery departments. The comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49.2%), chronic kidney disease (63.9%), coronary artery disease (27.9%), and history of stroke (31.1%). No 30-day mortality was observed. Complications included postoperative renal failure requiring permanent hemodialysis (4; 6.6%), stroke (modified Rankin scale score: ≥2 in 5; 8.2%), permanent paraplegia (1; 1.6%), and permanent paraparesis (4; 6.6%). The median follow-up period was 40.5±28.5 months. The postoperative survival rates at 5 years were 66.8%. No patients experienced complications associated with the aorta or anastomosis site; only 1 patient required an additional procedure for stenosis of the anastomosis site (midterm). An aneurysmal diameter reduction of ≥3 mm was observed in 37 cases (60.7%), and the mean aneurysmal diameter reduction was 5.3 mm. Conclusions: The postoperative outcome of total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic arch repair is not only acceptable but also promising, particularly in patients at high risk of open repair. Clinical Impact Our novel real chimney technique for total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortic arch pathologies in patients who were at a high-risk for open repair resulted in no 30-day mortality and no complications related to the aorta or the real chimney anastomosis site. The real chimney technique is effective for managing aortic arch pathologies and enables less invasive total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic arch repair without the need for extracorporeal circulation and clamping of the ascending aorta

Zone 2 Aortic Arch Repair With Single-Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endografts, at Least 3 Years of Follow-up.

The aim of this study is to report the efficiency and safety of single-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in zone 2 aortic arch pathologies with at least 3 years of follow-up. All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic repair combined with homemade single-fenestrated stent-graft from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed. The patients with a target vessel different from the left subclavian artery (LSA) were excluded. A total of 63 patients were treated for a pathological arch in zone 2 with a single-fenestrated PMEG. 73% were male, and the mean age was 65 years old. 25% were treated for a degenerative aneurysm, 19% for a post dissection aneurysm and 24% for an acute type B dissection. 52% of the patients were treated as an emergency and half of those for an aortic rupture. The LSA fenestration was stented in 70%. During 30 days of follow-up, 2 strokes (3%) were reported, 6 patients (10%) died with 4 of those treated for aortic rupture and 1 had a retrograde aortic dissection. During at least 3 years of follow-up (median 49 months), no reintervention was needed for endoleaks, there was no stent fracture or stent migration. No patient died from an aortic cause. Subgroup analysis comparing the endovascular treatment for various aortic pathologies did not find significant differences in death rate or comorbidity including stroke. When comparing emergent and elective aortic repair, operating time was similar (64 vs 65 minutes), and the LSA fenestration was less frequently stented (52%) in the emergency group. There was no difference in stroke frequency. There was a higher rate of death in the emergency group at 30 days of follow-up, but no patient died from aortic cause in the long-term follow-up. Aortic arch repair with single-fenestrated PMEGs for zone 2 pathological arch disease is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for emergency situations. Single-fenestrated PMEG for the left subclavian artery is a safe and efficient option in the short and medium term for the treatment of the aortic arch in zone 2 with 98% technical success. It allows for aortic repair and subclavian artery revascularization in a single step for all patients. It is suitable for a range of main pathologies, including degenerative, dissection-related, isthmus rupture, and embolic pathologies. Additionally, it is always available and easily utilized in emergency cases.

An early single-center experience with the Relay double inner-branch arch endograft.

Open surgery remains the gold standard technique for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies, although endovascular techniques offer a new opportunity for patients deemed unfit for open repair. This paper assesses the early outcomes of patients treated with a double inner-branched arch endograft in a single, tertiary-care institution. All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay® (Terumo Aortic-Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA) double inner-branched endograft; an extra-anatomical bypass was associated in all cases to preserve the patency of supra-aortic trunks. Comorbidities, periprocedural data, immediate results and follow-up complications were analyzed. Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%. Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.

Long-term outcomes for hybrid aortic arch repair

ObjectiveSince its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from novel approach to well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. Despite this nearly 20-year history of use, long-term results of HAR remain to be determined. As such, objectives of this study are to detail the long-term outcomes for HAR within an expanded classification scheme. MethodsFrom August 2005 to August 2022, 163 consecutive patients underwent HAR at a single referral institution. Operative approach was selected according to an institutional algorithm and included zone 0/1 HAR in 25% (n = 40), type I HAR in 34% (n = 56), and type II/III HAR in 41% (n = 67). Specific zone 0/1 technique was zone 1 HAR in 31 (78%), zone 0 with innominate snorkel (zone 0S HAR) in 7 (18%), and zone 0 with single side-branch endograft (zone 0B HAR) in 2 (5%). The 30-day and long-term outcomes, including overall and aortic-specific survival, as well as freedom from reintervention, were assessed. ResultsThe mean age was 63 ± 13 years and almost one-half of patients (47% [n = 77]) had prior sternotomy. Presenting pathology included degenerative aneurysm in 44% (n = 71), residual dissection after prior type A repair in 38% (n = 62), chronic type B dissection in 12% (n = 20), and other indications in 6% (n = 10). Operative outcomes included 9% mortality (n = 14) at 30 days, 5% mortality (n = 8) in hospital, 4% stroke (n = 7), 2% new dialysis (n = 3), and 2% permanent paraparesis/plegia (n = 3). The median follow-up was 44 month (interquartile range, 12-84 months). Overall survival was 59% and 47% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, whereas aorta-specific survival was 86% and 84% at the same time points. At 5 and 10 years, freedom from major reintervention was 92% and 91%, respectively. Institutional experience had a significant impact on both early and late outcomes: comparing the first (2005-2012) and second (2013-2022) halves of the series, 30-day mortality decreased from 14% to 1% (P = .01) and stroke from 6% to 3% (P = .62). Improved operative outcomes were accompanied by improved late survival, with 78% of patients in the later era vs 45% in the earlier era surviving to 5 years. ConclusionsHAR is associated with excellent operative outcomes, as well as sustained protection from adverse aortic events as evidenced by high long-term aorta-specific survival and freedom from reintervention. However, surgeon and institutional experience appear to play a major role in achieving these superior outcomes, with a five-fold decrease in operative mortality and a two-fold decrease in stroke rate in the latter half of the series. These long-term results expand on prior midterm data and continue to support use of HAR for properly selected patients with arch disease.

Aortic Arch Debranching and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Type B Aortic Dissection

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. 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. 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). 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.

Fenestrated Physician-Modified Endovascular Grafts for Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery and/or Kommerell's diverticulum.

The aim of this case series is to report feasibility, efficiency, and safety of fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in aortic arch pathologies with aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA) and/or Kommerell's diverticulum (KD). All consecutive patients with ARSA and/or KD who underwent hybrid aortic arch repair combined with homemade fenestrated stent-graft from 2018 to 2022 were reviewed. Six patients with ARSA and/or KD underwent hybrid surgery for aortic repair, 4 of whom were men, with a mean age of 49 years. Furthermore, 2 of them were symptomatic with dysphagia, 1 was taken in emergency, 1 had a bovine arch and a KD, and 2 had right descending thoracic aortas. The mean operation time was 138 (111-216) minutes. In addition, 83% of the homemade grafts were double fenestrated. All the proximal landings were in zone 0; the mean proximal aortic diameter was 29 (23-34) mm. The range of diameters for the endografts were 24 to 38 mm. There was a 100% technical success, with 0% 30 days mortality, no stroke, and no endoleak. During the follow-up, no aortic-related death or secondary intervention was required and all supra-aortic vessels remain patent. Hybrid aortic arch repair, with fenestrated PMEGs for ARSA and/or KD, is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. This retrospective case series analyzed outcomes in 6 patients with an aberrant right subclavian artery and/or Kommerell's diverticulum treated with fenestrated PMEGs during an average 16 month follow-up. The case series suggests that the use of these fenestrated PMEGs for the management of patients with an aberrant right subclavian artery is a safe, effective and durable method in the medium-term.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.