Proximal Landing Zone Research Articles

Comparison of open and hybrid endovascular repair for aortic arch: a multi-Centre study of 1052 adult patients.

We aimed to evaluate early and late outcomes by comparing open total arch repair and endovascular arch repair using proximal landing zone analysis in a multicentre cohort. From 2008 to 2019, patients treated surgically for aortic arch disease at six centres were included, excluding cases with type A aortic dissection, additional aortic root replacement, and extensive aortic aneurysm. In all patients and populations with proximal landing zone 0/1 (N = 144) and 2 (N = 187), early and late outcomes were compared using propensity score matching. A total of 1052 patients, including 331 (31%) and 721 (69%) undergoing endovascular arch repair and open total arch repair, respectively, were enrolled. After propensity score match (endovascular arch repair, 295, open total arch repair; 566), no significant difference was observed in in-hospital mortality rate (endovascular arch repair, 6.8%, open total arch repair, 6.2%; p = 0.716). Open total arch repair was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (log-rank test; p = 0.010, hazard ratio 1.41 [95% confidence interval: 1.17-1.71]). The incidence of aorta-related death was higher in endovascular arch repair (Gray test; p = 0.030, hazard ratio; 1.44 [95% confidence interval; 1.20-1.73]). When compared to endovascular arch repair with proximal landing zone 0/1, open total arch repair was associated with lower risks of all-cause death (log-rank test; p < 0.001, hazard ratio; 2.04 [95% confidence interval; 1.43-2.90]) and aorta-related death (Gray's test; p = 0.002, hazard ratio; 1.67 [95% confidence interval; 1.25-2.24]). There was no difference in the risk of all-cause death (log-rank test; p = 0.961, HR; 0.99 [95% confidence interval; 0.67-1.46]) and aorta-related death (Gray's test; p = 0.55, hazard ratio; 1.31 [95% confidence interval; 1.03-1.67]) between endovascular arch repair with proximal landing zone 2 and open total arch repair. Open total arch repair was considered the first choice based on early and late results; however, endovascular arch repair may be a useful option if the proximal landing zone is limited to zone 2.

Comparative effectiveness of Castor single-branch stent and hybrid surgery for the left subclavian artery in managing acute Type B aortic dissection with an inadequate proximal landing zone

Abstract Background Our study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and risk factors for adverse events between TEVAR with branch stent-graft and Hybrid surgery for the reconstruction of the left subclavian artery. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with insufficient proximal landing zones of acute Type B aortic dissection treated at our hospital from January 2017 to December 2022. According to the surgical method, patients were divided into TEVAR group (n=58) and Hybrid group (n=69). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results The diameter of the proximal landing zone in the TEVAR group was larger than that in the Hybrid group (31.5mm vs 30.3mm, P=0.037). Early Results: There was no significant difference in major adverse events and 30-day mortality between the TEVAR and Hybrid groups. The Hybrid group had significantly longer surgery time (110min vs 238min), hospital stay (8d vs 12d), and ICU stay (0d vs 1d) compared to the TEVAR group (P&amp;lt;0.001). Mid-Term Results: There was no statistical difference in mid-term mortality rates (3.4% vs 8.7%; P=0.398) between the TEVAR and Hybrid groups. The rate of mid-term adverse events was significantly higher in the Hybrid group compared to the TEVAR group (23.2% vs 6.9%; P=0.023). The rate of re-intervention was significantly higher in the Hybrid group compared to the TEVAR group (17.4% vs 3.4%; P=0.027). The 18-month freedom from mid-term adverse event rate was 93.1% (95% CI, 86.4% - 99.8%) for the TEVAR group and 76.8% (95% CI, 66.6% - 87.0%) for the Hybrid group. There was a significant difference in the rate of mid-term adverse events between the TEVAR and Hybrid groups, with the Hybrid group being higher (6.9% vs 23.2%, P=0.013). COX regression results showed: Diameter of the proximal landing zone (HR=0.6, 95%CI=0.4–0.9, P=0.009) was an independent risk factor for postoperative aortic-related adverse events. Conclusions TEVAR reconstruction of LSA and hybrid surgery are both safe and effective treatments for acute Type B aortic dissection with insufficient proximal landing zones. There is no difference in early adverse events and 30-day mortality rates between TEVAR reconstruction of LSA and hybrid surgery. Compared to hybrid surgery, TEVAR reconstruction of LSA has the advantages of shorter operation time, hospital stay, and ICU duration. There is no difference in aortic-related mortality and all-cause mortality between TEVAR reconstruction of LSA and hybrid surgery. However, TEVAR has significantly lower rates of mid-term adverse events and re-intervention compared to the hybrid group. The diameter of the proximal landing zone are risk factors for all-cause mortality.

Predictors of Type 1a Endoleak After Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aortic Arch Diseases.

This study analyzed the risk factors for type 1a endoleak after hybrid thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases based on preoperative patient characteristics and multidetector computed tomography measurements. In all, 213 patients who underwent proximal landing zone 1 and 2 hybrid TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies (zone 1, n=82 [38.5%]; zone 2, n=131 [61.5%]; median age 72 years) between May 2008 and February 2020 were enrolled in this study; the median follow-up period was 6.0 years. The rates of type 1a endoleak at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were 1.4%, 1.4%, 4.1%, and 4.1%, respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis revealed that the angle of the aortic arch was a significant risk factor for type 1a endoleak (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.85-0.99; P=0.045). The estimated area under the curve in receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was 0.76, and the cut-off value of the aortic arch angle was 95°. It is essential to prevent type 1a endoleak, the most severe complication of hybrid TEVAR. The risk factor for type 1a endoleak in this study was a sharper angle of the aortic arch (≤95°). For patients at high risk of type 1a endoleak, it is necessary to consider alternative procedures depending on a patient's surgical risk.

Urgent hybrid repair of a symptomatic dissection-related type ii thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Emergency repair of type II thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms is burdened by high perioperative morbidity and mortality. We report the case of a symptomatic type II post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm that was treated by mean of a hybrid technique. The repair was carried out through two stages. In the first stage, we deployed two imbricated stent grafts in the descending thoracic aorta. A left carotid to left subclavian artery by-pass was preemptively performed in order to obtain a proper proximal landing zone and as part of the spinal cord protective maneuvers. The endovascular first stage was effective in obtaining proximal sealing but, as expected, did not prevent distal reperfusion of the aneurysmatic false lumen. Few hours later, we moved on to the second stage in which we repaired the aneurysmal distal thoracic and abdominal aortic segment by mean of a multibranched synthetic graft. The repair was carried out through a left thoracophrenolaparotomy in the VII intercostal space. A left passive arterial by-pass and selective cold renal and warm visceral perfusion were adopted in order to provide organ protection. Technical success was achieved and radiologically confirmed. The patient experienced a mild postoperative paraplegia, which almost completely regressed after a neuro-motor rehabilitation program.

Preventive Aortic Stent Graft Implantation Prior to Thoracic Surgery: Early and Midterm Results

Background: There is a paucity of data concerning the feasibility and value of thoracic aortic stent graft implantation (TEVAR) applications for removing tumors infiltrating the aortic wall. This analysis aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of TEVAR and monitor the perioperative risks of morbidity and mortality. Additionally, a literature review was performed. Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed on patients who received TEVAR prior to thoracic malignancy resection between January 2010 and April 2024. The primary endpoint was technical success. Results: A total of 15 patients (median age: 67 years; range: 23–75; 66.7% female) received TEVAR prior to thoracic surgery of different tumor entities. In 80% of cases (n = 12), the proximal landing zone was in aortic zone 3. In three cases, the supra-aortic debranching of LSA and/or LCCA via bypass implantation or in situ laser fenestration was necessary. No postoperative endograft-related complications were observed. In eight patients, aortic wall infiltration was confirmed intraoperatively. In total, R0 resection was achieved in seven patients (46.7%). The 30-day mortality rate was 6.7% (n = 1). Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%), while procedural success was achieved in 80% due to incomplete tumor resection in three patients. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest analysis to date that confirms the results of previous smaller studies. Aortic stent grafting prior to thoracic tumor resection allows for extensive resection while maintaining low morbidity and a low 30-day mortality risk.

Feasibility of endovascular aortic arch repair after hemiarch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

ObjectiveWe assessed the treatment feasibility of 4 investigational arch endografts currently available in the United States, for patients who have undergone hemiarch replacement for an acute DeBakey I dissection. MethodsWe evaluated 71 consecutive patients for suitability for treatment with the Cook Medical Zenith Arch Branched Device, Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis, Terumo Bolton Relay Dual Branch Device, and Endospan Nexus Aortic Arch Stent Graft System. Proximal landing zone anatomy was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography angiography using 3-dimensional imaging software and compared against each manufacturer recommended sizing criteria. ResultsTwenty-one patients (29.6%) were deemed unsuitable for branched endograft due to mechanical aortic valve, connective tissue disorder, and extension of dissection into the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT). Forty-one percent were excluded from all devices; 8.5% were candidates for only 1 device, 24% for 2, 4% for 3, and 23% for all 4 devices. Reasons for exclusion included ascending aortic/neck diameter being too large/small, insufficient ascending aorta length, insufficient BCT length, and BCT size being too large. Both patient-related factors (BCT diameter/length, dissection into BCT, and connective tissue disorder) and technical factors (mechanical aortic valve, ascending aorta graft length/diameter) influenced candidacy. ConclusionsDespite the availability of multiple branched endovascular devices, a significant number of patients may be unsuitable for subsequent endoarch repair. Awareness of anatomic inclusion criteria for arch endografts and modification of surgical technique for creation of a suitable landing zone at the initial operation may increase the likelihood of successful endovascular repair in the future.

Three-Year Outcomes of a US Pivotal Trial Substudy for Conformable Endoprosthesis in >=10 mm Non-Angulated Neck Anatomy

To report the midterm clinical outcomes from the GORE® EXCLUDER® Conformable AAA Endoprosthesis system (EXCC) pivotal regulatory trial in the United States (U.S.). This is a prospective, multicenter, investigational device exemption clinical trial at 31 US. sites with Core Laboratory assessment of imaging and independent adjudication of safety. The study enrolled patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) with a minimum proximal landing zone ≥10mm and proximal neck angulation of ≤60 degrees between December 2017 and February 2019 as part of a larger study to gain indications of the EXCC device. Endpoints included patient survival, freedom from secondary interventions, and stent-graft related outcomes. There were 80 patients enrolled (88.8% male, mean 73.5± 8.14 years-old). Mean maximum aortic diameter was 57.7±8.0mm (range, 42.5-82.7). There was 100% freedom from type I and III endoleak and aneurysm-related mortality at 36-months. Freedom from secondary intervention was 91.9± (0.83, 0.96, 95% C.I.) at 36-months. There were no device fractures, migrations (≥10mm), or aneurysm ruptures. At 36months, thirteen patients (26.5%) had type 2 endoleak, 32 patients (58.2%) had AAA sac regression, 17 (30.9%) had no change in diameter, and 6 (10.9%) had sac enlargement. Seven patients (8.8%) through 36months underwent reintervention. The 3-year outcomes have continued to show an adequate safety and efficacy profile of the EXCC device with no aneurysm related mortality or Type I/III endoleak. These results demonstrate durability for an EVAR device in US regulatory trials.

Outcomes of a Novel Single Branched Aortic Stent Graft for Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection

Intervention on Type B dissection frequently requires landing the proximal edge of the stent graft between the left common carotid artery and left subclavian artery (LSA). The Gore® TAG® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE) is a technology which allows LSA preservation with a single internal branch. This study was a prospective non-randomized single-arm clinical trial of patients with type B aortic dissection that were treated with the single branched device. Patients with operative indications for acute, chronic or residual Type B dissections that originated distal to the origin of a left subclavian artery suitable for branch graft placement were eligible for the study. Native aortic and surgical graft proximal landing zones were eligible. Among the 132 patients, there were 25 (18.9%) acute type B dissections, 79 (59.8%) of chronic type B dissections and 28 (21.1%) of residual dissections after previous open Type A repair. Percutaneous access was used in 105 (79.5%) patients. Overall, 30-day mortality occurred in 6 patients (4.5%). The overall 30 day stroke rate was 2/132(1.5%) and the one-year freedom from stroke was 96.8%. Device Technical Success and Procedural Success was achieved in 129/132(97.7%) and 110/132(83.3%) of subjects, respectively and there was one instance of loss of side branch patency. There was no persistent antegrade false lumen flow observed. In this study of a novel branched endograft device to preserve the LSA in patients with type B dissection undergoing TEVAR, we demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy outcomes at one year.

Minimizing the landing zone of complex aortic repair using a physician-modified endograft to preserve a prominent Adamkiewicz artery

AbstractThere are increasing number of clinical cases with physician-modified endograft (PMEG) endograft for urgent reconstruction of large pararenal aneurysms to reduce the perioperative complication risks of fragile patients, but the risk of spinal cord ischemia due to the coverage of longer segment of thoracic aorta is relatively high.We demonstrate an expedited endovascular treatment of an 88 mm pararenal aneurysm by performing a 4-vessel fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. A prominent Adamkiewicz artery, ectatic supraceliac aortic segment, median arcuate ligament compression of the celiac artery and severe tortuosity of the common iliac arteries made the endovascular repair more challenging. A PMEG was implanted with simultaneous deployment technique to achieve a short proximal landing zone to preserve the Adamkiewicz artery.The proper risk assessment and preparation of the patient based on the clinical evaluation and procedure planning is essential for the clinical success of PMEG in urgent indication.

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Outcome of Different Endovascular Aortic Arch Procedures.

Objectives: There are several endovascular treatment options to treat aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts. This study seeks to assess endovascular treatment methods for aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), comparing different treatment methods and evaluating technical success, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes. Methods: All patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies, with no acceptable landing zone for standard TEVAR, between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2024, at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. An acceptable landing zone was defined as a minimum of 2 cm for sufficient sealing. All patients were not suitable for open surgery. Patients were categorized by an endovascular treatment method for a comprehensive comparison of pre-, intra- and postoperative variables. IBM SPSS29 was used for data analysis. Results: The patient cohort comprised 21 patients, predominantly males (81%), with an average age of 70.9 ± 9 years with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard TEVAR procedure. The most treated aortic pathologies were penetrating aortic ulcers and chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Patients were sub-grouped according to the applied procedure as follows: five patients with chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (chTEVAR), seven patients with in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (isfTEVAR), six patients with custom-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmfTEVAR) and three patients with custom-made branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmbTEVAR). Emergency procedures involved two patients. There were significant differences in the total procedure and fluoroscopy time, as well as in contrast agent usage among the treatment groups. cmfTEVAR had the shortest total procedure time, while chTEVAR exhibited the highest contrast agent usage. The overall mortality rate among all procedures was 9.5% (two patients) and 4.7% for elective procedures, respectively. Deaths were associated with either retrograde type A dissection or stent graft infection. Both patients were treated with chTEVAR. There was one minor and one major stroke; these patients were treated with isfTEVAR. No endoleak occurred during any procedure. The reintervention rate for chTEVAR was 20% and 0% for all other procedures during the in-hospital stay. The patients who were treated with cmfTEVAR had no complications, the shortest operating and fluoroscopy time, and less contrast agent was needed in comparison with other treatment methods. Conclusions: Complex endovascular procedures of the aortic arch with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts offer a safe solution, with acceptable complication rates for patients who are not suitable for open aortic arch repair. In terms of procedure-related parameters and complication rates, a custom-made fenestrated TEVAR is potentially advantageous compared to the other endovascular techniques.

Ascending Aorta Anastomotic Aneurysm Exclusion with Double-Fenestrated PMEG after Open Repair

The objective of this case series is to investigate the outcomes of double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement. All consecutive patients with a distal anastomotic aneurysm after open ascending aorta surgery who underwent aortic arch repair with a homemade double-fenestrated stent-graft from 2017 to 2023 were reviewed. Study endpoints included technical success, 30-day, and long-term follow up analysis of mortality, morbidity, and reinterventions. 10 patients were treated with double-fenestrated PMEGs for anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery of the ascending aorta. Of these, 9 were male with a mean age of 58years. Nine patients were initially treated for acute dissection, and 2 had mechanical aortic valves. The mean time between open surgery and the treatment of the pseudoaneurysm was 4.15years. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone was consistently in zone 0, and all endografts were deployed via femoral access. Early outcomes revealed one endoleak (type 1a), which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. No deaths or strokes occurred during the early postoperative period. During long-term follow up (mean time 35months), no endoleaks requiring intervention occurred, and there were no reports of stent fractures or migrations. No patient died from an aortic-related cause. Aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs for distal anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery is feasible and represents a promising alternative in patients ineligible for redo surgery.

The results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for high-risk type B aortic dissection

Overview: Evaluating the efficacy of endovascular intervention in treatment of high-risk type B aortic dissection Methods: Review a series case of high-risk type B aortic dissection cases treated with endovascular intervention at Cho Ray Hospital from January 2020 to December 2022. Results: The study included a total of 30 patients with high-risk type B aortic dissection who underwent endovascular intervention meeting all sampling criteria. The average age was 53 years (26-73 years), with males accounting for 86.7%. The most common risk factor was hypertension (86.7%). Pain was the primary reason for hospital admission, with chest pain being the most frequent (80%). The most prevalent high-risk factors were false lumen diameter &gt; 22mm (66.7%), followed by aortic diameter &gt; 40mm (36.7%), and entry tear diameter &gt; 10mm (33.3%). Regarding intervention characteristics, the average stent graft length was 207.3mm, with proximal landing zones predominantly in zone 1 (23.3%), zone 2 (40%), and zone 3 (36.7%). Twenty-nine patients were continuously monitored for an average of 4.3 months, with a complication rate of 10% including endoleak type Ia (6.9%) and retrograde dissection (3.4%). Aortic remodeling was evidenced by a significant reduction in false lumen size (p&lt;0.001) Conclusion: Follow-up results show a low rate of complications and a high rate of aortic reconstruction post-intervention.

Review: Flow Diversion for the Treatment of Middle Cerebral Artery Aneurysms.

The invention of flow diverting stents (FDS) is a novel milestone in the field of endovascular aneurysm therapy, promoting physiological healing of the vessel segment contrary to prior deconstructive treatment strategies, such as coiling. The effects of FDS are based on changes in flow patterns, segmental wall stabilization, and the growth of a neointima. Although flow diversion is already well established for cerebral aneurysms in proximal segments, peripheral locations remain challenging. Especially the middle cerebral artery (MCA) with its predominance of non-collateralized perforators and functional end arteries that supply the eloquent areas of the brain is of major concern.The literature was reviewed for flow diversion of the MCA and antiplatelet therapy.Resulting from the special anatomical characteristics of the MCA, FDS implantation in this territory is completely different from the proximal vessel segments. Still, flow diversion represents an effective endovascular strategy, especially in otherwise non-accessible or sufficiently treatable lesions. However, the risk of ischemic adverse events might be increased. Special attention to the individual decision regarding device selection, antiplatelet regimen, and exact definition of the proximal and distal landing zone considering the jailed side branches is essential for a good angiographic and clinical outcome. · MCA aneurysms can be sufficiently treated by FDS.. · The anatomic and hemodynamic characteristics of the MCA result in an increased risk of thromboembolism.. · Individual device selection and antiplatelet regimen are essential for treatment success.. · Schüngel M, Wohlgemuth WA, Elolf E et al. Review: Flow Diversion for the Treatment of Middle Cerebral Artery Aneurysms. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2343-0046.

Proximal sealing in the aortic arch for inner curve disease using the custom Relay scalloped and fenestrated stent graft

ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch. MethodsAll consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc.) in 10 Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary end points were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events, deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (ELs) and retrograde aortic dissection. ResultsDuring the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The proximal landing zone was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) owing to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III EL were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, or retrograde dissection. Three minor strokes (6.1%) (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 ± 21.3 months the rate of types I to III ELs and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) from nonaortic causes. ConclusionsOur early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

Predictors for reintervention and survival during long-term follow-up after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm

BackgroundSeveral studies have reported short- and intermediate-term outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA); however, reports on long-term (10 years) outcomes are sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze predictors impacting long-term outcome after TEVAR for DTAA. MethodsDatabases from four academic institutions were reviewed and consecutive cases of TEVAR for DTAA between 1999 and 2021 were included in this retrospective multicenter study (case series). Ethical approval from the institutional review board was obtained and patient demographics and treatment data, as well as follow-up information were retrieved and analyzed. ResultsWe identified 305 patients (mean age, 72 ± 10 years) who were treated with TEVAR for degenerative DTAA with a mean aortic diameter of 64 mm. Altogether 445 endografts were implanted via femoral access (93%) with a technical success of 94%. Operative mortality, stroke rate, and rate of spinal cord ischemia were 6% (5% for intact, 12% for ruptured DTAA), 4%, and 3%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival rates were 76%, 59% and 34% at 1, 5 and 10 years and freedom from reintervention rates were 84%, 73% and 58% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 5 and nonelective case were identified as predictors for death, whereas as fusiform DTAA, proximal landing zone 2, and hypertension, but not device generation, were predictive for reintervention. ConclusionsThis study is, to date, the largest reporting long-term (10 years) outcome on TEVAR for DTAA. We found acceptable rates for long-term survival and freedom from reintervention that were independent of endovascular device generation.

Comparison of chimney technique and single-branched stent graft in a cohort of patients with type B aortic dissections: a retrospective cohort study.

Single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique are widely used in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The main objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique in the treatment of TBAD. From January 2019 to December 2021, the retrospective cohort study contained a cohort of 91 patients with TBAD undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique. Group A included 55 patients treated with single-branched covered stents, and Group B included 36 patients treated with the chimney technique. We compared the effects of the procedures on peri-/post-operative outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint is clinical death, and the secondary endpoints include the patency of branch stents, the incidence of cerebral infarction, false lumen thrombosis, and the proportion of paraplegia. For the baseline data, the two groups of patients show no differences in terms of age, gender, and associated symptoms. All procedures were successfully performed in both groups. The median follow-up period was 17.6 months (range, 10-34 months). During TEVAR, 5 (9.1%) type I endoleaks occurred in group A, and 11 (30.6%) occurred in group B (P<0.05). During follow-up, there were 2 cases (3.6%) of paraplegia and 1 case (1.8%) of cerebral infarction in Group A, while Group B had 1 case (2.8%) of paraplegia. Three patients in group B reported retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), and 1 of them died (2.8%); however, there were no RTAD cases in group A. Complete thrombosis of the false lumen in the thoracic aorta was observed in 45.5% (25/55) of patients in group A and in 41.7% (15/36) in group B (P=0.72). No significant difference in the thrombosis-volume ratio in the whole false lumen was found during follow-up between group A (81.0%±2.9%) and group B (81.8%±2.6%; P=0.23). Branched stent grafts can be used in cases with insufficient proximal landing zones and reduce the occurrence of type 1 endoleak compared to the chimney technique. This may help to prevent RTAD. Further research, including more cases and longer follow-up periods, is needed to substantiate these results.

What is the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone of the Stent Graft in Treatment of Aortic Type B Dissection?

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) represents a serious complication of endovascular treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To avoid RTAD, it is recommended to land the proximal end of the stent graft in a non-dissected aortic segment. In this study, we investigated whether landing in the dissection area increased the number of events at the proximal site. We conducted a retrospective review of endovascular treatments for TBAD at a single institution between 2009 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: group A, with a proximal landing zone entirely within the dissected area, and group B, with the proximal extent of the seal zone in the non-dissected area. We evaluated the occurrence of proximal events, including RTAD, and examined long-term outcomes to assess the validity of landing in the dissection area. The study included eighty-nine patients who underwent endovascular treatment for TBAD. New intimal tears in the proximal landing site occurred in 3 cases (3.4%), with 1 case (2%) in group A and 2 cases (5.1%) in group B, showing no significant difference. Among the three cases, one (1.1%) in group B with zone 2 landing resulted in RTAD. At 60months, the overall survival was 85%, and freedom from aorta-related mortality was 88%, with no significant difference between the groups. Even if the proximal landing is in a dissected area, a treatment strategy performed in zone 3 without proximal landing in zone 2, seeking a non-dissected area, can still provide sufficient therapeutic effects. Level of Evidence 3 Retrospective single-center cohort analysis.

Utilizing Single-Branched Stent in Combination With Fenestration or Chimney for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Lesions With Aberrant Subclavian Artery.

The study was to figure out the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a single-branched stent graft, namely Castor, in combination with fenestration or chimney in the context of aortic arch lesions presenting with aberrant subclavian artery (ASA) and/or Kommerell's diverticulum (KD). All consecutive patients with aortic arch lesions and ASA and/or KD receiving Castor from June 2018 to June 2023 were investigated. Incorporating 18 patients, the study encompassed 11 cases with KD, 3 cases with dysphagia; 2 cases of right-sided aortic arch with left-sided aberrant left subclavian artery (ALSA), and 16 cases of left-sided aortic arch with right-sided aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA). The mean operation time was 132±23 minutes. The mean measured proximal aortic diameter was 30.9±1.6 mm, and proximal diameter of Castor stent was 34 (32, 34.5) mm, with oversize of 9.1±1.6%; the mean measured branch diameter was 8.8±0.97 mm, and branch diameter of Castor stent was 10 (8, 10) mm, with oversize of 0.86±0.57 mm. Technical success rate was 100%, and no in-hospital mortality, no stroke, and no endoleak were identified. One (5.6%) case with spinal cord ischemia and one (5.6%) case with poor healing of operative site were identified. During the follow-up period, no aortic-related death or secondary intervention was recorded. The maximal aortic diameter was significantly reduced at the sixth postoperative month (padj=0.031); KD diameter was significantly reduced at the third (padj=0.001) and sixth (padj<0.001) postoperative month. Totally endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions with ASA and KD via Castor stent in combination with fenestration or chimney is feasible, effective, and safe, which can achieve an encouraging medium-term outcome and provide excellent remodeling at the lesions. Single branched stent in combination with fenestration or chimney achieved a sufficient proximal landing zone and provided an encouraging medium-term outcome in this retrospective review of 18 patients receiving endovascular treatment of pathological aortic arch with aberrant subclavian artery and/or Kommerell's diverticulum. The authors suggest this time-saving and efficient technique to establish systematic experience for the treatment in this kind of patients.

The association between sex and outcomes after thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissection

ObjectivePrior literature has found worse outcomes for female patients after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and mixed findings after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) is not fully elucidated. MethodsWe identified patients who underwent TEVAR for aTBAD (<30 days) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022. We excluded patients with an entry tear or stent seal within the ascending aorta or aortic arch and patients with an unknown proximal tear location. Included patients were stratified by biological sex, and we analyzed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed adjusted variables for interaction with female sex. ResultsWe included 1626 patients, 33% of whom were female. At presentation, female patients were significantly older (65 [interquartile range: 54, 75] years vs 56 [interquartile range: 49, 68] years; P = .01). Regarding indications for repair, female patients had higher rates of pain (85% vs 80%; P = .02) and lower rates of malperfusion (23% vs 35%; P < .001), specifically mesenteric, renal, and lower limb malperfusion. Female patients had a lower proportion of proximal repairs in zone 2 (39% vs 48%; P < .01). After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with comparable odds of perioperative mortality to males (8.1 vs 9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.20]). Regarding perioperative complications, female sex was associated with lower odds for cardiac complications (2.3% vs 4.7%; aOR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.26-0.97]), but all other complications were comparable between sexes. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar risk for 5-year mortality (26% vs 23%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.77-1.32]). On testing variables for interaction with sex, female sex was associated with lower perioperative and 5-year mortality at older ages relative to males (aOR: 0.96 [0.93-0.99] | adjusted hazard ratio: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) and higher odds of perioperative mortality when mesenteric malperfusion was present (OR: 2.71 [1.04-6.96]). ConclusionsFemale patients were older, less likely to have complicated dissection, and had more distal proximal landing zones. After TEVAR for aTBAD, female sex was associated with similar perioperative and 5-year mortality to male sex, but lower odds of in-hospital cardiac complications. Interaction analysis showed that females were at additional risk for perioperative mortality when mesenteric ischemia was present. These data suggest that TEVAR for aTBAD overall has a similar safety profile in females as it does for males.

Editor's Choice – Sex Related Anatomical Differences in Patients With Aortic Arch Pathology and Their Impact on the Feasibility of Double and Triple Branched Endografts

To evaluate sex based differences in ascending aorta and arch anatomy in patients with underlying proximal aortic disease and to evaluate their impact on feasibility for total endovascular repair with custom made, branched arch devices. This was a retrospective cross sectional review of all patients undergoing open and or total endovascular arch repair due to distal ascending aorta and or aortic arch pathologies in a single high volume aortic centre between 2012 and 2022. Anatomical ascending aorta and aortic arch parameters were analysed on a flow centreline on a dedicated 3D workstation. Sex related differences of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and supra-aortic vessels were evaluated. Subsequently, four endovascular devices were assessed for feasibility: double and triple branched devices both for the Zenith (Cook Medical) and Relay (Terumo Aortic) platforms, first in accordance with the instructions for use and then considering the possibility of adjunctive cervical debranching. The primary endpoints were sex specific differences in aortic anatomy, while secondary endpoints included sex based feasibility of branched endograft devices. During the study period, 395 patients underwent total aortic arch repair, of whom 152 (51 female, 33.5%) had high quality computed tomography angiograms available and were included in the study. Female patients had a shorter proximal landing zone than males (22 mm vs. 47 mm; p < .001). Left subclavian artery dissection was more frequent in men (24.8% vs. 3.9%; p < .001). Other anatomical parameters showed a similar distribution between sexes. Female patients presented a lower feasibility for double branched devices (35.3% vs. 58.4%; p= .015) as well as a tendency for lower feasibility rates for triple branched devices (31.4% vs. 47.5%; p= .081). Although most ascending aortic and arch parameters showed similar trends in both sexes, the availability of a suitable proximal landing zone was lower in female patients. Consequently, female patients had lower feasibility rates for double arch branched endografts and, to lesser extent, for triple arch branched endografts.