Treatment Of Aortic Arch Disease Research Articles

Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Zones 0 to 2 Using Physician-Modified Endografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this study was to collect all the available evidence concerning technical success and early and mid-term clinical outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2. We performed a systematic review to identify all the eligible studies that reported outcomes to the PMEGs for aortic arch pathologies in zones 0 to 2 and then conducted a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of the results. The main outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke rate, bridging stents' complications, and reintervention rate. We estimated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 134 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy, of which 14 (zone 0 n=6; zone 1 n=1; zones 1 t o2: n=7) were considered eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 777 patients (80% male; 62±6 years) were identified among the eligible studies. The pooled technical success for the PMEG in zone 0 was 96.6% (95% CI=93.9%-98.2%), whereas in zones 1 to 2 was 95.9% (95% CI=92.9%-97.6%). The pooled 30-day mortality was 4.6% (95% CI=2.0%-10%) and 4.3% (95% CI=2.2%-8.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas the prevalence of late mortality was 8.2% (95% CI=4.7%-14%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.9%-6%). The pooled stoke rate was 3.7% (95% CI=2.1%-6.4%) in zone 0 and 2.7% (95% CI=1.4%-5%) in zones 1 to 2. The early reintervention rate was 3.5% (95% CI=1.5%-8.0%) and 4.2% (95% CI=2.4%-7.2%) for zones 0 and 1 to 2, respectively, whereas during the mean follow-up of 26 months was 8.5% (95% CI=3.0%-21%) and 1.9% (95% CI=0.8%-4.3%). The pooled bridging's stent instability was 3.9% (95% CI=1.1%-12.9%) in zone 0 and 3.2% (95% CI=1.8%-5.8%) in zones 1 to 2. Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies using PMEGs seems to present a satisfactory level of technical success and a low mortality rate. To attain clearer conclusions, further research employing randomized controlled trials, longer-term follow-up, and consistent reporting of results is warranted. This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed the short- and mid-term outcomes of aortic arch aneurysm and/or dissection using physician-modified endografts. It separately examined the outcomes from zones 0 and 1-2 of the aortic arch. Fourteen studies (n=777 patients) were included. Overall technical success rates were 96.6% for zone 0 and 95.9% for zone 1-2. Regarding early mortality and stroke rates, no significant differences were observed, while late mortality was higher in patients in zone 0. The late reintervention rate favored patients treated with PMEGs in zone 1-2. The physician-modified technique appears to be an excellent and rapidly available alternative for the treatment of aortic arch diseases.

Aortic versus axillary artery cannulation for hemiarch replacement: single-centre real-world experience

BackgroundAortic arch disease is a major cause of acute dissections. Surgical replacement is the current curative treatment for aortic arch disease. While traditional aortic cannulation ensures lower body perfusion, axillary cannulation offers optimum cerebral perfusion.AimTo evaluate the outcomes of aortic and axillary cannulation methods in hemiarch replacements, focusing on postoperative perfusion and survival.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 91 patients who underwent hemiarch replacement surgery between February 2007 and October 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the cannulation method: aortic cannulation (54 patients) and axillary cannulation (37 patients). Data regarding preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were analyzed, including demographics, surgical outcomes, and complications.ResultsDemographic analysis showed comparable characteristics between the two groups, with notable differences in aortic disease severity and classification. Patients in the axillary group had a larger ascending aorta diameter (57.7 ± 10.8 mm vs. 51.8 ± 5.7 mm, p = 0.002) and a higher prevalence of acute dissections (27.0% (n = 10) vs. 3.7% (n = 2), p = 0.001). Cerebral protection methods varied significantly between the two groups (p < 0.001). Antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 37.8% (n = 14) of the axillary group compared to 3.7% (n = 2) of the central group. The central cannulation group had a higher proportion of patients with temperatures under 20 °C (98.1% (n = 53) vs. 21.6% (n = 8), p < 0.001), whereas the axillary group maintained higher temperatures (24 –28 °C) in 68.6% (n = 23) of cases. AV repair/replacement was more frequent in the aortic cannulation group (48.2% (n = 26) vs. 18.9% (n = 7), p = 0.013). No significant disparities were observed in operative mortality or intraoperative complications. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups in the in-hospital outcomes, but renal complications were more prevalent in the axillary cannulation group with 21.6% (n = 8) experiencing acute kidney injury compared to 9.3% (n = 5) in the central group (p = 0.098). The overall survival rate was slightly higher in the aortic cannulation group at various follow-up periods, yet no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups.ConclusionWe found no significant differences in safety and efficacy between axillary cannulation and aortic cannulation in hemiarch replacement procedures.

Anatomical Feasibility of the “Canaud Technique” for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

Anatomical Feasibility of the “Canaud Technique” for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

Early Experience With Physician-Modified Endografts for Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

Early Experience With Physician-Modified Endografts for Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

Outcomes of Castor Single-Branched Stent Graft for Reconstruction of Multiple Supra-Aortic Branches in Aortic Arch Disease.

To report the outcomes of a combination of Castor single-branched stent grafts with other techniques for the reconstruction of multiple supra-aortic branches in aortic arch disease. Between December 2019 and December 2021, 20 patients with aortic arch disease underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) at our institution using a Castor single-branched stent graft combined with the fenestration, chimney, or bypass techniques. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is indicated for complicated or acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), nonruptured aneurysms with a maximum aneurysm diameter >5.5 cm or showing rapidly expanded, ruptured, or threatened aneurysms, and penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with a maximal aortic diameter >5.5 cm or with PAUs >10 mm deep or >20 mm in diameter. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical data were recorded. The median age of the patients was 56 (range=52-69 years) years, and 19 patients were men. Seven patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and left common carotid artery (LCCA) chimney technique, 8 patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and fenestration technique, and 5 patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and bypass technique. The technical success rate was 100%. Major adverse events included 2 endoleaks, 1 spinal cord ischemia, and 1 early-stage retrograde type A aortic dissection. No cerebral stroke-related complications were observed. The mortality rate was 10% (2/20 patients). One patient with thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) died because of a sudden decrease in oxygen saturation and blood pressure after surgery. Relatives declined autopsy, and the cause of death was not determined. Another patient died of a retrograde type A dissection after surgery. The median follow-up period was 6 months (range=3.5-12 months). During follow-up, 1 patient with type I endoleak underwent thoracotomy again after a year. The remaining patients recovered well. The combination of a Castor single-branched stent graft with fenestration, chimney, or bypass techniques may be an effective treatment for preserving multiple supra-aortic branches in aortic arch disease. This study introduced three methods of reconstruction of multiple supra-aortic branches using a Castor single-branched stent graft (Castor single-branched stent graft combined with fenestration, chimney, or bypass technique) and analysed their advantages and shortcomings to provide experience for the future treatment of aortic arch diseases.

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.

Driving Technology for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: An International Analysis of Single-versus Double-Branch RELAY Outcomes

The introduction of endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) represents a paradigm shift in the management of complex arch pathologies usually treated with open surgical repair (OSR). This shift in treatment of aortic arch disease has also been accompanied with a rise in commercial interest in EAR resulting in the development of several endografts. However, the RELAY™ Branched by Terumo Aortic can be considered the prime endograft choice. In this international original study, a retrospective comparative analysis of international prospective outcomes data on the single- and double-branch RELAY™ stent-grafts is provided. International data on EAR procedures carried out from January 2019 to January 2022 using the single- and double-branch RELAY™ endograft configurations were collected prospectively. Follow-up data was collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed. A total of 125 patients were included, out of which 17 (13.6%) received the single-branch RELAY™ and 108 the double-branch device. In the single-branch group, no mortalities, strokes or reinterventions were recoded over 24 months of follow-up. The rates of these outcomes were higher in the other group, however, the differences did not reach significance. Target vessel patency was maintained at 100% throughout the study period with the single-branched RELAY™. Overall, our Kaplan-Meier analyses proved that both configurations of RELAY™ Branched yield excellent short- and mid-term survival and freedom from reintervention. Our series has clearly demonstrated that EAR using RELAY™ Branched is a highly efficacious strategy that yields very favourable results which can be considered superior to other EAR devices as well as OSR. Nevertheless, it seems that clinical outcomes with the single-branch RELAY™ are more optimal than with the double-branch device.

A Systematic Review of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: A Promising Technology.

Total endovascular aortic arch repair (TEAAR) represents an emerging alternative for the treatment of aortic arch disease in patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery. A systematic review of TEAAR was performed to delineate early outcomes with this new technology. All studies (excluding single-patient case reports) of CE-certified "custom made" or "off-the-shelf" zone 0 stent graft deployments were included. The primary search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL registry was supplemented with searches of Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts (within last 3 years), and a hand search of citations within relevant articles. Articles underwent 2-stage screening by 2 independent reviewers before inclusion. Fifteen relevant investigations were identified. Indications for TEAAR were chronic arch dissection with degenerative aneurysmal disease (54%, 148/273), pure arch aneurysm (41%, 112/273), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (2%, 5/273), and type IA endoleak from a zone 2 thoracic endograft (1%, 3/273). Double-branch (70%, 192/273), triple-branch (19%, 53/273), and single-branch (into innominate artery; 10%, 28/273) devices were used. Adjunct left carotid-subclavian bypass occurred in 90% of double- and single-branch procedures. Procedural success with TEAAR was 93% (95% CI 85.8%-96.3%). The proportion of all-cause mortality was 16% (95% CI 8%-26%), stroke 14% (8%-24%), peripheral vascular events 7% (1%-33%), and myocardial infarction 4% (2%-7%). Endoleaks were identified in 13% (7%-25%) of the study population. TEAAR represents an emerging option for the management of aortic arch disease wth high procedural success rates and acceptable early outcomes in a high-risk patient population.

Effectiveness and Minimal-Invasiveness of Zone 0 Landing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Branched Endograft.

Background: Zone 0 landing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch diseases has become a topic of interest. This study aimed to verify whether branced TEVAR (bTEVAR) is an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment by comparing the outcomes of bTEVAR and hybrid TEVAR (hTEVAR) in landing zone 0. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included 54 patients (bTEVAR, n = 25; hTEVAR, n = 29; median age, 78 years; median follow-up period, 5.4 years) from October 2012 to June 2018. The logistic Euro-SCORE was significantly higher in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group (38% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Results: There was no significant difference the in-hospital mortality between the bTEVAR and hTEVAR groups (0% vs. 3.4%, p = 1.00). The operative time (220 vs. 279 min, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days, p = 0.013) were significantly shorter in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group. The 7-year free rates of aorta-related deaths (bTEVAR [95.5%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.390) and aortic reintervention (bTEVAR [86.3%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.638) were not significantly different. Conclusions: The early and mid-term outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. bTEVAR might be superior to hTEVAR in that it is less invasive. Therefore, bTEVAR may be considered an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients.

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.

Planning for the future

The treatment of aortic arch disease has historically been limited to open surgical repair. With the evolution of endovascular therapy, application to this region has begun to be evaluated more extensively. The initial graft designs have relied on one or two directional branches to incorporate the great vessels, relying on extra-anatomic bypasses to preserve flow to this region. The article by Tenorio et al1 described the successful global use of a three-branch design, allowing for complete endovascular exclusion of the arch.

Endovascular Solutions for Aortic Arch Diseases: Total and Hybrid

Although the endovascular approach is the therapeutic option of choice for thoracic and abdominal aortic diseases, open surgery is still the treatment of choice for aortic arch diseases. While open surgical repair remains the gold standard treatment for complete aortic arch replacement, it continues to be burdened by high mortality and neurologic complications, especially for patients who require redo surgery. Therefore, in the era of endovascular surgery, it is not surprising that hybrid operating rooms, new technologies, and new approaches are strongly challenging open surgery. Less-invasive endovascular procedures, when used to treat aortic arch diseases, when feasible and indicated, have clear advantages over open surgery, primarily because there is no need for cardiopulmonary bypass, hypothermic circulatory arrest, or cerebral protection. Moreover, patients who have already been treated for acute type A aortic dissection continue to have a considerable risk for future aortic reintervention, which is associated with increased risk for short- and long-term mortality. In light of these advantages, it is clear how selected high-risk patients with aortic arch disease could benefit from the endovascular approach. However, the hemodynamic and anatomic characteristics of the aortic arch make the endovascular approach in this region challenging. In fact, uncorrected stent-graft placement can have fatal consequences for the patient and increase the risk of endoleaks and stroke. To minimize these potential risks, precise and accurate preoperative planning to achieve optimal stent-graft dimensions and implantation is essential together with careful patient selection. Endovascular options for the treatment of aortic arch disease include both hybrid procedures and total endovascular solutions. This manuscript provides an overview of the current strategies for endovascular aortic arch treatment, including the most recent available series on this topic. In addition, a literature search offers insight into the current state of the art.

Exploration of Simplified Intraluminal TEVAR Technique for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease.

Objective:The positional relationship between the three branches of the aortic arch was determined in normal people. This study provides data to support the customization of aortic arch stents and simplifies intraluminal treatment.Methods:From January 2019 to August 2019, 120 patients who met the inclusion criteria were examined by CT angiography. The ratio of the distance from the midpoint of the three-branch opening onto the anterior wall to the cross-sectional diameter of the aortic arch was calculated. The positional relationship among the three-branch openings was obtained and the data were analyzed statistically.Results:The three-branch openings were not in a straight line. The positional relationship among the three-branch openings was divided into four types, which were not statistically different between sex and age (P>0.05).Conclusion:By measuring the opening position of the three aortic branches, the positional relationship among the three branches was defined to provide a theoretical basis for the design of intraluminal stents and simplified intracavity thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) technology.

Off-the-shelf multibranched endograft for total endovascular repair of the aortic arch

ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to select branched endograft designs that could fit most aortic arch anatomies. Such off-the-shelf endografts, once available, would be an endovascular therapeutic option to consider in the acute setting and would shorten the design and manufacturing process. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the endograft plans of all custom-made aortic arch branched endografts implanted between 2013 and early 2018 provided by the Cook Planning Center (EMEA Planning Services; Cook Medical, London, United Kingdom). Available data points of the endograft plans include proximal, intermediate, and distal endograft diameters; number of sealing stents; total length of the endograft; and number of branches. ResultsThere were 286 two-branch endografts analyzed. We divided the endografts in three groups according to their proximal diameters: 34 mm, 36 mm, and 38 mm (group 1); 40 mm and 42 mm (group 2); and 44 mm and 46 mm (group 3). In group 1, 63% of the endografts had one proximal sealing stent, whereas in group 3, 63% had two proximal sealing stents. The distal diameters of the endografts ranged from 26 mm to 46 mm. The mean length was 236 mm (186-256 mm). A shorter standardized length of 211 mm was selected to anticipate distal extensions.According to our analysis, most group 1 patients could have been treated with a 38-mm proximal diameter and 30-mm distal diameter endograft with one sealing stent; most group 2 patients, with a 42-mm proximal diameter and 32-mm distal diameter endograft with both one and two proximal sealing stents; and most group 3 patients, with a 46-mm proximal diameter and 36-mm distal diameter endograft, also with both one and two proximal sealing stents. ConclusionsFive standardized off-the-shelf endografts can cover a majority of aortic arch anatomies and offer an option for acute endovascular treatment of aortic arch disease.

Fenestrated endovascular repair for diseases involving the aortic arch

ObjectiveExtension of aortic disease to the aortic arch is common, frequently requiring cervical debranching procedures to maintain patency of supra-aortic branches. Endovascular aortic arch repair is an attractive alternative in the treatment of aortic arch disease for high-risk patients with thoracoabdominal diseases encroaching on the arch. The aim of our study was to report our experience of fenestrated endovascular repair in the aortic arch. MethodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data involving consecutive patients in a single tertiary center treated with custom-made fenestrated endografts for the aortic arch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) was undertaken. End points included technical success, perioperative mortality and morbidity, reintervention, and late survival. ResultsBetween 2011 and 2017, there were 44 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years (27 male [61%]) who were treated with fenestrated endografts for arch aneurysm (n = 11 [25%]), arch penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 6 [14%]), thoracoabdominal aneurysm with arch involvement (n = 11 [25%]), postdissection false lumen aneurysm (n = 13 [29%]), or lusorian artery aneurysm (n = 3 [7%]). The proximal landing zone was at Ishimaru zone 0 in 12 cases (27%), zone 1 in 27 cases (62%), and zone 2 in 5 cases (11%). Nine patients (20%) underwent a unilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, two (5%) a bilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, and four (9%) a subclavian transposition. In total, of the 73 target supra-aortic vessels (average of 1.7 target vessels per patient), 37 were treated with fenestrations and 36 with scallops. The mean operation time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast material volume were 215 ± 152 minutes, 33 ± 23 minutes, and 114 ± 45 mL, respectively. Technical success was 95% (42/44). The median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 3 ± 1 days and 7 ± 6 days, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 9% (4/44; one graft displacement and stroke, one retrograde type A dissection, one access complication and stroke, and one death of unknown cause). Major stroke occurred in three (7%), minor stroke in one (2%), temporary spinal cord ischemia in three (7%), and renal injury in three (7%) patients, whereas three (7%) patients required early reintervention. With mean follow-up of 18 ± 17 months, 10 more patients required secondary interventions, most of which (90%) were planned distal intervention to complete the repair of thoracoabdominal diseases. Overall survival rates were 78% ± 7% and 72% ± 8% at postoperative years 1 and 2, respectively. ConclusionsFenestrated endograft repair of aortic arch disease is a feasible technique with a high technical success rate and acceptable rates of stroke and paraplegia. A high number of secondary interventions were needed to complete the treatment of underlying diseases.

Three-Dimensional Printing to Guide the Application of Modified Prefenestrated Stent Grafts to Treat Aortic Arch Disease

The aim of this study was to summarize the experience and outcomes of total endovascular repair of aortic arch disease using three-dimensional (3D) printing to guide the application of modified prefenestrated/branched stent grafts. From April 2018 to March 2019, 17 patients with aortic arch disease were treated in our department. Five patients had an aortic arch aneurysm and 12 had undergone an aortic arch dissection. Thirteen men and 4 were women, with an average age of 57.82±10.47years. Preoperatively, a 3D-printed model of the aorta was made according to computed tomography data. Then, under the guidance of the 3D-printed aortic model, modified prefenestrated/branched stent grafts were prepared, and the diameter of the stent grafts was reduced intraoperatively by a physician for total endovascular repair. Aortic computed tomography angiography was performed 3 and 6months after the surgery. All procedures were completed in one stage with no conversions to sternotomy. Among all 17 patients, the operation was successful in 16. One patient was treated with a chimney graft and a stent graft fenestrated in situ because of distortion of the stent. The success rate of the technique was 94.18%. The average operation time was 4.18±1.57hr, and no patients died. No neurologic complications, such as cerebral infarction or paraplegia, were observed during the follow-up period. Three-Dimensional printing can be used to help guide the treatment of aortic arch disease using modified prefenestrated/branched stent grafts. This minimally invasive total treatment technique is accurate, allows quick recovery, and has a low complication rate. The short-term follow-up data show the safety and reliability of the method; however, further research and development are needed.

Surgical treatment of congenital aortic arch disease

To report treatment outcomes in patients with congenital aortic arch disease. There were 65 patients (45 boys and 20 girls) for the period from 2005 to 2019. Mean age of patients was 53±12 days (range 1-98), weight - 3,3±1,3 kg (range 2.2-4.6). All patients were divided into 2 groups depending on the method of surgical repair. The 1st group included 33 patients who underwent patch repair, the 2nd group (n=32) - anastomosis in end-to-side fashion. In group I, recurrent aortic arch coarctation was observed in 16.8% of cases, in group II - only in 4% of cases (p=0.02). Analysis of systolic pressure in both groups revealed that arterial hypertension was detected in 39% of cases in group I and only in 9,1% of cases in group II (p=0,0025). Surgical treatment of aortic arch disease using anastomosis in end-to-side fashion is associated with reduced risk of recurrent aortic arch coarctation and residual arterial hypertension in long-term postoperative period.

Type I hybrid aortic arch debranching without cardiopulmonary bypass

Aortic arch aneurysms represent a major challenge as the involvement of the supra-aortic vessels demands a complex surgical technique. Since the advent of endovascular aortic repair, hybrid treatment of aortic arch disease has emerged in recent years. The procedure consists of surgical bypass of the supra-aortic vessels followed by exclusion of the aneurysm with an endograft. This hybrid method is known as debranching and, briefly, consists in performing bypasses between the ascending aorta and the brachiocephalic artery, the left carotid artery and possibly the left subclavian artery without cardiopulmonary bypass, in order to advance an endograft to cover the entire lumen of the aneurysm. The aim of this paper is to describe the surgical technique of type I hybrid debranching without cardiopulmonary bypass and antegrade endograft delivery to treat aortic arch aneurysms.

COMMENCE trial (Comparing hypOtherMic teMperaturEs duriNg hemiarCh surgEry): a randomized controlled trial of mild vs moderate hypothermia on patient outcomes in aortic hemiarch surgery with anterograde cerebral perfusion

BackgroundAortic arch surgery remains the only viable life-saving treatment for aortic arch disease. However, the necessity for cessation of systemic blood flow with hypothermic cardiac arrest carries substantial risk of morbidity and mortality, including poor neurological outcomes and kidney failure. While uncontrolled studies have suggested the safety of operating at warmer temperatures, significant variables remain un-investigated, supporting the need for a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to produce evidence-based guidelines for perfusion strategies in aortic surgery. This study proposes a multi-center RCT in order to compare outcomes of warmer hypothermic strategies during aortic hemiarch surgery on a composite endpoint of neurologic and acute kidney injury (AKI).Methods/designThis is a prospective multi-center, single-blind two-arm RCT comparing mild (32 °C) versus moderate (26 °C) hypothermic cardiac arrest in patients (n = 282) undergoing hemiarch surgery with antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP). The primary endpoint is a composite of neurological injury (incidence of transient ischemic attack and/or stroke) and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 1 or higher AKI. Secondary outcomes include death, cardiopulmonary bypass time, bleeding, transfusion rates, prolonged mechanical ventilation, myocardial infarction, length of stay, and quality of life measures.Patients will undergo 1:1 block randomization to each treatment arm on day of surgery. Sequence of operation will be at the surgeon’s discretion with mandatory guidelines for temperature and ACP administration. Perioperative management will occur as per enrolling center standard of care. Neurocognitive function will be assessed for neurological injury using validated neurological screening tests: NIHSS, MOCA, BI, and MRS throughout patient follow-up. Diagnosis and classification of AKI will be based on rising creatinine values as per the KDIGO criteria. Study duration for each patient will be 60 ± 14 days.DiscussionIt is hoped that performing hemiarch surgery using mild hypothermia (32 °C) and selective ACP will result in a 15% absolute risk reduction in the composite outcomes. The potential of this risk reduction will translate into improved patient outcomes, survival, and long-term financial savings to the health care system. In addition, the results of this trial will be used to create the first-ever guidelines for temperature management strategy during aortic surgery.Trial registrationThis trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT02860364. Registration date August 9th, 2016.

Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair with Prosthetic Landing Zone in Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection

Introduction - Endovascular aortic arch repair is an emerging intervention for the treatment of aortic arch diseases. We report the outcomes from a prospective registry study of endovascular aortic arch repair with prosthetic landing zone for Stanford type A aortic dissection. Methods - All endovascular aortic arch repair with prosthetic landing zone for Stanford type A aortic dissection performed between November 2009 and November 2016 were prospectively included in the single center registry study. The primary outcome was death from any causes. Results - A total of 140 patients who were confirmed with Stanford type A aortic dissection involving aortic arch by CTA on admission were enrolled. The mean (±SD) age was 61.8±7.3 years; 35.7% of the patients were women. Either ascending graft branch approach (18.6%) or femoral artery approach (81.4%) was applied for delivery of endovascular grafts into aortic arch. The incidence of death at 30 days and 1 year were 6.4% and 10.3%, respectively. The incidence of radiological diagnosis of stroke and endoleak at 30 days were 3.6% and 7.1%. In multivariate models, patient age (≥60) was associated with reduced survival and antegrade deployment of endovascular graft through ascending graft branch was associated with increased risk of endoleak. Conclusion - The results of this registry study revealed the clinical experience of endovascular aortic arch repair with prosthetic landing zone in patients with Stanford type A aortic dissection, in whom utilizing Dacron graft in ascending aorta as prosthetic landing zone for endovascular arch repair appeared to be a reasonable option with favorable clinical outcome and false lumen remodeling in aortic arch.