Burden of Stroke in Europe: An Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study Findings From 2010 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: While most European Regions perform well in global comparisons, large discrepancies within stroke epidemiological parameters exist across Europe. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the stroke burden across European regions and countries in 2019 and its difference to 2010. METHODS: The GBD 2019 analytical tools were used to evaluate regional and country-specific estimates of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years of stroke for the European Region as defined by the World Health Organization, with its 53 member countries (EU-53) and for European Union as defined in 2019, with its 28 member countries (EU-28), between 2010 and 2019. Results were analyzed at a regional, subregional, and country level. RESULTS: In EU-53, the absolute number of incident and prevalent strokes increased by 2% (uncertainty interval [UI], 0%-4%), from 1 767 280 to 1 802 559 new cases, and by 4% (UI, 3%-5%) between 2010 and 2019, respectively. In EU-28, the absolute number of prevalent strokes and stroke-related deaths increased by 4% (UI, 2%-5%) and by 6% (UI, 1%-10%), respectively. All-stroke age-standardized mortality rates, however, decreased by 18% (UI, -22% to -14%), from 82 to 67 per 100 000 people in the EU-53, and by 15% (UI, -18% to -11%), from 49.3 to 42.0 per 100 000 people in EU-28. Despite most countries presenting reductions in age-adjusted incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life year rates, these rates remained 1.4×, 1.2×, 1.6×, and 1.7× higher in EU-53 in comparison to the EU-28. CONCLUSIONS: EU-53 showed a 2% increase in incident strokes, while they remained stable in EU-28. Age-standardized rates were consistently lower for all-stroke burden parameters in EU-28 in comparison to EU-53, and huge discrepancies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-year rates were observed between individual countries.

International Collaborative Study Comparing Outcomes of Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair in OCtogenarian vs Non-Octogenarian Patients: The FEVOC study.

OBJECTIVE: With an increasing life expectancy, more octogenarian patients are referred with complex aortic aneurysms (cAAA). The aim of this study was to evaluate short and mid-term outcomes following fenestrated aortic repair (FEVAR) in octogenarians. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies looking at octogenarian-specific outcomes with diverging results. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing elective FEVAR for cAAAs or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms between 2007-2022 in eight high-volume centres. Octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1, 2 and 5-year survival and reintervention rates. RESULTS: A total of 729 patients (median age of 74.8 years [IQR 69.2 - 79.14]) were included, 169 (23%) of which were octogenarians, with 316 (43.3%) patients undergoing juxta/pararenal aneurysm repair. Although octogenarians presented less complex but larger (61 mm vs. 58 mm) aneurysms, the number of fenestrations was similar across groups. No differences in in-hospital mortality (4.1 vs. 3.0%), MAE (16.6% vs 12.2%) or reintervention rates (11.2 vs. 10%) were found. Multivariable logistic regression of in-hospital mortality identified BMI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.95, P=0.003), chronic heart failure (OR 7.70, 95% CI 1.36-36.15, P=0.003) and GFR<45 ml/min/1.73 m2 (OR 5.25, 95% CI 1.20-22.86, P=0.027) as independent predictors. Median follow-up was 41 months. The 1, 2 and 5-year survival rates were 91.3%, 81.8% and 49.5% in octogenarians vs 90.6%, 86.5% and 68.8% in non-octogenarian patients (Log-rank: =0.001). Freedom from aortic-related death and freedom from reintervention at five-years were similar across groups (log-rank=0.94 and .76, respectively). Age>80 was not an independent predictor of 30-day or long-term mortality on multivariable and Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Elective FEVAR in octogenarians appears to be safe, with similar outcomes as in younger patients. Future studies looking at improved patient selection methods to ensure long-term survival benefits in both octogenarians and younger patients are warranted.

The Impact of Target Vessel Anatomy and Bridging Stent Geometry on Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of target vessel anatomy and bridging stent geometry on target vessel instability in branched endovascular aortic repair (B-EVAR). METHODS: This retrospective, single centre cohort study included all consecutive B-EVARs performed between September 2018 and December 2022 for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (CAAA). The primary endpoints were target vessel instability and related re-interventions at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were 30 day results, including target vessel instability and re-interventions. Target vessel instability analysis consisted of assessment of target vessel anatomy, including diameter, aortic trunk to branch angle, and tortuosity. Post-operative parameters included change of clock position/horizontal misalignment, bridging length (gap), sealing length, tortuosity, post-stenting angle, and oversizing ratio. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (TAAA: n = 56, 81%; CAAA: n = 13, 19%) and 271 (133 visceral and 138 renal) target vessels were included. The cumulative incidence of target vessel instability was 4.8%, 6.4%, and 7.9% at one, two, and three years, respectively. In the renal target vessel group, vessel diameter ≤ 4 mm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.116 - 2.54; p = .022) and a bridging length ≥ 25 mm (HR 1.320, 95% CI 1.066 - 1.636; p = .011) were associated with increased target vessel instability. In visceral vessels, a change in clock position/horizontal misalignment ≥ 70 minutes (HR 1.072, 95% CI 1.026 - 1.121; p = .002) showed a significant association with target vessel instability. CONCLUSION: Target vessel diameter, bridging length (gap), and horizontal misalignment seemed to be associated with adverse target vessel outcomes. This may be solved with more customised endograft solutions to reduce the negative impact of the latter parameter.

Sex Related Anatomical Differences in Patients With Aortic Arch Pathology and Their Impact on the Feasibility of Double and Triple Branched Endografts.

OBJECTIVE: 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, arch branched devices. METHODS: 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 centreline of flow 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. RESULTS: During the study period, 395 patients underwent total aortic arch repair, of whom 152 (51 female, 33.5%) had high quality available computed tomography angiographies and were included in the study. Female patients had a shorter proximal landing zone than male patients (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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Contemporary Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Growth Rates.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contemporary growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in view of recent epidemiological changes, such as decreasing smoking rates and establishment of population screening programmes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and OpenGrey databases. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. In October 2021, databases were queried for studies reporting on AAA growth rates published from 2015 onwards. The primary outcome was contemporary AAA growth rates in mm/year. Data were pooled in a random effects model meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed through the I2 statistic. GRADE assessment of the findings was performed. The protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022297404). RESULTS: Of 8 717 titles identified, 43 studies and 28 277 patients were included: 1 241 patients from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 23 941 from clinical observational studies, and 3 095 from radiological or translational research studies. The mean AAA growth rate was 2.38 mm/year (95% CI 2.16 - 2.60 mm/year; GRADE = low), with meta-regression analysis adjusted for baseline diameter showing an increase of 0.08 mm/year (95% CI 0.024 - 0.137 mm/year; p = .005) for each millimetre of increased baseline diameter. When analysed by study type, the growth rate estimated from RCTs was 1.88 mm/year (95% CI 1.69 - 2.06 mm/year; GRADE = high), while it was 2.31 mm/year (95% CI 1.95 - 2.67 mm/year; GRADE = moderate) from clinical observational studies, and 2.85 mm/year (95% CI 2.44 - 3.26 mm/year; GRADE = low) from translational and radiology based studies (p < .001). Heterogeneity was high, and small study publication bias was present (p = .003), with 27 studies presenting a moderate to high risk of bias. The estimated growth rate from low risk studies was 2.09 mm/year (95% CI 1.87 - 2.32; GRADE = high). CONCLUSION: This study estimated a contemporaneous AAA growth rate of 2.38 mm/year, being unable to demonstrate any clinically meaningful AAA growth rate reduction concomitant with changed AAA epidemiology. This suggests that the RESCAN recommendations on small AAA surveillance are still valid. However, sub-analysis results from RCTs and high quality study data indicate potential lower AAA growth rates of 1.88 - 2.09 mm/year, findings that should be validated in a high quality prospective registry.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy. METHODS: The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm. BACKGROUND: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes. RESULTS: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Transaxillary Branch-to-Branch-to-Branch Carotid Catheterization Technique for Triple-Branch Arch Repair.

PURPOSE: To describe the transaxillary branch-to-branch-to-branch carotid catheterization technique (tranaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT) for cannulation of all supra-aortic vessels using only 1 femoral and 1 axillary access during triple-branch arch repair. TECHNIQUE: After deployment of the triple-branch arch device, catheterization and bridging of the innominate artery (IA) should be performed through a right axillary access (cutdown or percutaneous). Then, the retrograde left subclavian (LSA) branch should be catheterized (if not preloaded) from a percutaneous femoral access, and a 12×90Fr sheath should be advanced to the outside of the endograft. Subsequently, catheterization of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) antegrade branch should be performed, followed by snaring of a wire in the ascending aorta which was inserted through the axillary access, creating a branch-to-branch-to-branch through-and-through guidewire. Over the axillary access, a 12×45Fr sheath should be inserted into the IA branch and looped in the ascending aorta using a push-and-pull technique so that it faces the LCCA branch, allowing for stable catheterization of the LCCA. The retrograde LSA branch should then be bridged following the standard fashion. CONCLUSIONS: This series of 5 patients demonstrates that triple-branch arch repair can be performed with the transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT, allowing catheterization of the supra-aortic vessels without manipulation of the carotid arteries. CLINICAL IMPACT: The transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT allows catheterization and bridging of all supra-aortic vessels in triple-branch arch repair through only 2 vascular access points, the femoral artery and the right axillary artery. This technique avoids carotid surgical cutdown and manipulation during these procedures, reducing the risk of access site complications, including bleeding and reintervention, reintubation, cranial nerve lesions, increased operating time, and so on, and has the potential to change the current vascular access standard used during triple-branch arch repair.

Additional Aortic Coverage With an Off The Shelf, Multibranched Endograft Compared With Custom Made Devices For Endovascular Repair of Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (p-AAA) require complex endovascular aortic repair or open surgical repair with suprarenal clamping. Custom made devices (CMD), including fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) or off the shelf (OTS) multibranched devices, are available treatment options. The aim of this study was to determine the additional healthy aortic coverage using an OTS multibranched endograft vs. a CMD for the treatment of p-AAAs. METHODS: This was a retrospective single centre analysis of prospectively collected data. Consecutive patients with p-AAAs requiring a proximal landing zone above the coeliac artery (CA), planned and treated with CMDs (Zenith Fenestrated) between January 2017 and December 2021 were included in this study. Treatment with supracoeliac coverage using available OTS multibranched devices was simulated using available pre-operative images: T-Branch; E-nside; and TAMBE. Study endpoints included the need for additional proximal aortic coverage, and the number of the segmental arteries additionally covered proximally from the CA for OTS devices compared with CMDs. RESULTS: Eighty three patients with p-AAAs were treated with CMDs (all FEVAR), including juxtarenal AAAs (n = 46; 56%), suprarenal AAAs (n = 20; 24%), and short neck AAAs (n = 17; 20%). In this study, treatment with 249 (3 × 83) OTS endografts was simulated. When compared with CMDs, OTS devices required a mean of 74 ± 19 mm of additional proximal healthy aortic coverage from the CA (CMD: 33 ± 19 mm vs. OTS: 108 ± 6 mm; p ≤ .001), as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries (CMD: 1.3 ± 0.8 vs. OTS: 3.8 ± 0.9; p ≤ .001). In 94% of patients, at least one of the available multibranched endografts could have been implanted in accordance with instructions for use. CONCLUSION: Despite not requiring customisation time, OTS endografts for the treatment of p-AAA lead to more extensive healthy aortic coverage, as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries, compared with CMDs. When compared with OTS devices, CMDs appear to limit the extent of unnecessary aortic coverage and the theoretical subsequent risk of spinal cord ischaemia.

First Experience with the Munich Valsalva Implantation Technique (MuVIT) for Cardiac Output Reduction During Standard and Complex Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The Munich Valsalva Implantation Technique (MuVIT) is a non-invasive alternative which uses a modified Valsalva manoeuvre to reduce cardiac output (CO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical success and safety of MuVIT in standard and complex endovascular thoracic aneurysm repair (TEVAR). METHODS: This was a retrospective single centre cohort study. Patients were included who underwent CO reduction with MuVIT between March 2020 and February 2021 for standard and fenestrated/branched TEVAR (fbTEVAR). The target systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction was used as an indicator of CO reduction. The aim of the SBP reduction was 50% in patients undergoing proximal sealing in Ishimaru zones 0-1 (Group 1), and 30% in patients with sealing in Ishimaru zones 2-3 (Group 2). Efficacy outcomes included MuVIT technical success and procedural technical success. Safety outcomes included MuVIT and procedural related complications in the first 30 days. RESULTS: During the study period 52 cases were screened for MuVIT. Of these, 40 patients (77%) underwent procedures that were performed under MuVIT. Exclusion reasons were local anaesthesia (n = 9); pulmonary contraindications (n = 2), and poor heart pump function (n = 1). Fifteen patients (37.5%) underwent bTEVAR, three patients (7.5%) fTEVAR, and 22 patients (55%) standard TEVAR. Twenty nine (72.5%) procedures were elective, seven (17.5%) were urgent, and four (10%) were as an emergency. Successful proximal endograft deployment under MuVIT was 100%. The target SBP reduction was achieved in 95% (Group 1: 89.5%, Group 2: 100%), with an overall mean reduction of 46% (Group 1: 55%, Group 2: 40%). The 30 day mortality was 7.5%, and was not MuVIT related. Two patients with COPD Gold III/IV developed respiratory complications. CONCLUSION: MuVIT is a safe and effective manoeuvre for CO reduction during aortic arch TEVAR. However, careful patient selection is required and potential adverse effects on patients with severe COPD needs further evaluation.

The "Skewer Technique" for Stentgraft Delivery in the Aortic Arch: Advancing the Dilatator in The Innominate Artery Over a Right Femoro-Brachial Through-And-Through Wire.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for different aortic pathologies, because it has reduced mortality and morbidity rates. However, TEVAR is not feasible in all cases due to aortic angulations, the hemodynamics of the aortic arch and narrow or tortuous iliofemoral access. Therefore, different adjuvant techniques, such as iliac percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, iliathrough-and-through guidewires and external transapical guidewires have been previously reported. Herein we describe the Skewer Technique for successful TEVAR delivery, through a right-brachial-femoral through-and-through guidewire and advancement of the delivery system into the innominate artery. METHODS: A 38-year-old male presented with a symptomatic 11.5cm thoracic aneurysm with involvement of the left-subclavian artery ostium. The patient underwent left carotid-subclavian bypass and a TEVAR. Due to the huge size of the aneurysm a left-brachial-right femoral artery through-and-through guidewire was established. However, the achievement of a stable position for the deployment of the stentgraft was not possible. Eventually, the exclusion of the aneurysm was done with a right brachio-femoral through-and-through wire, inserting the proximal part of the delivery system into the innominate artery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant techniques such as a through-and-through right brachial-femoral guidewire with advancement of the endograft delivery system in the innominate artery (Skewer Technique) represents a useful alternative option in cases where the angulations of the aortic arch impede the deployment of the stent graft using conventional techniques.

Revascularization of occluded renal artery stent grafts after complex endovascular aortic repair and its impact on renal function.

BACKGROUND: Acute occlusion of renal bridging stent grafts after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is an acknowledged complication with high morbidity that often results in chronic dialysis dependence. The feasibility and effect of timely or late (≥6 hours of ischemia) renal artery revascularization has not been adequately reported. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study across 11 tertiary institutions of all consecutive patients who had undergone revascularization of renal artery stent graft occlusions after complex EVAR. The end points were technical success, association between ischemia time and renal function salvage, interventional complications, mortality, and mid-term outcomes. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, 38 patients with 46 target vessels (TVs; eight bilateral occlusions) were treated for renal artery occlusions after complex EVAR (mean age, 63.5 ± 10 years; 63.2% male). Six patients had a solitary kidney (15.8%). Of the 38 patients, 16 (42.1%) had undergone FEVAR and 22 (57.9%) had undergone BEVAR. The technical success rate was 95.7% (44 of 46 TVs). The recanalization technique used was sole aspiration thrombectomy in 5.3%, aspiration thrombectomy and stent graft relining in 52.6%, and sole stent graft relining in 36.8%. The median renal ischemia time was 27.5 hours (range, 4-720 hours; interquartile range, 4-36 hours). Most patients (94.4%) had been treated after ≥6 hours of renal ischemia time, and 55.6% had been treated after 24 hours. In 14 patients (36.8%), renal function had improved after intervention (mean glomerular filtration rate improvement, 14.2 ± 9 mL/min/1.73 m2). However, 24 patients (63.2%) showed no improvement. Improvement of renal function did not correlate with the length of renal ischemia time. Of the 14 patients with bilateral renal artery occlusion or a solitary kidney, 9 experienced partial recovery of renal function and no longer required hemodialysis. In-hospital mortality was 2.6%. The cause of renal stent graft occlusion could not be identified in 50% of the TVs (23 of 46). However, in 19 (41.3%), significant stenosis or a kink of the renal stent graft was found. The median follow-up was 11 months (interquartile range, 0-28 months). The estimated 1-year patient survival and patency rate of the renal stent grafts was 97.4% and 83.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization of occluded renal bridging stent grafts after F/B-EVAR is a safe and feasible technique and can lead to significant improvement of renal function, even after long ischemia times (>24 hours) of the renal parenchyma or bilateral occlusion, as long as residual perfusion of the renal parenchyma has been preserved. Also, the long-term patency rates justify aggressive management of renal artery occlusion after F/B-EVAR.

A Case Report: Is the Lack of Sufficient Radial Force Unfreezing the "Frozen Elephant Trunk"?

The "frozen elephant trunk" is a hybrid technique to treat aortic arch and proximal descending aortic pathologies in a single step. Despite its encouraging early and long-term results, some stent-graft-related adverse events have been reported. Here, we describe a possible treatment option to "re-freeze" the FET in case of loss of landing zone. We report a patient who developed significant kinking of the FET over the course of the first 2 postoperative years. The 1-year follow-up computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed significant kinking and proximal migration of the endograft portion of the FET, resulting in new thrombus formation. Due to kinking and thrombus progression in subsequent CTA follow-ups (2 years and 2½ years) with risk for peripheral embolization, a secondary endovascular repair was indicated. Transfemoral relining of the stent component with a thoracic aortic endovascular repair (Zenith®TX2®30142) stent-graft was performed. In the context of postoperative aneurysm sac shrinkage, the low radial force and lack of longitudinal stiffness of the hybrid graft may lead to proximal migration, thus secondary kinking, emphasizing the importance of an adequate degree of oversizing of the primary graft and an appropriate follow-up. Selection of a suitable graft for a particular pathology concerning the radial force and longitudinal stiffness is furthermore important.

Technical Aspects of Fenestrated Arch TEVAR With Preloaded Fenestration.

Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) has expanded the possibilities of endovascular arch repair, allowing treatment of pathologies involving the aortic arch that require sealing in Ishimaru zones 1 and 2. The growing number of implantations has increased physician experience and helped identify critical procedural points, mainly wire entanglement and device malrotation. Herein we describe a step-by-step approach to a f-TEVAR procedure with the Zenith fenestrated preloaded thoracic endograft, identifying potential pitfalls and suggesting problem-solving solutions.

Pre-Loaded Fenestrated Thoracic Endografts for Distal Aortic Arch Pathologies: Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Short and Mid Term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine short and midterm outcomes of a pre-loaded fenestrated thoracic endograft (f-TEVAR) for exclusion of distal aortic arch pathologies. METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective study including consecutive patients from six experienced European vascular centres undergoing f-TEVAR for distal arch pathologies. Primary endpoints included peri-operative mortality and peri-operative stroke and/or spinal cord ischaemia rates. Secondary outcomes were technical success and mid to late events, including death and re-interventions. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 26. Mid to late term events were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 68 ± 11 years, 70% men). A total of 38% (n = 42) had a prior history of aortic dissection, and 24% (n = 26) prior aortic surgery. The mean aneurysm diameter was 59 ± 12 mm and the most frequent indication for treatment was post-dissection aneurysms (n = 42, 39%). Technical success was 99% (n = 107) despite intra-operative wire entanglement occurring in 29% (n = 31). The 30 day mortality rate was 3.7% (n = 4), with a 5.6% major stroke incidence (n = 6) and 3.7% (n = 4) spinal cord ischaemia rate. Three cases of retrograde dissection occurred (two of which were fatal), all in post-type B dissecting aneurysm patients without prior aortic surgery (three of 19, 15.8%). Median follow up was 12 months (range, 1 - 26). Endoleaks were documented during follow up, with 3.5% type Ia (4/104) and 2.9% type Ib (3/104) as a result of persistent false lumen perfusion. The one, two, and three year survivals and freedom from re-intervention rates were 93.2% and 92.1%, 89.1% and 86.3%, and 84.4% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This multicentre study shows that treatment of the distal aortic arch by f-TEVAR is feasible, with promising 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia rates.