Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following frozen elephant trunk: how it's done and device selection.

INTRODUCTION: Since its introduction in the mid-1990s the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique has quickly evolved into an effective hybrid treatment option for patients with various thoracic aortic pathologies, acute and chronic. However, a notable incidence of and risk for distal aortic reinterventions persists after the implementation of the FET device. In this review, the authors analyze the indications and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following FET. AREAS COVERED: For this review, we looked not only at our own data but also searched PubMed for relevant studies, comments, and current recommendations of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Additionally, we outline our approach in this 2-stage-treatment plan. EXPERT OPINION: The treatment of acute or chronic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch frequently requires a 2-stage treatment approach. Sometimes, a tertiary procedure is needed to fix the entire aortic pathology. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following FET requires careful planning to achieve the excellent clinical outcomes that we and numerous other aortic centers have shown. Only a dedicated aortic clinic provides the long-term continuous follow-up required to identify the few patients in need of a tertiary procedure.