Five-year outcomes of endosuture aneurysm repair in patients with short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm from the ANCHOR registry.

OBJECTIVE: Hostile aortic neck anatomies such as proximal short necks are known to put patients at an increased risk for type IA endoleaks, migration, and need for reinterventions. The Heli-FX EndoAnchor System was designed to improve seal of aortic stent grafts. Endosuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) using EndoAnchors with the Endurant stent graft has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of patients with short necks through one year. This study reports the 5-year patient outcomes of the Aneurysm Treatment using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System Global Registry (ANCHOR) short neck regulatory cohort. METHODS: The 70 patients from the ANCHOR Registry were cohort submitted to regulators for approval of the Endurant short neck indication. Patients had an infrarenal neck length of ≥ 4 mm and <10 mm. At 5 years, this short neck cohort had clinical and imaging follow-up compliance rates of 85% (28/33) and 70% (23/33), respectively. RESULTS: The short neck cohort had a mean age of 71.3±8.1 years and was 27.1% (19/70) female. Kaplan Meier freedom from all-cause mortality was 68.5 ± 6.2%, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 90.1 ± 4.5%, freedom from any endovascular or surgical secondary procedure was 76.9 ± 7.2%, and freedom from rupture was 95.6 ± 3.2%. Eight patients had a total of nine type IA endoleaks detected through 5 years, of which three resolved spontaneously by the next follow-up visit. There were two patients with renal complications who did not undergo reintervention and there were no device migrations reported through 5 years. After 5 years, 68.2% of patients (15/22) had sac regression, 13.6% (3/22) had stable sacs, and 18.2% (4/22) had increased sac diameter as compared with their 1-month measurements. CONCLUSIONS: After ESAR treatment using Heli-FX EndoAnchors with Endurant, the 5-year outcomes of the short neck cohort from the ANCHOR registry had encouraging results with regards to proximal neck-related complications, secondary procedures, and sac regression. This review of ESAR in patients with short proximal necks showed positive outcomes through 5 years although follow-up of a larger cohort is necessary.

Five-year results of the STABLE II study for the endovascular treatment of complicated, acute type B aortic dissection with a composite device design.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the 5-year outcomes of the use of a composite device (proximal covered stent graft + distal bare stent) for endovascular repair of patients with acute, type B aortic dissection complicated by aortic rupture and/or malperfusion. METHODS: Study of Thoracic Aortic Type B Dissection Using Endoluminal Repair (STABLE) II was a prospective, multicenter study of the Zenith Dissection Endovascular System (William Cook Europe). Patients were enrolled between August 2012 and January 2015 at sites in the United States and Japan. Five-year follow-up was completed by January 2020. RESULTS: In total, 73 patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 10.9 years; 65.8% male) with acute type B dissection complicated by malperfusion (72.6%), rupture (21.9%), or both (5.5%) were enrolled. Patients were treated with either a composite device (79.5%) or the proximal stent graft alone (no distal bare stent, 20.5%). Dissections were more extensive in patients who received the composite device (408.9 ± 121.3 mm) than in patients who did not receive a bare stent (315.9 ± 100.1 mm). The mean follow-up was 1209.4 ± 754.6 days. Freedom from all-cause mortality was 80.3% ± 4.7% at 1 year and 68.9% ± 7.3% at 5 years. Freedom from dissection-related mortality remained at 97.1% ± 2.1% from 1-year through 5-year follow-up. Within the stent-graft region, the rate of either complete thrombosis or elimination of the false lumen increased over time (82.1% of all patients at 5 years vs 55.7% at first postprocedure computed tomography), with a higher rate at 5 years in patients who received the composite device (90.5%) compared with patients without the bare stent (57.1%). Throughout the follow-up, overall true lumen diameter increased within the stent-graft region, and overall false lumen diameter decreased. At 5 years, 20.7% of patients experienced a decrease in maximum transaortic diameter within the stent-graft region, 17.2% experienced an increase, and 62.1% experienced no change. Distal to the treated segment (but within the dissected aorta), 23.1% of patients experience no change in transaortic diameter at 5 years; a bare stent was deployed in all these patients at the procedure. Five-year freedom from all secondary intervention was 70.7% ± 7.2%. CONCLUSIONS: These 5-year outcomes indicate a low rate of dissection-related mortality for the Zenith Dissection Endovascular System in the treatment of patients with acute, complicated type B aortic dissection. Further, these data suggest a positive influence of composite device use on false lumen thrombosis. Continuous monitoring for distal aortic growth is necessary in all patients.

Left internal mammary artery access for embolization of the left subclavian artery in a patient with type II endoleak after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for a ruptured right-sided aortic arch aneurysm.

A 65-year-old woman had presented with a ruptured type B intramural hematoma associated with a right-sided aortic arch aneurysm, a large Kommerell diverticulum (KD) and an aberrant left subclavian artery (LSA). She underwent total aortic arch replacement with elephant trunk, thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and LSA ligation distal to the left vertebral artery. She subsequently developed a brisk type II endoleak into the KD via retrograde flow from the left vertebral artery. Percutaneous access of the left internal mammary artery with coil embolization of the proximal LSA and KD was performed. At 5 years, computed tomography angiogram showed complete thoracic aortic remodeling without an endoleak. The results from the present case have illustrated the novel use of the left internal mammary artery as an alternative access for LSA embolization in patients with type II endoleak and limited access options.

A more proximal landing zone is preferred for thoracic endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first-line therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). However, the strategy for optimal proximal landing zone remains to be determined. We compared early outcomes and late aortic-related adverse events in patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD with endograft deployment in proximal landing zone 2 vs 3. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within 6 weeks of diagnosis from January 2008 to December 2018. We excluded patients with connective tissue disorders and prior type A repair. Patients were divided into landing zone 2 TEVAR (Z2T) and zone 3 TEVAR (Z3T) groups. Z2 patients were divided between left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization (Z2R) vs LSA coverage without revascularization (Z2C). Groups were compared for the need for aortic reintervention within 36 months of initial admission and freedom from aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM), defined as the need for aortic reintervention, aortic-related death, or rupture. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within a mean of 4.1 ± 7.8 days; 89.5% of patients had less than 2 cm of healthy proximal descending thoracic aorta. The landing zone was Z3T in 35 patients and 48 underwent Z2T: 10 Z2C and 38 Z2R. There were no differences between Z2T and Z3T in time from diagnosis to TEVAR, demographics, comorbidities, and diameter aortic measurements. The 30-day survival was 87.8%-89.5% for Z2R, 88.6% for Z3, and 80.0% for Z2C (P = .610). The postoperative spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7%-2.7% for Z2R, 0% for Z3T, and 20.0% for Z2C (P = .012). The postoperative thoracic aortic rupture was 2.2% in Z2 and 0 in Z3. The need for aortic reintervention at 36 months after TEVAR was lower for Z2T (10.4%) vs Z3T (31.4%; P = .025). Freedom from AREM at 36 months was higher in Z2T vs Z3T (87.5% vs 68.6%; P = .048). The freedom from proximal reintervention was higher in Z2T (95.8%) compared with Z3T (80.0%; P = .019). Z3T deployment was predictive for AREM (odd ratio, 3.648; 95% confidence interval, 1.161-11.465; P = .027) and need for proximal reintervention (odds ratio, 5.542; 95% confidence interval, 1.062-28.927; P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with aTBAD have less than 2 cm of proximal healthy descending thoracic aorta. In patients treated for complicated aTBAD, Z2T is associated with a lower need for aortic reintervention and aortic-related adverse events than Z3T. Patients may benefit from a more aggressive proximal landing zone with similar perioperative morbidity when Z2T is done with LSA revascularization.

Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair timing on aortic remodeling in acute type B aortic intramural hematoma.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized in the management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH). Optimal timing for intervention has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR timing on postoperative aortic remodeling. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent TEVAR for TBIMH from January 2008 to September 2018. Imaging was reviewed pre- and postoperatively. Primary data points included true lumen diameter (TLD) and total aortic diameter (TAD) at the site of maximal pathology. Primary endpoint was aortic remodeling evidenced by a TAD/TLD ratio closest to 1.0. Secondary outcome was occurrence of aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM): aortic rupture, aortic-related death, progression to dissection, or need for aortic reintervention within 12 months. Patients undergoing emergent TEVAR (within 24 hours, 'eTEVAR') were compared with the remainder - delayed TEVAR ('dTEVAR'). RESULTS: We analyzed 71 patients that underwent TEVAR for TBIMH; 25 underwent emergent TEVAR and 46 patients underwent dTEVAR (median, 5.5 days; range, 2-120 days). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities, and patients did not differ in presenting IMH thickness (12.6 ± 3.1 vs 11.3 ± 4.1 mm; P = .186) nor presenting TAD/TLD ratio (1.535 ± 0.471 vs 1.525 ± 0.397; P = .928) for eTEVAR and dTEVAR groups, respectively. eTEVAR patients had larger average presenting maximal descending aortic diameter (45.8 ± 14.3 vs 38.2 ± 7.5 mm; P = .018) and higher incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer on presenting computed tomography angiography (52.0% vs 21.7%; P = .033). Thirty-day mortality was 2 of 25 (8.0%) for eTEVAR and 2 of 45 (4.4%) for dTEVAR (P = .602). Postoperative aortic remodeling was more complete in the dTEVAR group (1.23 ± 0.12 vs 1.33 ± 0.15; P = .004). Case-control matching (controlling for presenting descending aortic diameter and penetrating aortic ulcer) on 30 patients still showed better aortic remodeling in the dTEVAR group (1.125 ± 0.100 vs 1.348 ± 0.42; P < .001). The incidence of AREM was higher in the eTEVAR (6/25; 24.0%) group compared with the dTEVAR group (2/46; 4.3%). At 12 months, freedom from AREM was higher in the dTEVAR group (95.7% vs 76.0%; P = .011). Postoperative TAD/TLD ratio was the best predictor for late aortic-related adverse events (area under the receiver operator characteristic = 0.825; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for acute TBIMH within 24 hours of admission is associated with lower aortic remodeling and higher occurrence of late AREM. Delaying TEVAR when clinically possible could improve aortic remodeling and aortic-related outcomes.

A novel approach to high-grade carotid stenosis with concomitant extracranial carotid aneurysms using transcarotid artery revascularization.

We present the novel application of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in two high-risk patients with high-grade internal artery stenosis and concomitant atherosclerotic extracranial carotid artery aneurysms (ECAAs). ECAAs account for <1% of arterial aneurysms and are usually clinically silent at presentation. Historically, the treatment of ECAAs has been via open reconstruction or stent grafting. TCAR is an effective alternative for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, but has not been widely used for aneurysmal management. We report two cases to describe our management of concomitant carotid stenoses and ECCA with TCAR.

Distal Revascularization and Interval Ligation for the Management of Dialysis Access Steal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for dialysis access steal syndrome (DASS) include distal revascularization with interval ligation (DRIL), proximalization of arterial inflow (PAI), access banding, and access ligation. This study examines the efficacy of DRIL in treating DASS and reports short-term bypass patency, access patency, and wound infection rates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on adults diagnosed with DASS following hemo-dialysis access creation who underwent DRIL procedures between January 1, 2009 and May 11, 2017. Patients <18 years and those with lower extremity accesses or HeRO grafts that developed DASS were excluded. Data was obtained using electronic medical records and analyzed using SPSS software. Residual steal was defined as reintervention for DASS within 60 days of DRIL. Recurrent steal was defined as reintervention beyond 60 days. RESULTS: Eighty-nine DRIL procedures were performed for correction of DASS. Population included 59.6% female (n = 53), 47.2% current/former smokers (n = 42), 76.4% diabetic (n = 68), and 79.8% AVF (n = 71). Symptom resolution was complete for 69.7% (n = 62), and partial for 25.8% (n = 23), with no improvement in 4.5% (n = 4). Following DRIL, mean DBI improved from 0.43 to 0.67 (P= 0.002). Mean steal classification improved from 3.04 to 0.64 (P< 0.001). Five patients required a subsequent procedure for DASS symptoms - 3 for residual steal and 2 for recurrent steal. Bypass patency at 6 months post DRIL was 93.3% (n = 83) primary, 97.8% (n = 87) primary-assisted, and 100% (n = 89) secondary patency. Access patency at 6 months post DRIL was 78.7% (n = 70) primary, 91% (n = 81) primary-assisted, and 94.4% (n = 84) secondary. Twenty-one patients (23.5%) had 24 cases of surgical site infections, with 70.8% (n = 17) occurring at the saphenectomy site. Wound infections re-solved within 60 days postoperatively in 23 out of 24 patients. CONCLUSIONS: DRIL is highly effective in relieving symptoms of DASS and has excellent rates of short-term access and bypass patency. However, consideration must be given to the high wound infection rate and the potential need for subsequent procedures.

Clinical trial outcomes and thoracic aortic morphometry after one year with the Valiant Navion stent graft system.

AUTHORS' NOTE: On February 17, 2021, Medtronic Incorporated issued a global voluntary recall of the Valiant Navion Thoracic Stent Graft System (the device under study in the Valiant Evo Global Clinical Program that is the subject of this publication), and instructed physicians to immediately cease use of the Valiant Navion system and return any unused product. Medtronic initiated the recall in response to three clinical trial subjects recently observed with stent fractures, two of whom have confirmed type IIIb endoleaks. The data collection, analysis, and manuscript submission occurred before the notice of this recall, and, specifically, the 100 procedures reviewed for this series were free of events at 1 year related to the reason for this device recall. The authors of this article and the manufacturer were unaware of the recently detected adverse events at the time of the preparation of the manuscript, and the 1-year trial results, and imaging-based analyses described are unchanged. Management of thoracic aortic aneurysms continues to be a challenging problem and outcomes are dependent on patient anatomy. The present publication focuses on the importance of achieving proximal and distal seals and the consideration of the temporal changes of the aortic morphology as a part of the TEVAR planning process. The authors believe there is still scientific merit in disclosing this information, despite the current nonavailability of the Valiant Navion system. OBJECTIVE: The Valiant Navion stent graft system (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif) is a third-generation device with improved conformability. We have reported the 1-year clinical trial outcomes, with a focus on an imaging-based analysis of the aortic morphology. We assessed the effects of graft implantation on the native anatomy and the effects of the 1-year changes in thoracic aorta morphology on the original seal zones of the stent graft. METHODS: A total of 100 subjects were enrolled in a prospective single-arm clinical trial investigating the Valiant Navion stent graft system. An independent core laboratory (Syntactx, New York, NY) assessed the anatomic characteristics and performance outcomes. RESULTS: Through 1 year of follow-up, the freedom from all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and secondary procedures was 89.8%, 97.0%, and 94.8% respectively. Of the 100 patients, 5 had undergone a total of six secondary procedures, and 9 patients had developed an endoleak (type Ia and Ib in 1, type Ia in 1, type Ib in 3, and type II in 4 patients) within the first year. After 1 year, 2 of 76 patients (2.6%) had had an increase in their maximum aneurysm diameter of ≥5 mm, 62 (81.6%) had had stable sacs, and 12 (15.8%) had experienced sac shrinkage. Although no deployment failures had occurred, 36 of the 100 proximal (36%) and 31 of the 100 distal (31%) attachment zones were considered short according to our definitions. The stent graft had conformed to the native anatomy at implantation, because the preprocedural thoracic aorta tortuosity (1.45 ± 0.02) had not significantly changed at 1 month after implantation (1.46 ± 0.02). Despite a natural increase in thoracic tortuosity after 1 year (1.49 ± 0.02), wall apposition had been maintained over time, as evidenced by the low endoleak rates. Aortic elongation and dilation had occurred at the proximal end of the graft by an average of 1.2 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. Aortic remodeling was more pronounced at the distal end, with an average increase of 4.2 mm in length and 2.8 mm in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: The included patients had had positive 1-year outcomes with high freedom from mortality, endoleak development, and secondary procedures. Aortic elongation and dilation were more prevalent at the distal end, emphasizing the importance of distal attachment zone consideration as part of preoperative planning. Because aortic remodeling can be expected to continue over time, additional follow-up and imaging analysis in the trial will be necessary to assess the aortic morphology and its effects on stent graft performance.

A comparison of stenting versus hemodialysis reliable outflow graft for hemodialysis patients with recurrent central venous obstructions.

BACKGROUND: Central venous occlusive disease is a common cause of upper extremity arteriovenous access dysfunction in hemodialysis patients. When refractory to balloon angioplasty, the treatment options include central venous stenting and hemodialysis reliable outflow (HeRO; Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah) graft. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of these options. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients who had undergone central venous stenting or HeRO placement for central venous obstruction from December 2008 to March 2018. The primary outcomes were the reintervention rates, patency, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 75 hemodialysis patients were identified after failed balloon angioplasty for central venous obstruction. Of the 75 patients, 44 underwent central venous stenting comprising coverage of the subclavian vein (n = 27), innominate vein (n = 18), and/or superior vena cava (n = 5). Six stent patients later underwent HeRO placement. The stents used were stent grafts in 65% (Viabahn, n = 9; Fluency/Flair, n = 19; iCast, n = 2; and other, n = 1) and bare metal stents in 35% (Wall-stent, n = 6; Protégé, n = 1; Cobalt, n = 1; and other, n = 9). The remaining 31 patients underwent HeRO graft placement. The venous outflow component insertion sites were the internal jugular (n = 20), external jugular (n = 1), subclavian (n = 6), axillary (n = 2), and other (n = 2). The stent and HeRO groups were similar in the previous central venous intervention rates (median, 0.6 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-3.0]; vs median, 3.5 [IQR, 0-10.1] annually; P = .679). After the index procedure, no difference was found between the two groups in the frequency of dialysis circuit interventions annually (median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-6.0]; vs median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-7.0]; P = .291) nor central venous interventions (ie, angioplasty of the central veins or within the portion of the HeRO inside the central veins) annually (median, 2.0 [IQR, 0-4.1]; vs median, 0 [IQR, 0-2.4]; P = .419). The 1-year access circuit primary patency was 8.1% for stenting and 22.2% for HeRO (P = .109). The 2-year access circuit secondary patency was 40.0% for stenting and 52.4% for HeRO (P = .401). The all-cause mortality was similar at 1 year (3.7% vs 4.8%; P = .856) and 2 years (11.8% vs 23.5%; P = .368). CONCLUSIONS: Central venous stenting and HeRO were shown to have similar rates of reintervention and patency. The results from the present study suggest that the multiple treatment options available for this problematic disease process can yield similar results when careful patient selection is applied.

A systematic review of covered balloon-expandable stents for treating aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare studies reporting the outcomes of the use of covered balloon-expandable (CBE) stents for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated the use of CBE stents for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease and were published between 2000 and 2019. Baseline demographic data, procedural variables, and long-term outcomes were extracted from publications for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15 published articles about 14 studies were included in the review. Of these, eight studies were prospective clinical trials and six studies were retrospective real-world studies. The articles included data regarding five different CBE stents, namely, the iCast/Advanta V12, Viabahn VBX, BeGraft, LifeStream, and JOSTENT. Lesion severity was higher in real-world studies, with more TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus Classification class D lesions and a higher percentage of occlusions. All studies showed high rates of technical success and patency over the course of 12 months. Long-term data were only available for the iCast/Advanta V12 device, which had a primary patency rate of 74.7% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: CBE stents are a viable treatment option for patients with complex aortoiliac lesions because of their high rates of technical success and favorable patency across all devices at 12 months. However, long-term data are only available for a single device, the iCast/Advanta V12. The results of using this device were favorable over the course of 5 years.

Medical therapy in type B aortic intramural hematoma is associated with a high failure rate.

OBJECTIVE: Intramural hematoma (IMH) is on the spectrum of acute aortic syndrome, but optimal management is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with type B IMH (TBIMH) after best medical therapy (BMT) and to assess for risk factors associated with failure of BMT. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective chart review of all patients with TBIMH between January 2008 and December 2017. Failure of BMT was defined as any of the following end points: aortic rupture, aorta-related death, aortic enlargement to at least 55 mm or growth of >10 mm within 12 months, or need for surgical aortic intervention for failed BMT. RESULTS: We identified 92 patients, of whom 25 received emergent thoracic endovascular aortic repair; 67 patients were initially managed with BMT, and of these, 32 underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair within 14 days for early BMT failure. Two additional patients had early BMT failure; one died of aortic rupture due to retrograde type A dissection, and one patient was advised to undergo repair but did not comply and was lost to follow-up. Fourteen patients (20.9%) received endovascular therapy for late failure of BMT after the initial hospitalization. Medical management was successful in 19 patients (28.4%), although 5 patients had aortic enlargement but below the threshold for elective repair (maximal aortic diameter of 55 mm). On univariate analysis, presenting IMH thickness and growth of IMH thickness were risk factors for BMT failure. On multivariate analysis, presenting IMH thickness was the sole predictive risk factor for medical therapy failure (odds ratio, 1.083; 95% confidence interval, 1.021-1.149; P = .008), with an odds ratio of 6.810 (95% confidence interval, 1.921-24.146; P = .002) with a presenting IMH thickness of ≥8.0 mm, which was the calculated IMH thickness cutoff value with highest sensitivity and specificity to predict failure of BMT (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.795; P = .001; J = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: BMT for TBIMH is associated with a high failure rate and need for interventions. IMH thickness on admission is the most reliable factor to predict failure of BMT.

Staged Combined Endovascular and Open Surgical Approach in a Patient with Takayasu's Arteritis.

Takayasu's arteritis (TA) is a systemic large vessel vasculitis that affects the aorta and its branches. Most patients with TA respond to medical therapy with a minority of patients requiring surgical intervention. In our report, we describe the case of a 59-year-old Caucasian female with TA who underwent revascularization due to cerebrovascular symptoms refractory to medical therapy. She initially presented with amaurosis fugax and developed episodes of syncope and slurred speech during corticosteroid tapering. Vascular studies showed right common carotid artery (RCCA), left internal carotid artery (LICA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) occlusion with the right vertebral artery (RVA) ostium stenosis, and retrograde flow through the left vertebral artery (LVA). The sole source of cerebral perfusion flowed through her stenosed RVA, so it was decided to first stent the RVA to restore adequate posterior cerebral circulation before creating a right subclavian artery to RCCA bypass to restore anterior circulation. This case represents the successful management of TA utilizing a two-staged combined endovascular and surgical approach.

STABLE II clinical trial on endovascular treatment of acute, complicated type B aortic dissection with a composite device design.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a composite device design (covered stent graft and bare metal stent) for the treatment of patients with acute, complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) presenting with aortic rupture and/or branch vessel malperfusion. METHODS: In this prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study, 73 patients (65.8% male; mean age, 60.7 years) with acute, complicated TBAD were enrolled between August 2012 and January 2015 to receive treatment with the Zenith Dissection Endovascular System (William Cook Europe, Aps, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) at institutions in the United States and Japan. The primary safety end point was the rate of freedom from major adverse events at 30 days, and the primary effectiveness end point was the rate of survival at 30 days. This article reports primary outcomes at 30 days and follow-up results through 1 year, reflecting study data as of March 2018. RESULTS: Of 73 patients, 20 presented with aortic rupture (27%) and 57 presented with branch vessel obstruction/compromise (78%), including 4 patients presenting with both conditions. The covered stent graft was used in all patients (median, 1; range, 1-3; 1 stent graft used in 64.4%; 47/73), and the bare metal dissection stent was used in 58 of 73 patients (79.5%). Thirty-day mortality occurred in five patients (6.8%): one procedure related, three unrelated to dissection repair, and one indeterminate. Thirty-day major adverse events included myocardial infarction (1.4%), bowel ischemia (1.4%), renal insufficiency/renal failure requiring dialysis (6.8%), stroke (6.8%), paraplegia or paraparesis (5.5%), and prolonged ventilatory support (13.7%). Nine deaths occurred from 31 to 365 days (only one death related to dissection repair); the Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from all-cause mortality was 80.3% ± 4.7% at 1 year. Within 365 days, 9 of 73 patients (12.3%) underwent 10 secondary interventions; no patients required conversion to open surgery. At the 12-month follow-up, complete or partial thrombosis of the false lumen was seen in 100% of patients (46/46) within the stent graft region and in 97.4% of patients (38/39) within the dissection stent region. Growth (>5 mm) of the maximum transaortic diameter was observed in 14.9% of patients (7/47) in the stent graft region and in 38.5% of patients (15/39) within the dissection stent region at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day and 1-year results from the STABLE II study demonstrated favorable clinical and anatomical outcomes for the treatment of rupture and malperfusion in the setting of acute, complicated TBAD. Five-year follow-up is ongoing.

Pivotal results for the Valiant Navion stent graft system in the Valiant EVO global clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Valiant Navion stent graft system (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif) is a new iteration of a thoracic endograft for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Herein, the 30-day primary safety and efficacy outcomes and secondary end points are presented. METHODS: The Valiant EVO global clinical trial is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm trial. Patient enrollment occurred from April 2016 to October 2017. The primary end point was defined as access and/or deployment failure and/or a major device effect (MDE), including device-related secondary procedures, device-related mortality, conversion to open surgery, or thoracic aortic aneurysm rupture within 30 days of the index procedure. Other measures of stent graft performance including procedural data, rates of secondary procedures, and frequency of endoleaks are also reported. RESULTS: Of the 87 consecutive patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair who were enrolled, 33 (37.9%) were female with 61 (70.9%) presenting with severe access artery tortuosity and 66 (85.7%) with high thoracic aortic tortuosity per core laboratory evaluation. The mean procedure duration was 88.7 ± 53.4 minutes and geographical differences existed such as percutaneous access (37/52 [71.2%]) in the United States and surgical cut down in the outside of the U.S. sites (28/35 [80.0%]). There were no access or deployment failures and only 2.3% of the patients (2/87; P < .0001; performance goal of 16%) experienced a MDE within 30 days of the index procedure. Two secondary procedures (n = 1 retrograde type A dissection; n = 1 aortic arch rupture) were required, and in the first 30 days, two patients died leading to a freedom from all-cause mortality of 97.7%. Endoleaks at 1 month were reported in 2.5% of patients (n = 1 type Ia; n = 1 type II). CONCLUSIONS: Access/deployment failures, MDEs, and endoleaks were rare in the first 30 days of the Valiant Evo clinical trial. The Valiant Navion thoracic stent graft system has shown encouraging 30-day results in this challenging cohort and trial patients will continue to be followed through 5 years.

Multicenter Analysis of Endovascular Aortic Arch In Situ Stent-Graft Fenestrations for Aortic Arch Pathologies.

BACKGROUND: In situ fenestration of aortic stent grafts for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms is a new option for endovascular aortic arch repair. So far, only few reports have shown perioperative and short-term results of in situ fenestrations for aortic arch diseases. We present the multicenter experience with the aortic arch in situ fenestration technique documented in the AARCHIF registry for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms or localized type A aortic dissections and analyzed perioperative outcome and midterm follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aortic arch pathologies treated by aortic arch in situ fenestration with proximal stent graft landing in aortic arch Ishimura zones 0 and 1 were included in the registry. Stent-graft in situ fenestrations were created using needles or radiofrequency or laser catheters and completed by implantation of covered connecting stent grafts. Single in situ fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA) were excluded. RESULTS: Between 06/2009 and 03/2017, twenty-five patients were treated by in situ stent-graft fenestrations for aortic arch pathologies at 9 institutions in 7 different countries, 3 of them as bailout procedures for stent-graft malplacement. In situ fenestrations were performed for the brachiocephalic trunk (n = 20), the left common carotid artery (n = 21) and the LSA (n = 9). Technical success for intended in situ fenestrations was 94.0% (47/50), with additional supraaortic bypass procedures performed in 14 patients. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 (4.0%) patient, treated as a bailout procedure and 3 (12.0%) perioperative strokes were observed. One proximal aortic stent-graft nonalignment and 4 type III endoleaks, 2 early and 2 late, required reeintervention. During follow-up (1-118 months), the diameter of aortic arch aneurysms decreased from 61.5 ± 4.1 mm to 48.4 ± 3.2 mm (P = 0.02) and, so far, 6 patients died from diseases unrelated to their aortic arch pathologies with a mean survival time of 79.5 months and 3 endovascular reinterventions for distal aortic expansion were performed. Cerebrovascular event (n = 4) was the most relevant prognostic factor for mortality during midterm follow-up (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The aortic arch in situ fenestration technique for endovascular aortic arch repair seems to be valuable treatment option for selected patients, although initial consideration of other treatment options is mandatory. Data about long-term durability are required.

Sustainability of Individual EndoAnchor Implants in Therapeutic Use to Treat Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in penetration depths and angles of EndoAnchor implants with initially good penetration after therapeutic use in endovascular aneurysm repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were selected from the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534819). Inclusion criteria were (1) EndoAnchor implantation to treat intraoperative or late type Ia endoleak and (2) at least 2 postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans. Exclusion criteria were the use of adjunct procedures. Based on these criteria, 54 patients (44 men) with 360 EndoAnchor implants were eligible for this analysis. Penetration depth of each EndoAnchor implant into the aortic wall was judged as (1) good (≥2-mm penetration), (2) borderline (<2 mm or when there was a gap between the endograft and the aortic wall), or (3) no penetration. The penetration depth and longitudinal angles of EndoAnchors with good penetration were investigated on the last available postprocedure CTA scan. Endoleaks were also analyzed. RESULTS: EndoAnchor penetration on the first postprocedure CTA scan was good in 187 (51.9%), borderline in 69 (19.2%), and missing in 104 (28.9%). On the last CTA scan, 182 (97.4%) of the 187 initially well-positioned EndoAnchors remained good. Five (2.6%) EndoAnchors in 4 patients changed configuration over time (4 became borderline and 1 became nonpenetrating), all without any clinical sequelae. The median orthogonal angles of the EndoAnchor implants with good penetration on the first and last CTA scans were 92° [interquartile range (IQR) 85, 98] and 90° (IQR 84, 97), respectively (p=0.822); for longitudinal angles, medians of 85° (IQR 71, 96) and 84° (IQR 70, 96) were found (p=0.043). Of the 18 (33%) patients who had a type Ia endoleak on the first postprocedure CTA, 6 resolved over time. Median follow-up was 13 months, during which no new type Ia endoleak was found. CONCLUSION: Despite the small number of EndoAnchors analyzed, this study showed that the sustainability of EndoAnchor implants with initially good penetration is satisfactory at 1-year follow-up. The vast majority of EndoAnchor implants with good penetration initially remained in good position; <3% of implants became borderline or nonpenetrating, without any clinical consequence.

Endosuture aneurysm repair in patients treated with Endurant II/IIs in conjunction with Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants for short-neck abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains a challenging clinical scenario when there is a short or nonexistent segment of healthy infrarenal aorta. This study sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of endosuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) using the Endurant II/IIs endograft (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) in conjunction with Heli-FX EndoAnchors (Medtronic Vascular) in the treatment of short-neck AAA. METHODS: In this subgroup analysis, 70 patients were identified from the Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System Global Registry (ANCHOR) who had an infrarenal neck length <10 mm down to 4 mm based on core laboratory measurements. Primary outcomes included technical success of the index procedure, rate of type IA endoleak at 1 month and 12 months, and rate of secondary procedures at 12 months. RESULTS: In this short-neck cohort (n = 70), the average neck length and diameter were 6.9 ± 1.6 mm and 25.7 ± 4.0 mm, respectively. Investigators reported an overall procedural success rate of 97.1% and a technical success rate of 88.6%. The duration of the implant procedure, EndoAnchor implantation, and total fluoroscopy time was 148.0 ± 80.0 minutes, 17.1 ± 11.5 minutes, and 35.3 ± 22.0 minutes, respectively, and an average of 5.5 ± 2.1 EndoAnchors were implanted per patient. Through the 30-day follow-up, type IA endoleaks were reported in four patients, of which three resolved spontaneously by the 12-month follow-up. There was an additional type IA endoleak through the 12-month follow-up that has not resulted in AAA enlargement or required a secondary procedure. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from secondary endovascular procedures and all-cause mortality is 95.4% and 92.7% through 365 days, respectively. No patient in the short-neck cohort experienced main body stent migration, increase in maximum aneurysm diameter, or aneurysm rupture or required conversion to open surgical repair through 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the short-neck cohort from ANCHOR, the Endurant II/IIs endograft in conjunction with Heli-FX EndoAnchor implants (ESAR) appears to be a safe and effective treatment option with a high technical success rate and low incidence of type IA endoleaks and secondary interventions. Despite the complex and hostile anatomies, the ESAR method required short procedure and fluoroscopy times. These short-term outcomes suggest that ESAR could be complementary to therapies currently available for treatment of hostile AAA anatomy and a viable off-the-shelf endovascular treatment option for patients with short-neck AAAs, although long-term follow-up is critically important.

Vascular interventions in head and neck cancer patients as a marker of poor survival.

OBJECTIVE: Head and neck cancer can involve the surrounding vasculature and require technically challenging vascular interventions. These interventions can be complicated by tumor invasion, history of prior surgery, and history of radiation therapy. Our aim was to examine patients with vascular interventions in association with head and neck cancer to determine outcomes and best practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cancer patients treated by head and neck surgery and vascular surgery between 2007 and 2014. Data concerning previous cancer treatment, operative details of head and neck surgery and vascular surgery, perioperative outcomes, and survival data were collected. Statistical analyses were performed using the χ2 test, Student t-test, and binomial regression. Patency and survival data were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients with head and neck cancer requiring vascular interventions were identified. Of these, 44 patients had squamous cell carcinoma, 4 had thyroid cancer, 3 had sarcoma, 2 had Merkel and basal cell carcinoma, and 1 each had a parotid tumor, paraganglioma, extrarenal rhomboid tumor, and malignant spindle cell neoplasm. The majority of the interventions (n = 36 [63%]) were performed on patients with recurrent or persistent malignancy despite prior treatment. The most common previous treatment was radiation therapy (n = 44 [77%]). Tumor resection and vascular intervention were performed concurrently in 26 patients (46%). The mean time between cancer treatment and vascular intervention was 37 months (range, 18 days-18 years). The most common indication for vascular intervention was bleeding (n = 21 [37%]), which included vessel rupture (n = 14), tumor bleeding (n = 5), and intraoperative bleeding (n = 2). The remaining indications for intervention included invasion/encasement of major vasculature (n = 25), stenosis/occlusion (n = 12), and aneurysm (n = 1). The most common intervention was stenting (n = 22 [41%]), followed by resection (n = 20 [35%]), exposure/dissection (n = 12 [22%]), bypass (n = 8 [15%]), and embolization (n = 3 [6%]). Of the 22 patients who were stented, 12 (55%) were placed electively (11 for stenosis and 1 for aneurysm) and 10 (45%) were placed emergently (6 for blowout and 4 for tumor bleeding). A total of six patients (11%) required reintervention after their index vascular procedure. There were no intraoperative mortalities. The 30-day mortality was 9% (n = 5). The 30-day stroke rate was 7% (n = 4; one s/p common carotid artery-internal carotid artery bypass and three with emergent intervention for vessel rupture). Primary patency at 1 year was 66% for stents and 71% for bypass (P = .604). Survival in those patients operated on emergently for bleeding at 1 year was 38%, with a trend toward worse survival compared with the 77% survival at 1 year for all other indications (P = .109). The overall survival in the cohort at 1 and 2 years was 62% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular involvement in head and neck cancer is a marker for poor survival. Any intervention performed in light of mass resection, persistent disease, and previous radiation complicates management. Minimally invasive techniques can be used with emergent bleeding but the survival benefits are marginal. Vascular interventions, including reconstruction, are feasible but should be approached with adequate expectations and multidisciplinary support.