Clinical efficacy of TEVAR utilizing fenestrated stent-grafts for zone 0 in an elderly frail patient with giant aortic arch aneurysm.

Introduction and importance: Elderly and frail patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) near to origins of cervical arteries present facing challenges with aortic arch replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass, and traditional tube-type stent-grafts are also inadequate for transcatheter endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Thus, necessitating precise treatment with fenestrated stent-grafts from zone 0. This approach is crucial for achieving favorable postoperative outcomes without compromising activities of daily living (ADL). Case presentations: An 85-year-old-man admitted to the hospital for treatment of a large TAA. While arch replacement is a definitive procedure, it is highly invasive, and the postoperative ADL are expected to be significantly lower than preoperative levels. Therefore, we performed a debranching TEVAR from Zone 0 with fenestrated stent-graft. The patient was discharged from the hospital on the 11th postoperative day. Clinical discussion: In frail and elderly patients for whom conventional surgery may not be viable, TEVAR emerges as a preferred alternative. However, TEVAR of TAA proximal to the aortic arch continues to pose challenges, necessitating meticulous attention to the cervical branches in the intervention strategy. While surgical intervention in these patients necessitates careful consideration of its suitability, including the potential for postoperative enhancement in ADL, the use of fenestrated stent-grafts from Zone 0 emerges as one of the treatment modalities. Conclusion: The authors present a very elderly case in which fenestrated stent-grafts were used to avoid aortic arch replacement for a large aortic arch aneurysm, resulting in a good postoperative course with no decline in ADL.

The Initial Results of Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repairs of the Aortic Arch and Lessons Learned From the First 21 Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for the aortic arch provides a minimally invasive treatment option for patients who are too high-risk for open repair. Improvements in technique are gained with ongoing experience with these complex repairs. This study aims to describe outcomes of arch PM-FBEVAR and technical lessons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR with zone 0 proximal sealing at a single institution between January 2019 and July 2023 was performed. Cases completed using initial techniques (early technique) were compared with cases using the current techniques (current technique). Modification technique changed to include a self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific fenestrations or inner branches in the current group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success and 30 day stroke. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients underwent arch PM-FBEVAR, with 7 in the early group and 14 in the current group. Severe comorbidities were present in both groups including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (43% vs 36%), prior open ascending aortic repair (57% vs 43%), and prior stroke (86% vs 21%), respectively. Technical success was the same (86% vs 86%, p=1.0). Fluoroscopy time (56 vs 24 min, p=0.012) and in-hospital death (43% vs 0%, p=0.026) were significantly lower in the current group. A 30 day stroke rate (29% vs 7%, p=0.247) was non-significantly decreased in the current group. All-cause mortality was 100% vs 7% during median follow-up of 8 and 6 months (p<0.001). Three deaths in the early group were related to their aortic arch repair including aortic rupture during endograft advancement and 2 postoperative strokes. CONCLUSION: There is a significant learning curve associated with aortic arch PM-FBEVAR. This study suggests that gained experience, use of the spine trigger wire technique, and precise creation of fenestrations or inner branches can lead to a shorter procedure time and lower complications. CLINICAL IMPACT: Physician modified fenestrated branched endografting is feasible for the aortic arch. The high rate of stroke and perioperative mortality was reduced with incorporation of self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific inner branch creation.

Physician Modified Fenestrated Endografts for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair in Zone 0.

OBJECTIVE: This multicentre study aimed to assess the early and midterm outcomes of physician modified fenestrated endografts (PMEGs) for endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2022, a retrospective study was conducted in three centres of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic arch repair in zone 0 with PMEGs. Endpoints included technical success, 30 day mortality rate, major adverse events, secondary interventions, stent stability, target vessel patency, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (mean age 63 years; 45 males) with aortic arch pathology were included, comprising aortic dissections (n = 32; 59%) and aortic arch aneurysms (n = 22; 41%). Technical success was 98%. One patient died from stroke within 30 days. Major adverse events included stroke (n = 4; 7%), retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (n = 3; 6%), and acute kidney injury (n = 2; 4%). During a median follow up of 12 months, there were two deaths (4%) of unknown cause at one month and 1.5 months, and no aortic related death. Type Ia, type Ic, and type IIIc endoleaks were observed in two (4%), three (6%), and two (4%) patients, respectively. No vessel stenosis was observed. Re-intervention was required in 10 patients (19%). Estimates of overall survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and freedom from target vessel instability at one year were 94.2% (standard error [SE] 3.3%), 81.8% (SE 6.0%), and 92.0% (SE 4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the efficacy of PMEGs for zone 0 endovascular aortic arch repair, with acceptable technical success and mortality rates. Stroke, RTAD, and re-intervention rates remain a concern for endovascular therapy. A larger population and long term outcomes are required to assess the safety and durability of this technique as a beneficial choice for endovascular aortic arch repair in specialised centres.

Zone 0 TEVAR with femoral artery inflow for an anastomotic pseudoaneurysm.

We describe the case of an 89-year-old female with a distal anastomotic pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta after an ascending aorta replacement for an acute type A aortic dissection. Initially, we attempted endovascular repair using a semi-custom-made thoracic fenestrated stent graft. However, this treatment failed due to an endoleak. Two weeks later, we performed a total arch vessel debranching using femoral artery inflow and thoracic endovascular repair. Postoperative computed tomography revealed no signs of the endoleak. This hybrid approach could be an effective treatment option for anastomotic pseudoaneurysms of the ascending aorta.

Complete zone 0-10 aortic endovascular reconstruction.

To the best of our knowledge, the present report is the first on the safety and efficacy of complete endovascular aortic reconstruction from zone 0 to 10 using a standardized approach and parallel stent graft configurations in high-risk patients considered unfit for surgery. During a 7-year period, five patients with complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissections involving zone 0-10 presented with rupture (n = 1; 20%), were symptomatic (n = 2; 40%), or had an aortic pseudoaneurysm (n = 2; 40%) and underwent complete endovascular zone 0-10 reconstruction using off-the-shelf stent grafts in parallel configurations that included chimneys, periscopes, and endovascular docking stations. The zone 0-5 complete arch chimney thoracic endovascular repair included chimneys that extended from the ascending thoracic aorta to the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries and a thoracic stent graft extending from zone 0 to 5. The zone 5-10 aortic reconstructions were staged. Stage 1 included either thoracic stent graft and antegrade four visceral chimney placement or abdominal aortic stent graft and retrograde four visceral chimney placement. Stage II included completion of the remainder of the aortic reconstruction with cerebrospinal fluid drainage. A total of 15 aortic procedures included 34 chimneys (14 aortic arch and 20 visceral). Two patients (40%) underwent zone 0-5 aortic reconstruction first, and three patients (60%) underwent zone 5-10 aortic reconstruction first. The incidence of 30-day mortality, spinal cord ischemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and visceral ischemia was 0%. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 3.1 years, the aortic reconstruction-related mortality was 0%. All-cause mortality was 20%; one patient had died of pneumonia at 3 years postoperatively. Two endoleaks each occurred in zone 0-5 and zone 5-10 (40% for both groups). All endoleaks were treated with coil embolization. Complete endovascular zone 0-10 aortic reconstruction using parallel stent grafts with a docking station is a feasible and relatively safe technique that offers the ability to customize off-the-shelf devices for the treatment of high-risk patients with limited morbidity and mortality.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone 0.

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model. Results: Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively. Conclusions: Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.

One year follow-up outcomes of endovascular treatment for aortic dissection with a partial micropore stent graft in which fixation of the stent is done in zone 0: A pivotal trial first in human.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of the treatment for patients diagnosed with DeBakey type I and type III thoracic aortic dissections using a partial micropore stent graft. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 32 patients who suffered from thoracic aortic dissection and underwent endovascular repair using a partial micropore stent graft at our center between December 2018 and January 2020. RESULTS: The technical success rate for 32 patients was 100 %, while no 30-day mortality was observed. In the 30 patients finished follow-ups, 30 (mean: 1 per patient) micropore stents were implanted, while the openings of 90 (mean: 3 per patient) aortic arch branches were covered by the stents. After more than 12 months follow-up, 26 (86.7 %) of the 30 patients presented with a complete thrombosis in the false lumen, and 4 (13.3 %) patients presented with a partial thrombosis in the false lumen. All 90 aortic arch branches were patent. No aortic arch branch artery stenosis or occlusion was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes obtained during 12 months of follow-up suggested that performing endovascular repair for thoracic aortic dissection patients with a partial micropore stent graft is safe and effective, maintaining the patency of aortic arch branch vessels.

Differences of mid-term outcomes in debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair between zone 0 and zone 1-2 landing.

OBJECTIVE: Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (d-TEVAR) for zone 0 landing (Z0-TEVAR) remained challenging in aortic arch aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes between Z0-TEVAR and Z1/2-TEVAR to assess the appropriateness of Z0-TEVAR as the first-line therapy for aortic arch aneurysms in high-risk patients. METHODS: Medical records of 200 patients who underwent d-TEVAR from 2007 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 40 patients who underwent Z0-TEVAR (70% males; the median age of 82 years) and 160 Z1/2-TEVAR (78% males; the median age of 77 years) were compared. In each group, 39 patients were matched using propensity scores (PS) to adjust for differences in patient backgrounds. RESULTS: Freedom from all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), aorta-related mortality (p < 0.001), and stroke (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Z0-TEVAR than in Z1/2-TEVAR. Freedom from reintervention was similar between the two groups (p = 0.326). Type A dissection post-TEVAR was observed in 3 (7.5%) of Z0-TEVAR, but none in Z1/2-TEVAR (p = 0.006). Pneumonia was also more frequent in Z0-TEVAR (n = 8, 30%) than Z1/2-TEVAR (n = 4, 2.5%) (p < 0.001). PS matching also yielded worse outcomes (all-cause mortality, p = 0.017; aorta-related mortality, p = 0.046; and stroke, p = 0.027) in Z0-TEVAR than Z1/2-TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher mid-term mortality and stroke rates after Z0-TEVAR were confirmed by PS matching. Z0-TEVAR would be an alternative for high-risk patients with arch aneurysms requiring zone 0 landing but not a reliable method.

The Thoraflex hybrid approach using a zone 0 proximal landing site for first-stage elective treatment of a thoracoabdominal aneurysm.

A 67-year-old woman was referred to the cardiothoracic outpatient clinic with a long-standing asymptomatic type 2 thoracoabdominal aneurysm. Her CT aorta showed extensive disease in the distal arch with no safe landing zone for total endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). An acute bend preceding the descending aorta also made using a conventional elephant trunk challenging. A multi-disciplinary team decision was made to perform an aortic arch replacement using a frozen elephant trunk at zone 0. Utilizing a zone 0 approach in an elective case can result in quicker organ perfusion and successful TEVAR if necessary.

Aortic remodeling, reintervention, and survival after zone 0 arch repair with frozen elephant trunks for acute type A aortic dissection: Midterm results.

Objectives: To investigate the midterm results after zone 0 arch repair with frozen elephant trunks for acute type A aortic dissection. Methods: Between October 2014 and April 2021, 196 patients underwent zone 0 arch repair with frozen elephant trunks for acute type A aortic dissection. The true lumen area, aortic lumen area, and false lumen status were assessed at four aortic levels, the proximal and distal descending thoracic aorta (level A and level B, respectively), celiac artery branching (level C), and terminal aorta (level D). Aortic remodeling (postoperative area as a percentage of the preoperative area) was classified into 3 groups, positive (true lumen area ≥120% with aortic lumen <120% or true lumen area ≥80% with aortic lumen <80%), minimal (80% ≤ true lumen area and aortic lumen area <120%), and negative remodeling (all other changes). Results: In-hospital mortality was 13 (6.6%) patients. The overall survival rate was 85.1% at 5 years. The freedom from distal aortic reintervention was 89.9% at 5 years. The prevalence of completely thrombosed or obliterated false lumen at 2 years was 96.8% at level A, 88.4% at level B, 47.2% at level C, and 27.6% at level D. The prevalence of positive aortic remodeling at 2 years was 84.7% at level A, 75.0% at level B, 29.2% at level C, and 16.7% at level D. Conclusions: Zone 0 arch repair with frozen elephant trunks for acute type A aortic dissection can avoid invasive aortic arch resection and facilitate aortic remodeling of the descending thoracic aorta. The FET effect on aortic remodeling is limited at the aortic level below the FET stent end.

Zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair in high risk patients: A retrospective case series.

To report our experience applying endovascular stent graft repair to treat ascending aortic diseases in high-risk patients and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of this approach. Patients with comorbid conditions or older age are not suitable for open procedures but may be considered suitable for ascending endovascular repair. Eleven high-risk patients received zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair from September 2014 to May 2020. All patients were followed up until death or December 2021. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and long-term all-cause mortality as well as in-hospital and long-term aorta-related mortality. The mean follow-up duration of all patients was 35.78 months. The cohort comprised of three pathology subgroups: penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) (n =6), acute dissection (AD) (n = 3), and chronic dissecting aneurysm (CDA) (n = 2). The in-hospital all-cause mortality rates were 0%, 33.33% and 0% for PAU, AD, and CDA groups, respectively. Long-term all-cause mortality were 33.33%, 33.33%, and 50% for PAU, AD, and CDA groups, respectively. There was only one in-hospital death related to acute aortic dissection, and no long-term aorta-related deaths occurred during the study period. During the follow-up time, the majority of patients had good remodeling of ascending aorta, slow progression in cases with endoleak, and no aorta-related mortality. Ascending endovascular aortic repair appears to be a safe and feasible procedure for emergent aortic repair in carefully selected patients with prohibitive surgical risk who are not candidates for open procedures.

The impact of prophylactic ascending aorta replacement on the long-term prognosis of zone 0 hybrid arch repair.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of prophylactic zone 0 replacement with prosthetic grafts on the long-term prognosis and perioperative safety of zone 0 hybrid arch repair (HAR) when zone 0 is neither dilated nor pathologic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 115 patients whose zone 0 aorta was neither dilated nor pathologic and who underwent zone 0 HAR from January 2009 to December 2020 and divided then into two groups depending on whether zone 0 was replaced, with 46 patients in the no-replacement group and 69 patients in the replacement group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline difference, and outcomes were compared after IPTW adjustment. The primary end points were overall survival and adverse aortic events (AAEs). The secondary end points were early composite adverse events and other perioperative complications. Subgroup analysis was performed by age, diagnosis, zone 0 maximum diameter and risk stratification. RESULTS: The 5-year IPTW-adjusted overall survival rate was 84% in the no-replacement group 90% in the replacement group (P = .61). With death as a competing risk, the IPTW-adjusted cumulative incidence of AAEs at 5 and 10 years was 23% and 41% in the no-replacement group, and 14% and 25% in the replacement group, respectively (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.39; P = .23). Considering proximal complications alone, the replacement group exhibited lower 5-year (3% vs 18%) and 10-year (6% vs 36%) cumulative incidences of proximal complications (sHR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.91; P = .04) after IPTW adjustment. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that the benefits of zone 0 replacement in decreasing AAEs were observed in those aged 60 years or less (sHR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.75; P = .02) and those with type B aortic dissection (sHR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.82; P = .02). Additionally, zone 0 replacement did not increase early composite adverse event morbidity (9% vs 21%; P = .08) or early mortality (7% vs 6%; P = .87). CONCLUSIONS: Although zone 0 was neither dilated nor pathologic, prophylactic zone 0 replacement in zone 0 HAR significantly decreased the incidence of proximal complications, without impairing perioperative safety. Additionally, this strategy was associated with benefits in reducing AAEs in younger patients and patients with type B aortic dissection. Thus, prophylactic zone 0 replacement should be considered for reconstructing a stable proximal landing zone in zone 0 HAR.

Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair with Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated Stent-Grafts on Zone 0 Landing for Aortic Arch Pathologies.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft on zone 0 landing for aortic arch pathologies. METHODS: Between June 2016 and October 2019, 37 consecutive patients underwent total endovascular arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, and branch artery patency. RESULTS: During the study period, 37 patients were treated with total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft. Twenty-one (56.8%) patients were diagnosed with aortic dissections, 15 (40.5%) patients with aneurysms, and 1 (2.7%) patient required reintervention due to endoleak and sac expansion from previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysm. The proximal landing zone for all patients were in zone 0, and all branch arteries of aortic arch were reconstructed. Technical success was achieved in 34 cases (91.9%). Three (8.1%) patients had fenestrations misaligned with target arteries, and the chimney technique was applied as a complementary measure. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day stroke rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day reintervention rate was 2.7% (n=1). At a median follow-up of 20 months (range, 3-49 months), 5 (13.5%) patients died, including 2 aortic-related deaths, 1 nonaortic-related death, and 2 deaths of unknown reason. One (2.7%) patient had stroke. Four patients (10.8%) had reintervention during the follow-up, including 2 cases of left subclavian artery occlusion and 2 cases of type II endoleak. The estimated survival (±SE) at 2 years was 72.4%±9.7% (95% CI 53.4%-91.4%). The estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) at 2 years was 87.4%±5.9% (95% CI 75.84%-98.96%). CONCLUSIONS: Total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing is an alternate option for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in experienced centers.

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.

New anatomical frozen elephant trunk graft for zone 0: endovascular technology reduces invasiveness of open surgery to the max.

The first-in-man implant of a custom-made branched frozen elephant trunk graft designed for an anastomosis in aortic arch zone 0 is reported. Combining endovascular technology with open surgical techniques has allowed for simplification of the open procedure with substantial reduction in circulatory arrest time and in the extent of the surgical preparations.

Novel Brain Protection Method for Zone 0 Endovascular Aortic Repair with Selective Cerebral Perfusion.

Objective: Zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with a high incidence of cerebral infarction mostly due to the embolic shower of a plaque from the aortic arch when the stent graft brushes against the aortic wall. Thus, it is important to develop a method for protecting the brain from such embolism. We report the outcomes of Zone 0 TEVAR with a novel brain protection method using selective cerebral perfusion under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Materials and Methods: Two T-shaped grafts with ringed expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) were created using an 8-mm-ringed ePTFE anastomosed end-to-side with a 7-mm-ringed ePTFE. Carotid-carotid bypass and axillo-axillary bypass were established using these grafts. ECMO was connected to the grafts and the femoral vein. Bilateral carotid and axillary arteries were blocked, and cerebral perfusion was selectively maintained using ECMO. Total endovascular Zone 0 TEVAR was performed. The patency of brachiocephalic artery was maintained using the chimney or in situ fenestration technique. Results: Since August 2016, seven patients with aortic arch aneurysms underwent the procedure. The mortality rate was 0%. No neurological complications developed. Conclusion: This brain protection method using selective cerebral perfusion under ECMO is a safe method for Zone 0 TEVAR.

Aortic proximalization-Zone 0 versus Zone 2: A concept or true challenge?

BACKGROUND: The use of the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) device to manage complex surgical pathologies of the aorta (such as acute type A aortic dissection) has gained popularity since its introduction in the early 2000s. Though the distal anastomosis was traditionally performed at aortic Zone 3 (Z-3-FET), preference gradually shifted towards Zone 2 (Z-2-FET) in favor of improved surgical access and clinical outcomes. This review seeks to elucidate whether proximalization of arch repair to Zone 0 (Z-0-FET) would further improve postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We performed a review of available literature to evaluate the comparative efficacies of Z-2-FET versus Z-0-FET, in terms of surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Z-0-FET seems to be associated with a more accessible surgical approach, and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass, antegrade cerebral perfusion, and cardioplegia durations than Z-2-FET. Further, Z-0-FET is could potentially be associated with a lower incidence of neurological, renal, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, as well as mortality and reintervention rates than Z-2-FET. This said, Z-0-FET is itself associated with significant challenges, and efficacy in terms of postoperative true lumen integrity and false lumen thrombosis is mixed. CONCLUSION: Current literature seems to suggest that Z-0-FET procedures are more straightforward and associated with lower rates of certain adverse events, however, the majority of data reviewed is retrospective. This review, therefore, recommends prospective research into the comparative strengths and limitations of Z-0-FET and Z-2-FET to better substantiate whether proximalization of arch repair represents a concept, or a true challenge to advance surgical intervention for arch pathologies.

Use of ascending aortic access for imaging and wire rail access for endograft delivery in complex aortic arch anatomy.

In cases of complex aortic arch anatomy, it can be difficult to obtain wire access into the ascending aorta for deployment of a thoracic endograft (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR]) using a transfemoral approach. This can result from tortuosity or patulous aneurysmal areas, making platform stability difficult. We report the case of a young adult man with a large proximal left subclavian aneurysm that made zone 0 TEVAR placement very difficult with transfemoral access alone. Direct ascending aortic access through the open chest allowed for a stable through-and-through platform for endograft delivery, highlighting the efficacy of this seldom-needed technique during debranching TEVAR procedures.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed. RESULTS: Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required. CONCLUSION: Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.