Long-term outcomes of chimney endovascular aneurysm repair procedure for complex abdominal aortic pathologies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to update our earlier experience and to evaluate long-term outcomes of chimney endovascular aortic repair performed for selected cases with complex abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted on 51 consecutive patients who underwent chimney endovascular aortic repair procedure, deemed unfit for open surgical repair and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, from October 2009 to November 2019. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess the estimated overall survival, freedom from aneurysm related mortality, freedom from reintervention, freedom from target vessel instability, and freedom from type Ia endoleaks. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (mean age, 77.1 ± 7.5 years) with a mean preoperative maximum aneurysm diameter of 74.2 ± 20.1 mm were included. Mean follow-up duration was 48.6 months (range, 0-136 months). Estimated overall survival at 5 and 7 years was 36.3% ± 7.1% and 18.3% ± 6.0%, respectively. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 88.6% ± 4.9% at 7 years. Estimated freedom from type Ia endoleaks at 7 years was 91.8% ± 3.9%. A total of 21 late reinterventions were performed in 17 patients (33%). Most of them were performed to treat type II endoleaks with sac growth (47.6%; n = 10) and type Ib endoleak (23.8%; n = 5). Estimated freedom from reintervention at 7 years was 56.3% ± 7.9%. Estimated freedom from target vessel instability at 7 years was 91.5% ± 4.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-year results of chimney endovascular aortic repair procedures performed in our center confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of this technique in a series of high-risk patients with large aneurysms. The present study has, to the best of our knowledge, the longest follow-up for patients treated with chimney endovascular aortic repair, and it provides data to the scarce literature on the long-term outcomes of this procedure, showing acceptable to good long-term results.

Editor's Choice - Radiation Dose Reduction During Contralateral Limb Cannulation Using Fiber Optic RealShape Technology in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of endovascular procedures has resulted in an increasing radiation burden, particularly for the treatment team. Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology uses laser light instead of fluoroscopy to visualise the endovascular guidewire and catheters. These devices can be used during the navigational part of procedures, such as cannulation of the contralateral limb (CL) in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to describe the effect of using FORS on radiation dose during CL cannulation in standard EVAR. METHODS: This was a non-randomised, retrospective comparison study of prospectively collected, single centre data from FORS guided EVAR compared with a conventional fluoroscopy only guided EVAR cohort. A total of 27 FORS guided cases were matched 1:1 based on sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) with 27 regular (fluoroscopy only) EVARs. This study primarily focused on (1) technical success of FORS and (2) navigation time and radiation dose (cumulative air kerma [CAK], air kerma area product [KAP], and fluoroscopy time [FT]) during cannulation of the CL. In addition, overall procedure time and radiation dose of the complete EVAR procedure were studied. RESULTS: In 22 (81%) of the 27 FORS guided cases the CL was successfully cannulated using FORS. All radiation dose parameters were significantly lower in the FORS group (CAK, p < .001; KAP, p = .009; and FT, p < .001) for an equal navigation time (p = .95). No significant differences were found when comparing outcomes of the complete procedure. CONCLUSION: Use of FORS technology significantly reduces radiation doses during cannulation of the CL in standard EVAR.

Results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system. METHODS: Forty-three patients with thoracic aortic pathology involving the aortic arch have been treated with the Relay Branch system (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) in 10 centres. We assessed in-hospital mortality, neurological injury, treatment success according to current reporting standards and the need for secondary interventions. In addition, outcome was analysed according to the underlying pathology: non-dissective disease versus residual aortic dissection (RAD) (defined as remaining dissection after previous type A repair, chronic type B aortic dissections). RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 9% (0% in patients with RAD). Disabling stroke occurred in 7% (0% in patients with RAD); non-disabling stroke occurred in 19% (7% in patients with RAD). Early type IA and B endoleak formation occurred in 4%. Median follow-up was 16 ± 18 months. During the follow-up period, 23% of the patients died. Aortic-related deaths were low (3% in patients with RAD). CONCLUSIONS: The results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system in a selected patient population with regard to technical success are good. In-hospital mortality is acceptable, the number of disabling strokes is low and technical success is high. Non-disabling stroke is a major concern, and every effort has to be taken to reduce this to a minimum. The best outcome is seen in patients with underlying RAD. Finally, more data are needed.

First in Human Clinical Feasibility Study of Endovascular Navigation with Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) Technology.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular procedures are conventionally conducted using two dimensional fluoroscopy. A new technology platform, Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS), has recently been introduced allowing real time, three dimensional visualisation of endovascular devices using fiberoptic technology. It functions as an add on to conventional fluoroscopy and may facilitate endovascular procedures. This first in human study assessed the feasibility of FORS in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective cohort feasibility study was performed between July and December 2018. Patients undergoing (regular or complex) endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or endovascular peripheral lesion repair (EVPLR) were recruited. FORS guidance was used exclusively during navigational tasks such as target vessel catheterisation or crossing of stenotic lesions. Three types of FORS enabled devices were available: a flexible guidewire, a Cobra-2 catheter, and a Berenstein catheter. Devices were chosen at the physician's discretion and could comprise any combination of FORS and non-FORS devices. The primary study endpoint was technical success of the navigational tasks using FORS enabled devices. Secondary study endpoints were user experience and fluoroscopy time. RESULTS: The study enrolled 22 patients: 14 EVAR and eight EVPLR patients. Owing to a technical issue during start up, the FORS system could not be used in one EVAR. The remaining 21 procedures proceeded without device or technology related complications and involved 66 navigational tasks. In 60 tasks (90.9%), technical success was achieved using at least one FORS enabled device. Users rated FORS based image guidance "better than standard guidance" in 16 of 21 and "equal to standard guidance" in five of 21 procedures. Fluoroscopy time ranged from 0.0 to 52.2 min. Several tasks were completed without or with only minimal X-ray use. CONCLUSION: Real time navigation using FORS technology is safe and feasible in abdominal and peripheral endovascular procedures. FORS has the potential to improve intra-operative image guidance. Comparative studies are needed to assess these benefits and potential radiation reduction.

Orthotopic branched endovascular aortic arch repair in patients who cannot undergo classical surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to assess the results after orthotopic branched endovascular aortic arch repair using a new double-branch endoprosthesis in patients with thoracic aortic disease affecting the aortic arch who cannot undergo classical surgery. METHODS: Within a 4-year period, 15 patients with thoracic aortic disease affecting the aortic arch were treated with the Bolton Relay plus double-branch endoprosthesis (Bolton Medical, Sunrise, FL, USA). We assessed clinical outcome, occurrence of endoleaks and the need for secondary interventions. The median logistic EuroSCORE I level was 13.6 (4.2; 22.8). RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.7%. A disabling stroke was observed in 1 (6.7%) patient, whereas non-disabling strokes occurred in 2 (13.3%) patients. Type I and III endoleaks occurred in 6.7%. The median follow-up period was 263 (1st quartile 84; 2nd quartile 564) days. Four patients died during the follow-up period. Aortic-related survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Orthotopic branched endovascular aortic arch repair using the Bolton Relay Plus double-branch endoprosthesis is a safe and feasible technique enriching the armamentarium to treat patients with thoracic aortic disease who cannot undergo classical surgery. Aortic-related survival is excellent, and the occurrence of disabling stroke and endoleaks warranting treatment is low. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this new method.