Target Vessel-Related Outcomes in Patients Managed With Branch Thoracic Aortic Endovascular Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Data on target vessel (TV)-related outcomes in patients managed with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (BTEVAR) are limited. This study aimed to present the TV-related outcomes of BTEVAR in patients managed for aortic arch pathologies at 30 days and during follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, managed between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, with custom-made aortic arch endografts (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), presenting at least one branch configuration, were eligible. Primary outcomes were technical success, TV-related patency, and reinterventions at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 255 TVs were revascularized using branches: 107 innominate arteries (IAs), 108 left common carotid arteries (LCCAs), and 40 left subclavian arteries (LSAs). Covered stents were used as bridging stents of which 10.2% were balloon expandable. Relining, using bare-metal stents (BMS), was performed in 14.0% of IAs, 35.2% of LCCAs, and 22.5% of LSAs. Technical success on case basis was 99.2%; no failure was related to unsuccessful TV bridging. At 30 day follow-up, no TV occlusion was detected. In 5.6% of cases, a type Ic or III endoleak, attributed to TVs, was recorded. Two patients needed early branch-related reintervention. The mean follow-up was 18.3±9.2 months. Freedom from TV instability was 94.6% (standard error [SE] 2.5%] at 12 months. No TV stenosis or occlusion was detected up to 48 months of follow-up. Freedom from TV-related reinterventions was 95.4% [SE 2.4%] at 12 months. CONCLUSION: TV stenosis or occlusion in BTEVAR cases is rare and TV-related reinterventions and instability events are mainly attributed to type Ic and III endoleak formation. CLINICAL IMPACT: Previous studies focusing on target vessel (TV) outcomes after endovascular aortic arch repair are limited. In this study, including 255 TVs revascularized using branched arch devices, bridging was performed with covered stents, of which 90% were self-expanding. Relining was at the discretion of the operator and was 14% for the innominate, 35.2% for the left common carotid and 22.5% for the left subclavian artery branches. No 30-day occlusion was detected. The freedom from TV instability was almost 95% at 12 months. TV instability and reintervention were mainly attributed to endoleaks type Ic and IIIc.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch.

PURPOSE: Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement. CLINICAL IMPACT: Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

Multidisciplinary aortic arch procedures within the "Aortic Team".

Introduction and aim: The European societies EACTS (European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery) and ESVS (European Society for Vascular Surgery) recommend the establishment of "Aortic Teams" from 2019. In Poland, the first such team was officially established in Specialist University Hospital no. 2 in Szczecin in 2021. Material and methods: Sixty-four patients were treated for aortic arch pathology using frozen elephant trunk (n = 3), branch custom made devices (n = 12), physician-modified endo-grafts (PMEG; n = 30) and the thoracic endovascular aortic repair "plus" technique (n = 19). Results: Among thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) plus (chimneys/periscopes, n = 7, extra-anatomical bypasses, n = 12) there was 100% technical success and 4% bad outcomes (stroke or death). Among "customized" stent grafts there were Bolton Relay (n = 8), Brail Endo-Branch (n = 1) and Castor branched stent graft (n = 3) with 91% technical success and 18% bad outcomes. In the group of PMEG there were 14 cases with one fenestration, 5 cases with two fenestrations and 11 cases with triple fenestration to all vessels of the aortic arch. In this group, technical success was achieved in 91% and poor outcome ended treatment in 11%. In total we noted a 91% technical success rate and a good treatment outcome was achieved in 89%. The cooperation of cardiac surgeons and vascular surgeons in one team brought competence benefits for both specialties. It allowed for good clinical and economic results despite new logistical complexities and fits into the currently changing perspective of cardiac surgery development worldwide. Conclusions: Implementation of the recommendation to create aortic teams within cardiac surgery departments is possible and may be cost-effective in Polish conditions.