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.

Technical Aspects of Exclusive Transfemoral Route for Total Endovascular Arch Repair: A Custom-Made Device With Only Upward-Facing Inner Branches for Aortic Arch Treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to demonstrate a new arch endograft configuration to allow total endovascular aortic arch repair exclusive from transfemoral approach. TECHNIQUE: The custom-made multi-branched arch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) features 3 inner branches (IBs) for supra-aortic vessels incorporation and complete endovascular arch repair. Traditionally, the innominate and left carotid branches are anterograde IBs, requiring upper access for incorporation of these vessels, and the left subclavian branch is an upward-facing IB that can be incorporated from transfemoral access. We report a novel device configuration with only upward-facing IBs, allowing exclusive transfemoral route for total endovascular arch repair. Technical aspects, implantation technique, and limitations are described thoroughly. CONCLUSION: Herein is described an arch endograft configuration that simplifies endovascular aortic arch repair, allowing supra-aortic vessel incorporation through a transfemoral route only. This innovative design may serve as another alternative in selected patients. CLINICAL IMPACT: This innovative endograft design, with only upward-facing inner branches, simplifies the total endovascular aortic arch repair by allowing for a exclusively transfemoral approach. This may reduce procedural complexity and minimizes risks associated with multiple access points. It provides another alternative, particularly beneficial for selected high-risk patients for open repair, potentially expanding the applicability of endovascular treatments for aortic arch pathologies.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR. CONCLUSION: Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients. CLINICAL IMPACT: This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

The Development of Totally Percutaneous Aortic Arch Repair With Inner-Branch Endografts: Experience From 2 Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to present the experience of 2 centers undertaking total percutaneous aortic arch-branched graft endovascular repair using combination of femoral and axillary routes. The report summarizes the procedural steps, outcomes achieved, and the benefits of this approach, which eliminates the need for direct open surgical exposure of the carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries, thereby reducing the unnecessary associated surgical risks. METHODS: Retrospectively collected data of 18 consecutive patients (15M:3F) undergoing aortic arch endovascular repair using a branched device between February 2021 and June 2022 at 2 aortic units. Six patients were treated for a residual aortic arch aneurysm following previous type A dissection with size range of (58-67 mm in diameter), 10 were treated for saccular or fusiform degenerative atheromatous aneurysm with size range of (51.5-80 mm in diameter), and 2 were treated for penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) with size range of (50-55 mm). Technical success was defined as completion of the procedure and satisfactory placement of the bridging stent grafts (BSGs) in the supra-aortic vessels percutaneously including the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) without the need for carotid, subclavian, or axillary cut down. The primary technical success was examined as primary outcome well as any other related complications and reinterventions as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The primary technical success with our alternative approach was achieved in all 18 cases. There was one access site complication (groin haematoma), which was managed conservatively. There was no incidence of death, stroke, or cases of paraplegia. No other immediate complications were noted. Postoperative imaging confirmed supra-aortic branch patency, with satisfactory position of the BSGs and immediate aneurysm exclusion except in 4 patients who had type 1C endoleak (Innominate: 2, LSA 2) detected on the first postoperative scan. Three of them were treated with relining/extension, and 1 spontaneously resolved after 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Total percutaneous aortic arch repair with antegrade and retrograde inner-branch endografts can be performed with promising early results. Dedicated steerable sheaths and appropriate BSG would optimize the percutaneous approach for aortic arch endovascular repairs. CLINICAL IMPACT: This article provides an alternative and innovative approach to improve the minimally invasive techniques in the endovascular treatment of the aortic arch conditions.

Early Results and Feasibility of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Company-Manufactured and Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts.

OBJECTIVE: Total endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms is feasible in select patients. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and early outcomes of total endovascular arch repair using 3-vessel company-manufactured devices (CMDs) and physician-modified endo grafts (PMEGs). METHODS: Patients unfit for open repair who underwent 3-vessel total arch repair at a single institution from 2018 to 2021 were reviewed. Patients received either 3-vessel inner-branch CMDs or PMEGs. Three-vessel designs were used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches in both devices were accessed via right brachial or carotid approach. The left carotid was accessed via carotid cutdown or femoral approach. The left subclavian artery was accessed via transfemoral approach. The study endpoints included procedural technical success, patient survival, neurologic events, cardiac complications, reinterventions, and target artery patency. RESULTS: Nine patients underwent treatment. Four patients were treated with PMEGs, and 5 with CMDs. Procedural technical success was 100%. There were no in-hospital deaths. There were no strokes, transient ischemic attacks, myocardial infarction, or spinal ischemia in the perioperative period. Major adverse events occurred in 3 patients (33%). Two (22%) vascular access complications and one (11%) acute kidney injury occurred. One (11%) patient required early reintervention for an access complication. The median follow-up period was 358 days (CMD, 392 days; PMEG, 198 days). There was a late reintervention and conversion to open repair at 142 days of follow-up in a patient with a PMEG that developed an aortic infection, leading to death on postoperative day 239. The mean length of stay was 7±4 days. Computed tomography imaging obtained during the immediate postoperative period revealed endoleak in 6 (66%) patients, out of which 5 resolved spontaneously and 1 required reintervention via left subclavian artery stenting. Target artery patency was 100% at the end of the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Three-vessel total endovascular aortic arch repair using a CMD or PMEG is feasible with optimal early outcomes. Physician-modified stent-grafts are a feasible option for patients who do not meet anatomic criteria for CMDs. CLINICAL IMPACT: Management of aortic arch disease remains a significant challenge in vascular surgery. This study showcases the feasibility and safety of using a total endovascular approach to repair the aortic arch, which could potentially reduce morbidity and mortality associated with traditional surgical approaches. The results suggest that this minimally invasive technique could be an alternative treatment option for high-risk patients and could significantly improve outcomes for those requiring aortic arch repair. Overall, this study represents a promising development in the field of endovascular surgery and highlights the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Inferior Vena Cava-Balloon Occlusion and Its Effect on the Myocardium During Endograft Deployment in the Arch.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of cava balloon occlusion on the myocardium during endovascular repair of thoracic aortic pathologies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study of 21 patients who underwent endovascular repair of aortic arch and thoracic aorta in a single tertiary referral center with use of inferior vena cava (IVC) balloon occlusion as a method of intraoperative cardiac output reduction. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative measurements of heart rate, blood pressure, stroke volume index, and central venous oxygen saturation were noted. High-sensitive serum troponin levels were also analyzed according to a pre-established protocol. Endpoints were cardiac troponin T levels after induced hypotension and left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were procedure technical success and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (18 male, median age 69, (62-75, IQR)) enrolled in the study between May 2015 and January 2019. Indication for endovascular treatment was an aortic arch aneurysm (n=10), descending aortic aneurysm (n=8), lusorian artery aneurysm (n=2), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n=1). Median time to reach half mean arterial pressure was 60 seconds while median recovery time of blood pressure was 135 seconds. In 5 (24%) cases, we observed a > 50% change of Troponin T on the reference level. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Two (10%) patients developed new and persistent atrial fibrillation and 1 (5%) suffered a peri-operative ST-elevation myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: The use of IVC balloon occlusion is a feasible technique for cardiac output reduction during endovascular repair of thoracic aortic pathologies. One fourth of the patients develop significant troponin leakage but the significance of the finding needs further studies.

In Vivo Quantification of Cardiac-Pulsatility-Induced Motion Before and After Double-Branched Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

The Relay®Branch stent-graft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) offers a custom-made endovascular solution for complex aortic arch pathologies. In this technical note, a modified electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT)-based algorithm was applied to quantify cardiac-pulsatility-induced changes of the aortic arch geometry and motion before and after double-branched endovascular repair (bTEVAR) of an aortic arch aneurysm. This software algorithm has the potential to provide novel and clinically relevant insights in the influence of bTEVAR on aortic anatomy, arterial compliance, and stent-graft dynamics.

Three-Dimensional Printing to Guide Fenestrated/Branched TEVAR in Triple Aortic Arch Branch Reconstruction With a Curative Effect Analysis.

PURPOSE: To summarize experience with and the efficacy of fenestrated/branched thoracic endovascular repair (F/B-TEVAR) using physician-modified stent-grafts (PMSGs) under 3D printing guidance in triple aortic arch branch reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2018 to April 2022, 14 cases of aortic arch aneurysms and 30 cases of aortic arch dissection (22 acute aortic arch dissection and 8 long-term aortic arch dissection)were treated by F/B-TEVAR in our department, including 34 males and 10 females, with an average age of 59.84 ± 11.72 years. Three aortic arch branches were affected in all patients. A 3D-printed model was made according to computed tomography angiography images and used to guide the fabrication of PMSGs. All patients were followed up. RESULTS: A total of 132 branches were successfully reconstructed with no case of conversion to open surgery. The average operation time was 4.97 ± 1.40 hours, including a mean 44.05 ± 7.72 minutes for stent-graft customization, the mean postoperative hospitalization duration was 9.91 ± 4.47 days, the average intraoperative blood loss was 480.91 mL (100-2810 mL), and the mean postoperative intensive care unit monitoring duration was 1.02 days (0-5 days). No deaths occurred within 30 days of surgery. Postoperative neurological complications occurred in 1 case (2.3%), and retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1 case (2.3%). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional surgery, triple aortic arch branch reconstruction under the guidance of 3D printing is a minimally invasive treatment method with the advantages of accurate positioning, rapid postoperative recovery, few complications, and reliable short- to mid-term effects. CLINICAL IMPACT: At present the PMSG usually depend on imaging data and software calculation. With the guidance of 3D printing technology, image data could be transformed into 3D model, which has improved the accuracy of the positioning of the fenestrations. The diameter reduction technique and the internal mini cuff technique have made a complement to the slimed-down fenestration selection process and the low rate of endoleak. As reproducible study, our results may provide reference for TEVAR in different cases.

Initial Outcomes of Physician-Modified Inner Branched Endovascular Repair in High-Surgical-Risk Patients.

PURPOSE: To report the initial outcomes of physician-modified inner branched endovascular repair (PMiBEVAR) for pararenal aneurysms (PRAs), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs), and aortic arch aneurysms in high-surgical-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 patients (6 men; median age, 83.0 years) treated using PMiBEVAR were enrolled in this retrospective, single-center study. All patients were at high surgical risk because of severe comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score≥3 or emergency repair). End points were defined as technical success per patient and per vessel (successful deployment), clinical success (no endoleaks postoperatively), in-hospital death, and major adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3 PRAs, 4 TAAAs, and 3 aortic arch aneurysms with 12 renal-mesenteric arteries and 3 left subclavian arteries incorporated by inner branches. The technical success rate was 90.0% (9/10) per patient and 93.3% (14/15) per vessel. The clinical success rate was 90% (9/10). There were 2 in-hospital deaths, unrelated to aneurysms. Paraplegia and shower emboli occurred separately in 2 patients. Three patients experienced prolonged ventilation for 3 days after surgery. Aneurysm sac shrinkage occurred in 4 patients, and aneurysm size stabilized in 1 patient during follow-up, more than 6 months later. None of the patients required intervention. CONCLUSION: PMiBEVAR is a feasible approach for treating complex aneurysms in high-surgical-risk patients. This technology may complement the existing technology in terms of improved anatomical adaptability, no time delay and practicability in many countries. However, long-term durability remains undetermined. Further large-scale and long-term studies are needed. CLINICAL IMPACT: This is the first clinical study to investigate outcomes of physician-modified inner branched endovascular repair (PMiBEVAR). PMiBEVAR for treating pararenal aneurysm, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, or aortic arch aneurysm is a feasible procedure. This technology is likely to complement existing technology in terms of improved anatomical adaptability (compared to off-the-shelf devices), no time delay (compared to custom-made devices), and the potential to be performed in many countries. On the other hand, surgery time varied greatly depending on the case, suggesting a learning curve and the need for technological innovation to perform more consistent surgeries.

Mechanical aortic valve may no longer be a contraindication to inner branch aortic arch endografts.

OBJECTIVES: The presence of a mechanical aortic valve has been a contraindication to the use of an arch branch aortic endograft due to the risk of damaging the valve, resulting in acute aortic regurgitation, or a trapped endograft. METHODS: We present a 67-year-old woman, with a background of Marfan's syndrome and a previous Bentall's procedure, who presented with a symptomatic enlarging aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic aneurysm, with a type 1A endoleak. RESULTS: Using an inner branch arch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana), the nose cone of the delivery system was passed laterally through the semi-circular aperture of the mechanical aortic valve to facilitate deployment just distal to the coronary buttons. CONCLUSIONS: With advancement of endovascular technology, techniques and experience, endovascular aortic arch repair in the presence of a mechanical aortic valve is feasible.

Giant early post-surgical aneurysm of the aortic arch in an infant.

Ten-day-old neonate who underwent correction of interrupted aortic arch developed a giant early post-surgical aneurysm. To our knowledge, this unusual complication has been only reported as a late complication.

Homemade fenestrated physician-modified stent grafts for arch aortic degenerative aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the early- and medium-term outcomes of single- and double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total endovascular degenerative aortic arch aneurysm repair. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 52 patients from August 2013 through January 2021 who had undergone homemade fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for degenerative aortic aneurysms. In all cases, a distal smaller fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA) was fashioned and was the only one stented. For a double-fenestrated endograft, a proximal larger fenestration that incorporated both the brachiocephalic trunk and the left common carotid artery was added. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients with degenerative aortic arch aneurysms were treated. Of the 52 patients, 36 were men, the mean age was 75 ± 8 years, 31% had received a single LSA fenestration, and 69% had undergone double-fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Of the 52 procedures, 5 (10%) were emergent procedures. The technical success was 100%. The median time required for stent graft modification was 22 ± 6 minutes. The 30-day mortality was 2% (n = 1). Five patients (10%) had experienced a cerebrovascular event, including two transient ischemic attacks, one minor stroke with full neurologic recovery, and two with sequelae. Two patients (4%) had experienced perioperative retrograde dissection during follow-up. No patient had developed a type I, II, or III endoleak from the LSA. No patient had required reintervention. All supra-aortic trunks were patent. During a mean follow-up of 18 ± 11 months, no patient had required conversion to open surgical repair, aortic rupture, or paraplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Single or double PMEG is a safe and suitable tool for the treatment of high morbidity pathology such as aortic arch degenerative aneurysm repair. In addition, this device can be used in patients requiring elective or emergency repair.

Total Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair With a Triple Inner-Branch Device (the Innominate Approach).

PURPOSE: To describe a completely percutaneous approach for endovascular arch repair (arch-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair [PEVAR]) with a triple inner-branch device: the "Innominate Approach." TECHNIQUE: After right axillary and single common femoral arteries percutaneous access, the arch stent-graft is introduced and deployed transfemorally using fusion overlay. The brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the corresponding inner branch are cannulated from the axillary access. Through this access, a steerable-sheath guides antegrade cannulation of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) through its inner branch. Optionally, a wire preloaded through the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the LCCA branch, is snared from the BCA access providing LCCA through and through access. A 10 Fr sheath is then positioned from the BCA branch in the LCCA branch and a second, trans-axillary wire through the same sheath is used to catheterize the LCCA. The LCCA is then stented antegradely (regardless of approach). Finally, the BCA and LSA are bridged to complete the procedure. An additional novelty described is the use of VBX (W. L. Gore) as a bridging stent for the BCA. CONCLUSION: Arch-PEVAR is feasible with the use of adjuncts that are well-known for physicians performing complex endovascular repair. The "Innominate Approach" avoids access and exposure of the carotid arteries. CLINICAL IMPACT: We aim to describe the feasibility of the axillary artery as the main route to perform the brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the left common carotid artery bridging stenting in case of arch endovascular repair (arch-EVAR) with a triple Inner-Branch Device. According to the present "Innominate Approach", percutaneous arch-EVAR is feasible using either a steerable sheath or a preloaded through-&-through wire. The Innominate approach, including a VBX bridging stent for the BCA, avoids carotid access and exposure, reduces the number of vascular accesses, and allows the downsizing of the trans-axillary devices.

Management of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch: Similarities and Differences Among Cardiovascular Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases have an increasing interest among cardiovascular specialists regarding diagnosis and management. Innovations in endovascular surgery and evolution of open surgery have extended the indications for treatment in patients previously considered unfit for surgery. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to present and analyze current cardiovascular guidelines for overlap and differences in their recommendations regarding ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases and the assessment of evidence. METHODS: The English medical literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 2009 to December 2020. Recommendations on selected topics were analyzed, including issues from definitions and diagnosis (imaging and biomarkers) and indications for treatment to management, including surgical techniques, of the most important ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases. RESULTS: The initial search identified 2414 articles. After exclusion of duplicate or inappropriate articles, the final analysis included 5 articles from multidisciplinary, cardiovascular societies published between 2010 and 2019. The definition of non-A-non-B aortic dissection is lacking from most of the guidelines. There is a disagreement regarding the class of recommendation and level of evidence for the diameter of ascending aorta as an indication. The indication for treatment of aortic disease may be individualized in specific cases while the growth rate may also affect the decision making. The role of endovascular techniques has not been established in current guidelines except by 1 society. Supportive evidence level in the management of aortic arch diseases remains limited. CONCLUSION: In current recommendations of cardiovascular societies, the ascending aorta and aortic arch remain a domain of open surgery despite the introduction of endovascular techniques. Recommendations of the included societies are mostly based on expert opinion, and the role of endovascular techniques has been highlighted only from 1 society. The chronological heterogeneity apparent among guidelines and the inconsistency in evidence level should be also acknowledged. More data are needed to develop more solid recommendations for the ascending aorta and aortic arch diseases.

Palliative Repair of a Mycotic Aortic Arch Pseudoaneurysm With a Physician-Modified Endograft and In-Situ Laser Fenestration.

PURPOSE: Open aortic arch repair is the gold standard in the treatment of diseases involving the ascending aorta and aortic arch. However, due to the invasive nature of open repair, high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities are often not suitable candidates for open surgical repair. While endovascular aortic repair is far less invasive, endovascular arch repair remains a difficult challenge due to the aortic arch diameter and angulation, origin of the supra-aortic arteries, and the lack of commercially available thoracic branched devices in the United States. CASE REPORT: Here we describe palliation of a mycotic aortic arch pseudoaneurysm with a physician-modified endograft and in situ laser fenestration. Our technique allowed for rapid repair of the pseudoaneurysm with minimal physiologic disturbances and no perioperative complications in a high-risk surgical patient. CONCLUSION: Physician-modified endografts are feasible and may be an effective treatment option for palliation of acute aortic arch lesions in high-risk surgical patients.

The End of Wire Wrapping: A Technique to Avoid Intertwining Preloaded Guidewires for Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to present a new technique for endovascular aortic arch repair for 1, 2, or 3 vessels using preloaded wires and precannulated target vessels without wire wrapping. TECHNIQUE: This technique uses a prototype catheter with 2 parallel lumens to position through-and-through guidewires in the supra-aortic branches and an extra-stiff guidewire in the ascending aorta with no wrapping. This allows the introduction and advancement of the device with the already precannulated target vessels. The endograft is advanced to the aortic arch without twisting or wrapping. Covered stents are deployed to align the graft and target vessels. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, a technique that avoids wire wrapping has not been previously described. This technique allows safer and faster endovascular arch procedures and opens up new possibilities by enabling multi-vessel endovascular aortic arch repair with all precannulated target vessels.

One-Stage Hybrid Total Aortic Arch and Descending Thoracic Aortic Repair is a Safe and Secure Procedure With Less Postoperative Complications for Extended Aortic Arch Aneurysms.

PURPOSE: Hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) has been implemented for extended aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic disease since 2012 in our institution. This study aimed to estimate the early and mid-term efficacy and safety of HAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2007 to 2019, 56 patients underwent HAR for extended aortic arch disease, and 75 patients underwent total arch replacement (TAR) for arch-limited disease. HAR comprises 3 procedures: replacement of the aorta, reconstruction of all arch vessels, and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from zone 0 to the descending aorta after cardiopulmonary bypass is off in 1 stage. The type II-1 HAR procedure, in which the ascending aorta and aortic arch distal to the brachiocephalic artery are replaced, was the most frequently selected procedure (40/56 patients). The outcomes of the type II-1 HAR procedure were compared with those of TAR using the Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 36 months. In HAR, the operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, and postoperative permanent neurological deficits were not observed. The paraplegia rate was 1.8%. TEVAR-related complications occurred in 3 patients. Among the patients with non-ruptured atherosclerotic aortic arch aneurysm (31 type II-1 HAR patients and 36 TAR patients, the postoperative respiratory support time in those who underwent type II-1 HAR was quicker than in those who underwent TAR (p<0.01). The rate of 6 year freedom from all-cause death in type II-1 HAR (83.1%) was numerically higher than that in TAR (74.7%), and the rate of 6 year freedom from surgery-related complications in type II-1 HAR (90.3%) was numerically lower than that in TAR (96.9%) due to the occurrence of TEVAR-related complications, and the rate of 6 year freedom from reintervention to the descending thoracic aorta in type II-1 HAR (100%) seemed to be better than that in TAR (83.7%). However, Cox regression analysis did not reveal any statistical difference between the 2 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: HAR, especially the type II-1 procedure, can treat extended aortic arch disease with acceptable survival outcomes. The development of TEVAR technology will further improve the outcomes of HAR in the future.

Physician-Modified Endograft With Triple Inner Branches for Extensive Aortic Arch Aneurysm.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this case report was to demonstrate the feasibility of a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) with 3 inner branches for extensive aortic arch aneurysm. CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old male presented with extensive aortic arch aneurysm involving all supra-aortic vessels. An Ankura thoracic stent graft was modified with 3 inner branches fashioned of Viabahn endoprostheses. The procedure was technically successful, and the patient was discharged with no complications. CONCLUSION: This back-table modification of the off-the-shelf endograft is an especially attractive option for complex arch pathologies with urgency and deemed too high risk for reopen surgery.

A System for Accurate Deployment of Unconstrained Triple-Fenestrated Aortic Arch Endografts.

PURPOSE: To achieve accurate rotational orientation and the axial position of unconstrained triple-fenestrated physician-modified endografts upon deployment in the aortic arch during total arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TA-TEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a detailed study of reconstructed computerized tomography angiography images of patients' arch anatomy, customized, sealable fenestrations with radio-opaque margins are created onsite on Valiant Captivia (Medtronic) endografts, transposing the arch branch ostial anatomic interrelationship onto the endograft precisely. Radio-opaque figure-of-8 markers, indicating the 12 o'clock (superior) position, are attached to the endograft on the surface and brought up to the surface under the endograft cover during resheathing. Resheathing without any twist in the endograft is achieved by lining up the welds in each endograft stent segment in a straight line. The fluoroscopic working view for arch endograft delivery and deployment is the left anterior oblique view that is orthogonal to the plane of the arch, which, in turn, is the right anterior oblique view in which parts of a stiff indwelling guidewire in the ascending and descending aorta precisely overlap. During introduction in the working view, the endograft delivery system is rotated in the descending thoracic aorta so that the 12 o'clock figure-of-8 markers are viewed on the edge and situated at the outer aortic curvature; continued advancement into the arch without any further rotation will ensure superior orientation of the figure-of-8 markers and, consequently, correct endograft rotational orientation. Proper axial endograft positioning requires locating the left common carotid artery (LCCA) fenestration just proximal to a taut externalized LCCA-femoral guidewire loop marking the posterior limit of the LCCA ostium. After endograft deployment during rapid cardiac pacing, the target arch branches are cannulated through their respective fenestrations using hydrophilic 0.035-inch guidewires that are externalized via distal sheaths to create femoral-arch branch (through-and-through) loops over which covered fenestrated stents are introduced and deployed. RESULTS: This technique was used successfully in 31 consecutive patients undergoing TA-TEVAR; systemic blood pressure was obtained in all arch branches immediately after endograft deployment, indicating adequate blood flow. All arch branches were successfully cannulated and stented. CONCLUSION: This system enables accurate deployment of unconstrained triple-fenestrated arch endografts simply and reliably during TA-TEVAR.

3D parametric surface planar topological guide plate to create a PMSG for the emergency endovascular repair of an aortic arch aneurysm.

A 69-year-old male patient was admitted by 10 h severe chest pain. Computed tomography angiography showed a 7.3 cm aneurysm of the aortic arch. We used a three-dimensional parametric surface planar topological guide plate to prepare a guide plate in 40 min. The plate was used to localize the opening of the aortic arch branches on table to create a physician-modified stent graft (PMSG). The aneurysm was successfully repaired by the triple inner branched PMSG, with no endoleak and all the branched arteries patency in follow-up. This technique could not only make accurate fenestration but also meet the need for emergency surgery.