Endovascular repair of aortic arch disease with double inner branched thoracic stent graft: the Bolton perspective

BACKGROUND: In the light of current evidence, endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies with custom-made devices should be considered a valid alternative to decrease operative mortality and morbidity associated with open or hybrid repair. Today, two double inner branch devices are available on market. We report our single-center experience with Bolton double branch stent graft in the treatment of aortic arch disease.METHODS: Between 2013 and 2016, 15 high-risk patients with arch pathology were treated in our center with a custom-made branched device. Six of these received a Cook arch branched stent graft. Nine were treated with Bolton device. Among these, 2 with single branch model were excluded leaving a subgroup of 7 patients object of this study.RESULTS: Out of the 7 male patients (mean age 76, range 70-85) included in the study. 2 died in-hospital after stroke and retrograde dissection, respectively. No other death, major complication or secondary intervention was recorded at a mean follow-up of 24 (min-max 6-53) months. neither any aneurysmal diameter evolution nor branch related complications.CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample size, our results are in line with the early-published experiences about this technique. Endovascular repair of aortic arch disease with custom-made branched devices should always be considered to give high-risk patients a chance of repair

The use of EndoAnchors in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with challenging proximal neck: Single-centre experience

Objectives The aim of this study was to present a single-centre experience with EndoAnchors in patients who underwent endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms with challenging proximal neck, both in the prevention and treatment of endograft migration and type Ia endoleaks. Methods We retrospectively analysed 17 consecutive patients treated with EndoAnchors between June 2015 and May 2018 at our institution. EndoAnchors were applied during the initial endovascular aneurysm repair procedure (primary implant) to prevent proximal neck complications in difficult anatomies (nine patients), and in the follow-up after aneurysm exclusion (secondary implant) to correct type Ia endoleak and/or stent-graft migration (eight patients). Results Mean time for anchors implant was 23 min (range 12–41), with a mean of 5 EndoAnchors deployed per patient. Six patients in the secondary implant group required a proximal cuff due to stent-graft migration ≥10 mm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, with no complications related to deployment of the anchors. At a median follow-up of 13 months (range 4–39, interquartile range 9–20), there were no aneurysm-related deaths or aneurysm ruptures, and all patients were free from reinterventions. CT-scan surveillance showed no evidence of type Ia endoleak, anchors dislodgement or stent-graft migration, with a mean reduction of aneurysm diameter of 0.4 mm (range 0–19); there was no sac growth or aortic neck enlargement in any case. Conclusions EndoAnchors can be safely used in the prevention and treatment of type Ia endoleaks in patients with challenging aortic necks, with good results in terms of sac exclusion and diameter reduction in the mid-term follow-up

iTalian RegIstry of doUble inner branch stent graft for arch PatHology (the TRIUmPH Registry)

The objective of this study was to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair using a double inner branch stent graft (DIBSG) in patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection unfit for open surgery

Contemporary comparison of aortic arch repair by endovascular and open surgical reconstructions

Objective: This study analyzed total aortic arch reconstruction in a contemporary comparison of current open and endovascular repair.Methods: Endovascular (group 1) and open arch procedures (group 2) performed during 2007 to 2013 were entered in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. Endovascular repair (proximal landing zones 0-1), with or without a hybrid adjunct, was selected for patients with a high comorbidity profile and fit anatomy. Operations involving coverage of left subclavian artery only (zone 2 proximal landing: n = 41) and open hemiarch replacement (n = 434) were excluded. Early and midterm mortality and major complications were assessed.Results: Overall, 100 (78 men; mean age, 68 years) consecutive procedures were analyzed: 29 patients in group 2 and 71 in group 1. Seven group 1 patients were treated with branched or chimney stent graft, and 64 with partial or total debranching and straight stent graft. The 29 patients in group 2 were younger (mean age, 61.9 vs 70.3; P = .005), more frequently females (48.2% vs 11.3; P < .001) with less cardiac (6.9% vs 38.2%; P = .001), hypertensive (58.5% vs 88.4%; P =. 002), and peripheral artery (0% vs 16.2%; P = .031) disease. At 30 days, there were six deaths in group 1 and four in group 2 (8.5% vs 13.8%; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-6.66; P = .47), and four strokes in group 1 and one in group 2 (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-5.59; P = 1). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in two group 1 patients and in no group 2 patients. Three retrograde dissections (1 fatal) were detected in group 1. During a mean follow-up of 26.2 months, two type I endoleaks and three reinterventions were recorded in group 1 (all for persistent endoleak), and one reintervention was performed in group 2. According to Kaplan Meier estimates, survival at 4 years was 79.8% in group 1 and 69.8% in group 2 (P = .62), and freedom from late reintervention was 94.6% and 95.5%, respectively (P = .82).Conclusions: Despite the older age and a higher comorbidity profile in patients with challenging aortic arch disease suitable and selected for endovascular arch repair, no significant differences were detected in perioperative and 4-year outcomes compared with the younger patients undergoing open arch total repair. An endovascular approach might also be a valid alternative to open surgery in average-risk patients with aortic arch diseases requiring 0 to 1 landing zones, when morphologically feasible. However, larger concurrent comparison and longer follow-up are needed to confirm this hypothesis

Aortic arch debranching and thoracic endovascular repair

Objective: Currently, the best approach to the aortic arch remains unsupported by robust evidence. Most of the available data rely on small sample numbers, heterogeneous settings, and limited follow-up. The objective of this study was to evaluate early and midterm results of arch debranching and endovascular procedures.Methods: From 2005 through 2013, 104 consecutive patients underwent elective arch treatment with debranching and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Rates of perioperative (30-day) mortality and neurological complications, and mortality, endoleak, supra-aortic vessel patency, and arch diameter changes at 5 years were analyzed.Results: Patients' mean age was 69.8 years, and 90 were males. Twenty arches were repaired for dissection. Nineteen patients required total debranching for diseases extended to zone 0. In 59, debranching and thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedures were staged. At 30 days, death, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia occurred in six, four, and three patients, respectively. Extension to ascending aorta (zone 0 landing) was the only multivariate independent predictor for perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 9.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-59.90; P = .015), but not for stroke. Four retrograde dissections, two fatal, occurred during the perioperative period. At 1, 3, and 5 years, Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 89.0%, 82.8%, and 70.9%, and freedom from persistent endoleak rates were 96.1%, 92.5%, and 88.3%, respectively. Over 5-year follow-up, 34 aneurysms shrank >= 5 mm, and four grew. Five reinterventions were required. Two supra-aortic vessel occlusions and no late aorta-related mortalities were recorded.Conclusions: Despite the perioperative mortality risk, the late outcome of endovascular arch repair presents a low rate of aorta-related deaths and reinterventions and acceptable midterm survival. Furthermore, more than one-third of the aneurysms' diameters decrease over 5 years as a measure of the long-term efficacy of treatment. Retrograde type A dissection remains a major concern in the perioperative period and careful arch approach is required. (J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 107-14.

A propensity-matched comparison for endovascular and open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes of patients treated with endovascular repair (ER) with the use of fenestrated and branched stent grafts or open surgery (OS) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) in a current series of patients. Methods All TAAA patients undergoing repair at three centers between January 2007 and December 2014 were included in a prospective database. Patients were stratified according to treatment by ER or OS, and outcomes were compared using propensity score matching (1:1). Covariates included age, sex, aneurysm extent, hypertension, coronary disease, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and renal function. The primary end points were mortality and paraplegia. Secondary end points included any spinal cord ischemia (SCI), renal and respiratory insufficiency, and a composite of these complications or death at 30 days. All-cause survival and freedom from reintervention were compared in the two groups. Results Of 341 patients, 84 (25%) underwent ER and 257 underwent OS (75%). After propensity score matching (65 patients per group), no significant differences were observed in rates of 30-day mortality (7.7% in ER and 6.2% in OS; P = 1) and paraplegia (9.2% and 10.8%; P = 1). Any SCI, renal insufficiency, and respiratory insufficiency were 12.3% and 20% (P =.34), 9.2% and 12.3% (P =.78), and 0% and 12.3% (P =.006) in ER and OS, respectively. The incidence of the composite end point was significantly lower in ER patients (18.5% in ER vs 36.0% in OS; P =.03). According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, all-cause survival at 24 months was 82.8% in ER and 84.9% in OS, with rates unchanged at 42 months (P =.9). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 91.0% vs 89.7% at 24 months and 80.0% vs 79.9% at 42 months in ER vs OS, respectively (P =.3). Conclusions A propensity score analysis in patients with TAAA undergoing repair suggests an early benefit from ER compared with OS with regard to the composite end point because of reduced 30-day respiratory complications. No significant differences were found in SCI and renal insufficiency at 30 days and in survival and reintervention rates at midterm