Patient-specific total endovascular aortic arch repair using custom fenestration of an off-the-shelf thoracic endovascular aortic repair aortic-stent.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shen Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213262 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient-specific total endovascular aortic arch repair using custom fenestration of an off-the-shelf thoracic endovascular aortic repair aortic-stent.
Shen Yu Y Yeung Kak Khee KK Lu Qing-Sheng QS
Chinese medical journal 20210420 12
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAortic arch pathologies are concerning clinical conditions with poor prognoses. The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been investigated to treat aortic arch pathologies. Nonetheless, cerebral blood flow regulation during endovascular aortic arch repair therapy remains challenging. Castor, a unique single-branched stent graft, has been proven effective for retaining the left subclavian artery (LSA). This study aimed to determine whether endovascular therapy for pathologies involving the aortic arch using Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique is promising, effective, and safe.MethodsEligible patients were enrolled between June 2018 and December 2021. All patients underwent TEVAR with an evaluated proximal landing zone for "Castor" located in Ishimaru zones 0-1. Moreover, the supra-aortic branches (SABs) were reconstructed using the Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique.ResultsHerein, 57 patients with aortic arch lesions were treated with Castor in combination with the in-vitro fenestration technique. Innominate artery and the left carotid artery (LCA) were reconstructed in 5 patients, LCA and left subclavian artery (LSA) were reconstructed in 22 patients, and the total SABs were effectively reconstructed in 30 patients (including a hybrid arch repair case). Among them (excluding a hybrid arch repair case) were in-vitro fenestration methodologies for LCA in 32 of 34 cases (2 switched to in-situ fenestration) and LSA in 51 of 56 cases (3 switched to in-situ fenestration and 2 converted to spring coil caulking); furthermore, LCA and LSA in-vitro fenestration were simultaneously successfully performed in 27 of 34 cases. There were no surgical-related neurological complications, and early mortality was estimated at 5.26%. At a mean follow-up of 3.75 months, computed tomography (CTA) images confirmed that each branch stent remained patent. There were no signs of endoleaks, migrative manifestations, or the need for secondary endovascular intervention or conversion to open surgical procedures.ConclusionCastor, in combination with in-vitro fenestration, reflects a feasible, efficient procedure for re-developing SABs.
| S-EPMC9960472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reconstruction of the aortic major branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair is complicated because of the complex anatomic configuration and variation of the aortic arch. In situ laser fenestration has shown great potential for the revascularization of aortic branches. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of in situ laser fenestration on the three branches of the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Before clinical application, the polytetrafluoroethylene and Dacron grafts were fenestrated by an 810-nm laser system ex vivo, which did not damage the bare metal portion of the endografts and created a clean fenestration while maintaining the integrity of the endografts. In vivo, 6 anesthetized female swine survived after this operation, including stent-graft implantation in the aortic arches, laser fenestration, and conduit implantation through the innominate arteries and the left carotid arteries. Based on the animal experiments, in situ laser fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair was successively performed on 24 patients (aged 33-86 years) with aortic artery diseases (dissection type A: n=4, type B: n=7, aneurysm: n=2, mural thrombus: n=7). Fenestration of 3 aortic branches was performed in 2 (8.3%) patients. Both the left carotid artery and the left subclavian artery were fenestrated in 6 (25%) patients. Only left subclavian artery fenestration surgery was done in 16 (66.7%) patients. Among these patients, 1 fenestration was abandoned secondary to an acute takeoff of the innominate artery in a type III aortic arch. The average operative time was 137±15 minutes. The technical success rate was 95.8% (n=23). No fenestration-related complications or neurological morbidity occurred after this operation. During a mean postoperative 10-month follow-up (range: 2-17 months), 1 patient died of severe pneumonia, and all the left subclavian artery and carotid artery stents were patent with no fenestration-related endoleaks upon computed tomography angiography images.In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, effective, rapid, repeatable, and safe option for the reconstruction of aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair, which might be available to revascularize the 3 branches. However, follow-up periods should be extended to evaluate the robustness of this technique.
| S-EPMC5532990 | biostudies-other
Project description:Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. We illustrate total percutaneous transfemoral approach with a 3-vessel inner branch stent-graft to treat aortic arch aneurysm. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.) Graphical abstract
| S-EPMC9685361 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11632385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) was challenging in patients with prior thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), for complicated arch pathology and anatomy. In this study, we aimed to present our experiences in TAR with FET after prior TEVAR, and compare the clinical outcomes between the aortic balloon occlusion technique and the conventional technique.MethodsBetween January 2016 and December 2019, 30 patients with prior TEVAR received TAR with FET in our hospital. The aortic balloon occlusion technique was applied in 9 patients, and the conventional technique in 21 patients. The median time interval from TEVAR to reoperation was 9 months (0-168 months). The indications for TAR with FET included retrograde type A aortic dissection, endoleak, arch false aneurysm and new ascending dissection.ResultsThe patients with the balloon occlusion technique had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time than patients with the conventional technique (151.2±31.3 vs. 183.4±46.8 min, P=0.036). The aortic-clamp time was also shorter in the balloon occlusion group, but without significant difference. The hypothermia circulatory arrest duration was significantly decreased in the balloon occlusion group (5.7±4.1 vs. 21.6±7.5 min, P<0.001). The incidence of major adverse events was 13.3%, and the mortality was 6.7%. No significant differences in the incidence of major adverse events, and the mortality were noted between the two groups. Follow-up was available in 28 survivors. The mean follow-up time was 25.4±13.0 months. No late death, aortic reoperation and complications occurred during follow-up.ConclusionsTAR with FET was a safe and effective procedure in patients with prior TEVAR, with satisfactory early and late outcomes. The aortic balloon occlusion technique could be applied in these patients, and may provide some protective effects.
| S-EPMC7330339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The gold-standard therapy for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies is conventional open surgery. Recently, total endovascular aortic arch replacement with branched stent-grafts has been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of reducing invasiveness especially in selected high-risk patients. The aim of this review is to describe the two most commonly used branched devices for endovascular arch stent-grafting: Nexus (Endospan, Herzlia, Israle) and RelayBranch (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, United Kingdom). Nexus is a CE-certified off-the-shelf, single branch, double stent graft system. It consists of two different components: a main module for the aortic arch and the descending aorta with a side-branch for the brachiocephalic artery (BCA), and a curved module for the ascending aorta that lands into the sino-tubular junction and connects to the main module through a side-facing self-protecting sleeve. Nexus may be used in urgent-emergency cases and also in patients with only one suitable supra-aortic target vessel but, on the other hand, it makes cerebral blood flow dependent on one source vessel only. The RelayBranch Thoracic Stent-Graft System is a custom made, double branched endograft with a wide window on its superior portion to accommodate two inner tunnels for BCA and left common carotid artery connection; bilateral cervical accesses are generally used to advance guidewires for catheterization of the inner tunnels in a retrograde fashion. RelayBranch can be customized on every patient's specific anatomy and provides a double blood source for the brain, but it cannot be used in urgent-emergency conditions. Therefore, in order to optimize outcomes, the choice of the most appropriate device should be made considering pros and cons of each system and patient's anatomy by an experienced aortic team. In conclusion, total endovascular aortic arch exclusion is a promising reality in selected high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC8948628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.MethodsFrom November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28-83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsAmong the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1-108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).ConclusionTEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.
| S-EPMC9386043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Distal aortic complications from acute DeBakey I dissection repair are an important source of late morbidity and mortality. We present an early experience of using a novel single-branched thoracic aortic endograft in conjunction with open techniques to treat acute DeBakey I aortic dissection.The patients in this series include five hyperacute dissections managed with a combined zone 2 partial arch replacement and placement of a zone 2 single subclavian branch endograft.There were no perioperative mortalities, strokes, or spinal cord ischemia in any patients at either stage of the procedure. At follow-up imaging, no patients had anterograde flow into the false lumen. All patients experienced false lumen thrombosis in the stented portion of the aorta.This combination of open repair techniques and the use of a novel branched endograft resulted in excellent early outcomes in this pioneer series. Further investigation of these techniques in a prospective fashion is warranted.
| S-EPMC6094018 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo review comparisons of the effectiveness of endovascular stent grafting (ESG) against open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of chronic arch or descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Routine data collection, current controlled trials, clinical trials and the NIHR portfolio were searched from January 1994 to March 2020.Eligibility criteria for selective studiesAll identified studies that compared ESG and OSR, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised and non-RCTs, comparative cohort studies and case-control studies matched on main outcomes were sought. Participants had to receive elective treatments for arch/descending (TAA). Studies were excluded where other thoracic aortic conditions (eg, rupture or dissection) were reported, unless results for patients receiving elective treatment for arch/descending TAA reported separately.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Risk of Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects. Where meta-analysis not appropriate, results were reported narratively.ResultsFive comparative cohort studies met inclusion criteria, reporting 3955 ESG and 21 197 OSR patients. Meta-analysis of unadjusted short-term (30 day) all-cause mortality favoured ESG (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03)). Heterogeneity identified between larger and smaller studies. Sensitivity analysis of four studies including only descending TAA showed no statistical significance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.18)), moderate heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of adjusted short-term all-cause mortality favoured ESG (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98)), no heterogeneity. Longer-term (beyond 30 days) survival from all-cause mortality favoured OSR in larger studies and ESG in smaller studies. Freedom from reintervention in the longer-term favoured OSR. Studies reporting short-term non-fatal complications suggest fewer events following ESG.ConclusionsThere is limited and increasingly dated evidence on the comparison of ESG and OSR for treatment of arch/descending TAA.Prospero registration numberCRD42017054565.
| S-EPMC7934769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAortic arch disease is a challenging clinical problem, especially in high-risk patients, in whom open repair can have morbidity and mortality rates of 30% to 40% and 2% to 20%, respectively. Aortic arch chimney (AAC) stents used during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are a less invasive treatment strategy than open repair, but the current literature is inconclusive about the role of this technology. The focus of this analysis is on our experience with TEVAR and AAC stents.MethodsAll TEVAR procedures performed from 2002 to 2015 were reviewed to identify those with AAC stents. Primary end points were technical success and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary end points included complications, reintervention, and endoleak. Technical success was defined as a patient's surviving the index operation with deployment of the AAC stent at the intended treatment zone with no evidence of type I or type III endoleak on initial postoperative imaging. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival.ResultsTwenty-seven patients (age, 69 ± 12 years; male, 70%) were identified, and all were described as being at prohibitive risk for open repair by the treating team. Relevant comorbidity rates were as follows: coronary artery disease/myocardial infarction, 59%; oxygen-dependent emphysema, 30%; preoperative creatinine concentration >1.8 mg/dL, 19%; and congestive heart failure, 15%. Presentations included elective (67%; n = 18), symptomatic (26%; n = 7), and ruptured (7%; n = 2). Eleven patients (41%) had prior endovascular or open arch/descending thoracic repair. Indications were degenerative aneurysm (49%), chronic residual type A dissection with aneurysm (15%), type Ia endoleak after TEVAR (11%), postsurgical pseudoaneurysm (11%), penetrating ulcer (7%), and acute type B dissection (7%). Thirty-two brachiocephalic vessels were treated: innominate (n = 7), left common carotid artery (LCCA; n = 24), and left subclavian artery (n = 1). Five patients (19%) had simultaneous innominate-LCCA chimneys. Brachiocephalic chimney stents were planned in 75% (n = 24), with the remainder placed for either LCCA or innominate artery encroachment (n = 8). Overall technical success was 89% (one intraoperative death, two persistent type Ia endoleaks in follow-up). The 30-day mortality was 4% (n = 1; intraoperative death of a patient with a ruptured arch aneurysm), and median length of stay was 6 (interquartile range, 4-9) days. Seven (26%) patients experienced a major complication (stroke, three [all with unplanned brachiocephalic chimney]; respiratory failure, three; and death, one). Nine (33%) patients underwent aorta-related reintervention, and no chimney occlusion events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up, 9 [interquartile range, 1-23] months). The 1-year and 3-year survival is estimated to be 88% ± 6% and 69% ± 9%, respectively.ConclusionsTEVAR with AAC can be performed with high technical success and acceptable morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients. Unplanned AAC placement during TEVAR results in an elevated stroke risk, which may be related to the branch vessel coverage necessitating AAC placement. Acceptable midterm survival can be anticipated, but aorta-related reintervention is not uncommon, and diligent follow-up is needed.
| S-EPMC5483394 | biostudies-literature