Dataset Information

In Situ Laser Fenestration Is a Feasible Method for Revascularization of Aortic Arch During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Qin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5532990 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Aortic 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.All 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.Twenty-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.TEVAR 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.

Project description:BackgroundIschemic stroke is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This risk may be higher in more proximal aneurysms that require arch manipulation. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe 30-day stroke and death rates in patients undergoing TEVAR, (2) compare stroke rates in patients undergoing TEVAR for arch versus descending aneurysm pathology, and (3) identify predictive factors associated with stroke after TEVAR.MethodsThe Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried (2015-2021) for TEVAR procedures performed for degenerative aneurysms. Our primary outcomes were any stroke or death at 30 days. Patient-, procedure-, and hospital-level predictors of stroke were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression.ResultsAmong 3,072 patients with degenerative aneurysms (197 [6.4%] arch versus 2,875 [93.6%] descending) treated with elective TEVAR, the median age was 73 years (interquartile range 67-79) and 54.8% were male. Within the arch aneurysm group, there were 27.4% zone 0, 22.8% zone 1, and 49.8% zone 2 interventions. Overall 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% and 3.8%. The distribution of stroke events was bilateral (52.9%), left carotid (20.7%), left vertebrobasilar (11.5%), right carotid (9.2%), and right vertebrobasilar (5.7%). Although mortality was similar between groups, the rate of ischemic stroke was higher for patients undergoing TEVAR for arch aneurysm versus descending aneurysms (7.1% arch versus 2.9% descending, P = 0.001). Factors that were associated with ischemic stroke after TEVAR included age (>79 years, relative risk [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.98 vs. <79 years), dependent functional status (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.78), procedural time (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), and endovascular intervention for supra-aortic trunk revascularization (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.06-6.70 versus no intervention).ConclusionsIschemic stroke risk after TEVAR was increased for arch aneurysms compared to descending aneurysms. More proximal zone coverage and endovascular interventions on the supra-aortic trunks were associated with increasing risk for stroke. Adequate preparation for stroke prevention is necessary prior to TEVAR with supra-aortic trunk revascularization.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsThis study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.ResultsA total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Dataset Information

In Situ Laser Fenestration Is a Feasible Method for Revascularization of Aortic Arch During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets