Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair with Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated Stent-Grafts on Zone 0 Landing for Aortic Arch Pathologies.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft on zone 0 landing for aortic arch pathologies. METHODS: Between June 2016 and October 2019, 37 consecutive patients underwent total endovascular arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, and branch artery patency. RESULTS: During the study period, 37 patients were treated with total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-graft. Twenty-one (56.8%) patients were diagnosed with aortic dissections, 15 (40.5%) patients with aneurysms, and 1 (2.7%) patient required reintervention due to endoleak and sac expansion from previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysm. The proximal landing zone for all patients were in zone 0, and all branch arteries of aortic arch were reconstructed. Technical success was achieved in 34 cases (91.9%). Three (8.1%) patients had fenestrations misaligned with target arteries, and the chimney technique was applied as a complementary measure. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day stroke rate was 5.4% (n=2). Thirty-day reintervention rate was 2.7% (n=1). At a median follow-up of 20 months (range, 3-49 months), 5 (13.5%) patients died, including 2 aortic-related deaths, 1 nonaortic-related death, and 2 deaths of unknown reason. One (2.7%) patient had stroke. Four patients (10.8%) had reintervention during the follow-up, including 2 cases of left subclavian artery occlusion and 2 cases of type II endoleak. The estimated survival (±SE) at 2 years was 72.4%±9.7% (95% CI 53.4%-91.4%). The estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) at 2 years was 87.4%±5.9% (95% CI 75.84%-98.96%). CONCLUSIONS: Total endovascular aortic arch repair with surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts on zone 0 landing is an alternate option for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies in experienced centers.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing.

PURPOSE: Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment. RESULTS: All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

Aortic Arch Anatomy Pattern in Patients Treated Using Double Homemade Fenestrated Stent-Grafts for Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

Purpose: To analyze the structural variation of the aortic arch and the supra-aortic arteries and establish an average spatial configuration that would be a pattern for a "universal double fenestration" design for physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) used in total thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: Aortic arch morphology was retrospectively analyzed by reviewing the preoperative thoracic computed tomography angiography scans in 33 consecutive patients (mean age 68 years; 27 men) treated between January 2017 and March 2019 using double-fenestrated PMEGs for zone 0 TEVAR. Image analysis was completed according to a standardized technique on a vascular workstation with center lumen line reconstruction for all measurements. Variations in branching pattern of the aortic arch were classified into 8 types. Results: The arch trunk configuration was type I in 26 patients (79%), type II in 5 (15%), type III in 1, and type IV in 1. Mean aortic diameters at the level of mid ascending aorta, innominate artery (IA), left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) were 35.7±3.7, 34.2±4.5, 33.3±6.7, and 33.7±4.7 mm, respectively. Mean diameters of the trunk were 12.2±1.7, 7.5±1.4, and 8.0±0.8 mm, respectively. Mean longitudinal center to center lengths were 15.9±2.5 mm between the LSA and LCCA and 12.1±3.0 mm between the LCCA and IA. Mean clock positions using the LSA as reference were 12:50 for the IA and 12:05 for the LCCA. In 32 patients (97%) all the supra-aortic branch vessels fit perfectly inside two delimited areas defined by a proximal common square area of 30×30 mm for the IA and LCCA and a second distal 8-mm-diameter circle for the LSA. Conclusion: Variations of the aortic arch anatomy are numerous and common. A general morphological pattern is described that delimits the aortic area where these variations occur. This information can be utilized for the design of an off-the-shelf double-fenestrated stent-graft for zone 0 TEVAR.

Debranching and Endovascular Repair of a Saccular Aneurysm of the Aortic Arch with Preoperatively Devised, Fenestrated and Branched Stent Grafts (Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated and Retrograde Branched Technique) / 日本心臓血管外科学会雑誌

An 85-year-old man being treated for idiopathic interstitial pneumonia underwent chest CT 6 months prior to the current admission and was diagnosed as having an expanding saccular aneurysm of the aortic arch. Due to the patient's advanced age and the anatomical position of the aneurysm, it was difficult to perform total aortic arch replacement or hybrid arch repair with a commercially available device. After ethical approval had been obtained from the institutional review board, a commercially available stent graft (Relay Plus®) was fenestrated with a 12-mm hole. Under general anesthesia, bypass grafting was performed between the bilateral axillary arteries and the right common carotid artery with a T-shaped ring-supported e-PTFE prosthesis. The fenestrated stent graft was advanced through the left femoral artery and deployed with the device fenestration located at the bifurcation of the brachiocephalic artery. Then, a branched stent graft was deployed through the right common carotid artery in a retrograde manner between the brachiocephalic artery and the ascending aorta through the fenestration to complete the procedure. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course, with no detectable endoleak on postoperative digital subtraction angiography. The current technique, involving the use of an easy-to-make device，is effective for endovascular aneurysm repair, especially when a proximal neck needs to be created in the ascending aorta.