Midterm Outcomes of In Situ and In Vitro Fenestrated Stent-Grafts for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Pathologies

Abstract

Objective:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with fenestration technology for reconstruction of the aortic arch branches has been used in patients with aortic arch pathologies. However, the outcomes of comparisons between the 2 reconstruction methods are rarely reported. This study sought to compare and clarify the midterm outcomes between in situ and in vitro fenestrated stent-grafts for endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Methods:

Between July 2016 and December 2023, the patients with aortic arch pathologies, who underwent TEVAR with in situ and in vitro fenestration grafts, were retrospectively evaluated. Endpoints included technical success, 30-day mortality, major adverse events, secondary interventions, target vessel patency, and overall survival.

Results:

A total of 46 patients (mean age 59 years; 40 males) with aortic arch pathology were included, each group (in situ and in vitro fenestration) with 23 cases. Technical success was 97.8% (45/46), and 1 patient died from severe pulmonary infection within 30 days. Perioperative major adverse events included stroke (n=3; 6.7%), spinal cord ischemia (SCI) (n=1; 2.2%). During a median follow-up of 40.8 months (IQR=57). The estimated all-cause overall survival rate was 97.8% (standard error [SE]=2.2%) and 84.5% (SE=6.7%) at 1 month and 48 months, respectively. The survival rate in the in situ group at 48 months was 95.5% (SE=4.4%) and the in vitro group was 74.2% (SE=11.7%). Log-rank test showed no significant difference (p=0.59). The overall branch arteries’ primary patency was 97.8% (SE=2.2%) and 92.2% (SE=4.4%) in 1 month and 48 months. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups at 48 months (87.9% [SE=8.2%] for the in situ group, 95.7% [SE=4.3%] in the in vitro group [p=0.51]). The estimated freedom from secondary intervention was 100%, 90.2% (SE=4.7%), 84.0% (SE=6.1%), and 86.7% (SE=5.6%), at 1 month, 1 year, and 4 years. At 4 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated freedom from reintervention between the 2 groups (77.0% [SE=10.4%] for in situ group and 95.5% [SE=4.4%] in the in vitro group [p=0.33]).

Conclusion:

For patients with aortic arch pathologies, in situ and in vitro fenestration techniques revealed comparable early and midterm results. Further evaluation of more patients with longer follow-up is needed to substantiate these results.

Clinical Impact

Our single-center retrospective cohort study conducted a comparative analysis of in-situ fenestration versus in-vitro fenestration techniques in patients with aortic arch pathologies.Comparative studies between the two approaches are still limited. Our results provide a basis for the selection of in-situ or in-vitro fenestration techniques for endovascular repair of aortic arch lesion.

Keywords

aortic arch pathologies fenestrated stent-grafts outcome analysis physician-modified endografts thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Upchurch

Jr Escobar

Azizzadeh

, et al. Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(suppl 1):55S–83S. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.076.

Riambau

Böckler

Brunkwall

, et al. Editor’s choice—management of descending thoracic aorta diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53(1):4–52. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.06.005.

Writing Committee Members, Isselbacher

Preventza

, et al. 2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: a report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;166(5):e182–e331. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.04.023.

Spear

Haulon

Ohki

, et al. Editor’s choice—subsequent results for arch aneurysm repair with inner branched endografts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(3):380–385.

Czerny

Berger

Kondov

, et al. Results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60:662–668.

Spear

Clough

Fabre

, et al. Total endovascular treatment of aortic arch disease using an arch endograft with 3 inner branches. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(4):534–538.

Boufi

Alexandru

Tarzi

, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-situ and in-situ fenestrated stent-grafts for endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies. J Endovasc Ther. 2023;31:1041–1051. doi:10.1177/15266028231157639.

Qiu

Dai

, et al. Technical details of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with fenestrations for thoracic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch: a Chinese expert consensus. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1056229. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.1056229.

Fillinger

Greenberg

McKinsey

, et al. Reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(4):1022–331033.

10.

Lombardi

Hughes

Appoo

, et al. Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reporting standards for type B aortic dissections. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(3):723–747. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.013.

11.

Mitchell

Ishimaru

Ehrlich

, et al. First international summit on thoracic aortic endografting: roundtable on thoracic aortic dissection as an indication for endografting. J Endovasc Ther. 2002;9(suppl 2):II98-II105.

12.

Cefarelli

Murana

Surace

, et al. Elective aortic arch repair: factors influencing neurologic outcome in 791 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(6):2016–2023. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.05.009.

13.

Shiraya

Nakamura

Harada

, et al. Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for distal aortic arch aneurysm in elderly patients aged over 75 years old. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13019-020-1047-z.

14.

Soares

Melo

Amorim

, et al. Clinical outcomes of aortic arch hybrid repair in a real-world single-center experience. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(3):813–821. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.033.

15.

Konstantinou

Kölbel

Debus

, et al. Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(6):1915–1924. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.10.078.

16.

Zou

Jiao

Zhang

, et al. Early- and mid-term results of the chimney technique in the repair of aortic arch pathologies. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(11):1550–1556. doi:10.1007/s00270-016-1439-6.

17.

Zhang

Zhu

, et al. Off-the-shelf devices for treatment of thoracic aortic diseases: midterm follow-up of TEVAR with chimneys or physician-made fenestrations. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(1):132–142. doi:10.1177/1526602819890107.

18.

Wen

Zhang

Wei

, et al. Physician modified fenestrated endografts for endovascular aortic arch repair in Zone 0. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2024;68(2):190–199. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.04.008.

19.

Houérou

Nana

Pernot

, et al. Systematic review on in-situ laser fenestrated repair for the endovascular management of aortic arch pathologies. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7):2496. doi:10.3390/jcm12072496.

20.

Chastant

Belarbi

Ozdemir

, et al. Homemade fenestrated physician-modified stent grafts for arch aortic degenerative aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(5):1133–1140. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.041.

21.

Dai

, et al. Thoracic endovascular repair for aortic arch pathologies with surgeon modified fenestrated stent grafts: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;62(5):758–766. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.07.017.

22.

Chassin-Trubert

Gandet

Lounes

, et al. Double fenestrated physician-modified stent-grafts for total aortic arch repair in 50 patients. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(6):1898–1905. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.09.041.

23.

Karaolanis

Makaloski

Jungi

, et al. Endovascular repair of aortic arch zones 0 to 2 using physician-modified endografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis [published online ahead of print November 8, 2024]. J Endovasc Ther. doi:10.1177/15266028241292485.

24.

Cao

Zhang

, et al. Avoiding stroke in patients undergoing endovascular aortic arch repair: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;82(3):265–277. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.053.

25.

Kim

Lee

Chang

, et al. Use of embolicprotection devices during hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ashaggy aorta: a case report. J Chest Surg. 2021;54:513–516.

26.

Shah

Akhmerov

Gupta

, et al. Use of a dual-filter cerebral embolic protection device in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;65:54.e1–54.e4.

27.

Kanaoka

Ohki

Maeda

, et al. Multivariate analysis of risk factors of cerebral infarction in 439 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3335.

28.

Chen

Zhang

Liu

, et al. Retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e004649.

29.

Williams

Andersen

Bhattacharya

, et al. Retrograde ascending aortic dissection as an early complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(5):1255–1262.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB