-
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy : SRA Mar 2021Typical branching pattern of the left-sided aortic arch consists of the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and the left subclavian artery...
INTRODUCTION
Typical branching pattern of the left-sided aortic arch consists of the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and the left subclavian artery (LSA). Variant patterns have been associated with a broad spectrum of pathologies. The meticulous knowledge of potential aortic arch variants is of utmost importance to radiologists, interventional cardiologists, vascular and thoracic surgeons. The current systematic review collects all aortic arch branching patterns and their frequency as published by various cadaveric studies, calculates prevalence taking into account the gender and the different people background, as well. All extracted variant patterns are classified into types and subtypes according to the number of emerging (major and minor) branches (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) and to the prevalence they appear. In cases of similar prevalence, total cases were taken into consideration; otherwise the variants were classified under the title "other rare variants".
METHODS
A systematic online search of PubMed and Google books databases was performed only in cadaveric studies.
RESULTS
Twenty studies with typical (78% prevalence) and variable (22%) branching patterns were included. Types 3b, 2b, 4b, 1b and 5b had a prevalence of 81%, of 13%, of 5%, 0% and of 0%, respectively. Common variants were the brachiocephalico-carotid trunk (BCCT, 49% prevalence), the aberrant left vertebral artery (LVA, 41%) and the aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA, 8%). LVA of aortic origin was detected in 32%, the bicarotid trunk (biCT) in 5% and the bi-BCT trunk in 3%. Thyroidea ima artery, a minor branch emerging from the aortic arch was found in 2%. Coexisted variants were detected in 4% (ARSA with a distinct RCCA and LCCA origin), in 3% (BCCT with a LVA of aortic origin), in 2% (ARSA with a biCT and a vertebrosubclavian trunk).
CONCLUSION
No significant gender or ethnic differences exist among the 5 branching types. The proposed classification scheme aims to become a valuable and easy to use tool in the hands of all physicians involved in diagnosis and treatment of aortic arch pathology. It could be also useful in anatomical education, as well.
Topics: Anatomic Variation; Aorta, Thoracic; Brachiocephalic Trunk; Cadaver; Carotid Artery, Common; Female; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Sex Factors; Subclavian Artery
PubMed: 33386933
DOI: 10.1007/s00276-020-02625-1 -
Journal of Endovascular Therapy : An... Aug 2023To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.
RESULTS
Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.
CONCLUSION
Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.
CLINICAL IMPACT
This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.
PubMed: 37646117
DOI: 10.1177/15266028231197395 -
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic... Oct 2021Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients...
OBJECTIVES
Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients are concerned. Endovascular treatments for this disease are under evaluation and some reports exist. We investigated the current use of catheter-based treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch repair.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of June 2020 for studies on endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch. Data on demographic, procedure and stent graft (SG) details, access route, mortality with cause of death, complications and follow-up were extracted. A systematic review on the employed technology, procedure and outcome was performed.
RESULTS
A total number of 15 articles (13 retrospective reports and 2 case reports) were deemed eligible and were included in the study. In total, 140 patients (mean age: 56.7 years in 106 cases) received endovascular treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch (unspecific aortic dissection: 14; acute and subacute type A aortic dissection: 88; chronic type A aortic dissection: 23; type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A dissection: 15). The procedure strategy included unspecific thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (n = 8), TEVAR + supra-aortic debranching (n = 2), TEVAR + cervical bypass (n = 8), TEVAR + periscope SG (n = 12), TEVAR + chimney graft (n = 8), TEVAR + branched SG (n = 21) and TEVAR + fenestration (n = 81). Procedural success rate was 95.6% for 116 reported cases. Complications included endoleaks (postoperative: 2; late: 5), stroke (n = 4), late SG-induced new entry (n = 3) and new false lumen formation (n = 1). Hospital mortality was 5% (6 cases) in 13 reports (120 patients). The mean follow-up time was 26.2 ± 29.4 months and 2 patients died during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
As an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with a dissected proximal aortic arch, the endovascular treatment seems to be promising in highly selected cases. Further studies with long-term results and specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.
Topics: Aged; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Stents; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34056647
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivab161 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However,...
BACKGROUND
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.
PubMed: 36910538
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1034354 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2021Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease presents a unique management challenge both pre- and post-operatively. 4D flow MRI offers multiple tools for the assessment of the... (Review)
Review
Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease presents a unique management challenge both pre- and post-operatively. 4D flow MRI offers multiple tools for the assessment of the thoracic aorta in aortic valve disease. In particular, its assessment of flow patterns and wall shear stress have led to new understandings around the mechanisms of aneurysm development in BAV disease. Novel parameters have now been developed that have the potential to predict pathological aortic dilatation and may help to risk stratify BAV patients in future. This systematic review analyses the current 4D flow MRI literature after aortic valve and/or ascending aortic replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. 4D flow MRI has also identified distinct challenges posed by this cohort at the time of valve replacement compared to standard management of tri-leaflet disorders, and may help tailor the type and timing of replacement. Eccentric pathological flow patterns seen after bioprosthetic valve implantation, but not with mechanical prostheses, might be an important future consideration in intervention planning. 4D flow MRI also has promising potential in supporting the development of artificial valve prostheses and aortic conduits with more physiological flow patterns.
PubMed: 33842561
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.629227 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jan 2024Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR.
REVIEW METHODS
The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up.
RESULTS
Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.
CONCLUSION
F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Risk Factors; Endovascular Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37536517
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.07.048 -
Journal of Cardiac Surgery Dec 2021The advent of frozen elephant trunk (FET) for reconstruction of elective and nonelective aortic arch surgery has augmented the treatment of complex aortic pathologies in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The advent of frozen elephant trunk (FET) for reconstruction of elective and nonelective aortic arch surgery has augmented the treatment of complex aortic pathologies in a single-stage operation. To date, no studies have been focused on the prevalence and predictors of coagulopathy potentiated by FET procedure.
METHODS
In a systematic review, we searched databases up to June 2020 to find studies reporting coagulopathy complications after FET procedure. A proportional meta-analysis was carried out using STATA software (StataCorp).
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies consisting of 6313 patients were eligible. The pooled estimation of reoperation for postoperative bleeding was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI:] 5-8; I = 84.73%; reported by 39 studies including 4796 patients). The mean volume of transfused packed blood cells and fresh frozen plasma was 1677 ml (95% CI: 1066.4-2287.6) and 1016.5 ml (95% CI: 450.7-1582.3). The subgroup by the stent type showed a decrease in the heterogeneity (I = 0.01%, I = 53.95%, I = 0.01%, and I = 54.41% for Thoraflex® Hybrid, E-vita®, Frozenix®, and Cronus®, respectively). The subgroup by the chronicity of operation resulted in less heterogeneity among patients undergoing elective compared with nonelective operation (I = 29.22% vs. I = 80.56% in nonelective). Meta-regression analysis showed that age and male gender significantly impacted on the reoperation for postoperative bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
The FET procedure for arch replacement is associated with coagulopathy complications and the transfusion of blood products. Male, age, and selective choice of FET use were found to be the heterogeneity sources of reoperation for postoperative bleeding.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Aorta, Thoracic; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34550616
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.16001 -
Annals of Vascular Surgery Apr 2023In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting. Outcomes of this technique, however, are poorly reported. We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of L-FEVAR in aortic arch pathologies.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Cochrane guidelines. A search was conducted using Google, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies evaluating L-FEVAR. Two independent reviewers determined study inclusion. Case reports and series including < 10 patients were excluded. Reviewers also assessed the methodological quality and extracted data regarding outcomes. A meta-analysis of endoleak event rates was conducted using a fixed-effect model due to small sample size.
RESULTS
Eight studies met inclusion criteria between 2013 and 2021. Most studies were retrospective (87.5%) with median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range 10-42). There were 440 patients included (range 15-148), mostly men (64%). Mean age was 61 years (range 53-68). Included patients were all symptomatic with L-FEVAR being technically successful in 93.3% of cases. The main indication for aortic arch intervention was aortic dissection. Single fenestrations occurred most frequently (68%), followed by triple (22%) then double fenestrations (9%). Meta-analysis of 8 studies (n = 440) demonstrated an endoleak event rate of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.09, P < 0.001) with no observed statistically significant heterogeneity of effects (Q = 7.91, P = 0.34). The median operative time was 162 min (range 53-252) with median length of stay of 10 days (range 7-17). Primary branch patency was 96.6%. Secondary patency rate was 97%. Pooled complication rates such as endoleak occurred in 4.8%, stroke in 2.0%, spinal cord ischemia in 0.2%, retrograde dissection in 0.9%, and 30-day death in 2.0%. Access complications occurred in 0.4%. Antiplatelet regimen was poorly reported in the study cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, safe, and effective approach to treat aortic arch disease in patients who are unsuitable for open or custom-made endovascular means. High technical success and excellent short-term branch patency can be achieved. These single-institution series exhibit promising short-term outcomes. In a similar paradigm to investigational device exemptions studies for custom-made and physician modified endografts, these preliminary data make a persuasive argument for larger long-term multi-institutional prospective study of this promising technique.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Aortic Diseases; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endoleak; Endovascular Aneurysm Repair; Endovascular Procedures; Lasers; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36642166
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.01.009 -
Annals of Vascular Surgery Nov 2020The total endovascular approach is in current evolution, and many series have described variable outcomes for branched technology, chimney techniques, or fenestrated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The total endovascular approach is in current evolution, and many series have described variable outcomes for branched technology, chimney techniques, or fenestrated repair; and even a combination of some of them. We aim to describe the current outcomes on physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for this systematic review. The search was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used the following search terms in all possible combinations: home-made, physician-modified, surgeon-modified, on-table modification, hand-made, endograft, endovascular, aortic arch, and TEVAR: a thorough search of the English-language literature published until March 2020 was performed to identify studies using physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases. Only studies with treatment of 3 patients or more and with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were enrolled in the systematic review, whereas case reports were excluded from the analysis.
RESULTS
Six articles participated in the systematic review after the exclusions, including a total of 239 patients for analysis. Four high-volume centers provided data including a high rate of single fenestrations in zone 2, accounting for nearly 70% of the cases. About 80.3% were males, and 67.4% received urgent treatment mainly for acute/subacute dissection (64.4%). Thoracic aortic aneurysm and/or postdissection arch aneurysm was the second leading cause of treatment with 25.9%. There was a technical success of 93.7% reaching up to 98.3% when additional procedures were performed. The 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, paraplegia, and stent-induced new entry rates were 2.9%, 2.1%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively; whereas, overall mortality of the study was 4.6% at a mean follow-up of 33.2 ± 14.8 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Endograft modification for aortic arch diseases' treatment demonstrates to be safe and highly effective, especially for aortic dissections needing single zone 2 fenestrations. Although outcomes achieved in the study seem encouraging, these are achieved at high-volume experienced centers, thus, they need to be judiciously evaluated, whereas proctoring may be a good alternative if one patient may benefit from the technique in an unexperienced center.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Diseases; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32768543
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.07.040 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2024: The right-sided aortic arch (RAA) is an uncommon variation of the aortic arch (AA), characterized by the aorta crossing over the right main bronchus. In the RAA, the... (Review)
Review
: The right-sided aortic arch (RAA) is an uncommon variation of the aortic arch (AA), characterized by the aorta crossing over the right main bronchus. In the RAA, the descending aorta can be found on either the right or left side of the spine. The current study comprises a comprehensive retrospective computed tomography angiography (CTA) investigation into the prevalence of the RAA within the Greek population. Additionally, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate both common and rare morphological variants of the RAA. This research is significant as it sheds light on the prevalence and characteristics of the RAA in a specific population, providing valuable insights for clinical practice. : Two hundred CTAs were meticulously investigated for the presence of a RAA. In addition, the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus online databases were thoroughly searched for studies referring to the AA morphology. The R programming language and RStudio were used for the pooled prevalence meta-analysis, while several subgroup analyses were conducted. : A unique case of 200 CTAs (0.5%) was identified with an uncommon morphology. The following branches emanated from the RAA under the sequence: the right subclavian artery (RSA), the right common carotid artery (RCCA), the left common carotid artery (LCCA), and the left vertebral artery (LVA) in common origin with the aberrant left subclavian artery (ALSA). The ALSA originated from a diverticulum (of Kommerell) and followed a retroesophageal course. : Sixty-two studies (72,187 total cases) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of the RAA with a mirror-image morphology was estimated at 0.07%, and the RAA with an ALSA was estimated at <0.01%. AA anomalies, specifically the RAA, raise clinical interest due to their coexistence with developmental heart anomalies and possible interventional complications. Congenital heart anomalies, such as the Tetralogy of Fallot and patent foramen ovale, coexisted with RAA mirror-image morphology.
PubMed: 38892815
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113105