N Rudarakanchana1, M P Jenkins2. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 2. Department of Vascular Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in endovascular technology have enabled minimally invasive repair of the aortic arch, with specifically designed stent-grafts. This article reviews hybrid and total endovascular repair in the management of aortic arch pathology. METHODS: Studies relating to aortic arch management were identified using MEDLINE and Embase, focusing on endovascular repair. RESULTS: Hybrid arch repair is associated with an early mortality rate of some 12 per cent, and carries significant risk of stroke (up to 15 per cent), paraplegia (up to 6 per cent), retrograde dissection (up to 6·5 per cent) and proximal endoleak (6 per cent). Despite patients being of overall higher perioperative risk, hybrid repair has morbidity and early mortality rates comparable to those of open arch replacement. However, rates of freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention are significantly lower in the longer term, owing to the incidence of endoleak. Total endovascular arch repair may be achieved by the use of parallel stents or in situ fenestration in the emergency setting, or use of custom-made devices (scalloped, fenestrated or branched stent-grafts) in the elective setting. Reports of these relatively novel technologies suggest acceptable short-term outcomes, but long-term data are still awaited. CONCLUSION: Repair of aortic arch pathology presents a formidable challenge for endovascular technology. Open aortic arch repair remains the standard in younger, fitter patients, but endovascular technology and experience continue to evolve with encouraging early outcomes and expanding indications.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in endovascular technology have enabled minimally invasive repair of the aortic arch, with specifically designed stent-grafts. This article reviews hybrid and total endovascular repair in the management of aortic arch pathology. METHODS: Studies relating to aortic arch management were identified using MEDLINE and Embase, focusing on endovascular repair. RESULTS: Hybrid arch repair is associated with an early mortality rate of some 12 per cent, and carries significant risk of stroke (up to 15 per cent), paraplegia (up to 6 per cent), retrograde dissection (up to 6·5 per cent) and proximal endoleak (6 per cent). Despite patients being of overall higher perioperative risk, hybrid repair has morbidity and early mortality rates comparable to those of open arch replacement. However, rates of freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention are significantly lower in the longer term, owing to the incidence of endoleak. Total endovascular arch repair may be achieved by the use of parallel stents or in situ fenestration in the emergency setting, or use of custom-made devices (scalloped, fenestrated or branched stent-grafts) in the elective setting. Reports of these relatively novel technologies suggest acceptable short-term outcomes, but long-term data are still awaited. CONCLUSION: Repair of aortic arch pathology presents a formidable challenge for endovascular technology. Open aortic arch repair remains the standard in younger, fitter patients, but endovascular technology and experience continue to evolve with encouraging early outcomes and expanding indications.