Literature DB >> 33956958

Results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system.

Martin Czerny1, Tim Berger1, Stoyan Kondov1, Matthias Siepe1, Bertrand Saint Lebes2, Fatima Mokrane2, Herve Rousseau2, Mario Lescan3, Christian Schlensak3, Mateja Andic3, Constatijn Hazenberg4, Trijntje Bloemert-Tuin4, Sue Braithwaite5, Joost van Herwaarden4, Alexander Hyhlik-Dürr6, Yvonne Gosslau6, Luís Mendes Pedro7, Pedro Amorim7, Toru Kuratani8, Stephen Cheng9, Robin Heijmen10, Emma van der Weijde10, Eliza Pleban11, Piotr Szopiński11, Bartosz Rylski1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system.
METHODS: Forty-three patients with thoracic aortic pathology involving the aortic arch have been treated with the Relay Branch system (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) in 10 centres. We assessed in-hospital mortality, neurological injury, treatment success according to current reporting standards and the need for secondary interventions. In addition, outcome was analysed according to the underlying pathology: non-dissective disease versus residual aortic dissection (RAD) (defined as remaining dissection after previous type A repair, chronic type B aortic dissections).
RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 9% (0% in patients with RAD). Disabling stroke occurred in 7% (0% in patients with RAD); non-disabling stroke occurred in 19% (7% in patients with RAD). Early type IA and B endoleak formation occurred in 4%. Median follow-up was 16 ± 18 months. During the follow-up period, 23% of the patients died. Aortic-related deaths were low (3% in patients with RAD).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system in a selected patient population with regard to technical success are good. In-hospital mortality is acceptable, the number of disabling strokes is low and technical success is high. Non-disabling stroke is a major concern, and every effort has to be taken to reduce this to a minimum. The best outcome is seen in patients with underlying RAD. Finally, more data are needed.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic arch; Endovascular aortic repair; Thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Year:  2021        PMID: 33956958     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  3 in total

1.  Does endovascular duration impact clinical outcomes in aortic arch repair? The RELAY™ branched international stance.

Authors:  Sven Z C P Tan; Abedalaziz O Surkhi; Matti Jubouri; Damian M Bailey; Ian M Williams; Mohamad Bashir
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-18

Review 2.  Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Lucia Scurto; Nicolò Peluso; Federico Pascucci; Simona Sica; Francesca De Nigris; Marco Filipponi; Fabrizio Minelli; Tommaso Donati; Giovanni Tinelli; Yamume Tshomba
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-08-04

3.  Single-center experience with a unibody single-branched stent graft for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Authors:  Xiang Kong; Peng Ruan; Jiquan Yu; Tianshu Chu; Lei Gao; Hui Jiang; Jianjun Ge
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-09-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.