Changtian Wang1, Ludwig Karl von Segesser2, Denis Berdajs3, Enrico Ferrari4. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, School Medicine, Nanjing, China. 2. Department of Surgery and Anaesthesiology, Cardiovascular Research Unit, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Dorian Verscheure; Stéphan Haulon; Nikolaos Tsilimparis; Timothy Resch; Anders Wanhainen; Kevin Mani; Nuno Dias; Jonathan Sobocinski; Matthew Eagleton; Marcelo Ferreira; Geert Willem Schurink; Bijan Modarai; Said Abisi; Piotr Kasprzak; Donald Adam; Stephen Cheng; Blandine Maurel; Thomasz Jakimowicz; Amelia Claire Watkins; Björn Sonesson; Martin Claridge; Dominique Fabre; Tilo Kölbel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Julia Dumfarth; Sven Peterss; Maximilian Luehr; Christian D Etz; Thomas Schachner; Markus Kofler; Bulat A Ziganshin; Hanno Ulmer; Michael Grimm; John A Elefteriades; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Linda A Pape; Mazen Awais; Elise M Woznicki; Toru Suzuki; Santi Trimarchi; Arturo Evangelista; Truls Myrmel; Magnus Larsen; Kevin M Harris; Kevin Greason; Marco Di Eusanio; Eduardo Bossone; Daniel G Montgomery; Kim A Eagle; Christoph A Nienaber; Eric M Isselbacher; Patrick O'Gara Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rodrigo C Bernardes; Tulio P Navarro; Fernando R Reis; Luiz C M Lima; Ernesto L Monteiro; Ricardo J Procopio; Francesco E Botelho; Alan Dardik Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Changtian Wang; Ludwig Karl von Segesser; Francesco Maisano; Enrico Ferrari Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.191