Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

TY - JOUR

T1 - Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

AU - Torrealba, Jose I

AU - Spanos, Konstantinos

AU - Panuccio, Giuseppe

AU - Rohlffs, Fiona

AU - Gandet, Thomas

AU - Heidemann, Franziska

AU - Tsilimparis, Nikolaos

AU - Kölbel, Tilo

PY - 2022/8

Y1 - 2022/8

N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

U2 - 10.1177/15266028211058682

DO - 10.1177/15266028211058682

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 34781755

VL - 29

SP - 555

EP - 564

JO - J ENDOVASC THER

JF - J ENDOVASC THER

SN - 1526-6028

IS - 4

ER -