Early Results and Feasibility of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Company-Manufactured and Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-28 DOI:10.1177/15266028231163069
K Benjamin Lee, Jesus Porras-Colon, Carla K Scott, Khalil Chamseddin, Mirza S Baig, Carlos H Timaran
{"title":"Early Results and Feasibility of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Company-Manufactured and Physician-Modified Stent-Grafts.","authors":"K Benjamin Lee, Jesus Porras-Colon, Carla K Scott, Khalil Chamseddin, Mirza S Baig, Carlos H Timaran","doi":"10.1177/15266028231163069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Total endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms is feasible in select patients. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and early outcomes of total endovascular arch repair using 3-vessel company-manufactured devices (CMDs) and physician-modified endo grafts (PMEGs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients unfit for open repair who underwent 3-vessel total arch repair at a single institution from 2018 to 2021 were reviewed. Patients received either 3-vessel inner-branch CMDs or PMEGs. Three-vessel designs were used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches in both devices were accessed via right brachial or carotid approach. The left carotid was accessed via carotid cutdown or femoral approach. The left subclavian artery was accessed via transfemoral approach. The study endpoints included procedural technical success, patient survival, neurologic events, cardiac complications, reinterventions, and target artery patency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine patients underwent treatment. Four patients were treated with PMEGs, and 5 with CMDs. Procedural technical success was 100%. There were no in-hospital deaths. There were no strokes, transient ischemic attacks, myocardial infarction, or spinal ischemia in the perioperative period. Major adverse events occurred in 3 patients (33%). Two (22%) vascular access complications and one (11%) acute kidney injury occurred. One (11%) patient required early reintervention for an access complication. The median follow-up period was 358 days (CMD, 392 days; PMEG, 198 days). There was a late reintervention and conversion to open repair at 142 days of follow-up in a patient with a PMEG that developed an aortic infection, leading to death on postoperative day 239. The mean length of stay was 7±4 days. Computed tomography imaging obtained during the immediate postoperative period revealed endoleak in 6 (66%) patients, out of which 5 resolved spontaneously and 1 required reintervention via left subclavian artery stenting. Target artery patency was 100% at the end of the follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Three-vessel total endovascular aortic arch repair using a CMD or PMEG is feasible with optimal early outcomes. Physician-modified stent-grafts are a feasible option for patients who do not meet anatomic criteria for CMDs.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>Management of aortic arch disease remains a significant challenge in vascular surgery. This study showcases the feasibility and safety of using a total endovascular approach to repair the aortic arch, which could potentially reduce morbidity and mortality associated with traditional surgical approaches. The results suggest that this minimally invasive technique could be an alternative treatment option for high-risk patients and could significantly improve outcomes for those requiring aortic arch repair. Overall, this study represents a promising development in the field of endovascular surgery and highlights the potential to improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1197-1207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231163069","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Total endovascular repair of aortic arch aneurysms is feasible in select patients. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and early outcomes of total endovascular arch repair using 3-vessel company-manufactured devices (CMDs) and physician-modified endo grafts (PMEGs).

Methods: Patients unfit for open repair who underwent 3-vessel total arch repair at a single institution from 2018 to 2021 were reviewed. Patients received either 3-vessel inner-branch CMDs or PMEGs. Three-vessel designs were used to incorporate the innominate, left common carotid, and left subclavian arteries. The antegrade inner branches in both devices were accessed via right brachial or carotid approach. The left carotid was accessed via carotid cutdown or femoral approach. The left subclavian artery was accessed via transfemoral approach. The study endpoints included procedural technical success, patient survival, neurologic events, cardiac complications, reinterventions, and target artery patency.

Results: Nine patients underwent treatment. Four patients were treated with PMEGs, and 5 with CMDs. Procedural technical success was 100%. There were no in-hospital deaths. There were no strokes, transient ischemic attacks, myocardial infarction, or spinal ischemia in the perioperative period. Major adverse events occurred in 3 patients (33%). Two (22%) vascular access complications and one (11%) acute kidney injury occurred. One (11%) patient required early reintervention for an access complication. The median follow-up period was 358 days (CMD, 392 days; PMEG, 198 days). There was a late reintervention and conversion to open repair at 142 days of follow-up in a patient with a PMEG that developed an aortic infection, leading to death on postoperative day 239. The mean length of stay was 7±4 days. Computed tomography imaging obtained during the immediate postoperative period revealed endoleak in 6 (66%) patients, out of which 5 resolved spontaneously and 1 required reintervention via left subclavian artery stenting. Target artery patency was 100% at the end of the follow-up period.

Conclusions: Three-vessel total endovascular aortic arch repair using a CMD or PMEG is feasible with optimal early outcomes. Physician-modified stent-grafts are a feasible option for patients who do not meet anatomic criteria for CMDs.

Clinical impact: Management of aortic arch disease remains a significant challenge in vascular surgery. This study showcases the feasibility and safety of using a total endovascular approach to repair the aortic arch, which could potentially reduce morbidity and mortality associated with traditional surgical approaches. The results suggest that this minimally invasive technique could be an alternative treatment option for high-risk patients and could significantly improve outcomes for those requiring aortic arch repair. Overall, this study represents a promising development in the field of endovascular surgery and highlights the potential to improve patient outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用 3 血管公司制造和医生改良支架移植物进行全血管内主动脉弓修复术的早期结果和可行性。
目的:对特定患者进行主动脉弓动脉瘤全血管内修复是可行的。本研究旨在评估使用3血管公司制造设备(CMD)和医生改良内膜移植物(PMEG)进行主动脉弓全血管内膜修复的可行性和早期疗效:回顾了2018年至2021年期间在一家机构接受3血管全弓修复术的不适合开放式修复的患者。患者接受了3血管内支CMD或PMEG。三血管设计用于合并心内动脉、左颈总动脉和左锁骨下动脉。两种装置的前行内支都是通过右肱动脉或颈动脉入路。左颈动脉通过颈动脉切口或股动脉途径进入。左锁骨下动脉通过经股动脉入路。研究终点包括手术技术成功率、患者存活率、神经系统事件、心脏并发症、再次介入治疗和靶动脉通畅率:九名患者接受了治疗。结果:9名患者接受了治疗,其中4名患者使用了PMEGs,5名患者使用了CMDs。手术技术成功率为100%。无院内死亡病例。围手术期未发生中风、短暂性脑缺血发作、心肌梗死或脊髓缺血。3名患者(33%)发生了重大不良事件。其中2例(22%)出现血管通路并发症,1例(11%)出现急性肾损伤。一名患者(11%)因血管通路并发症需要提前重新介入。中位随访时间为 358 天(CMD,392 天;PMEG,198 天)。一名使用PMEG的患者在随访142天时出现主动脉感染,导致术后第239天死亡,该患者晚期再次介入并转为开放式修复术。平均住院时间为 7±4 天。术后即刻进行的计算机断层扫描成像显示,有6名患者(66%)出现了内漏,其中5名患者的内漏自行消退,1名患者需要通过左锁骨下动脉支架再次介入。随访结束时,靶动脉的通畅率为100%:结论:使用CMD或PMEG进行三血管主动脉弓全血管腔内修复是可行的,并能获得最佳的早期疗效。对于不符合CMD解剖标准的患者,医生改良支架移植物是一种可行的选择:临床影响:主动脉弓疾病的治疗仍然是血管外科的一大挑战。这项研究展示了使用全血管内方法修复主动脉弓的可行性和安全性,这有可能降低与传统手术方法相关的发病率和死亡率。研究结果表明,这种微创技术可以作为高风险患者的另一种治疗选择,并能显著改善需要主动脉弓修复术的患者的治疗效果。总之,这项研究代表了血管内手术领域的一个充满希望的发展,并凸显了改善患者预后的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
期刊最新文献
The Value of Different Systemic Inflammatory Response Indicators in the Long-term Prognosis of Type B Aortic Dissection Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair. Effect of Statins on the Prognosis After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients With Acute Type B Aortic Dissection. Potential of D-Dimer as a Tool to Rule Out Sac Expansion in Patients With Persistent Type 2 Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Long-Term Outcomes and Late Complications of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using the GORE TAG or Conformable GORE TAG. Long-term Outcomes of the AcoArt II-BTK Trial: Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Uncoated Balloons for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Artery Lesions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1