ASIAN CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC ANNALS最新文献

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires urgent surgical intervention. The mainstay surgical approach to treating ATAAD with aortic arch involvement is total arch replacement (TAR). The frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure involves TAR with hybrid endovascular stenting of the DTA in a single step using a hybrid prosthesis (HP). The prime example of a FET HP is Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP). Another treatment option is the novel Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) that is deployed as a non-covered stent along with the aortic arch as an adjunct to prior hemi-arch replacement.

Aims: This comparative review highlights the clinical applications and outcomes of THP and AMDS in the treatment of ATAAD and discusses the main differences between both approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase.

Results: TAR with FET can be considered the superior approach to managing ATAAD with arch involvement relative to AMDS with hemi-arch replacement due to more optimal clinical outcomes. Upon comprehensively searching the literature, early mortality was substantially lower with FET ranging from 0-11% compared to 12.5-18.7% using AMDS, with more favourable long-term survival. The incidence of kidney injury and new stroke post-FET ranged from 3-20% and 5-16%, and 11-37.5% and 0-18.8% following AMDS implantation. However, evidence supporting the use of AMDS is extremely limited. Meanwhile, TAR with FET is a well-established and well-described procedure for ATAAD repair.

Conclusion: Despite the novel nature of AMDS, its clinical safety and effectiveness are yet to be proven. In conclusion, THP remains the best evidenced-based approach to treat ATAAD in this era.

Introduction: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta that can be repaired either endovascularly or with open surgery. However, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the main treatment modality for AAA due to its more optimal results. EVAR devices can either be standard, fenestrated, or branched, with fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) seemingly achieving superior prospects. Although EVAR is associated with excellent outcomes, it still carries a risk of certain complications requiring reintervention or 'rescue'. Several commercial EVAR devices are available on the global market, nevertheless, the Fenestrated Anaconda developed by Terumo Aortic can be considered the superior device due to the wide range of endovascular solutions that it offers along with its unique custom-made approach, excellent results and its highly promising potential to be used as a 'rescue' device for failed competitor endografts.

Materials and methods: The current study represents a 9-year cross-sectional international analysis of a custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson Chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05.

Results: Out of 5058 EVARs performed using the Fenestrated Anaconda, 2987 (59%) were 'rescue' procedures for migrated Gore (n = 252) and Medtronic (n = 2735) devices. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ was indicated as the reintervention device either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for the competitor (n = 2411) or based on surgeon preference (n = 576). Overall, the Fenestrated Anaconda was utilised to rescue 3466 (68.5%) failed previous EVARs using competitor devices. Yet, the primary endovascular solution offered by the Fenestrated Anaconda was FEVAR (91.3%), with 112 (2.2%) devices using custom-made iliac stents.

Discussion: The use of the Fenestrated Anaconda endograft as a 'rescue' device to salvage failed competitor devices is well-established in the literature with excellent clinical outcomes achieved. The evidence in the literature also highlights the distinctive custom-made approach that the Fenestrated Anaconda offers which enables it to treat extremely complex aortic anatomy.

Type Ia endoleaks due to failed sealing or loss of landing zone and the adequate management thereof remain crucial for long-term therapeutic success following TEVAR. This expert opinion summarizes our institutional experience with endovascular, open surgical, and hybrid techniques in the context of recent scientific publications. The rapid turnover of technical innovations, but most importantly outcome data demonstrate the requirement for increasingly patient-tailored treatment strategies and the need for specialized aortic centers. The latter should offer a complete range of treatment options, an adequate perioperative management, and the highest level of multidisciplinary expertise.

Introduction: Since the introduction of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) it has become the mainstay treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Several EVAR devices exist commercially, yet, the Terumo Aortic Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft has demonstrated outstanding results. Evidence in the literature suggests that sac regression could be linked to patient survival and longevity. The main scope of this study is to evaluate sac regression and survival achieved using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft and to discuss relevant literature.

Materials and methods: The current study represents a nine-year cross-sectional international analysis of custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05.

Results: A total of 5,058 patients received the Fenestrated Anaconda™ in this study, either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for competitor devices (n = 3,891) or based on surgeon preference (n = 1,167). A sac regression of 0-30% was observed in 4,772 (94.3%) over the first four years post-EVAR. Here, 99.6% of patients receiving the Fenestrated Anaconda™ due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for competitor devices and 76.8% based on surgeon preference had 0-30% sac regression. During years 5-9 of follow-up, all patients had 20-45% sac regression. Patient survival during the first six years post-EVAR was 100% but dropped to 77.1% in years 7-9. Survival differed between categorical patient subsets based on the indication.

Discussion: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has been proven to be a highly effective EVAR endograft. Evidence in the literature clearly demonstrates that sac regression is an accurate prognostic factor for patient survival and longevity.

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair has been well described in the literature as a treatment for a wide range of thoracic aortic pathologies. As with any intervention, there remains a risk of an unfavorable outcome, including endoleak, a term used to describe unexpected blood flow between the stent-graft and the wall of the excluded aneurysm. Endoleaks cause pressurized enlargement of the aneurysmal sac and may lead to catastrophic outcomes such as rupture and death. Type 1b endoleak represents a distal landing zone that is compromised by retrograde blood flow. Moreover, there is a lack of data on type 1b endoleaks and its management options. With the increase in emerging endovascular techniques and technologies, endoleaks are more frequent. However, the management of endoleaks is not standardized among different centers. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of type 1b endoleaks after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, current management options, and our experience.

Background: The introduction of endovascular aortic repair has revolutionised the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, replacing open surgical repair for the majority of elective cases due to its optimal morbidity and mortality. Several endovascular aortic repair stent grafts exist commercially, one of which is the Fenestrated Anaconda™ by Terumo Aortic which benefits from a very innovative design, unique custom-made approach and highly favourable results.

Aims: The main scope of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of endovascular aortic repair clinical outcomes using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ stent-graft and comparing these with its market competitor, Zenith. This review will also examine the evidence in the literature on the Anaconda™'s custom-made approach.

Methods: A comprehensive literature was conducted on several search engines including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase to collate the evidence in the literature on clinical outcomes achieved with the Fenestrated Anaconda™ and Zenith including, but not limited to, survival, technical success, target vessel patency, endoleak, reintervention and aneurysm sac regression.

Results: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ is associated with excellent results, including highly favourable survival, technical and clinical success and target vessel patency rates, very low need for reintervention or conversion, and minimal incidence of complications such as endoleak and endograft migration. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ also drives significant sac regression and aortic remodelling. In addition, its unique custom-made approach enables it to treat highly complex aortic anatomy as well as to 'rescue' failed competitor grafts.

Conclusion: The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has proven that it is a very safe, highly applicable and extremely effective device used for complex aortic and/or iliac pathology based on its novel design and outstanding track record of clinical outcomes.

Background: Endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) has emerged as an alternative to open surgical repair. A growing interest in endovascular repair techniques for aortic arch aneurysms and dissection has been met with a focus on the clinical efficacy of EAR devices. We present multicentre comparative data on the clinical outcomes associated with EAR using the double- and triple-branched configurations of the RELAY™ (Terumo Aortic, Scotland, UK) endograft.

Methods: Multicentre data on EAR procedures, carried out from January 2019 to January 2022, using the double- and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft were collected prospectively. Follow-up data were collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperative. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were carried out on procedural and follow-up data.

Results: A total of 131 patients were included in the series. In total, 103 and 28 patients were treated with the double-branched and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft, respectively. Over the 24-month follow-up period, zero mortality, cases of stroke, or reinterventions were recorded in the triple-branched group. Four mortalities, 19 disabling strokes, and 50 reinterventions were recorded in the double-branched group within 30 postoperative days. Target vessel patency was maintained in all patients in the triple-branched group, while vessel patency was maintained in 74.0% of patients in the double-branched group.

Conclusion: Outcomes associated with the triple-branched group are consistent with those reported in the literature. Our data suggest that EAR with the RELAY™ endograft is associated with favourable clinical outcomes and clinical efficacy. Further comparative research into EAR devices is needed.

Objective: Application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to the aortic arch has been met with the development of purpose-made endoprostheses for on-label use in the aortic arch. An appraisal of the clinical efficacy of each major device is therefore useful towards informing clinical decision making for patients eligible for endovascular arch repair (EAR) rather than open surgical reconstruction.

Methods: A literature review of publications outlining clinical experience with the RELAY™ Branched and Zenith™ devices was undertaken, and the results therefrom analysed to evaluate the clinical efficacies of each device.

Results: Early- and long-term mortality rates associated with EAR appear favourable, especially compared against open surgical repair. EAR is also associated with good neurological outcomes and target vessel patency rates. However, EAR continues to be associated with substantial reintervention rates.

Conclusions: At the present stage, EAR represents a promising alternative option to open surgical reconstruction in patients that meet its eligibility criteria. Though there remains a substantial learning curve associated with EAR, its favourable outcome profile is likely to increase its applicability in the future.

Background: Mitral valve surgery in octogenarians is a clinical challenge due to the impact of inherent, age-related comorbidities. Within the context of an aging population, the number of mitral surgery candidates over 80 has been gradually increasing. We sought to evaluate our institutional experience with mitral valve surgery in octogenarians to identify factors that may prove useful during the process of clinical decision-making.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database for all patients over 80 years of age who underwent mitral valve surgery in our department from October 2002 up to February 2021. The primary endpoints of our study were 30-day all-cause mortality and long-term survival after the first postoperative month.

Results: In total, 99 octogenarians underwent mitral valve surgery for various types of mitral pathology. In particular, 70 patients underwent mitral valve replacement with or without concomitant procedures and 29 underwent mitral valve repair with or without concomitant procedures. There was no difference between the two approaches in terms of 30-day mortality and long-term survival. Chronic kidney disease and total operative time were independent predicting factors for 30-day mortality. Etiology of mitral valve pathology and EuroSCORE II was independent predicting factors for long-term survival.

Conclusions: The type of mitral valve surgery did not affect 30-day and long-term mortality rates in our study. Renal impairment and EuroSCORE II were independent predictors of 30-day mortality and long-term prognosis, respectively. Rheumatic valve disease was also associated with a poorer prognosis.