Conventional open surgery still remains as the gold standard of care for aortic arch and thoracoabdominal pathology. In centers of excellence, open repair of the arch has been performed with 5% immediate mortality and a low rate of complications; however overall mortality rates are around 15%, being up to 40% of all patients rejected for treatment due to their age or comorbidities. For thoracoabdominal aortic pathology, data reported from centers of excellence show immediate mortality rates from 5% to 19%, spinal cord ischemia from 2.7% to 13.2%, and renal failure needing dialysis from 4.6% to 5.6%. For these reasons, different alternatives that use endovascular techniques, including debranching procedures, have been developed. The reported results for hybrid debranching procedures are controversial and difficult to interpret because series are retrospective, heterogenic and including a small number of patients. Clearly, an important selection bias exists: debranching procedures are performed in elderly patients with more comorbidities and with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms that have more complex and extensive disease. Considering this fact, debranching procedures still remain a useful alternative: for aortic arch pathology debranching techniques can avoid or reduce the time of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) or cardiac arrest which may be beneficial in high-risk patients that otherwise would be rejected for treatment. And compared to pure endovascular techniques, they can be used in emergency cases with applicability in a wide range of anatomies. For thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, they are mainly useful when other lesser invasive endovascular options are not feasible due to anatomical limitations or when they are not available in cases where delaying the intervention is not an option.

Endograft infection is an infrequent but one of the most serious and challenging complications after endovascular aortic repair. The aim of this study was to assess the management of this complication in a tertiary center. Case Series: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database was performed including all patients who underwent elective endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) from 2003 to 2016 in a tertiary center. Seven cases of endograft infection were identified during the follow-up period from a total of 473 (1.48%) EVAR. Most frequent symptoms at presentation were fever (71.4%) and lumbar pain (57.1%). One case developed an early infection, while 6 cases were diagnosed as late infections. Mean time from endograft placement to symptom presentation was 28.3 months (2-91.5 months). Gram-positive cocci were the microorganisms most commonly isolated in blood cultures (66%). Two cases were managed with endograft removal and aortic reconstruction with a cryopreserved allograft, 2 cases with surgical drainage, and 2 cases exclusively with antibiotic therapy. In 1 case, the diagnosis was performed postoperatively based on intraoperative findings associated with positive graft cultures; and graft explantation was performed with "in situ" reconstruction using a Dacron graft. Perioperative mortality was 42.9%. One-year mortality was 57.1%. Mean follow-up was 21.5 months. Conclusion: Endograft explantation is the gold standard of treatment; however, given the overall high morbimortality rates of this pathology, a tailored approach should always be offered depending on the patient's overall condition. Conservative management can be an acceptable option in those patients with short life expectancy and high surgical risk.

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.

No abstract

Antiplatelet therapy with salicylates appears to be linked to a decreased risk of sac growth >5 mm over time in patients with T2Es detected right after EVAR. Population-based cohort studies are mandatory to confirm this finding and to guide a potential recommendation.