BackgroundThe introduction of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for total arch replacement (TAR) has revolutionized the field of aortivascular surgery by allowing hybrid repair of complex aortic pathologies in a single step through combining an open surgical approach with an endovascular one. FET has been associated with favorable aortic remodeling, however, its is also associated with development of distal stent graft induced new entry (dSINE) tears postoperatively. The rate of aortic remodeling and the incidence of dSINE have been linked together, in addition, there seems to be a relationship between these two variables and FET insetion length as well as graft size.AimsThe scope of this review is to highlight the rate of aortic remodeling as well the incidence of dSINE associated with different FET devices available commercially. This review also aimed to investigate the relationship between aortic remodeling, dSINE, FET insertion length and FET graft size.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and Embase in order to collate all research evidence on the above mentioned variables.ResultsThoraflex™ Hybrid Plexus seems to yield optimum aortic remodeling by promoting maximum false thrombosis as well true lumen expansion. Thoraflex Hybrid™ is also associated with the lowest incidence of dSINE post-FET relative to the other FET devices on the market. Aortic remodeling and dSINE do influence each other and are both linked with FET graft length and size.ConclusionThe FET technique for TAR shows excellent aortic remodeling but is associated with a considerable risk of dSINE development. However, Thoraflex™ Hybrid has demonstrated itself to be the superior FET device on the aortic arch prostheses market. Since aortic remodeling, dSINE, FET insertion length and stent graft size are all interconnect, the choice of FET device length and size must be made with great care for optimum results.

BackgroundThe widespread adoption of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for total arch reconstruction (TAR) in aortic arch aneurysm and dissection has led to the development of numerous commercial single-piece FET devices, each with its own unique design features. One such device, Thoraflex™ Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, Scotland), has enjoyed widespread use since its introduction. We present and appraisal of its long-term clinical efficacy, based on international data.Materials and MethodsPre-, intra-, and postoperative data associated with Thoraflex™ Hybrid implantations for aortic arch dissection, aneurysm, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) up to April 2019 was gathered and is presented herein. Follow-up data at discharge, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-, 60-, 72-, and 84- months post-implantation are included.ResultsData associated with 931 cases of Thoraflex™ Hybrid implantation are included. Mean age at implantation was 63 ± 12 years. 55% of patients included were male. Aortic dissection accounted for 48% (n = 464) of cases. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest durations were 202 +72 and 69 ± 50 min, respectively. 30-day mortality was 0.6% (n = 6), while overall mortality was 14 (1.5%). Freedom from adverse events at 84 months was 95% (n = 869). Postoperative complications included neurological deficit, multi-organ failure, cardiorespiratory compromise, and infection.DiscussionThoraflex™ Hybrid's unique design is advantageous in comparison to market alternatives. Our data is consistent with that reported in literature and suggests Thoraflex™ Hybrid is associated with favourable rates of mortality and morbidity.ConclusionThoraflex™ Hybrid remains a central player in the aortic arch prosthesis market. Its use it widespread and is associated with favourable design features and clinical outcomes relative to market alternatives.

BackgroundSurgical intervention remains the mainstay treatment for aortic arch aneurysm and dissection, but the high mortality and morbidity rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive alternatives to arch reconstruction. RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a viable option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair. We present multi-center data from Europe documenting the efficacy of the endograft in terms of its target vessel patency and reintervention rates.MethodsProspective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple-branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of target vessel patency and reintervention rates.ResultsTechnical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, target vessel patency was maintained in 80.2% (n = 118) of patients. Target vessel cannulation was achieved in 146 (99.3%) cases. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 30 reintervention procedures were required, of which 29 (97%) took place within the South Europe region which accounted for 19.6% (n = 29) of total cases. Zero reinterventions were required in patients that were treated with single- or triple-branched endoprostheses.DiscussionThe data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is a technically efficacious device for endovascular aortic arch repair and is associated with favorable target vessel patency and reintervention rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating reintervention and loss of vessel patency following endovascular aortic arch repair.

BackgroundThe high mortality and morbidity rates in surgical aortic arch repair are a barrier to therapy for a considerable proportion of patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. There is hence a demand for the development and adoption of a minimally invasive alternative to aortic arch repair, such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Procedural duration is a key factor in the pathogenesis of complications in surgical aortic arch repair. Herein, we evaluate whether endovascular duration impacts neurological outcomes, target vessel patency, and reintervention rates in aortic arch TEVAR with RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK), which is specifically developed for on-label use within the aortic arch.MethodsProspective data was collected between January 2019 and January 2022 on the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for aortic arch dissection and aneurysm with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe. They were then retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data on the incidence of disabling stroke (DS), target vessel patency, and reintervention from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperative was included in the analysis.Results147 (99.3%) of all 148 cases were successful. Over the 24 month follow-up period, in total 6 (4.1%) patients suffered DS, 24 (16.3%) required reintervention, and target vessel patency was exhibited in 118 (80.2%) patients. The modal endovascular duration was 100–150 min (in 64.6%, n = 95 cases). Analysis revealed that endovascular duration was associated with a lower likelihood of reintervention at 30 days, 6-, and 12 months (P = 0.011, P = 0.019, P = 0.037), a greater likelihood of target vessel patency at 6- and 24 months (P = 0.032, P = 0.035). No relationship between endovascular duration and DS was revealed.DiscussionThe data demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with promising clinical outcomes for on-label aortic arch TEVAR. The underlying mechanism linking endovascular duration and reintervention rates, or target vessel patency is likely multifactorial and complex. Given that TEVAR is carried out under general anesthetic only, it is unlikely that prolonged procedural duration has any major effect over neurological outcomes for arch TEVAR.

Background Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) is characterized by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimized cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un‐TBAD with improved long‐term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified. Aims This review critically addresses current state‐of‐the‐art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un‐TBAD based on timing of intervention. Methods We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection. Results TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un‐TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodeling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un‐TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention. Conclusions Further research is required into both short‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un‐TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold‐standard intervention for un‐TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

No abstract

Background While open surgical repair continues to be the mainstay option for aortic arch reconstruction, the associated mortality, morbidity, and high turn‐down rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive options for aortic arch repair. Though RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a promising option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair, neurological complications remain a pertinent risk. Herein we seek to present multicenter data from Europe documenting the neurological outcomes associated with RELAY™ Branched. Methods Prospective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single‐, double‐, and triple‐branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow‐up data from 30 days and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively were included. Patient follow‐up was evaluated for the onset of disabling stroke (DS) and non‐disabling stroke (NDS). Results Technical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, in total, six (4.1%) patients suffered DS, and eight (5.4%) patients suffered NDS after undergoing aortic arch repair with RELAY™. All patients that developed postoperative DS had been treated with the double‐branched RELAY™ endoprosthesis. Discussion The data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with favorable neurological outcomes and excellent technical success rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating neurological complications following endovascular aortic arch repair.

Background The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre‐emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un‐TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un‐TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone. Methods and materials PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen (FL) expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract. Results Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un‐TBAD, however, patients with un‐TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, FL thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un‐TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short‐ and long‐term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising. Conclusion Pre‐emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un‐TBAD presenting with the above factors, however, further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un‐TBAD is required.