Search

Objective: The objective is to describe the initial Canadian experience using novel aortic arch branched endograft technologies. Methods: We performed a retrospective consecutive case series of all patients undergoing aortic arch branched repair with newly available endograft technology since 2020 at our site. We describe the patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Eleven patients received arch branched endografts, indicated for penetrating aortic ulcer in seven patients (64%), arch degeneration after prior aortic dissection repair in three (27%), and acute aortobronchial fistula in one patient (9%). Their average age was 72 ± 7 years. Complete arch repair from zone 0 to 4 was performed in six cases (55%); the remaining repairs landed proximally in zones 1 or 2. Seven repairs used a single retrograde facing inner branch (thoracic branch endoprosthesis; W.L. Gore & Associates), three used double antegrade inner branch (Bolton Relay; Terumo Interventional Systems), and one emergent case used double in situ fenestrations. Seven repairs (64%) used an adjunctive extra-anatomic bypass to complete great vessel perfusion, two of which were created during a prior aortic repair. Inferior vena cava balloon inflow occlusion during deployment was used in all cases. No mortalities, transient or permanent spinal cord paralysis, myocardial infarction, dialysis dependence, venous thromboembolism, or bleeding requiring reintervention occurred. No patient undergoing elective arch branch repair experienced a stroke. The one patient undergoing emergent repair did suffer a stroke. The median length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2-8 days). Two endoleaks developed: a type Ia endoleak successfully treated with a Palmaz stent (Cordis) during the index admission, and a type II endoleak with ongoing sac regression on postoperative follow-up. Postoperatively, one patient suffered a suspected aortic graft infection that was treated with lifelong antibiotics. During a mean radiographic follow-up of 7.2 months, no cases of branch vessel instability (ie, no migration, reintervention, arterial rupture, intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, stenosis, or kinking of the branch grafts) developed. Three patients experienced sac regression of >5 mm, and no patient experienced continued postoperative dilation. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported Canadian volume of aortic arch repair using novel branched or fenestrated technology. The series demonstrates that a multidisciplinary program and properly selected patients can yield excellent results using endovascular repair for complex aortic arch pathology.

Endovascular therapies have had a considerable impact on contemporary management of thoracic aortic disease. Still, with the anatomic challenges of the aortic arch, endovascular experience with devices that traverse the arch and deploy in the Zone 0 position remains limited. We report the first Canadian experience with the RelayBranch Thoracic Stent Graft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) with Zone 0 deployment for total endovascular aortic arch repair in a patient at very high risk for redo open surgery. We demonstrate safe deployment of the device and successful treatment of a type 1A endoleak. Features of the RelayBranch design that mitigate challenges of arch deployment are also discussed. Résumé: Les traitements endovasculaires ont eu un impact considérable sur la gestion contemporaine des pathologies de l'aorte thoracique. Pourtant, en raison des contraintes anatomiques de la crosse aortique, l'expérience endovasculaire avec des dispositifs qui traversent la crosse et se déploient dans la zone 0 reste limitée. Nous rapportons la première expérience canadienne de l'endoprothèse thoracique RelayBranch avec déploiement (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) en zone 0 pour une réparation endovasculaire totale de la crosse aortique chez un patient présentant un risque très élevé de reprise de chirurgie ouverte. Nous décrivons le déploiement en toute sécurité du dispositif et le traitement réussi d'une endofuite de type 1A. Enfin, nous examinons les caractéristiques du système RelayBranch qui limitent les difficultés liées au déploiement du dispositif dans la crosse aortique.