Search

Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited.We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI.We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p0.001). Furthermore, they had a higher rate of closure device failure (2.7% vs 0.9%; p=0.044) and more often required unplanned surgery or endovascular treatment (3.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.004). The incidence of death did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 1.6%; p=0.08).A combined ProGlide and FemoSeal strategy might have the potential to reduce access-related vascular complications following TAVI.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of physician modified endografts (PMEG) for the treatment of thoraco-abdominal (TAAA) and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (C-AAA).MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scielo, and Open Grey.The databases were searched from inception to July 2021 for studies reporting on outcomes of PMEGs for TAAA or C-AAA repair. A systematic review was conducted (protocol CRD42021267856) and data were pooled using a random effects model of proportions. The outcomes analysed were major adverse events at 30 days (30 day mortality, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure requiring prolonged ventilation [24 hours or re-intubation], renal failure requiring dialysis, bowel ischaemia requiring surgery, major stroke, or definitive paraplegia); technical success; 30 day mortality; ruptures; spinal cord ischaemia; endoleaks; re-interventions; and target vessel patency.Twenty studies were included. Overall study quality assessment was found to be low. Overall, 909 PMEGs were reported and analysed. Regarding aneurysm location (n = 867), 222 patients had extent I - III TAAAs and 645 had C-AAA or extent IV TAAA. Regarding presentation, 14 studies reported whether the patients were treated in an elective or urgent setting (n = 782). Overall, 500 (63.9%) patients were treated in an elective setting and 282 (36.1%) in an urgent setting. Major adverse events (at 30 days) occurred in 15.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.8 - 20.8; IPhysician modified fenestrated or branched grafts for endovascular aortic repair seem feasible and safe in the short term. However, the quality of the available data is low, which highlights the need for better and more accurate data regarding this technique.

International audience; ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of single or multistage approach during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).MethodsWe reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by FB-EVAR for extent I to III TAAAs in 24 centers (2006-2021). All patients received a single brand manufactured patient-specific or off-the-shelf fenestrated-branched stent grafts. Staging strategies included proximal thoracic aortic repair, minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion and combinations of these techniques. Endpoints were analyzed for elective repair in patients who had a single- or multistage approach before and after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, including the composite 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia, major adverse event, patient survival, and freedom from aortic-related mortality.ResultsA total of 1947 patients (65% male; mean age, 71 ± 8 years) underwent FB-EVAR of 155 extent I (10%), 729 extent II (46%), and 713 extent III TAAAs (44%). A single-stage approach was used in 939 patients (48%) and a multistage approach in 1008 patients (52%). A multistage approach was more frequently used in patients undergoing elective compared with non-elective repair (55% vs 35%; P < .001). Staging strategies were proximal thoracic aortic repair in 743 patients (74%), temporary aneurysm sac perfusion in 128 (13%), minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization in 10 (1%), and combinations in 127 (12%). Among patients undergoing elective repair (n = 1597), the composite endpoint of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia rate occurred in 14% of single-stage and 6% of multistage approach patients (P < .001). After adjustment with a propensity score, multistage approach was associated with lower rates of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and/or permanent paraplegia (odds ratio, 0.466; 95% confidence interval, 0.271-0.801; P = .006) and higher patient survival at 1 year (86.9±1.3% vs 79.6±1.7%) and 3 years (72.7±2.1% vs 64.2±2.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval, 0.528-0.966; P = .029), compared with a single stage approach.ConclusionStaging elective FB-EVAR of extent I to III TAAAs was associated with decreased risk of mortality and/or permanent paraplegia at 30 days or within hospital stay, and with higher patient survival at 1 and 3 years.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (F-EVAR) has allowed successful treatment of patients with complex aortic aneurysms. Custom-made devices (CMDs) are manufactured by companies and tailored to the patient's anatomy to incorporate target vessels, while there is also the "off label" alternative with the devices modified by a surgeon in the operating room: surgeon-modified FEVAR (sm-FEVAR). This study aims to present and compare technical durability of CMDs- and sm-FEVAR for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies.A retrospective cohort study was undertaken including all consecutive patients treated with sm- or CMD-FEVAR during a 3-year period in a single center. Only cases with at least 3 reno-visceral target vessels were included. Primary outcomes were technical success, and freedom from endoleak (EL) (Ia or III; all branch related) and re-intervention during follow-up period. Mortality and morbidity were also recorded.Thirty-two sm-FEVAR patients (81,3% male) and 79 CMD-FEVAR patients (77,2% male) were included. Indication for sm-FEVAR was exclusively urgent, while all CMD- FEVAR were elective. Technical success was similar in sm-FEVAR (100%) and CMD-FEVAR (98,7%) (P = 0.523). Mean follow-up was 16.3 ± 13 and 20 ± 17.3 months for sm-FEVAR and CMD- FEVAR, respectively (P = 0.28). The freedom from EL Ia rate was 91.7% [standard error (SE) 5.7%] at 12 months in sm-FEVAR, while it was 97.7% (SE 2.2%) and 92.3% (SE 4.3%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.69). The freedom from EL III rate was 95.5% (SE 4.4%) and 88% (SE 8.2%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 92.1% (SE 3.8%) and 89.2% (SE 4.7%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.68). The freedom from re-intervention rate was 91.6% (SE 5.7%) and 84.6% (SE 8.6%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 91.7% (SE 4%) and 83.4% (SE 5.9%) at 12 and 24 months, respectively in CMD-FEVAR (P = 0.90). The survival rate was 87.5% (5.8%) and 76.3% (7.9%) at 1 and 12 months, respectively in sm-FEVAR, while it was 93.7% (2.7%) at 1 month in CMD-FEVAR without any other death during FU period. No bridging stent occlusions were noted during follow-up period in any patient.Sm-FEVAR offers good technical success and mid-term clinical outcomes in urgent cases of complex aortic pathologies. Its durability is acceptable and comparable to CMD-FEVAR with a relatively low re-intervention rate.

Objective: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers’ consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.Results: Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.Conclusion: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.

OBJECTIVES To assess clinical outcomes and target vessel patency through 2 years following thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) repair with the off-the-shelf Zenith® t-Branch® Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Graft (William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark). METHODS This post-market, observational study was conducted at 3 European sites with ambispective enrollment from 2012-2017. Patients underwent endovascular TAAA repair with the t-Branch graft and bridging stent grafts (BSGs) for the celiac (CA), superior mesenteric (SMA), left renal (LRA), and/or right renal arteries (RRA). Follow-up was through 2 years per sites' standard of care. Procedural and 1-year results were reported previously. RESULTS Eighty patients (mean age 71.0±7.4 years, 70.0% men) were enrolled; 6 patients had symptomatic TAAAs and 15 patients had contained ruptures. Technical success was achieved in 98.8% (79/80) of patients. Median follow-up was 22.2 months (IQR: 9.2-25.1 months). At 24 months, Kaplan-Meier (KM) freedom from all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality were 78.5% and 98.6%, respectively. Beyond 12 months, 38 adverse events occurred in 20 patients, including 2 aortic ruptures (1 study aneurysm and 1 non-study aneurysm) and 6 deaths (none aneurysm-related, as reported by the site). Compared with postprocedure, maximum aneurysm diameter decreased (>5 mm) in 84.6% (44/52), remained unchanged in 3.8% (2/52), and increased (>5 mm) in 11.5% (6/52) of patients with imaging follow-up after 12 months. No conversions to open repair, and no t-Branch graft or other endograft component migration or integrity issues were reported. No loss of patency was reported in the t-Branch or iliac limb grafts throughout the study. Throughout study duration, 4 patients had 5 imaging-reported BSG compressions, none of which required secondary intervention. KM freedom from secondary intervention was 76.3% at 24 months. Fourteen target vessel-related secondary interventions were performed, primarily consisting of stent placement for endoleak, stenosis, or occlusion. KM freedom from loss of primary patency were 94.8%, 100%, 91.3%, and 89.3% for the CA, SMA, LRA, and RRA, respectively, at 24 months. KM freedom from loss of secondary patency in the CA, SMA, LRA, and RRA were 96.3%, 100%, 98.2%, and 98.3% at 24 months. A total of 298 vessels were targeted of which 12 were occluded over the study period. CONCLUSIONS Primary and secondary target vessel patency rates through 2 years demonstrated durable repair with the t-Branch graft in patients treated for symptomatic or asymptomatic thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of preserving the internal iliac artery (IIA) with iliac branched devices (IBDs) during acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms. Material and Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysm with an IBD at 8 aortic centers between December 2012 and June 2020. A control group was used where the IIA was intentionally occluded from the same study period. The main outcome measures were 30-day mortality, major adverse events, technical success, and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were buttock claudication, primary patency, primary-assisted and secondary patency of the IBD, occurrence of endoleak types I/III, and reintervention. Values are presented as numbers and percentages or interquartile range in parenthesis. Results: Forty-eight patients were included in the study: 24 with IBD and 24 with IIA occlusion. There was no difference in demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent. Twenty (83%) of them were hemodynamically stable during the procedure as opposed to 14 (58%, p=.23) with the IIA occlusion. Technical success was achieved in all cases with a procedure time of 180 (133–254) minutes, 45 (23–65) of which were from IBD. There were 2 (8%) deaths during the first 30 days and 2 (8%) major complications unrelated to the IBD, whereas in the IIA occlusion, the figures were 10 (42%) and 7 (29%), respectively. No patient in the IBD group developed buttock claudication compared to 8 (57%, pConclusion: IBD is a valid alternative for maintaining the pelvic circulation for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms. The technical success and midterm outcomes are very satisfactory but require patient selection particularly regarding hemodynamic stability. The reintervention rate is considerable, mandating continuous follow-up. Clinical Impact This multicenter study demonstrates that ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms do not necessarily require mandatory occlusion of hypogastric arteries. Iliac branch devices are shown to be a valid alternative in highly selected cases, with good midterm results, even if reinterventions are required in a significant proportion of patients.

Introduction: Antegrade wire-catheter crossing remains the primary approach for femoropopliteal interventions. Nonetheless, data reporting on crossing failure are limited. Aim of this study is to identify risk factors for antegrade crossing failure in patients with femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis. Patients with femoropopliteal CTOs treated between May 2018 and February 2020 were included into this study. Primary endpoint of this analysis was primary crossing success defined as successful antegrade crossing without the use of retrograde access, crossing or re-entry devices. The assisted crossing success was additionally analyzed. A logistic regression analysis identified risk factors for failed primary antegrade crossing. Results: Data from 300 patients were analyzed. The majority (n=183, 61%) presented with lifestyle limiting claudication. The mean lesion length was 180 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 100–260 mm], whereas the median CTO length was 100 mm (IQR=50–210 mm). A chronic total occlusion crossing approach based on plaque morphology (CTOP) type I configuration was observed in 9% (n=26) of the lesions, type II in 61% (n=183), type III in 8% (n=25), and type IV in 66 CTOs (n= 66, 22%). Severe calcification based on the Peripheral Arterial Calcium Scoring Scale (PACSS), Peripheral Academic Research Consortium (PARC), and 360° grading systems was identified in 17%, 24%, and 28% of the lesions, respectively. A contralateral femoral access was used in 278 cases (93%). The primary crossing success amounted to 70% (n=210). The use of a re-entry device in 28 patients (9%) or of a combined antegrade–retrograde approach in 11% (n=34) of the cases increased the assisted crossing success to 89% (n=267). The presence of calcification (odds ratio [OR]=4.2, 95% CI=1.7–10.2) or of circumferential calcium (OR=2.5, 95% CI=1.3–4.9), a CTOP class ΙΙΙ or ΙV (OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.4–2.6), a proximal superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusion (OR=3.5, 95% CI=1.7–7.4) and a CTO at P3 (OR=4.1, 95% CI=1.5–10.8) were associated with an increased risk for antegrade crossing failure. Conclusions: In this study, chronic total occlusions (CTO) morphology, calcification burden, and lesion’s location were identified as independent risk factors for failed antegrade crossing. Nonetheless, the use of alternative crossing strategies significantly increased the overall crossing success.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of total percutaneous implantation of the Zenith Alpha Thoracic (ZTA) endograft in the treatment of diseases of the descending thoracic aorta. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 56 consecutive patients undergoing total percutaneous ZTA implantation between 2018 and 2020 was performed in a single center. Patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, anatomical parameters, operative details, device features, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The primary endpoint was ongoing clinical success. A Cox regression model was used to determine the predictive factors of worse postoperative outcomes. Results: Eighty-three ZTA endografts were implanted in 35 men and 21 women with a mean age of 69±11 years for the treatment of 26 degenerative aneurysms, 15 type B dissections, and 8 penetrating ulcers, among others. Primary technical success was 100%, with a 30-day ongoing clinical success rate of 94.6%. The 1-year ongoing clinical success rate was 91.1% (51 patients), and freedoms from all-cause mortality, type 1 and 3 endoleaks, and any unplanned reintervention were, respectively, 95.3%, 91.4%, and 88.2% at 1 year. During follow-up, there was one case of surgical conversion for an aorto-esophageal fistula. On the contrary, neither aneurysmal rupture nor significant aneurysmal expansion was recorded. Repair of ruptured thoracic aorta and a high ratio of sheath outer diameter to external iliac artery diameter were found to be independently associated with worse outcomes, with adjusted odds ratios of 4.4 [1.5-15.3] and 4.9 [1.1-23.9], respectively. Conclusion: The outcomes of total percutaneous implantation of ZTA endograft show excellent primary technical success and favorable midterm ongoing clinical success. Factors associated with worse outcomes include the repair of ruptured aorta and a high sheath to access vessel ratio.

Objective: After alerts on EndoVascular Aneurysm Seal (EVAS) failure were raised, the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Clinical Practice Guidelines Writing Committee (WC) initiated a task force with the aim to provide guidance on surveillance and management of patients with implanted EVAS devices.Methods: Based on a scoping review of risk for late serious aortic-related adverse events in patients treated with EVAS for AAA, the ESVS AAA Guidelines WC agreed on recommendations graded according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) grading system.Results: EVAS has a very high incidence of late endograft migration resulting in proximal type 1 endoleak with risk of rupture, requiring open conversion with device explantation. The reported mortality rate for elective explantation varies between 0% and 14%, while acute conversion for rupture has a very dismal prognosis with a 67 -75% mortality rate.Conclusion: It is recommended that all patients in whom a Nellix device has been implanted should be identified, properly informed, and enrolled in enhanced surveillance. If device failure is detected, early elective device explantation should be considered in surgically fit patients. The authors, on behalf of the ESVS AAA Guidelines Writing Committee and the ESVS Guidelines Steering Committee.

Objectives: To study the outcome of endovascular treatment of aortic pathologies in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) at a single institution. Methods: Consecutive MFS patients who underwent endovascular repair or hybrid procedures for aortic pathologies from January 2010 to May 2020 were identified. Several endovascular and hybrid strategies have been used. Technical success, short- and mid-term survival, complications, and re-interventions were retrospectively analyzed. Results: During the study period, 24 patients with MFS (median age, 48 [13–78] years; 58% males) were treated. Indications for intervention were chronic aortic dissection with aneurysm degeneration in 16 patients (67%), acute type B aortic dissection in 4 patients (17%), aortic aneurysm without any dissection in 3 patients (13%), and aortic intramural hematoma in 1 patient (4%). Most patients were asymptomatic (83%), three (13%) were symptomatic and one (4%) had a contained rupture. The median aneurysm diameter was 56 (35–86) mm. Hybrid procedures were performed in 7 (29%) patients. Thoracic endovascular repair was performed in 12 (50%) patients, a fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair in 4 (17%) patients, and placement of an iliac artery stent-graft in 1 (4%) patient. Procedures were staged in 12 (50%) patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The median intensive care unit stay was 6 (range, 1–30) days, and the median hospital stay was 23 (range, 3–112) days. Early mortality was reported in 1 (4%) patient. Wound infection was seen in 7 (29%) patients and gastrointestinal complications in 3 (13%) patients. The median follow-up was 42 (range, 1–127) months. The cumulative survival rate was 87% at 24 months. The cumulative freedom from re-intervention was 77% at 12 months. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of aortic pathologies in patients with MFS appears feasible with acceptable early and mid-term outcomes in terms of mortality and re-intervention rates. Endovascular therapy plays an increasing role in MFS patients with aortic pathology.

Objective To determine short and midterm outcomes of a pre-loaded fenestrated thoracic endograft (f-TEVAR) for exclusion of distal aortic arch pathologies. Methods This was a multicentre, retrospective study including consecutive patients from six experienced European vascular centres undergoing f-TEVAR for distal arch pathologies. Primary endpoints included peri-operative mortality and peri-operative stroke and/or spinal cord ischaemia rates. Secondary outcomes were technical success and mid to late events, including death and re-interventions. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 26. Mid to late term events were calculated using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results One hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 68 ± 11 years, 70% men). A total of 38% (n = 42) had a prior history of aortic dissection, and 24% (n = 26) prior aortic surgery. The mean aneurysm diameter was 59 ± 12 mm and the most frequent indication for treatment was post-dissection aneurysms (n = 42, 39%). Technical success was 99% (n = 107) despite intra-operative wire entanglement occurring in 29% (n = 31). The 30 day mortality rate was 3.7% (n = 4), with a 5.6% major stroke incidence (n = 6) and 3.7% (n = 4) spinal cord ischaemia rate. Three cases of retrograde dissection occurred (two of which were fatal), all in post-type B dissecting aneurysm patients without prior aortic surgery (three of 19, 15.8%). Median follow up was 12 months (range, 1 – 26). Endoleaks were documented during follow up, with 3.5% type Ia (4/104) and 2.9% type Ib (3/104) as a result of persistent false lumen perfusion. The one, two, and three year survivals and freedom from re-intervention rates were 93.2% and 92.1%, 89.1% and 86.3%, and 84.4% and 73%, respectively. Conclusion This multicentre study shows that treatment of the distal aortic arch by f-TEVAR is feasible, with promising 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia rates.

Objective To report the outcomes of redo fenestrated and/or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR in FEVAR) to rescue previous failed FEVAR. Methods Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing F/BEVAR in FEVAR at eight aortic centres including pre-, intra-, and post-operative data according to a pre-established protocol. Follow up consisted of at least yearly computed tomography angiography. Values are presented as median and interquartile range, and survival as estimate ± standard error in percentage. Results 18 male patients (76 years old; range 69 – 78 years) receiving FEVAR involving two (two or three) target vessels between 2006 and 2016 underwent F/BEVAR in FEVAR between 2012 and 2019 (aneurysm diameter of 63 mm; range 56 – 69 mm). Median interval between the procedures was 53 (29 – 103) months. The indication for F/BEVAR in FEVAR was type Ia endoleak in 16 cases (eight isolated and eight combined with graft migration), one graft migration without endoleak and one migration with significant proximal aortic expansion. F/BEVAR in FEVAR involved all patent renovisceral arteries and had an operating time of 260 (204 – 344) minutes. Technical success was achieved in 15 (83%) cases. There was a failure to bridge one renal artery, one renal capsular bleed with the subsequent need for renal artery embolisation within 24 hours and one persistent type Ib endoleak despite iliac extension. There was no peri- or in hospital death. Two patients developed spinal cord ischaemia, one transient paraparesis and one permanent paraplegia. The latter occurred in a non-staged procedure where spinal drainage was used. During a follow up of 27 (7 – 39) months, three (17%) patients underwent late re-interventions. Overall survival at 24 months was 70 ± 11% with no aneurysm related death and a secondary clinical success at 24 months of 84 ± 11%. Conclusion F/BEVAR in FEVAR is a technically challenging but feasible solution to rescue failed FEVAR. The outcomes are promising in many aortic centres but need to be confirmed by further studies with longer follow up.

ZusammenfassungPathologien im Bereich des Aortenbogens können isoliert auftreten, weit häufiger jedoch sind auch benachbarte Abschnitte der thorakalen Aorta – die Aorta ascendens oder Aorta descendens – mit betroffen. Die ersten operativen Eingriffe zur Behandlung des Aortenbogens wurden vor knapp 6 Jahrzehnten vorgenommen. Trotz zahlreicher Verbesserungen und Innovationen während des 20. und Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts bleiben diese Eingriffe mit einer relevanten operativen Mortalität und neurologischen Komplikationsrate vergesellschaftet. Endovaskuläre Techniken sowie moderne Hybridverfahren erweitern das therapeutische Spektrum im Bereich des Aortenbogens zunehmend, auch wenn das offene operative Vorgehen aktuell noch der Goldstandard ist. Die endovaskuläre Behandlung eines Aortenaneurysmas wurde erstmals im Bereich der infrarenalen Aorta abdominalis in den frühen 1990er-Jahren durchgeführt. Es dauerte nicht lange, bis die ersten endovaskulären Therapieversuche zur Behandlung des Aortenbogens unternommen wurden. Schon 1996 berichteten Inoue et al. über den Einsatz der ersten gebranchten Endoprothese zur Behandlung von Aneurysmen im Aortenbogen. Fortwährende Verbesserungen und Verfeinerungen der Implantationstechniken und auch des implantierten Materials führten dazu, dass heutzutage im Bereich der deszendierenden thorakalen und abdominellen Aorta die endovaskuläre Therapie eine immer bedeutsamere Option im Vergleich zu den offenen chirurgischen Verfahren darstellt und diese teils als Goldstandard abgelöst hat. Diese Übersichtsarbeit soll einen Überblick über Voraussetzungen, Ergebnisse, aber auch Grenzen der endovaskulären Chirurgie des Aortenbogens geben.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die Behandlung komplexer abdomineller und thorakoabdomineller Aortenaneurysmen stellt für alle Beteiligten eine Herausforderung dar. Die offene chirurgische Versorgung ist ein Hochrisikoeingriff und ist besonders im Notfall mit erhöhter Morbidität und Mortalität assoziiert. Die endovaskuläre Ausschaltung mithilfe eines patientenspezifischen maßgefertigten Stentgrafts steht aufgrund der erforderlichen Herstellungszeit bei Patienten mit symptomatischen oder rupturierten komplexen Aneurysmen nicht zur Verfügung. In diesen Fällen müssen alternative endovaskuläre Techniken angewendet werden. Ergebnisse Zu den endovaskulären Therapieoptionen komplexer Aneurysmen in dringenden Fällen und Notfällen zählen die „off-the-shelf“ und die „surgeon-modified“ Stentgrafts. Die ersten sind standardisiert hergestellte fenestrierte oder gebranchte Endoprothesen, die aufgrund der anatomischen Gegebenheiten bei etwa 50 – 80% der Patienten eingesetzt werden können. Die „surgeon-modified“ oder „vom Chirurgen modifizierten“ Stentgrafts beschreiben eine Technik, bei der eine kommerzielle Stentprothese unter sterilen Bedingungen und direkt vor der Implantation durch den Operateur bearbeitet wird, damit die benötigten Fenestrierungen, Scallops und Branches geschaffen werden. Die Modifikationsdauer beträgt 60 – 120 min angepasst an die Anatomie des Patienten. Es handelt sich um einen „off-label“-Gebrauch eines kommerziellen Stentgrafts außerhalb der Anweisungen des Herstellers und wenn möglich, sollte eine entsprechende ausführliche Patientenaufklärung als Behandlungsversuch stattfinden. In der Literatur sind ähnliche Ergebnisse bez. Morbidität und Mortalität zwischen „off-the-shelf“ und „surgeon-modified“ Prothesen publiziert. Ein direkter Vergleich dieser Verfahren scheint aus mehreren Gründen (unterschiedliches Prothesendesign, Selektionsbias, unterschiedliche Techniken in der Prothesenmodifikation) jedoch schwierig und anhand der Literatur allein nicht eindeutig durchführbar. Schlussfolgerung Die „surgeon-modified“ sowie die „off-the-shelf“ fenestrierten/gebranchten Stentprothesen werden in der Versorgung von Hochrisikopatienten mit symptomatischen oder gedeckt rupturierten komplexen Aortenaneurysmen angewendet. Die Ergebnisse beider Techniken sind vergleichbar gut, obwohl die langfristige Funktionsdauer der modifizierten Stentprothesen weiter getestet werden sollte.

To fulfil its orchestration of immune cell trafficking, a network of chemokines and receptors developed that capitalizes on specificity, redundancy, and functional selectivity. The discovery of heteromeric interactions in the chemokine interactome has expanded the complexity within this network. Moreover, some inflammatory mediators, not structurally linked to classical chemokines, bind to chemokine receptors and behave as atypical chemokines (ACKs). We identified macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) as an ACK that binds to chemokine receptors CXCR2 and CXCR4 to promote atherogenic leukocyte recruitment. Here, we hypothesized that chemokine–chemokine interactions extend to ACKs and that MIF forms heterocomplexes with classical chemokines. We tested this hypothesis by using an unbiased chemokine protein array. Platelet chemokine CXCL4L1 (but not its variant CXCL4 or the CXCR2/CXCR4 ligands CXCL8 or CXCL12) was identified as a candidate interactor. MIF/CXCL4L1 complexation was verified by co-immunoprecipitation, surface plasmon-resonance analysis, and microscale thermophoresis, also establishing high-affinity binding. We next determined whether heterocomplex formation modulates inflammatory/atherogenic activities of MIF. Complex formation was observed to inhibit MIF-elicited T-cell chemotaxis as assessed by transwell migration assay and in a 3D-matrix-based live cell-imaging set-up. Heterocomplexation also blocked MIF-triggered migration of microglia in cortical cultures in situ, as well as MIF-mediated monocyte adhesion on aortic endothelial cell monolayers under flow stress conditions. Of note, CXCL4L1 blocked binding of Alexa-MIF to a soluble surrogate of CXCR4 and co-incubation with CXCL4L1 attenuated MIF responses in HEK293-CXCR4 transfectants, indicating that complex formation interferes with MIF/CXCR4 pathways. Because MIF and CXCL4L1 are platelet-derived products, we finally tested their role in platelet activation. Multi-photon microscopy, FLIM-FRET, and proximity-ligation assay visualized heterocomplexes in platelet aggregates and in clinical human thrombus sections obtained from peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients undergoing thrombectomy. Moreover, heterocomplexes inhibited MIF-stimulated thrombus formation under flow and skewed the lamellipodia phenotype of adhering platelets. Our study establishes a novel molecular interaction that adds to the complexity of the chemokine interactome and chemokine/receptor-network. MIF/CXCL4L1, or more generally, ACK/CXC-motif chemokine heterocomplexes may be target structures that can be exploited to modulate inflammation and thrombosis.

Purpose Calcifications of the visceral and renal arteries lead to chronic mesenteric ischemia and renal artery stenosis, and both open and endovascular treatments can be proposed. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as a novel technique used in peripheral and coronary interventions. Case Report A 73-year-old man presented with chronic postprandial abdominal pain and weight loss. Computed-tomography-angiography (CTA) showed 93% calcified stenosis of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). The plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) was affected by immediate recoiling. The patient underwent ShockwaveTM IVL of the SMA via brachial access and stent-graft implantation. At 3-months follow-up, the patient showed symptoms resolution. Conclusions The use of Shockwave IVL can be an effective treatment for severely calcified SMA stenosis. A similar approach can be employed in both celiac and renal arteries as reported in 11 cases in literature and herein summarized. Intravascular lithotripsy resulted in high technical success and uneventful follow-up. However, given the small number of patients reported, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Clinical Impact This article reports a case of recanalization of superior mesenteric artery with heavily calcified lesion treated with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) with Shockwave™ Intravascular Lithotripsy Balloon (Shockwave Medical Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Beside, for the first time, we summarize the Literature on the use of IVL in the renal and visceral arteries district, providing indications, applications and useful hints for the endovascular treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia and renal artery stenosis. This preliminary data show straightforward applicability, high technical success, and uneventful follow-up and IVL can be proposed as an useful tool for challenging revascularization of heavily calcified reno-visceral arteries.

Objectives The objective is to assess the performance of the Eluvia polymer coated drug eluting stent (DES) compared to a bare metal stent (BMS) platform in patients with femoropopliteal arterial disease. Methods This is a retrospective, single-center analysis. Patients treated with the Eluvia DES (group Eluvia) or the EverFlex BMS (group BMS) for femoropopliteal disease between January 2013 and December 2019 were included. Primary measure outcome of this analysis was the overall mortality. The PTX specific mortality, the primary patency, the amputation free survival (AFS), and the target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were additionally evaluated. Results A total of 124 patients were treated by BMS deployment, while the Eluvia platform was preferred in 75 subjects. In both groups the majority presented with lifestyle limiting claudication (BMS: 84% vs Eluvia: 73%, p = 0.73). Chronic total occlusions were more frequent in patients treated by BMS (BMS: 71% vs Eluvia: 84%, p = 0.027), whereas the calcification burden (BMS: 81% vs Eluvia: 76%, p = 0.43) and the median lesion length (in mm, IQR) (BMS: 160 (100 to 240) vs Eluvia: 140 (80 to 229), p = 0.17) were comparable. At 24 months, the overall survival (BMS: 93% vs Eluvia: 89%, hazard ratio (HR): 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55 to 2.64, p = 0.64) and the PTX specific survival (BMS: 95% vs Eluvia: 95%, HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.41 to 4.02, p = 0.67) did not differ significantly between the two platforms. No significant difference was observed regarding the 24 months primary patency rate (BMS: 66% vs Eluvia: 78%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.15, p = 0.18), the freedom from TLR (BMS: 83% vs Eluvia: 89%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.68, p = 0.572), and the AFS (BMS: 93 vs Eluvia: 89%, HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.55 to 2.64). The Cox regression analysis revealed a higher mortality risk among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) (HR: 3.14, 95% CI: 1.61 to 6.14, p = 0.008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (HR: 4.65, 95% CI: 2.14 to 10.09, p = 0.001), in octagenerians (HR: 4.40, 95% CI: 1.92 to 10.44, p = 0.005), and in patients not on statins at baseline (HR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.19 to 4.99, p=0.014). Conclusions In this cohort, the use of the Eluvia DES did not increase the risk for mortality compared to BMS deployment. CLTI, COPD, advanced age, and the lack of statin therapy at baseline were associated with a higher risk for death.

Complicated acute nonA-nonB dissection with malperfusion is associated with a high in-hospital mortality up to 67%. Therefore, rapid identification and treatment are critical for clinical outcomes. We report the urgent treatment of a complicated subacute aortic dissection treated with a physician-modified-endograft (PMEG) fenestrated-TEVAR (f-TEVAR) for the left common carotid artery (LCCA).A 49-year-old male patient with acute non-A non-B aortic dissection with complete true lumen collapse and associated mesenteric and renal ischemia, was referred to another vascular center for abdominal pain and received exclusively medical treatment. After 15 days of persistent pain, the patient self-referred to our center and was treated with endovascular repair. The proximal entry tear was located at the level of the left subclavian artery: a PMEG f-TEVAR was performed with fenestration for LCCA in conjunction with carotid-subclavian bypass. In addition, spot stenting of the left renal artery was performed to resolve renal malperfusion. The final angiography showed satisfactory result. The patient soon reported significant pain relief. Follow-up at 30-days was satisfactory, with no need for further intervention.A physician-modified fenestrated-TEVAR can be used in emergency setting to treat acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection in conjunction with multiorgan malperfusion, with satisfactory results even after initial delayed treatment.

Purpose: To describe the transaxillary branch-to-branch-to-branch carotid catheterization technique (tranaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT) for cannulation of all supra-aortic vessels using only 1 femoral and 1 axillary access during triple-branch arch repair. Technique: After deployment of the triple-branch arch device, catheterization and bridging of the innominate artery (IA) should be performed through a right axillary access (cutdown or percutaneous). Then, the retrograde left subclavian (LSA) branch should be catheterized (if not preloaded) from a percutaneous femoral access, and a 12×90Fr sheath should be advanced to the outside of the endograft. Subsequently, catheterization of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) antegrade branch should be performed, followed by snaring of a wire in the ascending aorta which was inserted through the axillary access, creating a branch-to-branch-to-branch through-and-through guidewire. Over the axillary access, a 12×45Fr sheath should be inserted into the IA branch and looped in the ascending aorta using a push-and-pull technique so that it faces the LCCA branch, allowing for stable catheterization of the LCCA. The retrograde LSA branch should then be bridged following the standard fashion. Conclusions: This series of 5 patients demonstrates that triple-branch arch repair can be performed with the transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT, allowing catheterization of the supra-aortic vessels without manipulation of the carotid arteries. Clinical Impact The transaxillary 3BRA-CCE IT allows catheterization and bridging of all supra-aortic vessels in triple-branch arch repair through only 2 vascular access points, the femoral artery and the right axillary artery. This technique avoids carotid surgical cutdown and manipulation during these procedures, reducing the risk of access site complications, including bleeding and reintervention, reintubation, cranial nerve lesions, increased operating time, and so on, and has the potential to change the current vascular access standard used during triple-branch arch repair.

Background: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of developing renal injury following revascularization. We aimed to compare the risk of adverse renal events following endovascular revascularization (ER) or open surgery (OS) in patients with CLTI and CKD. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) databases (2011–2017) was performed including patients with CLTI and non-dialysis-dependent CKD, comparing ER to OS. The primary outcome was a composite of postprocedural kidney injury or failure within 30 days. Thirty-day mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), amputation, readmission or target lesion revascularization (TLR) were compared using multivariate logistic regression and propensity-score matched analysis. Results: A total of 5009 patients were included (ER: 2361; OS: 3409). The risk for the composite primary outcome was comparable between groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-1.17) as for kidney injury (n=54, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.39-1.19) or failure (n=55, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.39-1.19). In the adjusted regression, a significant benefit was observed with ER for the primary outcome (OR: 0.60, p=0.018) and renal failure (OR: 0.50, p=0.025), but not for renal injury (OR: 0.76, p=0.34). Lower rates of MACCE, TLR, and readmissions were observed after ER. Thirty-day mortality and major amputation rates did not differ. In the propensity score analysis, revascularization strategy was not associated with renal injury or failure. Conclusions: In this cohort, the incidence of renal events within 30 days of revascularization in CLTI was low and comparable between ER and OR. Clinical Impact In a cohort of 5009 patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia and non-end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD), postprocedural kidney injury or failure within 30 days was comparable between patients submitted to open or endovascular revascularization (ER). Lower rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, target lesion revascularization, and readmissions were observed after endovascular revascularization. Based on these findings, ER should not be avoided due to fear of worsening renal function in CKD patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. In fact, these patients benefit more from ER regarding cardiovascular outcomes with no increased risk of kidney injury.

Journal of endovascular therapy 28(6), 914-926 (2021). doi:10.1177/15266028211030536, Published by Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

OBJECTIVES In acute aortic dissection type A various components of the diagnostic and logistic pathways may affect the time to definitive treatment. This study aimed to characterize these components and to identify factors delaying the optimal management within our institutional referral network. METHODS Between January 2017 and January 2020, 96 consecutive patients with classical aortic dissection type A were admitted (28%) or referred (72%) to our tertiary care centre and analysed retrospectively. Data are presented as medians (25th–75th quartile). RESULTS Median age was 66 years (56–74), 63% were male. Most of the patients were primarily admitted to a cardiology department (40%), whereas about a fourth were admitted to departments for internal medicine (26%) and general surgery (27%). The median interval from the onset of symptoms to hospital admission was 2.1 (1–4.4) h. From admission to confirmed diagnosis it took 2.1 (0.6–9.5) h and the median interval from confirmed diagnosis to admission at our specialized tertiary care aortic centre was 1.5 (0.9–2.4) h. Following admission to our centre, 1.1 (0.5–1.9) h passed until the induction of anaesthesia and 0.8 (0.0–1.1) h until the start of surgery. The total interval from the onset of symptoms to the start of surgery was 7.6 h (5.1–12.3). CONCLUSIONS The marked variability of the time from symptoms to diagnosis at any medical facility demonstrates the importance of awareness in the optimization of the treatment of acute aortic dissection type A.

Objective This study aims to determine the outcomes of transcaval embolization (TCE) for type II endoleak after infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR). Methods A retrospective single-center cohort study of all consecutive TCE procedures between August 2015 and August 2019 was performed to investigate technical success, in-hospital morbidity, and 30-day mortality as well as clinical success during follow-up. The indication for TCE was an aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or more owing to a type II endoleak after EVAR for infrarenal or F/BEVAR for juxtarenal and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Results A total 25 TCE procedures in 24 patients (95.8% male) were included. Technical success was 96.0% (24/25); selective and nonselective TCE were performed in 48% of patients. The in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality were 0%. The median follow-up was 23.1 months (interquartile range, 10.9-40.1 months). Freedom from type II endoleak-related reintervention was 84.6% at 12 months. Comparing clinical success after TCE, reintervention was necessary in 16.7% of patients after nonselective and 20% of patients after selective TCE. Regarding TCE after EVAR vs F/BEVAR, reintervention was performed in 12.5% of EVAR and 33.3% of F/BEVAR patients during follow-up. Conclusions TCE is an acceptable treatment alternative for type II endoleak with aneurysm sac enlargement and can be used after EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and F/BEVAR for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Purpose To describe the use of large-diameter balloon-expandable stent-grafts (BeGraft aortic stent-graft, Bentley InnoMed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany) in the treatment of infrarenal penetrating aortic ulcer (iPAU). Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endovascular treatment with the BeGraft aortic stent-graft in 8 European centers from January 2017 to October 2020. Demographics, perioperative data, and midterm outcomes were collected. Endpoints of the study were technical feasibility, early mortality, and morbidity. Results A total of 40 patients were included. The mean age was 73.9±7.05 years and 63.2% were male. Indications for treatment included size and morphology (65%), presence of symptoms (29.5%), and contained ruptures (5.5%). Urgent treatment was performed in 5% of cases. Technical success was 97.5%. Median operation time was 58 minutes (19–170 minutes), with 27.5% of patients having additional procedures during the main intervention (1 additional repair with a C-TAG (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) thoracic endoprosthesis, 5 covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation procedures, 3 extensions with proximal cuffs, and 2 percutaneous angioplasties of the common iliac arteries). Percutaneous femoral access was used in 72.5%, while groin cut-down was performed in 27.5%. Repair was successful with only 1 stent in 45% of cases, while 37.5% required 2 stents and nearly 17.5% required 3/4 stent-grafts. The 30-day mortality was 0%, with a 2.5% reintervention rate (1 patient required evacuation of an intra-abdominal hematoma). Median follow-up was 13.9 months (2–39 months), during which no vascular-related reinterventions or deaths were reported. In 4 patients, a type II endoleak was observed. No cases of graft migration, thrombosis, or stent-fracture were observed. Conclusions The treatment of iPAU with the BeGraft aortic stent-graft in a selective patient group is feasible with low rate of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Balloon-expandable stent-grafts offer the option to repair iPAUs with a shorter coverage of the aorta using low-profile sheath, that enables treatment in the presence of calcified access vessels and small diameter aortic bifurcations.

Background Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques. Methods The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded. Results From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid–subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid–subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups. Conclusions Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.

Purpose: This study describes technical success, feasibility, and early results of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) for treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) or pararenal aneurysms with more than 4 target visceral vessels (TVs) due to renovisceral arterial anatomical variations. Materials and Methods: Patients with TAAAs or pararenal aortic aneurysms who had more than 4 TVs due to renovisceral arterial anatomical variations of renal, celiac, and/or superior mesenteric arteries and received F/B-EVAR between January 2017 and September 2019 at a single aortic center were included in this study. We analyzed technical success, feasibility, and early outcomes. Results: Twelve patients (mean age 70±10 years, 9 males) were included. The anatomical variations included 6 right accessory renal arteries, 8 left accessory renal arteries, and 1 celiac artery variant. Stent-grafts were fenestrated, branched or combined in 6, 5, or 1 patients, respectively. The mean operating time was 346±120 minutes, the mean fluoroscopy time was 80±29 minutes, and the mean radiation dose area product was 430±219 Gy·cm2. The mean contrast volume was 129±45 mL. The total number of TVs was 64; 5 TVs in 9 patients, 6 in 2 patients, and 7 in 1 patient. Technical success was achieved in all cases. The mean intensive care unit stay was 6±5 days, and the mean total hospital stay was 14±10 days. One patient died early (30-day). Early morbidities included respiratory complication in 1 patient, renal insufficiency in 1 patient, and wound infection in 2 patients. No spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or bowel ischemia occurred. Early computed tomography angiography showed 100% patency of the bridging covered stents and TVs. The mean follow-up was 13±4.3 months. No mortality or adverse major event occurred during the follow-up. Two patients with developed type Ic endoleak related to 1 right renal artery and 1 celiac artery covered stent. Patency of the TVs during follow-up was 100%. Conclusion: The use of F/B-EVAR for the treatment of TAAA with more than 4 TVs due to renovisceral arterial anatomical variations in our own experience is feasible and not related to increased morbidity and mortality.

Background Acute occlusion of renal bridging stent grafts after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is an acknowledged complication with high morbidity that often results in chronic dialysis dependence. The feasibility and effect of timely or late (≥6 hours of ischemia) renal artery revascularization has not been adequately reported. Methods We performed a retrospective, multicenter study across 11 tertiary institutions of all consecutive patients who had undergone revascularization of renal artery stent graft occlusions after complex EVAR. The end points were technical success, association between ischemia time and renal function salvage, interventional complications, mortality, and mid-term outcomes. Results From 2009 to 2019, 38 patients with 46 target vessels (TVs; eight bilateral occlusions) were treated for renal artery occlusions after complex EVAR (mean age, 63.5 ± 10 years; 63.2% male). Six patients had a solitary kidney (15.8%). Of the 38 patients, 16 (42.1%) had undergone FEVAR and 22 (57.9%) had undergone BEVAR. The technical success rate was 95.7% (44 of 46 TVs). The recanalization technique used was sole aspiration thrombectomy in 5.3%, aspiration thrombectomy and stent graft relining in 52.6%, and sole stent graft relining in 36.8%. The median renal ischemia time was 27.5 hours (range, 4-720 hours; interquartile range, 4-36 hours). Most patients (94.4%) had been treated after ≥6 hours of renal ischemia time, and 55.6% had been treated after 24 hours. In 14 patients (36.8%), renal function had improved after intervention (mean glomerular filtration rate improvement, 14.2 ± 9 mL/min/1.73 m2). However, 24 patients (63.2%) showed no improvement. Improvement of renal function did not correlate with the length of renal ischemia time. Of the 14 patients with bilateral renal artery occlusion or a solitary kidney, 9 experienced partial recovery of renal function and no longer required hemodialysis. In-hospital mortality was 2.6%. The cause of renal stent graft occlusion could not be identified in 50% of the TVs (23 of 46). However, in 19 (41.3%), significant stenosis or a kink of the renal stent graft was found. The median follow-up was 11 months (interquartile range, 0-28 months). The estimated 1-year patient survival and patency rate of the renal stent grafts was 97.4% and 83.8%, respectively. Conclusions Revascularization of occluded renal bridging stent grafts after F/B-EVAR is a safe and feasible technique and can lead to significant improvement of renal function, even after long ischemia times (>24 hours) of the renal parenchyma or bilateral occlusion, as long as residual perfusion of the renal parenchyma has been preserved. Also, the long-term patency rates justify aggressive management of renal artery occlusion after F/B-EVAR.

Background: To share the results of a web-based expert panel discussion focusing on the management of acute and chronic aortic disease during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: A web-based expert panel discussion on April 18, 2020, where eight experts were invited to share their experience with COVID-19 disease touching several aspects of aortic medicine. After each talk, specific questions were asked by the online audience, and results were immediately evaluated and shared with faculty and participants. Results: As of April 18, 73.3% answered that more than 200 patients have been treated at their respective settings. Sixty-four percent were reported that their hospital was well prepared for the pandemic. In 57.7%, the percentage of infected healthcare professionals was below 5% whereas 19.2% reported the percentage to be between 10% and 20%. Sixty-seven percent reported the application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenationin less than 2% of COVID-19 patients whereas 11.8% reported application in 5%–10% of COVID-19 patients. Thirty percent of participants reported the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. Three percent reported to have seen aortic ruptures in primarily elective patients having been postponed because of the anticipated need to provide sufficient ICU capacity because of the pandemic. Nearly70% reported a decrease in acute aortic syndrome referrals since the start of the pandemic. Conclusion: The current COVID-19 pandemic has—besides the stoppage of elective referrals—also led to a decrease of referrals of acute aortic syndromes in many settings. The reluctance of patients seeking medical help seems to be a major driver. The number of patients, who have been postponed due to the provisioning of ICU resources but having experienced aortic rupture in the waiting period, is still low. Further, studies are needed to learn more about the influence that the COVID-19 pandemic has on the treatment of patients with acute and chronic aortic disease.

OBJECTIVE: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR).METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006-2021 from 17 European vascular centres were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events (MAE), 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes.RESULTS: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. Median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (IQR, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, PCONCLUSIONS: Repair of a failed previous EVAR or OAR is safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.

Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch has evolved at an astonishing pace in the past several decades. Results of endovascular arch repair in experienced centers have been improving and the technology evolving, and it has begun to challenge the current gold standard status of open surgery in some groups of patients. Hybrid strategies with adjunctive cervical debranching for distal arch lesions are being replaced by fenestrated arch repairs. Total endovascular repair for proximal aortic arch pathologies with the use of inner branches has achieved the best results; however, the main current limitations of endovascular arch repair are diameter-, length-, and angulation-related issues with the ascending aorta (proximal landing zone). Ascending aorta endovascular repair has allowed extending treatment further proximally in patients with post-surgical pseudoaneurysms of the ascending aorta or post-type A chronic aortic dissections. However, sufficient proximal landing zone is still needed in the proximal aorta for these repairs; in a significant number of patients, this is not feasible with simple proximal tubular grafts. Therefore, new technologies and techniques are being developed to deal with this limitation, including the endovascular Bentall concept, with incorporation of the aortic valve and coronary ostia. In this review, the current state and future directions of endovascular ascending and arch repairs and the motion towards an endovascular Bentall procedure are discussed.

Purpose: To describe the technical aspects and early results of a new endovascular fenestration method for false lumen occlusion in chronic aortic dissection: the Knickerbocker Technique. Methods: A retrospective observational study including all consecutively treated patients between November 1, 2012, through May 31, 2016, who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with false lumen occlusion using the Knickerbocker Technique for thoracic false lumen aneurysm in chronic aortic dissection in a tertiary care center. Primary endpoints consisted of technical (correct deployment of the stent-graft) and clinical (false lumen occlusion) success. Secondary endpoints included overall survival and morbidity after 30 days. In 12 patients, follow-up computed tomography angiogram (CTA) was available and aortic remodeling was evaluated. Results: We identified 16 eligible patients (75% men, mean age: 69 years, range: 52–80 years). Technical success was 94%. Overall survival after 30 days was 100%; there was 1 aortic reintervention (additional false lumen embolization due to endoleak type 1a in 1 patient). Median total follow-up was 31.5 months (range: 3–66 months). Four (25%) of 16 patients died during follow-up, in 3 of those patients the cause of death is unknown, and 1 patient developed cardiac tamponade after being treated by fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Imaging follow-up with CTA was available in 12 patients (median imaging follow-up: 27.5 months, range: 1–57 months). Nine (75%) of 12 patients showed thoracic aortic remodeling, and in 3 patients aneurysm size was stable. No patient showed aneurysm growth. Conclusion: The Knickerbocker Technique is a feasible endovascular fenestration method to achieve false lumen occlusion and aortic remodeling in chronic aortic dissection with low invasiveness.

BACKGROUND The increasing proportion of elderly patients being treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in theendovascular era is controversial.OBJECTIVES This study compared 30-day outcomes of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in nonagenarians (NAs) withnon-nonagenarians (NNAs). METHODS This retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality ImprovementProgram database included EVAR procedures performed from 2011 to 2017. Multivariate logistic regression in the un-adjusted cohort, followed by propensity-score matching (PSM), was performed. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortalityand 30-day major adverse events. RESULTS A total of 12,267 patients were included (365 NAs). Ruptured aneurysms accounted for 6.7% (n ¼ 819): 15.7%(n ¼ 57) in NAs versus 6.5% (n ¼ 762) in NNAs (p < 0.001). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.5 1.8 cm in NAs versus 5.8 1.7 cm in NNAs (p < 0.001). The unadjusted 30-day mortality was 9.9% in NA versus 2.2% in NNAs (p < 0.001).Multivariate analysis revealed age $90 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.36), male sex (OR: 1.78), functional status (OR: 4.22),pre-operative ventilator dependency (OR: 3.80), bleeding disorders (OR: 1.52), dialysis (OR: 2.56), and ruptured aneu-rysms (OR: 17.21) as independent predictors of mortality. After PSM, no differences in 30-day mortality (intact AAA[iAAA]: 5.3% NA vs. 3% NNA [p ¼ 0.15]; ruptured AAA [rAAA]: 38% NA vs. 28.6% NNA [p ¼ 0.32]) or 30-day majoradverse events (iAAA: 7% NA vs. 4.6% NNA [p ¼ 0.22]; rAAA: 28% NA vs. 36.7% NNA [p ¼ 0.35]) were observed. CONCLUSIONS Age was identified as an independent predictor of 30-day mortality after EVAR on multivariate anal-ysis. However, no differences were found after PSM, suggesting that being $90 years of age but with similar comor-bidities to younger patients is not associated with a higher short-term mortality after EVAR. Age $90 years alone shouldnot exclude patients from EVAR, and tailored indications and carefully balanced risk assessment are advised.(J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:1891–9) © 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Purpose To present a novel technique to successfully cross a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis. Technique A 55-year-old female patient with genetically verified Marfan syndrome presented with a 5-cm anastomotic aneurysm of the proximal aortic arch after previous ascending aortic replacement due to a type A aortic dissection in 2007. The patient also underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement in 1991. A 3-stage hybrid repair was planned. The first 2 steps included debranching of the supra-aortic vessels. In the third procedure, a custom-made double branched endovascular stent-graft with a short 35-mm introducer tip was implanted. The mechanical valve was passed with the tip of the dilator on the lateral site of the leaflet, without destructing the valve and with only mild symptoms of aortic insufficiency, as one leaflet continued to work. This allowed the implantation of the stent-graft directly distally of the coronary arteries. Postoperative computed tomography angiography showed no endoleaks and patent coronary and supra-aortic vessels. Conclusion Passing a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis at the proper position is feasible and allows adequate endovascular treatment in complex arch anatomy. However, caution should be taken during positioning of the endovascular graft as the tip may potentially damage the valve prosthesis.