Journal of thoracic disease · 2023
An early single-center experience with the Relay double inner-branch arch endograft.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iglesias Iglesias Cristóbal, González Canga Carmen, Abril Ramiro Francisco, Alonso Pastor Alba, Álvarez Marcos Francisco, Alonso Pérez Manuel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Open surgery remains the gold standard technique for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies, although endovascular techniques offer a new opportunity for patients deemed unfit for open repair. This paper assesses the early outcomes of patients treated with a double inner-branched arch endograft in a single, tertiary-care institution.
METHODS: All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay® (Terumo Aortic-Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA) double inner-branched endograft; an extra-anatomical bypass was associated in all cases to preserve the patency of supra-aortic trunks. Comorbidities, periprocedural data, immediate results and follow-up complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.
METHODS: All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay® (Terumo Aortic-Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA) double inner-branched endograft; an extra-anatomical bypass was associated in all cases to preserve the patency of supra-aortic trunks. Comorbidities, periprocedural data, immediate results and follow-up complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.