The British journal of surgery · 2025
Endovascular aortic arch repair with a triple branch arch device.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Grasso Emanuele C, Aru Roberto G, Pennetta Federico F, Le Houérou Thomas, Fabre Dominique, Haulon Stéphan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Repair of aortic arch aneurysms is challenging whether by open surgery or endovascular techniques. The aim of this study was to analyse the midterm outcomes of an innovative endovascular thoracic aortic stent-graft with a triple branch design (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) and to compare the outcomes in patients with a retrograde or an antegrade branch for the left common carotid artery (LCCA).
METHODS: All patients treated with the custom-made triple-branch arch device between October 2018 and April 2025 at a single tertiary-care hospital were enrolled. Demographics, co-morbidities, indication for the procedure, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded. The primary aim was to evaluate midterm clinical outcomes, including branch primary patency and reintervention rates. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes based on LCCA branch orientation.
RESULTS: Some patients were treated. Indications were degenerative (49%) or post-dissection (51%) arch aneurysms. Percutaneous approach was more common in the retrograde group (74% versus 24%, P < 0.001), which also had shorter operative times (160.5 versus 234.0 min, P < 0.001). Thirty-day stroke occurred in five patients (7%; 3% retrograde versus 11% antegrade, P = 0.361). Thirty-day mortality was 3% (3% versus 3%, P = 1) and postoperative heart failure developed in three patients (6% versus 3%, P = 0.599). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (i.q.r. 17.5-62.6 months). During follow-up, 8 patients died (11%) and 14 (19%) required reintervention. Branch primary patency was 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular aortic arch repair with a triple-branch device is associated with favourable early outcomes. A retrograde LCCA branch orientation was associated with shorter operative times, and an increased potential for a totally percutaneous approach. Multicentre studies are required to confirm these findings and evaluate long-term outcomes.
METHODS: All patients treated with the custom-made triple-branch arch device between October 2018 and April 2025 at a single tertiary-care hospital were enrolled. Demographics, co-morbidities, indication for the procedure, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded. The primary aim was to evaluate midterm clinical outcomes, including branch primary patency and reintervention rates. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes based on LCCA branch orientation.
RESULTS: Some patients were treated. Indications were degenerative (49%) or post-dissection (51%) arch aneurysms. Percutaneous approach was more common in the retrograde group (74% versus 24%, P < 0.001), which also had shorter operative times (160.5 versus 234.0 min, P < 0.001). Thirty-day stroke occurred in five patients (7%; 3% retrograde versus 11% antegrade, P = 0.361). Thirty-day mortality was 3% (3% versus 3%, P = 1) and postoperative heart failure developed in three patients (6% versus 3%, P = 0.599). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (i.q.r. 17.5-62.6 months). During follow-up, 8 patients died (11%) and 14 (19%) required reintervention. Branch primary patency was 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular aortic arch repair with a triple-branch device is associated with favourable early outcomes. A retrograde LCCA branch orientation was associated with shorter operative times, and an increased potential for a totally percutaneous approach. Multicentre studies are required to confirm these findings and evaluate long-term outcomes.