Endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch: a systematic review.

Details

Serval ID
serval:BIB_3F97B1974C49
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch: a systematic review.
Journal
Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery
Author(s)
Wang C., von Segesser L.K., Berdajs D., Ferrari E.
ISSN
1569-9285 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1569-9285
Publication state
Published
Issued date
29/10/2021
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
33
Number
5
Pages
746-754
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Systematic Review
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients are concerned. Endovascular treatments for this disease are under evaluation and some reports exist. We investigated the current use of catheter-based treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch repair.
We searched in PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of June 2020 for studies on endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch. Data on demographic, procedure and stent graft (SG) details, access route, mortality with cause of death, complications and follow-up were extracted. A systematic review on the employed technology, procedure and outcome was performed.
A total number of 15 articles (13 retrospective reports and 2 case reports) were deemed eligible and were included in the study. In total, 140 patients (mean age: 56.7 years in 106 cases) received endovascular treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch (unspecific aortic dissection: 14; acute and subacute type A aortic dissection: 88; chronic type A aortic dissection: 23; type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A dissection: 15). The procedure strategy included unspecific thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (n = 8), TEVAR + supra-aortic debranching (n = 2), TEVAR + cervical bypass (n = 8), TEVAR + periscope SG (n = 12), TEVAR + chimney graft (n = 8), TEVAR + branched SG (n = 21) and TEVAR + fenestration (n = 81). Procedural success rate was 95.6% for 116 reported cases. Complications included endoleaks (postoperative: 2; late: 5), stroke (n = 4), late SG-induced new entry (n = 3) and new false lumen formation (n = 1). Hospital mortality was 5% (6 cases) in 13 reports (120 patients). The mean follow-up time was 26.2 ± 29.4 months and 2 patients died during follow-up.
As an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with a dissected proximal aortic arch, the endovascular treatment seems to be promising in highly selected cases. Further studies with long-term results and specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.
Keywords
Aged, Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/diagnostic imaging, Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/surgery, Blood Vessel Prosthesis, Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects, Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects, Humans, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Stents, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Aortic dissection, Catheter-based techniques, Proximal aortic arch, Thoracic endovascular aorta repair
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
14/06/2021 14:52
Last modification date
20/02/2024 8:16
Usage data