Key result
Investigational arch endografts prove anatomically unsuitable for ~41% of patients with prior hemiarch replacement.
Why the study?
The feasibility of treating patients who have undergone hemiarch replacement for acute DeBakey I dissection with 4 investigational arch endografts currently available in the United States was assessed.
Cross-Sectional (n=71)
A significant proportion of patients who undergo hemiarch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection are anatomically unsuitable for subsequent endovascular arch repair with currently available investigational devices.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Substantial anatomic unsuitability limits endovascular options after hemiarch repair; leaves open whether device modifications can expand eligibility.
Objective: We assessed the treatment feasibility of 4 investigational arch endografts currently available in the United States, for patients who have undergone hemiarch replacement for an acute DeBakey I dissection. Methods: We evaluated 71 consecutive patients for suitability for treatment with the Cook Medical Zenith Arch Branched Device, Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis, Terumo Bolton Relay Dual Branch Device, and Endospan Nexus Aortic Arch Stent Graft System. Proximal landing zone anatomy was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography angiography using 3-dimensional imaging software and compared against each manufacturer recommended sizing criteria. Results: Twenty-one patients (29.6%) were deemed unsuitable for branched endograft due to mechanical aortic valve, connective tissue disorder, and extension of dissection into the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT). Forty-one percent were excluded from all devices; 8.5% were candidates for only 1 device, 24% for 2, 4% for 3, and 23% for all 4 devices. Reasons for exclusion included ascending aortic/neck diameter being too large/small, insufficient ascending aorta length, insufficient BCT length, and BCT size being too large. Both patient-related factors (BCT diameter/length, dissection into BCT, and connective tissue disorder) and technical factors (mechanical aortic valve, ascending aorta graft length/diameter) influenced candidacy. Conclusions: Despite the availability of multiple branched endovascular devices, a significant number of patients may be unsuitable for subsequent endoarch repair. Awareness of anatomic inclusion criteria for arch endografts and modification of surgical technique for creation of a suitable landing zone at the initial operation may increase the likelihood of successful endovascular repair in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lella et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute DeBakey I dissection post-hemiarch replacement (n=71). Anatomical suitability for investigational arch endografts was evaluated on Suitability for treatment with branched endografts. Among patients with prior hemiarch replacement for acute type A dissection, 41% were anatomically unsuitable for any of 4 investigational arch endografts, while 23% were candidates for all 4.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: