Objective: Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR. Review methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up. Results: Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. Conclusion: F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are of several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.
Spath, P., Campana, F., Tsilimparis, N., Gallitto, E., Pini, R., Faggioli, G., et al. (2024). Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 67(1), 106-116 [10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.07.048].
Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts for Partial and Total Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Spath, Paolo
;Campana, Federica;Gallitto, Enrico;Pini, Rodolfo;Faggioli, Gianluca;Caputo, Stefania;Gargiulo, Mauro
2024
Abstract
Objective: Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F/B-TEVAR) of the aortic arch is a viable approach in patients unsuitable for open repair. The aim was to summarise the published results of manufactured F/B-TEVAR devices for partial and total repair of the aortic arch, and to compare fenestrated with branched configurations. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles (2018 - 2021) about patients with elective, urgent, or emergency aortic requiring a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch (zone 0 - 1 - 2) and treated by F/B-TEVAR. Review methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Open repair, supra-aortic trunk (SAT) debranching + standard TEVAR, and in situ physician modified and parallel grafts were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30 day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events, and overall survival and procedure related endpoints during follow up. Results: Of 458 articles screened, 18 articles involving 571 patients were selected. Indications for intervention were chronic dissections (50.1%), degenerative aneurysms (39.6%), penetrating aortic ulcers (7.4%), and pseudoaneurysms (2%). F-TEVAR, B-TEVAR, and F+B-TEVAR were used in 38.4%, 54.1%, and 7.5% of patients, respectively. Overall, technical success was 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 0.97; I2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity (Het) = .77) and the 30 day mortality rate was 6.7% (95% CI 0.05 - 0.09; I2 = 0%; p Het = .66). No statistical differences were found comparing fenestrated with branched endografts, except for a higher rate of type I - III endoleaks in F-TEVAR (9.8% vs. 2.6%; p = .034). The overall survival rate and freedom from aortic related death at the one year follow up ranged between 82 - 96.4% and 94 - 94.7%, respectively. Thirteen and five studies were considered at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. Conclusion: F/B-TEVAR for the treatment of the aortic arch, according to experience in dedicated centres, now enjoys a satisfactory level of technical success together with a progressively reduced early mortality rate. There are of several limitations, and further studies are needed to reach clearer conclusions.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
PIIS1078588423006147.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipo:
Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza:
Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione
634.92 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
634.92 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
mmc1.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipo:
File Supplementare
Licenza:
Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione
235.7 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
235.7 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.