Abstract:Objectives: There are several endovascular treatment options to treat aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts. This study seeks to assess endovascular treatment methods for aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), comparing different treatment methods and evaluating technical success, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes. Methods: All patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies, with no acceptable landing zone for standard TEVAR, between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2024, at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. An acceptable landing zone was defined as a minimum of 2 cm for sufficient sealing. All patients were not suitable for open surgery. Patients were categorized by an endovascular treatment method for a comprehensive comparison of pre-, intra- and postoperative variables. IBM SPSS29 was used for data analysis. Results: The patient cohort comprised 21 patients, predominantly males (81%), with an average age of 70.9 ± 9 years with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard TEVAR procedure. The most treated aortic pathologies were penetrating aortic ulcers and chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Patients were sub-grouped according to the applied procedure as follows: five patients with chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (chTEVAR), seven patients with in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (isfTEVAR), six patients with custom-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmfTEVAR) and three patients with custom-made branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmbTEVAR). Emergency procedures involved two patients. There were significant differences in the total procedure and fluoroscopy time, as well as in contrast agent usage among the treatment groups. cmfTEVAR had the shortest total procedure time, while chTEVAR exhibited the highest contrast agent usage. The overall mortality rate among all procedures was 9.5% (two patients) and 4.7% for elective procedures, respectively. Deaths were associated with either retrograde type A dissection or stent graft infection. Both patients were treated with chTEVAR. There was one minor and one major stroke; these patients were treated with isfTEVAR. No endoleak occurred during any procedure. The reintervention rate for chTEVAR was 20% and 0% for all other procedures during the in-hospital stay. The patients who were treated with cmfTEVAR had no complications, the shortest operating and fluoroscopy time, and less contrast agent was needed in comparison with other treatment methods. Conclusions: Complex endovascular procedures of the aortic arch with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts offer a safe solution, with acceptable complication rates for patients who are not suitable for open aortic arch repair. In terms of procedure-related parameters and complication rates, a custom-made fenestrated TEVAR is potentially advantageous compared to the other endovascular techniques.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for degenerative distal arch aneurysm can be used as a standard procedure in high-risk patients

A Single Center Experience of in Situ Needle Fenestration of Supra-Aortic Branches During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Hybrid Approach to Management of Complex Aortic Arch Pathologies: A Single-Center Experience in China

Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Aortic Arch Pathologies with Surgeon Modified Fenestrated Stent Grafts: A Multicentre Retrospective Study

Staged hybrid approach using proximal thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair and distal open repair for the treatment of extensive thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Improved midterm outcomes after endovascular repair of nontraumatic descending thoracic aortic rupture compared with open surgery

Endovascular aortic arch repair under monitored anaesthesia care: maximizing microinvasiveness

Mid-term Outcomes from a Multicenter Study: is TEVAR Safe for Ascending Aortic Dissection?

Postoperative Stroke after Debranching with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Early Experience With Fenestration Modification of Castor Branched Stent-Graft for Aortic Arch Diseases

Intraoperative neuroprotective interventions prevent spinal cord ischemia and injury in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Effect of the urgency and landing zone on rates of in-hospital death, stroke, and paraplegia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in Japan

Pre-Loaded Fenestrated Thoracic Endografts for Distal Aortic Arch Pathologies: Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Short and Mid Term Outcomes

Is TEVAR an Effective Approach to Prevent Complications after Surgery for Aortic Dissection Type A? A Systematic Review

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection with an Entry Tear in the Descending Aorta.

Endovascular Treatment of Arch and Proximal Thoracic Aortic Lesions

Urgent Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type-B0,D Acute Aortic Dissection

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Outcome of Different Endovascular Aortic Arch Procedures

Clinical impact of proximal fixation augmentation using the Najuta thoracic fenestrated stent graft during endovascular treatment for distal aortic arch aneurysm

Chimney technique for aortic diseases involving supra-aortic branches in a single center

Application of a new blood flow regulator in aortic endovascular therapy