A New and Forgotten Indication for Aortic Fenestration

V. Iyer,John Harlock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1583/10-3330C.1

IF: 2.6

2011-04-01

Journal of Endovascular Therapy

Abstract:Surgical aortic fenestration for acute aortic dissection was first described by Shaw in 1955. Since then, it has rapidly been surpassed in use by percutaneous fenestration. Williams et al. first reported this technique and described two indications: to treat malperfusion syndromes and to provide a re-entry tear for a ‘‘dead-end’’ false lumen. The latter indication was stated as hypothetical in order to prevent thrombosis (and subsequent branch vessel compromise) or extension of the false lumen (and presumably risk of rupture). In this issue of JEVT, Tolenaar et al. report a case of aortic dissection following endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair. Thus far, in the literature, this remains an uncommon event. The authors describe percutaneous aortic fenestration to treat persistent pain, without evidence of organ malperfusion. The main indication was to prevent progression of the false lumen and subsequent stent-graft collapse, as previously described by Iyer et al. Most reports of aortic fenestration are for the treatment of malperfusion. Equilibration of pressures between the true and false lumens has clinically been demonstrated; however, the false lumen pressure was not decreased, according to a study by Williams et al., so, theoretically, the long-term risk of expansion and rupture remains. Experimental models have suggested that the location of fenestrations, as well as their size, may play a role in determining relative pressures in the true and false lumens. For example, proximal fenestrations may serve as additional entry tears, whereas distal fenestrations act more like re-entry tears that will decompress the false lumen. Of course, proximal and distal remain relative and rather vague in a classical dissection. However, in the case described by Tolenaar and colleagues, the initial entry tear was presumably at the bare stent of the abdominal aortic stent-graft, although we cannot be certain of this. The subsequent re-entry into the true lumen occurred in proximity to the left subclavian artery (via retrograde dissection), which then served as the new antegrade entry tear into the false lumen. The original entry tear must not have been sufficient to allow decompression of the false lumen, essentially creating a ‘‘dead-end’’ false lumen. (This is, of course, only a hypothesis, which could be studied in the laboratory). Concern over myelum ischemia prohibited coverage of the proximal tear with an endograft, which could have also been an option. The authors do well in reminding us of the almost forgotten indication for aortic fenestration, that of preventing false lumen progression. A heightened concern for associated stent-graft collapse may further be prudent when an endograft is present. This technique could prove useful in cases not suitable for proximal aortic tear coverage. There remains, however, the concern of aneurysm development with a patent false lumen.