Search Results (10)

Background: Advances in stent grafts and endovascular techniques have expanded the indications for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to include arch lesions. In situ needle fenestration (ISNF) has emerged as a promising technique for revascularizing supra-aortic branches. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of triple in situ needle fenestration during TEVAR for aortic arch pathologies in a single-center experience. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on fifteen patients who underwent in situ triple fenestration TEVAR between June 2023 and March 2024. The median age of the patients was 51,33 years (±19.69) and twelve of the patients were male. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia in a hybrid operating room. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board, and informed consent was received from all participants. Results: Primary technical success was achieved in all cases (15/15, 100%). The mean operation time was 197.33 min (range: 126–302). Two patients experienced a minor hematoma at the access site. Mortality was observed in one patient (6.66%) during the 30-day follow-up period. The total hospital stay averaged 7 ± 3.36 days. One patient had a transient ischemic attack, but there were no incidents of stroke or spinal cord ischemia. No procedure-related endoleak was observed during the intervention; however, eight patients required reintervention in the descending aorta. Conclusions: ISNF may be an effective and feasible method for revascularizing arch vessels, with low rates of early mortality and stroke when performed by experienced practitioners. However, larger multicenter studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the durability and long-term outcomes of this technique. Full article

Background: There is a paucity of data concerning the feasibility and value of thoracic aortic stent graft implantation (TEVAR) applications for removing tumors infiltrating the aortic wall. This analysis aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of TEVAR and monitor the perioperative risks of morbidity and mortality. Additionally, a literature review was performed. Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed on patients who received TEVAR prior to thoracic malignancy resection between January 2010 and April 2024. The primary endpoint was technical success. Results: A total of 15 patients (median age: 67 years; range: 23–75; 66.7% female) received TEVAR prior to thoracic surgery of different tumor entities. In 80% of cases (n = 12), the proximal landing zone was in aortic zone 3. In three cases, the supra-aortic debranching of LSA and/or LCCA via bypass implantation or in situ laser fenestration was necessary. No postoperative endograft-related complications were observed. In eight patients, aortic wall infiltration was confirmed intraoperatively. In total, R0 resection was achieved in seven patients (46.7%). The 30-day mortality rate was 6.7% (n = 1). Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%), while procedural success was achieved in 80% due to incomplete tumor resection in three patients. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest analysis to date that confirms the results of previous smaller studies. Aortic stent grafting prior to thoracic tumor resection allows for extensive resection while maintaining low morbidity and a low 30-day mortality risk. Full article

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the first-line therapy for descending aortic disease. Recent studies have demonstrated that preventive revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in zone 2 TEVAR cases reduces the risk of neurological complications. However, there is no uniform consensus on the choice of revascularization techniques. Although carotid-subclavian bypass is considered the gold standard method, in situ fenestration techniques have also shown encouraging results. This study aims to compare the carotid-LSA bypass with in situ fenestration (ISF) for LSA revascularization and to discuss our treatment approach. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR with in situ fenestration (ISF) or carotid-subclavian artery bypasses for LSA revascularization at our institution between February 2011 and February 2024. Preoperative patient characteristics and primary outcomes, such as operative mortality, transient ischemic attack, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia, were analyzed between the groups. Results: During the 13-year study period, 185 patients underwent TEVAR procedures. Of these, 51 patients had LSA revascularization with zone 2 TEVAR; 32 patients underwent carotid-subclavian artery bypasses, and 19 underwent in situ fenestration. The technical success rate was 100%. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of primary outcomes such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, spinal cord ischemia, and death (p > 0.05). Conclusions: In situ fenestration (ISF) may be an effective and feasible method for LSA revascularization. With precise patient selection and in experienced hands, ISF appears to be associated with similar perioperative outcomes and mortality rates to the carotid-subclavian bypass. Full article

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. Full article

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using the Ankura™ device (Lifetech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) with left subclavian artery (LSA) in-situ fenestration (ISF) using an adjustable puncture device system. Methods: It is a single center, retrospective, financially unsupported cohort study of TEVAR performed from 16 February 2007 to 10 January 2023. Inclusion criteria were isolate LSA revascularization for elective or urgent/emergent “zone 2” TEVAR, and the availability of the preoperative computed tomography angiography. Results: Post-hoc analysis identified 52 TEVARs. There were 39 (75.0%) males, and 13 (25.0%) females: median age was 74.5 years (IQR, 65.5–78). Index TEVAR was performed for atherosclerotic aneurysm in 27 (51.9%) cases, dissection-related diseases in 18 (34.6%), penetrating aortic ulcer in 5 (9.6%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury in 2 (3.8%). Access-vessel feasibility rate of TEVAR using the Ankura™ device would have been 98.1% (51/52). Considering the morphology of the aortic arch, ISF TEVAR feasibility would have been 61.5% (32/52). Binary logistic regression analysis identified LSA angulation (OR: 1.1, 95%CI: 1.03–1.14, p = 0.003) to be associated with ISF feasibility using this endograft and a self-centering adjustable needle-based puncture device. Conclusions: Potential feasibility of TEVAR using the Ankura™ endograft with ISF using a self-centering adjustable needle system was 61.5%. Left subclavian artery angulation seems to be the most important and limiting anatomical constraint. Full article

Introduction: A fenestrated endograft (FE) is the first-line endovascular option for juxta and pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. A physician-modified stent-graft (PMSG) and laser in situ fenestration (LISF) have emerged to circumvent manufacturing delays, anatomic standards, and the procedure’s cost raised by FE. The objective was to compare different fenestrations from a mechanical point of view. Methods: In total, five Zenith Cook fenestrations (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) and five Anaconda fenestrations (Terumo Company, Inchinnan, Scotland, UK) were included in this study. Laser ISF and PMSG were created on a Cook TX2 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cover material (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA). In total, five LISFs and fifty-five PMSG were created. All fenestrations included reached an 8 mm diameter. Radial extension tests were then performed to identify differences in the mechanical behavior between the fenestration designs. The branch pull-out force was measured to test the stability of assembling with a calibrated 8 mm branch. Fatigue tests were performed on the devices to assess the long-term outcomes of the endograft with an oversized 9 mm branch. Results: The results revealed that at over 2 mm of oversizing, the highest average radial strength was 33.4 ± 6.9 N for the Zenith Cook fenestration. The radial strength was higher with the custom-made fenestrations, including both Zenith Cook and Anaconda fenestrations (9.5 ± 4.7 N and 4.49 ± 0.28 N). The comparison between LISF and double loop PMSG highlighted a higher strength value compared with LISF (3.96 N ± 1.86 vs. 2.7 N ± 0.82; p= 0.018). The diameter of the fenestrations varied between 8 and 9 mm. As the pin caliber inserted in the fenestration was 9 mm, one could consider that all fenestrations underwent an “elastic recoil” after cycling. The largest elastic recoil was observed in the non-reinforced/OC fenestrations (40%). A 10% elastic recoil was observed with LISF. Conclusion: In terms of mechanical behavior, the custom-made fenestration produced the highest results in terms of radial and branch pull-out strength. Both PMSG and LISF could be improved with the standardization of the fenestration creation protocol. Full article

In situ fenestration of endovascular stent-grafts has become a mainstream bailout technique to treat complex emergent aneurysms while maintaining native anatomical visceral and aortic arch blood supplies. Fabric tearing from creating the in situ fenestration using balloon angioplasty may extend beyond the intended diameter over time. Further tearing may result from the physiologic pulsatile motion at the branching site. A resultant endoleak at the fenestrated sites in stent-grafts could ultimately lead to re-pressurization of the aortic sac and, eventually, rupture. In an attempt to address this challenge, plain woven fabrics were designed. They hold a specific corona surrounding a square-shaped cluster with a plain weave fabric structure, a 2/2 twill, or a honeycomb. The corona was designed to stop potential further tearing of the fabric caused by the initial balloon angioplasty and stent or later post-implantation motion. The cluster within the corona was designed with relatively loose fabric structures (plain weave, 2/2 twill weave, and honeycomb) to facilitate the laser fenestration. Two commercial devices, Anaconda (Vascutek, Terumo Aortic) and Zenith TX2 (Cook), were selected as controls for comparison against this new design. All the specimens were characterized by morphology, thickness, and water permeability. The results demonstrated that all specimens with a low thickness and water permeability satisfied the requirements for a stent graft material that would be low profile and resistant to endoleaks. The in situ fenestrations were performed on all fabrics utilizing an Excimer laser followed by balloon angioplasty. The fabrics were further observed by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. The dimension of the fenestrated apertures was smaller than the balloon’s diameter. The tearing was effectively confined within the corona. The clinical acceptability of this concept deserves additional bench testing and animal experimentation. Full article

Background: In situ laser-fenestrated thoracic aortic endovascular repair (FTEVAR) has emerged as a valuable alternative for aortic arch management. This review assessed the early and follow-up outcomes of in situ laser-FTEVAR in aortic arch pathologies. Methods: The PRISMA statement was followed. The English literature was searched, via Ovid, until 15 October 2022. Observational studies, published after 2000, reporting on early and follow-up outcomes for the in situ laser-FTEVAR were eligible. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were the technical success, stroke, and mortality at 30-days, and the secondary were the mortality and reintervention during follow-up. Results: Six retrospective studies from 591 and 247 patients were included. Fifty-nine (23.9%) patients were managed for aortic arch aneurysms and 146 (59.1%) for dissections; 22.6% of them for type A. Technical success was at 98% (range 90–100%). Eight patients died (3.2%) and 11 cases presented any type of stroke (4.5%) during the 30-day follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months (1–40 months). Ten deaths were reported (4.2%); one was aortic-related (10%). Thirteen re-interventions (6.0%) were performed. Conclusions: In situ laser-FTEVAR for aortic arch repair may be performed with high technical success and low 30-day and midterm follow-up mortality, stroke, and re-intervention rates when applied in well selected patients and performed by experienced teams. Full article

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful. Full article

Overheating, glare, and high-energy demand are recurrent problems in office buildings in Santiago, Chile (33°27'S; 70°42'W) during cooling periods. Santiago climate is warm and dry, with high solar radiation and temperature during most of the year. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the thermal and daylighting performance of office buildings transparent façades composed of three different complex fenestration systems (CFS). Each CFS contains a different external shading device (ESD): (1) external roller, (2) vertical undulated and perforated screens, and (3) tilted undulated and perforated screens. The study was carried out by in situ monitoring in three office buildings in Santiago, Chile. Buildings were selected from a database of 103 buildings, representing those constructed between 2005 and 2011 in the city. The monitoring consisted of measuring the short wave solar and daylighting transmission through fenestration systemsby means of pyranometers and luxometers, respectively. This paper shows measurements that were carried out during summer period. A good performance is observed in a building with the external roller system. This system—applied to a northwest façade—shows a regular and high solar and daylighting control of incoming solar radiation. The other two ESD systems evidence a general good performance. However, some deficiencies at certain times of the day were detected, suggesting a non-appropriated design. Full article