What are the endovascular options and outcomes for repair of ascending aortic or aortic arch pathology?

Abstract

Summary A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘in patients with ascending aortic or aortic arch disease what are the outcomes with endovascular repair in terms of survival, complications and reintervention?’ Altogether 585 papers were found using the reported search, of which 9 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We found that the endovascular operative techniques with the greatest evidence were ascending aortic chimney grafts (AACs), branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (bTEVAR) aortic grafts and fenestrated TEVAR (fTEVAR) aortic grafts. The best evidence available were small case-series or retrospective cohort studies (n < 100), with 1 systematic review, at a short follow-up period (range 0–5 years). Intraoperatively, these techniques have a high technical success rate (84–100%). We found rates of endoleak comparable between AAC (7.4–16%) and bTEVAR/fenestrated TEVAR (11.1–21.4%). Stroke rates are higher in bTEVAR (3.1–42% vs 1–26% in AACs), attributed to more proximal pathology and technically challenging procedures. Following the immediate postoperative period, the 30-day mortality is 0–10.8% and patency is 97–100%. Stroke and reintervention rates remain higher in the bTEVAR group (3.1–42.0% and 0.5–33.3%) compared to the AAC group (1.0–11.1% and 6.7–16.7%). The 3- and 5-year survival ranges from 59% to 90%, but is driven by non-aortic pathology in a high-risk population; 3-year freedom from aortic death is 93–97%. Patency is 97–100% at up to 3 years, conformation and supra-aortic occlusions thereafter remain unknown. We conclude that AACs, bTEVARs and fenestrated TEVARs are safe endovascular options in high-risk elective patients, with results comparable to open or hybrid repair. They remain unverified in acute settings or in patients fit for open intervention.