Aortic arch endovascular branch and fenestrated repair: Initial Canadian experience with novel technology

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to describe the initial Canadian experience using novel aortic arch branched endograft technologies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective consecutive case series of all patients undergoing aortic arch branched repair with newly available endograft technology since 2020 at our site. We describe the patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven patients received arch branched endografts, indicated for penetrating aortic ulcer in seven patients (64%), arch degeneration after prior aortic dissection repair in three (27%), and acute aortobronchial fistula in one patient (9%). Their average age was 72 ± 7 years. Complete arch repair from zone 0 to 4 was performed in six cases (55%); the remaining repairs landed proximally in zones 1 or 2. Seven repairs used a single retrograde facing inner branch (thoracic branch endoprosthesis; W.L. Gore & Associates), three used double antegrade inner branch (Bolton Relay; Terumo Interventional Systems), and one emergent case used double in situ fenestrations. Seven repairs (64%) used an adjunctive extra-anatomic bypass to complete great vessel perfusion, two of which were created during a prior aortic repair. Inferior vena cava balloon inflow occlusion during deployment was used in all cases. No mortalities, transient or permanent spinal cord paralysis, myocardial infarction, dialysis dependence, venous thromboembolism, or bleeding requiring reintervention occurred. No patient undergoing elective arch branch repair experienced a stroke. The one patient undergoing emergent repair did suffer a stroke. The median length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2-8 days). Two endoleaks developed: a type Ia endoleak successfully treated with a Palmaz stent (Cordis) during the index admission, and a type II endoleak with ongoing sac regression on postoperative follow-up. Postoperatively, one patient suffered a suspected aortic graft infection that was treated with lifelong antibiotics. During a mean radiographic follow-up of 7.2 months, no cases of branch vessel instability (ie, no migration, reintervention, arterial rupture, intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, stenosis, or kinking of the branch grafts) developed. Three patients experienced sac regression of >5 mm, and no patient experienced continued postoperative dilation. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported Canadian volume of aortic arch repair using novel branched or fenestrated technology. The series demonstrates that a multidisciplinary program and properly selected patients can yield excellent results using endovascular repair for complex aortic arch pathology.