Endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Surgical repair of aortic dissection involving the proximal aortic arch is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, in particular when elderly high-risk patients are concerned. Endovascular treatments for this disease are under evaluation and some reports exist. We investigated the current use of catheter-based treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch repair. METHODS We searched in PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of June 2020 for studies on endovascular treatment of the dissected proximal aortic arch. Data on demographic, procedure and stent graft (SG) details, access route, mortality with cause of death, complications and follow-up were extracted. A systematic review on the employed technology, procedure and outcome was performed. RESULTS A total number of 15 articles (13 retrospective reports and 2 case reports) were deemed eligible and were included in the study. In total, 140 patients (mean age: 56.7years in 106 cases) received endovascular treatments for the dissected proximal aortic arch (unspecific aortic dissection: 14; acute and subacute type A aortic dissection: 88; chronic type A aortic dissection: 23; type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A dissection: 15). The procedure strategy included unspecific thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (n=8), TEVAR + supra-aortic debranching (n=2), TEVAR + cervical bypass (n=8), TEVAR + periscope SG (n=12), TEVAR + chimney graft (n=8), TEVAR + branched SG (n=21) and TEVAR + fenestration (n=81). Procedural success rate was 95.6% for 116 reported cases. Complications included endoleaks (postoperative: 2; late: 5), stroke (n=4), late SG-induced new entry (n=3) and new false lumen formation (n=1). Hospital mortality was 5% (6 cases) in 13 reports (120 patients). The mean follow-up time was 26.229.4months and 2 patients died during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS As an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with a dissected proximal aortic arch, the endovascular treatment seems to be promising in highly selected cases. Further studies with long-term results and specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.

Automated summary

Endovascular treatment appears to be a promising alternative to surgery for repairing dissected proximal aortic arch in highly selected cases, but further long-term studies with specifically designed devices are required to standardize this approach.