Applicability of endovascular branched and fenestrated aortic arch repair devices to treat residual type A dissection after ascending replacement

ObjectiveEndovascular repair of post-type A aortic dissection (PTAD) after open ascending replacement has recently been shown as safe and feasible, but with limited anatomic applicability because only one stent graft was evaluated. We assessed anatomic and clinical applicability of six commercially available branched/fenestrated stent grafts for endovascular repair of PTAD.MethodsOn postoperative CT scans of 101 patients, we measured the aortic diameter at the sinutubular junction, supra-aortic vessels, and descending aorta, as well as the distances between these landmarks along the outer curvature of the arch and the diameters of the supra-aortic vessel. Anatomic applicability was evaluated according to the instructions for use, clinical applicability with regard to supra-aortic and iliac arteries. Assessed devices were the Cook aortic double branch, Terumo double branch, Najuta fenestrated, Endospan Nexus, Medtronic Mona LSA, and Gore TAG thoracic branch.ResultsSingle devices were anatomically and clinically applicable between 19 of 101 (Mona LSA) and 83 of 101 (Najuta) cases. Reasons for rejection varied considerably across devices. With all devices available, anatomic applicability was 97 of 101 and clinical applicability 95 of 101. Combinations of a fenestrated and a branched device showed the most favorable clinical applicability for a pair of two devices, ranging from 86 of 101 to 94 of 101.ConclusionsAnatomic and clinical applicability of endovascular devices for the repair of PTAD is high for fenestrated and branched devices, and very high for the combination of fenestrated and branched devices. Manufacturers should amend specific device requirements for PTAD. Surgeons should emphasize the need for a sufficiently long and straight graft as a potential landing zone.