Branched versus fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the aortic arch: A multicenter comparison.

OBJECTIVE

For thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the arch, branched and fenestrated endografts are available with different limitations regarding anatomy and extent of the pathology. Comparisons are lacking in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 currently commercially available devices for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

In a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, a consecutive patient series treated with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair or fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies was assessed. Baseline characteristics, procedural fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and outcome were analyzed. Furthermore, the potential anatomic feasibility of the respective alternate device was assessed on the preoperative computed tomography scans.

RESULTS

The branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohorts consisted of 20 and 34 patients, respectively, with similar comorbidities; indication was aneurysm in 65% and 79%, penetrating aortic ulcer in 20% and 9%, and dissection in the remaining procedures, respectively. Technical success was achieved in all but 1 patient. Perioperative mortality and major stroke rate were both 10% in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 0% and 3% in fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, respectively. During follow-up of 31 and 40 months, 1 branch occlusion occurred in the branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohort, and 2 late endoleaks occurred in the fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair group. One aortic death occurred. Although 35% of patients undergoing branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair were anatomically suitable for fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 91% of those undergoing fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair were suitable for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Both branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair show excellent technical success and acceptable complication rates, whereas branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair tends toward higher morbidity, especially stroke rates. By offering fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair along with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair, aortic centers could potentially lower complication rates and simultaneously still treat a wide range of anatomies.