Department of Vascular Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.
APHM, Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Nord, Marseille, France.
J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Dec;31(6):1041-1051. doi: 10.1177/15266028231157639. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
To gain insight into safety and efficacy of in situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques for total endovascular arch repair. The term ex-situ fenestration is referring to physician-modified stent-graft technique where fenestration is performed on a back table.
Electronic search was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analyses) guidelines from 2000 to 2020. The main outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, stroke, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.
Fifteen studies were eligible: 7 ex-situ fenestration (189 patients) and 8 in-situ fenestration (149 patients). In ex-situ group, dissection was the main pathology treated and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 53.5% of patients. In in-situ group, dissection and aneurysm were equally represented in around 40% of cases and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 46.5% of patients. Cumulative 30-day all-cause mortality was similar in both groups: 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%-8.2%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.9%), respectively, in ex-situ and in-situ groups and stroke rate of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.1%-7%) and 5.3% (95% CI: 2.6%-10.5%). After a 11.1 ± 2.6 months mean follow-up for ex-situ and 16.7 ± 2.3 months for in-situ group, there were 5.2 and 1.4 reinterventions per 100 patients-years, respectively, for ex-situ and in situ groups. Aortic-related mortality rates of, respectively, 3.2% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.4%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 0.9%-7.3%) were noted in ex-situ and in situ groups.
The reported data show favorable short-term results of both ex-situ and in-situ fenestration techniques with low mortality and strokes rates. However, durability is still questionable given the lack of long-term data. Both options may have their place in arch repair beyond the spectrum of emergent and urgent cases, on condition that results stand the test of time.
In situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques have been initially developed to overcome emergency or as a bail out techniques however giving the promessing favorable short term results indications of these techniques may be extended to elective patients ineligible to customized stent-grafts and possibly in the futur to more elective cases as an option for total endovascular arch repair.
深入了解全腔内主动脉弓修复中原位和异位开窗技术的安全性和有效性。术语“异位开窗”是指在手术台上进行的医师改良支架移植物技术。
根据 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,从 2000 年至 2020 年进行电子搜索。主要结局测量指标为 30 天死亡率、卒中和主动脉相关死亡率以及再介入率。
15 项研究符合条件:7 项异位开窗(189 例患者)和 8 项原位开窗(149 例患者)。在异位开窗组中,夹层是主要治疗的病变,近端密封区在 53.5%的患者中为 Z0 或 1。在原位开窗组中,夹层和动脉瘤的比例大致相同,约占 40%,近端密封区在 46.5%的患者中为 Z0 或 1。两组 30 天全因死亡率相似:异位开窗组为 3.8%(95%置信区间[CI]:1.7%-8.2%),原位开窗组为 3.8%(95% CI:1.6%-8.9%),卒中和再介入率分别为 2.8%(95% CI:1.1%-7%)和 5.3%(95% CI:2.6%-10.5%)。在平均随访 11.1±2.6 个月的异位开窗组和 16.7±2.3 个月的原位开窗组中,异位开窗组和原位开窗组每 100 患者年分别有 5.2 次和 1.4 次再介入。在异位开窗组和原位开窗组中,主动脉相关死亡率分别为 3.2%(95% CI:1.3%-7.4%)和 2.6%(95% CI:0.9%-7.3%)。
报告的数据显示,异位开窗和原位开窗技术的短期结果良好,死亡率和卒中等并发症发生率低。然而,由于缺乏长期数据,其耐久性仍存在疑问。在紧急和紧急情况下,这两种选择都可能有其位置,只要结果经得起时间的考验。
原位和异位开窗技术最初是为了克服紧急情况或作为救生技术而开发的,然而,其令人信服的短期结果表明,这些技术的适应证可能扩展到不符合定制支架移植物适应证的择期患者,并且在未来可能扩展到更多的择期病例,作为全腔内主动脉弓修复的一种选择。