Search

Objective Branched and fenestrated endografts (fEVAR/bEVAR) are complex techniques used to treat thoracic aorta pathologies involving the aortic arch. This systematic review aims to determine all the reported results regarding these techniques in the aortic arch, in order to describe their clinical outcomes. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed, considering all articles published until October 2019. PubMed, Cochrane database resources were used. The protocol of the study was previously registered in the Prospero database (CRD42020147037). Primary exclusion criteria included opinion articles, merely technique descriptions, articles without the follow-up of at least 1 month, studies conducted on animals, mixed treatments, and ongoing trials without published data. Included variables were study design, aortic pathology, type of endovascular technique (fEVAR/bEVAR), endograft manufacturing, number of fenestrations/branches and type of bridge stents. Technical success, complications during surgery and follow-up were also described. Results From a total of 164 articles, 29 (28 retrospective, 1 prospective) were analyzed with a total of 693 cases (341 fEVAR and 352 bEVAR). The most common indications for repair were aneurysm (54.8%) and dissection (40%). Only fEVAR and bEVAR were considered, but different endograft materials and techniques were used and, therefore, reported upon in the current review. Zenith Alpha Thoracic Endovascular Graft was the most representative (24% of cases). Custom made, off-the-shelf, physician modified and in situ fenestrated endografts were also used in 39%, 22.4%, 18.6% and 18.9% of cases, respectively. Bridge stents were implanted in the 50.5% of cases. Technical success rate was 96%. The main intraoperative complication was the endoleak (5.2%) followed by stroke (4.8%). The in-hospital mortality was 2.5%. The mean follow-up was 18.5 months. The mortality related to the main operation during follow-up was 3.2% and not directly related to the main operation was 11.3%. During the follow-up, 92 cases (13.3%) in total had to undergo through a reintervention, 46.7% with endovascular repair and 26.1% with open surgical repair (the rest were not specified). Conclusion published experience with bEVAR and fEVAR in the aortic arch showed acceptable short-term effectiveness and safety. More well-conducted prospective clinical studies with long term follow-up, combined with comparative meta-analysis, are needed to elucidate the real benefit of those endovascular techniques in the aortic arch pathology.