Duplex ultrasound-based comparative analysis of inner branch orientation for the left common carotid artery following triple-branch arch endovascular repair.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Roberto G Aru, Jérémy Bendavid, Charles Lame, Reda Jerrari, Dominique Fabre, Stéphan Haulon
{"title":"Duplex ultrasound-based comparative analysis of inner branch orientation for the left common carotid artery following triple-branch arch endovascular repair.","authors":"Roberto G Aru, Jérémy Bendavid, Charles Lame, Reda Jerrari, Dominique Fabre, Stéphan Haulon","doi":"10.1016/j.jvs.2025.04.062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate left common carotid artery (LCCA) perfusion using duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination after endovascular repair of the aortic arch (endoarch) with a triple-branch arch device, featuring either an anterograde or retrograde inner branch configuration for the LCCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent branched endoarch repair from May 2020 to February 2025 were identified using a prospectively maintained electronic database at a single tertiary care hospital. Inclusion criteria included implantation of the triple-branch arch device (Cook Medical) with an anterograde inner branch for the brachiocephalic trunk, an anterograde or retrograde inner branch for the LCCA, and a retrograde branch for the left subclavian artery. Exclusion criteria included no follow-up and postoperative DUS examination. Patient demographics, comorbidities, indication for the procedure, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded. The cohort was dichotomized based on LCCA branch orientation. The primary outcomes were to define postoperative DUS-based perfusion metrics of the bilateral carotid arteries and to compare them based on the orientation of the LCCA branch. The right CCA (RCCA) served as a control, because it featured only an anterograde branch for the brachiocephalic trunk. The secondary outcomes were to compare inner branch primary patency, stroke-related outcomes, reintervention, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 74 patients underwent endoarch repair with the triple-branch arch device during the study period, of whom 39 met the study inclusion criteria, with 18 (46%) anterograde and 21 (54%) retrograde inner branches of the LCCA. Most patients were male (74%) with a median age of 72 years. There was a high incidence of hypertension (90%) and dyslipidemia (59%). The indication for repair was a degenerative (51%) or chronic postdissection (49%) aortic arch aneurysm. A totally percutaneous approach for procedural access occurred in 71% of the retrograde group (vs 17% anterograde). There was a decreased median operating time for LCCA retrograde branch of 160 minutes (vs 218 minutes anterograde). Thirty-day stroke was 5% (n = 2, both anterograde), with no mortality. Postoperative DUS examination demonstrated similar perfusion metrics between the experimental LCCA and the control RCCA, regardless of the orientation of the LCCA inner branch. In the retrograde group, both the RCCA and LCCA featured predominantly monophasic (62%) and triphasic (31%) waveforms; the median peak systolic velocity, end-diastolic velocity, and acceleration time were 64 to 68 cm/s, 17 to 21 cm/s, and 56 to 65 ms, respectively. Midterm outcomes (median follow-up, 11 months) were notable for one death, without events of stroke or target vessel-related reinterventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In endoarch repair with the triple-branch device, inner branch orientation yields no significant difference in DUS-based perfusion metrics of both carotid arteries. In the retrograde orientation of the LCCA inner branch, there was decreased operative time with increased rates of a totally percutaneous approach, without an increased incidence of stroke or reintervention. This retrospective study further supports the device modification from the anterograde to retrograde orientation of the LCCA inner branch in favorable anatomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":17475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2025.04.062","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate left common carotid artery (LCCA) perfusion using duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination after endovascular repair of the aortic arch (endoarch) with a triple-branch arch device, featuring either an anterograde or retrograde inner branch configuration for the LCCA.

Methods: Patients who underwent branched endoarch repair from May 2020 to February 2025 were identified using a prospectively maintained electronic database at a single tertiary care hospital. Inclusion criteria included implantation of the triple-branch arch device (Cook Medical) with an anterograde inner branch for the brachiocephalic trunk, an anterograde or retrograde inner branch for the LCCA, and a retrograde branch for the left subclavian artery. Exclusion criteria included no follow-up and postoperative DUS examination. Patient demographics, comorbidities, indication for the procedure, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded. The cohort was dichotomized based on LCCA branch orientation. The primary outcomes were to define postoperative DUS-based perfusion metrics of the bilateral carotid arteries and to compare them based on the orientation of the LCCA branch. The right CCA (RCCA) served as a control, because it featured only an anterograde branch for the brachiocephalic trunk. The secondary outcomes were to compare inner branch primary patency, stroke-related outcomes, reintervention, and mortality.

Results: A total of 74 patients underwent endoarch repair with the triple-branch arch device during the study period, of whom 39 met the study inclusion criteria, with 18 (46%) anterograde and 21 (54%) retrograde inner branches of the LCCA. Most patients were male (74%) with a median age of 72 years. There was a high incidence of hypertension (90%) and dyslipidemia (59%). The indication for repair was a degenerative (51%) or chronic postdissection (49%) aortic arch aneurysm. A totally percutaneous approach for procedural access occurred in 71% of the retrograde group (vs 17% anterograde). There was a decreased median operating time for LCCA retrograde branch of 160 minutes (vs 218 minutes anterograde). Thirty-day stroke was 5% (n = 2, both anterograde), with no mortality. Postoperative DUS examination demonstrated similar perfusion metrics between the experimental LCCA and the control RCCA, regardless of the orientation of the LCCA inner branch. In the retrograde group, both the RCCA and LCCA featured predominantly monophasic (62%) and triphasic (31%) waveforms; the median peak systolic velocity, end-diastolic velocity, and acceleration time were 64 to 68 cm/s, 17 to 21 cm/s, and 56 to 65 ms, respectively. Midterm outcomes (median follow-up, 11 months) were notable for one death, without events of stroke or target vessel-related reinterventions.

Conclusions: In endoarch repair with the triple-branch device, inner branch orientation yields no significant difference in DUS-based perfusion metrics of both carotid arteries. In the retrograde orientation of the LCCA inner branch, there was decreased operative time with increased rates of a totally percutaneous approach, without an increased incidence of stroke or reintervention. This retrospective study further supports the device modification from the anterograde to retrograde orientation of the LCCA inner branch in favorable anatomies.

基于双工超声的左颈总动脉三支弓血管内修复后内支定位的比较分析。
目的:本研究的目的是利用双工超声(DUS)评估左颈总动脉(LCCA)灌注后血管内修复主动脉弓(endoarch)采用三支弓装置,左颈总动脉(LCCA)内分支配置为顺行或逆行。方法:从2020年5月至2025年2月,在一家单一的三级医疗医院使用前瞻性维护的电子数据库确定了接受分支腔内修复的患者。纳入标准包括植入三支弓装置(Cook Medical),其中头臂主干(BCT)为顺行内支,LCCA为顺行或逆行内支,左锁骨下动脉(LSA)为逆行支。排除标准包括无随访和术后DUS。记录患者人口统计、合并症、手术适应症、手术细节和结果。根据LCCA分支方向对队列进行二分类。主要结果是确定术后双侧颈动脉超声灌注指标,并根据LCCA分支的方向对其进行比较。右颈总动脉(RCCA)作为对照,因为它在BCT上只有一条顺行分支。次要结局是比较内支原发性通畅、卒中相关结局、再干预和死亡率。结果:在研究期间,共有74例患者接受了三支弓装置的弓内修复,其中39例符合研究纳入标准,其中18例(46%)为LCCA顺行,21例(54%)为LCCA逆行。大多数患者为男性(74%),中位年龄为72岁。高血压(90%)和血脂异常(59%)发生率高。修复指征为退行性(51%)或慢性夹层后主动脉弓动脉瘤(49%)。逆行组71%的患者采用完全经皮入路进行手术通路(逆行组17%)。LCCA逆行分支的中位手术时间缩短了160分钟(逆行分支为218分钟)。30天卒中发生率为5% (n=2,均为顺行性卒中),无死亡。无论LCCA内支的方向如何,术后DUS显示实验LCCA与对照RCCA之间的灌注指标相似。在逆行组中,RCCA和LCCA均以单相(62%)和三相(31%)波形为主;收缩期中位峰值速度(PSV)为64 ~ 68 cm/s,舒张末期中位速度(EDV)为17 ~ 21 cm/s,加速时间(AcT)为56 ~ 65 ms。中期(中位随访11个月)结果显示,1例患者死亡,无卒中事件或靶血管相关再干预。结论:在使用三支装置进行弓内修复时,内支定向对双颈动脉us灌注指标的影响无显著性差异。在LCCA内分支的逆行方向,手术时间减少,全经皮入路率增加,卒中或再干预发生率没有增加。本回顾性研究进一步支持在有利解剖条件下,将LCCA内支的装置由顺行定位改为逆行定位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
18.60%
发文量
1469
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Vascular Surgery ® aims to be the premier international journal of medical, endovascular and surgical care of vascular diseases. It is dedicated to the science and art of vascular surgery and aims to improve the management of patients with vascular diseases by publishing relevant papers that report important medical advances, test new hypotheses, and address current controversies. To acheive this goal, the Journal will publish original clinical and laboratory studies, and reports and papers that comment on the social, economic, ethical, legal, and political factors, which relate to these aims. As the official publication of The Society for Vascular Surgery, the Journal will publish, after peer review, selected papers presented at the annual meeting of this organization and affiliated vascular societies, as well as original articles from members and non-members.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信