Analysis of cutting ballon versus plain balloon dilatation after electrified wire in situ fenestration

IF 2.3 Q3 Medicine
JVS-vascular science Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jvssci.2026.100417
Marcello Silvano MD , Teodora Ormandzhieva MD , Eberhard Grambow MD , Florian Elger MD
{"title":"Analysis of cutting ballon versus plain balloon dilatation after electrified wire in situ fenestration","authors":"Marcello Silvano MD ,&nbsp;Teodora Ormandzhieva MD ,&nbsp;Eberhard Grambow MD ,&nbsp;Florian Elger MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jvssci.2026.100417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Electrified wire in situ fenestration (EW-ISF) has been recently described both in vivo and in vitro as a feasible alternative to laser ISF to address complex aortic pathologies in emergency situations. However, no data are currently available regarding the preferred dilatation method after puncture. The aim of this paper was to compare two established schemes of fenestration dilation after an EW-ISF setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 72 EW-ISFs were performed in 4 commercially available endografts: Zenith Alpha (n = 20), RelayPro (n = 20), Endurant IIs (n = 20), and Valiant Captivia (n = 12). In group A, fenestrations were sequentially dilatated with a 2-mm and a 6-mm plain balloon dilatation (PBD). In group B, fenestrations were dilatated with a 2-mm PBD, a 4-mm cutting balloon, and a 6-mm PBD. Postdilatation fenestration morphological features were analyzed, and diameters and surface were measured after dilatation and after 24 hours to assess the relative fabric elastic recoil. For each graft, in both group one bridging stent (BS) was implanted and its caliber measured with intravascular ultrasound.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In both the Zenith and the Endurant, group B showed more tearing (<em>P</em> = .302 and <em>P</em> &lt; .001 respectively), less bulging (<em>P</em> = .039 and <em>P</em> &lt; .001), and more frequent slit-like fenestration morphology (<em>P</em> = .015 and <em>P</em> = .001). The Valiant graft displayed major (&gt;0.5 cm long) tearing in group B. Fenestration dimensions and recoil momentum were comparable between the two groups in all grafts, but the Endurant, where group B fenestrations had significantly higher fenestration area (6.5 mm<sup>2</sup> vs 2.3 mm<sup>2</sup>; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). BS caliber was comparable in both groups in the RelayPro and Zenith Alpha, but a significant stenosis was assessed in group A in the Endurant IIs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Both cutting balloon dilatation and PBD are feasible and comparable after EW-ISF in the in the RelayPro and the Zenith grafts. Cutting balloon provides more ideal fenestration dimensions in the Endurant IIs and might be preferred. It determines excessive damages in the monofilament graft and should, therefore, be avoided.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>Electrified wire in situ fenestration is an emerging, low-cost alternative for urgent aortic branch revascularization, but optimal postfenestration dilation remains undefined. This study provides practical guidance on balloon selection according to graft fabric. Cutting balloons may improve fenestration enlargement and reduce the risk of bridging stent stenosis in multifilament grafts such as Endurant IIs, while causing excessive damage in monofilament devices. Tailoring dilation strategy to graft type may enhance safety, durability, and procedural success in emergency endovascular aortic repair.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74035,"journal":{"name":"JVS-vascular science","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JVS-vascular science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666350326000106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Electrified wire in situ fenestration (EW-ISF) has been recently described both in vivo and in vitro as a feasible alternative to laser ISF to address complex aortic pathologies in emergency situations. However, no data are currently available regarding the preferred dilatation method after puncture. The aim of this paper was to compare two established schemes of fenestration dilation after an EW-ISF setting.

Methods

A total of 72 EW-ISFs were performed in 4 commercially available endografts: Zenith Alpha (n = 20), RelayPro (n = 20), Endurant IIs (n = 20), and Valiant Captivia (n = 12). In group A, fenestrations were sequentially dilatated with a 2-mm and a 6-mm plain balloon dilatation (PBD). In group B, fenestrations were dilatated with a 2-mm PBD, a 4-mm cutting balloon, and a 6-mm PBD. Postdilatation fenestration morphological features were analyzed, and diameters and surface were measured after dilatation and after 24 hours to assess the relative fabric elastic recoil. For each graft, in both group one bridging stent (BS) was implanted and its caliber measured with intravascular ultrasound.

Results

In both the Zenith and the Endurant, group B showed more tearing (P = .302 and P < .001 respectively), less bulging (P = .039 and P < .001), and more frequent slit-like fenestration morphology (P = .015 and P = .001). The Valiant graft displayed major (>0.5 cm long) tearing in group B. Fenestration dimensions and recoil momentum were comparable between the two groups in all grafts, but the Endurant, where group B fenestrations had significantly higher fenestration area (6.5 mm2 vs 2.3 mm2; P < .001). BS caliber was comparable in both groups in the RelayPro and Zenith Alpha, but a significant stenosis was assessed in group A in the Endurant IIs.

Conclusions

Both cutting balloon dilatation and PBD are feasible and comparable after EW-ISF in the in the RelayPro and the Zenith grafts. Cutting balloon provides more ideal fenestration dimensions in the Endurant IIs and might be preferred. It determines excessive damages in the monofilament graft and should, therefore, be avoided.

Clinical Relevance

Electrified wire in situ fenestration is an emerging, low-cost alternative for urgent aortic branch revascularization, but optimal postfenestration dilation remains undefined. This study provides practical guidance on balloon selection according to graft fabric. Cutting balloons may improve fenestration enlargement and reduce the risk of bridging stent stenosis in multifilament grafts such as Endurant IIs, while causing excessive damage in monofilament devices. Tailoring dilation strategy to graft type may enhance safety, durability, and procedural success in emergency endovascular aortic repair.
原位开窗通电后切球囊与平球囊扩张的对比分析
目的:电气化导线原位开窗(EW-ISF)最近在体内和体外都被描述为一种可行的替代激光原位开窗的方法,用于治疗紧急情况下复杂的主动脉病变。然而,目前尚无关于穿刺后首选扩张方法的数据。本文的目的是比较EW-ISF设置后两种已建立的开窗扩张方案。方法对Zenith Alpha (n = 20)、RelayPro (n = 20)、Endurant IIs (n = 20)和Valiant Captivia (n = 12) 4种市售内移植物进行72例EW-ISFs手术。A组依次行2 mm和6 mm平球囊扩张(PBD)。在B组,开窗用2mm PBD、4mm切割球囊和6mm PBD扩张。分析扩张后的开窗形态特征,并在扩张后和24小时后测量直径和表面,以评估织物的相对弹性后坐力。在两组中,每个移植物均植入一个桥式支架(BS),并通过血管内超声测量其直径。结果B组在Zenith组和endurance组均出现较多撕裂(P = 0.302和P <; 0.001)、较少胀形(P = 0.039和P <; 0.001)和较多裂隙样开窗形态(P = 0.015和P = 0.001)。在所有移植物中,两组之间的开窗尺寸和反冲动量相当,但在耐力组,B组的开窗面积明显更高(6.5 mm2 vs 2.3 mm2; P < 001)。RelayPro和Zenith Alpha两组的BS口径相当,但在endurance ii中,a组被评估为明显的狭窄。结论在RelayPro和Zenith移植中,EW-ISF后切割球囊扩张和PBD是可行的,具有可比性。切割球囊在耐力ii中提供了更理想的开窗尺寸,可能是首选。它决定了单丝移植物的过度损伤,因此应该避免。电丝原位开窗术是一种新兴的、低成本的紧急主动脉分支血运重建术,但最佳的开窗后扩张术仍不明确。该研究为根据接枝织物选择球囊提供了实用指导。切割球囊可以改善多丝支架(如endurance ii)的开窗,降低桥式支架狭窄的风险,而单丝支架则会造成过度损伤。根据移植物类型调整扩张策略可以提高急诊血管内主动脉修复的安全性、耐久性和手术成功率。
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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书