Background: The total endovascular approach is in current evolution, and many series have described variable outcomes for branched technology, chimney techniques, or fenestrated repair; and even a combination of some of them. We aim to describe the current outcomes on physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases.
Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for this systematic review. The search was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used the following search terms in all possible combinations: home-made, physician-modified, surgeon-modified, on-table modification, hand-made, endograft, endovascular, aortic arch, and TEVAR: a thorough search of the English-language literature published until March 2020 was performed to identify studies using physician-modified endograft for the treatment of arch diseases. Only studies with treatment of 3 patients or more and with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were enrolled in the systematic review, whereas case reports were excluded from the analysis.
Results: Six articles participated in the systematic review after the exclusions, including a total of 239 patients for analysis. Four high-volume centers provided data including a high rate of single fenestrations in zone 2, accounting for nearly 70% of the cases. About 80.3% were males, and 67.4% received urgent treatment mainly for acute/subacute dissection (64.4%). Thoracic aortic aneurysm and/or postdissection arch aneurysm was the second leading cause of treatment with 25.9%. There was a technical success of 93.7% reaching up to 98.3% when additional procedures were performed. The 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, paraplegia, and stent-induced new entry rates were 2.9%, 2.1%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively; whereas, overall mortality of the study was 4.6% at a mean follow-up of 33.2 ± 14.8 months.
Conclusions: Endograft modification for aortic arch diseases' treatment demonstrates to be safe and highly effective, especially for aortic dissections needing single zone 2 fenestrations. Although outcomes achieved in the study seem encouraging, these are achieved at high-volume experienced centers, thus, they need to be judiciously evaluated, whereas proctoring may be a good alternative if one patient may benefit from the technique in an unexperienced center.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.