Abstract
Background
Endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) has emerged as an alternative to open surgical repair. A growing interest in endovascular repair techniques for aortic arch aneurysms and dissection has been met with a focus on the clinical efficacy of EAR devices. We present multicentre comparative data on the clinical outcomes associated with EAR using the double- and triple-branched configurations of the RELAY™ (Terumo Aortic, Scotland, UK) endograft.
Methods
Multicentre data on EAR procedures, carried out from January 2019 to January 2022, using the double- and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft were collected prospectively. Follow-up data were collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperative. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan–Meier analysis were carried out on procedural and follow-up data.
Results
A total of 131 patients were included in the series. In total, 103 and 28 patients were treated with the double-branched and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft, respectively. Over the 24-month follow-up period, zero mortality, cases of stroke, or reinterventions were recorded in the triple-branched group. Four mortalities, 19 disabling strokes, and 50 reinterventions were recorded in the double-branched group within 30 postoperative days. Target vessel patency was maintained in all patients in the triple-branched group, while vessel patency was maintained in 74.0% of patients in the double-branched group.
Conclusion
Outcomes associated with the triple-branched group are consistent with those reported in the literature. Our data suggest that EAR with the RELAY™ endograft is associated with favourable clinical outcomes and clinical efficacy. Further comparative research into EAR devices is needed.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.