Endovascular aortic arch repair: A comparison of outcomes and current trends

Abstract

Objective Application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to the aortic arch has been met with the development of purpose-made endoprostheses for on-label use in the aortic arch. An appraisal of the clinical efficacy of each major device is therefore useful towards informing clinical decision making for patients eligible for endovascular arch repair (EAR) rather than open surgical reconstruction. Methods A literature review of publications outlining clinical experience with the RELAY™ Branched and Zenith™ devices was undertaken, and the results therefrom analysed to evaluate the clinical efficacies of each device. Results Early- and long-term mortality rates associated with EAR appear favourable, especially compared against open surgical repair. EAR is also associated with good neurological outcomes and target vessel patency rates. However, EAR continues to be associated with substantial reintervention rates. Conclusions At the present stage, EAR represents a promising alternative option to open surgical reconstruction in patients that meet its eligibility criteria. Though there remains a substantial learning curve associated with EAR, its favourable outcome profile is likely to increase its applicability in the future.