Single Branched Endografts for the Preservation of Left Subclavian Artery in the Treatment of Zone II Thoracic Aortic Lesions a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Annals of vascular surgery Vol. 94; pp. 396 - 406
• Main Authors: Bontinis, Vangelis, Bontinis, Alkis, Chorti, Angeliki, Schoretsanitis, Nikolaos, Giannopoulos, Argirios, Ktenidis, Kiriakos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Inc 01.08.2023
• ISSN: 0890-5096; 1615-5947
• DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.04.019

We investigated the safety and feasibility of single branched endografts in the treatment of zone II thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We performed a systematic research on Medline, Scopus and EMBASE for articles published up to February 2023. Primary end points included technical success, 30-day mortality, stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) as well as unassisted left subclavian artery (LSA) branch patency by the end of follow-up. Secondary end points included early 30-day and persistent endoleaks, new onset dissection and reintervention by the end of follow-up. Fourteen studies, three prospective case series and 11 retrospective case series comprised of 727 patients were finally included. The pooled technical success and 30-day mortality rates were 94.86 % (95% confidence interval (CI): 90.95–97.86) and 0.14% (95% CI: 0.00–0.87). The 30-day stroke and SCI rates were 0.45% (95% CI: 0.00–1.39) and 0.08% (95% CI: 0.00–0.99), respectively, while the unassisted LSA branch patency estimate was 99.12% (95% CI: 97.97–99.86). The early 30-day and persistent endoleak rates were 5.19% (95% CI: 2.45–8.65) and 2.57% (95% CI: 0.36–6.02), whereas new onset dissections and reinterventions estimates were 0.94% (95% CI: 0.17–2.11) and 2.40% (95% CI: 0.41–5.42). While we have displayed the safety and feasibility of single branched endografts in the treatment of zone II thoracic aortic lesions, physicians should be aware of the persistency displayed by early type I endoleaks eventually requiring reintervention. The variations in device and lesion characteristics accompanied by the short-term follow-up presented in our review do not allow for definite conclusions to be drawn, necessitating further research through high-quality randomized controlled trials.