Page 31 - Read Online

Page 10 of 13 Jubouri et al. Vessel Plus 2023;7:5 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2022.49

Table 6. Summary of the reintervention subsection findings
Study Device Cohort size Reintervention (%)
Singh et al. [40] Single- or -triple-branched RELAY™ 40 0
Double-branched RELAY™ 108 16.2
[41]
Alsafi et al. RELAY™ 21 10
[47]
RESTORE RELAY™ 307 0.7
[48]
RESTORE II RELAY™ 173 Early: 3.5
Late: 7.5
[42]
Azuma et al. Najuta™ 393 0.8
Sato et al. [43] Najuta™ 37 8.3
[44]
Iwakoshi et al. Najuta™ 32 12.5
Spear et al. [38] Cook Zenith™ 27 7.4
[49]
O’Callaghan et al. Cook Zenith™ 33 30.3
Roselli et al. [45] Valiant™ 9 0

None of the patients in Singh et al. who underwent TER using single- or triple-branched RELAY™ required
reintervention, while 24 (16.2%) patients that received the double-branched RELAY™ did require this post-
TER . Alsafi et al. reported a 10% (n = 2) reintervention rate in their series due to type 2 endoleak using
[40]
RELAY™ . Two patients enrolled in the RESTORE I trial required surgical conversion postoperatively,
[41]
while in RESTORE II, the rates of early and late reintervention were 3.5% and 7.5%, respectively.
Furthermore, Azuma et al. found a 0.8% (n = 3) rate of retrograde dissection requiring reintervention
associated with Najuta™ . Using the same device, Sato et al. reported an 8.3% (n = 3) reintervention rate
[42]
during the 2.9 ± 2.9 year follow-up period . This value was even higher in Iwashoki et al. at 12.5%
[43]
[44]
(n = 4) . With Zenith™, and during a median follow-up period of 12 months, Spear et al. found that
2 (7.4%) patients developed type 1a endoleak following TER and needed secondary intervention . On the
[38]
contrary, but also with Zenith™, the rate of reintervention in O’Callaghan was 30.3% (n = 10). Interestingly,
[45]
none of the patients in Roselli et al. underwent reintervention following Valiant™ implantation . A
summary of the findings in the above subsection can be found in Table 6.
CONCLUSION
Endoarch repair using TEVAR represents the future of aortic arch repair. While FET is associated with
excellent clinical outcomes, TER has achieved highly comparable results due to its novelty. Nevertheless,
further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are necessary to solidify the evidence on
TER. In addition, studies directly comparing arch OSR to TER are warranted to determine superiority.

DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Devised the manuscript topic and supervised the literature search and writing process: Bashir M,
Mohammed I
Performed the literature search and wrote the manuscript: Jubouri M, Al-Tawil M, Tan SZCP, Geragotellis
A, Hussain M
Provided feedback on the manuscript draft: Mohammed I, Velayudhan B, Bashir M
Edited and formatted the final version of the manuscript: Jubouri M, Al-Tawil M
All authors approved this final version of the manuscript.