ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization With In Situ Laser Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Acute Complicated or High-Risk Type B Aortic Dissection: Results of the LLTEVAR Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Following Endovascular and Hybrid Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Early Outcomes of a Curvature-Guided Strategy for Dual-Branch Revascularization in Zone 1 TEVAR.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Endovascular Repair of Type IA Endoleak With Zone 0 TBE and Carotid-Carotid-Subclavian Bypass.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Percutaneous transthoracic coil embolization of a gutter-related type Ia endoleak after chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
- Article
- Anesthetic Considerations for Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta.Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2025Review
- Complications after treatment of type B aortic dissection with TEVAR stent-graft deployment in zone 2.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Proximal Relining with Custom Made Double Branch Aortic Arch Graft to treat a type Ia Endoleak after Zone 2 Branched TEVAR.EJVES vascular forum · 2025Article
- Hybrid and Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Pathology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of chimney technique and single-branched stent graft in a cohort of patients with type B aortic dissections: a retrospective cohort study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Effectiveness of Zone 1-Landing Hybrid TEVAR by Comparing Its Outcomes with Those of Zone 2-Landing Hybrid TEVAR.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.