Indications, safety, and effectiveness of transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy during endovascular repair of aortic dissections.

Objective: Endovascular repair of aortic dissections may be complicated by inadequate sealing zones, persistent false lumen perfusion, and limited space for catheter manipulation and target artery incorporation. The aim of this study was to describe the indications, technical success, and early outcomes of transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy (TES) during endovascular repair of aortic dissections.

Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients treated by endovascular repair of aortic dissections with adjunctive TES in two centers between 2021 and 2023. End points were technical success, defined by successful septotomy without dislodgment of the lamella or target artery occlusion, and 30-day rates of major adverse events (MAEs).

Results: Among 197 patients treated by endovascular repair for aortic dissections, 36 patients (18%) (median age, 61.5 years (interquartile range, 55.0-72.5 years; 83% male) underwent adjunctive TES for acute (n = 3 [8%]), subacute (n = 1 [3%]), or chronic postdissection aneurysms (n = 32 [89%]). Indications for TES were severe true lumen (TL) compression (≤16 mm) in 28 patients (78%), target vessel origin from false lumen in 19 (53%), creation of suitable landing zone in 12 (33%), and organ/limb malperfusion in four (11%). Endovascular repair included fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in 18 patients (50%), thoracic EVAR/EVAR/PETTICOAT in 11 (31%), and arch branch repair in 7 (19%). All patients had dissections extending through zones 5 to 7, and 28 patients (78%) underwent TES across the renal-mesenteric segment. Technical success of TES was 92% (33/36) for all patients and 97% (32/33) among those with subacute or chronic postdissection aneurysms. There were three technical failures, including two patients with acute dissections with inadvertent superior mesenteric artery dissection in one patient and distal dislodgement of the dissection lamella in two patients. There were no arterial disruptions. The mean postseptotomy aortic lumen increased from 13.2 ± 4.8 mm to 28.4 ± 6.8 mm (P < .001). All 18 patients treated by fenestrated-branched EVAR had successful incorporation of 78 target arteries. There was one early death (3%) from stroke, and three patients (8%) had major adverse events. After a median follow-up of 8 months (interquartile range, 4.5-13.5 months), 13 patients (36%) had secondary interventions, and two (6%) died from non-aortic-related events. There were no other complications associated with TES.

Conclusions: TES is an adjunctive technique that may optimize sealing zones and luminal aortic diameter during endovascular repair of subacute and chronic postdissection. Although no arterial disruptions or target vessel loss occurred, patients with acute dissections are prone to technical failures related to dislodgement of the lamella.