Retrograde type A aortic dissection after endovascular stent graft placement for treatment of type B dissection

Pre-fenestration endovascular repair of aortic diseases in patients with zone 2 segment: A single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to analyze the outcomes of three cases of pre-fenestration and branch stent-graft endovascular repair of aortic disease with zone 2 aortic lesions.

METHODS

From August 2017 to June 2018, three patients with zone 2 aortic lesions underwent thoracic endovascular repair with innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery recannulation using pre-fenestration and branched stent-grafts to preserve the patency of the aortic arch branches.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100%. One patient had a proximal type I endoleak with no need for additional treatment. The overall mortality was 0%. All branches were patent. The follow-up period lasted for 2-15 months, with one patient lost to follow-up. There were no conversions to open surgical repair, aortic rupture, paraplegia, or retrograde type A aortic dissection.

CONCLUSION

The use of a pre-fenestration and branch stent-graft for the thoracic endovascular repair of zone 2 aortic lesions is a feasible and effective method for aortic arch branch revascularization. The risk of this surgical procedure is high, requiring significant expertise. The procedure should be conducted only in experienced centers. Durability concerns should be assessed in future studies with long-term follow-up.

Characterization of syndromic, nonsyndromic familial, and sporadic type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is commonly thought of as a sporadic event. However, an increasing body of data has suggested that genetic factors can influence TBAD. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of heritable TBAD, defined as either syndromic TBAD or nonsyndromic familial TBAD and to detail the natural history and long-term clinical outcomes compared with patients with "sporadic" TBAD without an identified syndrome or family history.

METHODS

The clinical records of 389 patients with TBAD who had presented to a single health care system from 1995 to 2017 were reviewed. A family history was obtained by interview and/or medical record review. Syndromic TBAD was defined as TBAD in patients with Marfan, Loeys-Dietz, or vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Nonsyndromic familial TBAD was defined as a family history of aortic or arterial aneurysm or dissection and/or sudden death in a first- or second-degree relative in the absence of a known syndrome. Patients with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD were compared with patients with sporadic TBAD in terms of the comorbid conditions, aortic repair, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 389 patients (71.2% male) with TBAD, the etiology of TBAD was heritable in 27.9% (9.6% syndromic; 18.3% nonsyndromic familial TBAD) and 72.1% sporadic of the cases. Patients with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD had been more frequently referred in the chronic phase than were the patients with sporadic TBAD (35.5% vs 44.1% vs 25.8%; P = .014) and had presented at a younger age (40.6 ± 10.9 years vs 55.2 ± 11.3 years vs 62 ± 12.9 years; P < .001) and with lower blood pressure at acute TBAD (systolic, 159.2 ± 21 mm Hg vs 178.9 ± 39.3 mm Hg vs 186.1 ± 38.4, P = .01; diastolic, 84.3 ± 17.3 mm Hg vs 91.4 ± 24.1 mm Hg vs 101.6 ± 22.3 mm Hg, P = .001). Among patients with acute TBAD surviving to discharge from the initial hospitalization, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) had been performed in 115 patients, with no significant differences in TEVAR usage in the three groups. However, those with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD had had a greater incidence of retrograde aortic dissection after TEVAR (33.3% vs 15% vs 3%; P = .006). They had also required a greater number of arch repairs (30% vs 10.5% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and had died at a younger age (47.7 ± 13.1 years vs 65.7 ± 13.7 years vs 72.8 ± 12.7 years; P < .001). Aortic-related mortality was more common among patients with syndromic TBAD (36.7% vs 12.3% vs 17.6%; P = .016).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-institutional experience, heritable TBAD accounted for one in four patients with TBAD. Nonsyndromic familial TBAD was twice as common as syndromic TBAD and appeared to share many clinical features. Identifying these patients early in their disease course and personalizing their care might improve their survival.

A multicenter "real-world" study of the valiant NAVION stent graft

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate early results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using the Valiant Navion™ stent graft in a "real-world" scenario.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TEVAR with the Valiant Navion™ endograft between November 2018 and November 2019 were included in this retrospective multicenter study (six European centers). The primary endpoints were technical success, incidence of major adverse events (MAEs), access failure, deployment failure, deployment accuracy, and rate of intraoperative endoleaks (ELs).

RESULTS

One hundred-sixteen patients with varying thoracic aortic diseases were included. Eighteen patients (15.5%) were treated for an off-label condition. The technical success rate was 100%, without any access or deployment failures. The proximal and distal deployment accuracy rates were 99.1% and 97.4%, respectively. There were no intraoperative MAEs, including death. Two (1.7%) type Ib ELs were detected at the first postoperative CTA, all of which were in off-label procedures and related to the short length of the sealing neck. No type III ELs were detected. The median hospitalization time was 8 days (IQR 4-12), including a median intensive care unit stay of 1 day (IQR 1-2). The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.3%. At a median follow-up time of 98 days (IQR 39-187), there were no aortic-related mortalities or new onset of endoleaks.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience with the Valiant Navion™ endograft in a wide variety of aortic diseases showed safe early outcomes, especially for on-label procedures.

Surgical Outcomes of Stent-Related Type A Dissection Compared with Spontaneous Type A Dissection

Objective: Aortic endovascular stent implantation includes thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), hybrid aortic repair (HAR), and ascending aorta stent implantation (AASI). In this study, we compared the surgical outcomes of stent-related type A dissection (SRTAD) compared with spontaneous type A dissection (STAD).

Methods: From July 2011 to July 2014, we identified 17 SRTAD patients received surgical repair in our institution. Propensity score-matching was used to identify 34 STAD patients as controls.

Results: Preoperative data of SRTAD group and STAD group had no statistical difference. Selective cerebral perfusion (SCP) time was longer in SRTAD group than in STAD group (P <0.05). SRTAD group had a longer cross-clamp time compared with STAD group (P <0.05). No intraoperative deaths in two groups. No differences in CPB time and concomitant procedures between two groups. In-hospital mortality was 11.76% (2 of 17) in SRTAD group and 2.9% (1 of 34) in STAD group (P <0.05). No differences were found in intensive care unit (ICU) time, ventilation, paraparesis, and other postoperative complications between SRTAD and STAD groups. No difference was found in survival rate between SRTAD and STAD groups in the postoperative 1-year follow-up.

Conclusions: SRTAD patients received surgical repair had a higher in-hospital mortality compared with STAD, but no differences were found in postoperative complications and mid-term outcomes.

Outcomes of endovascular stent graft repair for penetrating aortic ulcers with or without intramural hematoma

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the outcomes of endovascular repair for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with and without intramural hematoma (IMH).

METHODS

Patients with PAUs who had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) at our center were enrolled. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, and anatomic characteristics were collected and analyzed to investigate the TEVAR/EVAR indications, perioperative complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 138 patients with PAU. Of the 138 patients, 58 (42.0%) had also had IMH. Compared with the patients without IMH, the patients with IMH had had significantly greater emergency admission rates (P < .01), a larger aortic diameter (P = .03), and a greater incidence of stent-induced new entry development (P = .02). No significant differences were found in mortality or freedom from reintervention between patients with PAUs with and without IMH during follow-up. However, the cumulative survival rates calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients who had undergone TEVAR/EVAR during their first hospitalization were significantly greater than those who had undergone delayed TEVAR/EVAR during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR/EVAR was safe and effective, with encouraging outcomes for patients with PAUs with or without IMH, and can be used more aggressively for symptomatic patients. The presence of PAUs with IMH did not seem to adversely affect long-term mortality. However, but stent-induced new entry was more likely to develop.

Secondary Open Arch Operation After Prior Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Many patients required secondary open arch operation due to new aortic pathologies or complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). In this study, we investigated the outcome of secondary open arch operation after prior TEVAR.

METHODS

Fifty-seven consecutive patients underwent secondary open arch operation after prior TEVAR. The major indications were retrograde type A aortic dissection (n = 24), proximal new aortic dissection (n = 8), and type Ⅰa endoleak (n = 16). An elective operation was performed in 35 patients and an emergent operation in 22. The survival and freedom from aortic events during the follow-up were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test. The survival was also analyzed with the Cox analysis.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality was 7.0% (4 of 57). The mean follow-up time was 32.2 ± 19.7 months. Five late deaths occurred. The overall survival at 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years was 89.5%, 84.6%, and 79.9%, respectively. Aortic events developed in 7 patients. Freedom from aortic events after the operation at 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years was 94.2%, 83.0%, and 77.8%, respectively. There were no differences in survival and freedom from aortic events between the elective group and the emergent group. The Cox analysis identified additional coronary artery bypass grafting and hypothermic circulatory arrest as independent factors predicting survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary open arch operation could be performed to treat the arch pathologies after TEVAR with acceptable early and midterm outcomes.

Long-Term Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Chimney Grafts for Aortic Arch Pathologies: 10 Years of Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the early- and long-term outcomes of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Chimney-Graft technique (ChTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, patients who underwent aortic ChTEVAR technique in our institution were included. Early, mid, and long-term outcomes in this group of patients were evaluated. Patient follow-up data were obtained by imaging follow-up that are routinely performed after 3-6 months following initial surgery and then at yearly intervals.

RESULTS

Aortic arch repair with a ChTEVAR was performed in 54 patients. The 30-day mortality was 18.5% (n = 10). All-cause 30-day mortality was higher in the subgroup of patients operated urgently (33% vs. 14%) without a significant difference (P = 0.141). Permanent neurological deficit (PND) was observed in 15% (8/54 patients); stroke in 11% (6/54), and paraplegia 4% (2/54). During follow-up the primary and primary-assisted chimney-graft patency was 96.8% and 97.8%, respectively. The multivariate analysis identified the age >70 years and the aortic diameter as independent risk factors for elevated mortality during the follow-up (P = 0.015 and 0.001, respectively). The PND was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality (P = 0.014, hazard ratio 13.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7-106.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The ChTEVAR has noninferior results to other open and endovascular aortic arch repair methods with an acceptable long-term survival especially in elective procedures.

Prevention of Retrograde Ascending Aortic Dissection by Cardiac Pacing During Hybrid Surgery for Zone 0 Aortic Arch Repair

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) after zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair is highly lethal and not infrequent complication. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of rapid cardiac pacing as an adjunctive tool to prevent RTAD during or after hybrid procedures for zone 0 disease.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 42 consecutive patients with zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair between November 2004 and January 2018. Right ventricular pacing was carried out through unipolar electrodes attached to the epicardium of the right ventricle through the sternotomy (the indifferent electrode was in the subcutaneous tissue). Pacing was utilised during the clamping of the ascending aorta, release of the aortic clamp, and stent-graft deployment.

RESULTS

Operative indications were aortic arch aneurysm 45% (n = 19), aortic arch dissection 45% (n = 19), traumatic rupture of isthmus 7% (n = 3), and type IA endoleak 2% (n = 1). Urgent procedures 48% (n = 20). The mean proximal aortic diameter was 34.14 ± 2.9 mm. Mean stent-graft oversizing was 12.97 ± 3.4%. The 30-day mortality rate was 14% (n = 6). RTAD was observed in 7% (n = 3). The actuarial survival rate was 74% over a mean follow-up of 50 ± 30.2 months. Since January 2013, rapid right ventricular pacing (overdrive pacing at a rate of 200 beats/min) was systematically used (n = 24). No RTAD was observed in this group of patients. Rapid right ventricular pacing reduced significatively the risk of RTAD (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid right ventricular pacing is an effective method of inducing hypotension and appears to decrease the risk of retrograde type A dissection after zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair.

Conceptual Framework Development for a Double-Walled Aortic Stent-Graft to Manage Blood Pressure

A double-walled stent-graft (DWSG) design with a compressible gas layer was conceived with the goal of treating hypertension in patients receiving an aortic stent-graft. Early prototypes were developed to evaluate the design concept through static measurements from a finite element (FE) model and quasi-static inflation experiments, and through dynamic measurements from an in vitro flow loop and the three-element Windkessel model. The amount of gas in the gas layer and the properties of the flexible inner wall were the primary variables evaluated in this study. Properties of the inner wall had minimal effect on DWSG behavior, but increased gas charge led to increased fluid capacitance and larger reduction in peak and pulse pressures. In the flow loop, placement of the DWSG decreased pulse pressure by over 20% compared to a rigid stent-graft. Capacitance measurements were consistent across all methods, with the maximum capacitance estimated at 0.07 mL/mmHg for the largest gas charge in the 15 cm long prototype. Windkessel model predictions for in vivo performance of a DWSG placed in the aorta of a hypertensive patient showed pulse pressure reduction of 14% compared to a rigid stent-graft case, but pressures never returned to unstented values. These results indicate that the DWSG design has potential to be developed into a new treatment for hypertensive patients requiring an aortic intervention.

A 10-year study of surgical results of descending aorta aneurysm repair following chronic aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with descending aortic aneurysms developing after aortic dissection often undergo continued aortic expansion which may require operative interventions to address the risk of aortic rupture. In light of the current advances in various treatment options, including endovascular approaches, we analyzed our experience with open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms of the descending aorta following aortic dissection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open repair for aneurysmal changes of the descending aorta after chronic dissection were retrospectively studied. The 30-day operative mortality rate, midterm survival, and major complications were analyzed. Patients were divided into two categories; primary chronic type B aortic dissection and remnant repaired type A aortic dissection (RTAAD).

RESULTS

There were 149 patients with enlargement of the descending thoracic aorta developing after aortic dissection. Of these, 49 patients had medical management, while the remaining 100 patients received OSR. These patients were included in the present analysis. The 30-day mortality and permanent paraplegia rates were 9% and 4%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 83%, 80.9%, and 76.1%, respectively. The 1- and 5-year survival rates between the primary chronic type B aortic dissection and remnant RTAAD groups showed no significant between-group differences at 86.7% and 84.3%, and 80% and 71.3%, respectively (P = .289). The overall outcomes of other complications such as renal injury, bleeding reoperation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support showed no significant between-group differences, including an insignificantly higher neurologic complication rate in the remnant RTAAD group. The survival rate in patients with Marfan syndrome was significantly higher than in the patients without Marfan syndrome (P = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

OSR for descending aortic aneurysms developing after chronic aortic dissection showed good early and mid- to long-term outcomes, with acceptably low complication rates. OSR for descending aortic aneurysm after chronic aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome also showed good early and mid- to long-term outcomes.

Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (TEVAR) in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders

Objectives:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial in patients with connective tissue disorders given the concern for durability. We report on the largest series to date on outcomes of patients with thoracic aortic disease and connective tissue disorders treated with TEVAR.

Methods:

The Vascular Quality Initiative registry identified 12 207 patients treated with TEVAR from January 2010 to December 2018, including 102 with Marfans, Ehlers-Danlos, or Loey-Dietz syndrome. Outcomes were analyzed per the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards.

Results:

Median age was 50.6 years (interquartile range: 57.0-75.0), and 62 (60.7%) were male. Eighty-eight (86.3%) patients had Marfan, 9 (8.8%) had Ehlers-Danlos, and 5 (4.9%) had Loey-Dietz syndrome. Twenty-six (25.5%) patients were treated for degenerative aneurysmal disease and 76 (74.5%) patients for type B dissections (33 acute, 31 chronic). Most common indications for interventions in patients with type B dissection were pain (n = 41), aneurysmal degeneration (n = 16), and malperfusion (n = 8), with 3 patients who presented ruptured. There was no significant difference in perioperative complications between acute/chronic dissections and aneurysms ( P = .14). Percutaneous access was utilized in 61.7% of patients, with a 2.9% rate of arterial injury requiring reintervention. Follow-up data were available for 75 (73.3%) patients at a mean follow-up of 15.6 months. Overall mortality was 5.3%. There were 30 patients with follow-up endoleak data, and 8 (26.7%) endoleaks were identified. All endoleaks were in patients treated for acute type B dissection, and all resolved after a mean of 2.1 reinterventions. Three patients treated for acute Type B Aortic Dissection (TBAD) had retrograde dissections requiring intervention.

Discussion:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for patients with connective tissue disorders can be performed with low perioperative mortality, spinal cord ischemia, or Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA). On follow-up, acute type B aortic dissections represent a higher risk subgroup with increased rates of endoleak and retrograde dissection. Closer follow-up for these patients and early reintervention may be beneficial.

Numerical modeling and simulations of type B aortic dissection treated by stent-grafts with different oversizing ratios

Retrograde type A dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair has been a major drawback of endovascular treatment. This study investigated the biomechanical mechanism of stent-graft-induced new lesions after implantation and analyzed the relationship between radial force and spring-back force of the stent-graft when it was implanted virtually under different oversizing ratios. Based on the computed tomography angiography images, a three-dimensional geometric model of a patient-specific aortic dissection was established. The stent was designed in CAD software and the stent-graft implantation procedure under different oversizing ratios was simulated in the finite element analysis software. Implantation simulations were performed six times for each stent-graft model under 0%, 3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, and 15% oversizing ratios and the peak stress of the aorta was compared among groups. It was observed that the peak stress of the aorta was located where the proximal bare stent interacted with aortic wall and its value was increased by 62.2% from 0% to 15% oversizing ratio. The conclusions are reached that the long-term higher stress in the aortic wall may lead to the emergence of new lesions in these areas, and the radial force plays a key role in the formation of a new entry in the real aorta model.

Endovascular aortic repairs combined with looping-chimney technique for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) combined with looping chimney technique (LCT) for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery.

Methods

Total of 14 patients (mean age 52.86±14.46 years; range, 27–79; 10 men, 4 women) were included in the study from December 2016 to December 2018. Aortic arch pathologies of all patients with insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) were repaired by TEVAR under local anesthesia, before TEVAR, the left common carotid artery (LCCA) was protected by the guiding sheath from the retrograde brachial access, after aortic stent graft deployed, chimney graft was implanted to restore LCCA by LCT if necessary. All patients underwent computed tomography angiograph (CTA) 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery.

Results

Pathology results of 14 patients included: type B aortic dissection (n=8), penetrating aortic ulcers (n=1), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=1), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=2), and thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm (n=2). In all patients, aortic arch lesions were repaired by TEVAR; while LCCA were successfully reconstructed by the LCT. In one case, the innominate artery (IA) was simultaneously reconstructed through the same percutaneous right brachial artery (RBA) access. Coiling eliminated type Ia endoleak in 3 patients, and type II endoleak vanished by plugging left subclavian artery (LSA) in 2 patients. In four patients, the chimney stent (CG) of LCCA was partially compressed and then another bare stent was implanted to restore patency rate. The mean follow-up duration was 9.77±6.64 months (range, 0–24) and no combinations were observed in 13 patients; except in one patient who died of cerebral hemorrhage due to abnormal coagulation function.

Conclusions

TEVAR combined with LCT has shown to be suitable surgical approach for aortic arch lesions. Either covered intentionally or inadvertently, the LCCA could be safely and effectively reconstructed via percutaneous RBA access. Short-term follow-up demonstrated satisfactory morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients; however, longer follow-up is required to assess the effectiveness and durability of this innovative endovascular procedure.

The surgical management of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to review the surgical treatment of retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in our centre.

METHODS

From January 2014 to April 2018, 22 patients with RTAD after TEVAR were operated on in our centre. The mean age at operation was 52.0 ± 8.0 years old. The median interval between the primary TEVAR procedure and RTAD was 4.6 months (range 0-120 months). The postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were calculated to evaluate the early and long-term results.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique and 2 patients received total arch replacement alone. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time and selective cerebral perfusion time were 172.4 ± 39.3, 100.1 ± 30.3 and 19.7 ± 10.5 min, respectively. The incidence of major adverse events was 18.6% (4/22), including stroke in 1 patient, myocardial dysfunction in 1 patient and renal failure necessitating dialysis in 3 patients. Death within 30 days was 13.6% (3/22 patients). The follow-up data were available for all 19 survivors. The mean follow-up period was 32.2 ± 16.2 months (range 10-62 months). No deaths or aortic-related events occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Total arch replacement with or without the frozen elephant trunk technique was suitable for the management of RTAD after TEVAR, with acceptable early and long-term results.

A meta-analysis of combined proximal stent grafting with or without adjunctive distal bare stent for the management of aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of placement of a proximal covered stent graft combined with a distal bare stent are controversial because of the lack of evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of combined proximal covered stent grafting with distal bare stenting (BS group) and proximal covered stent grafting without distal bare stenting (non-BS group).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and key references were searched up to January 26, 2019. Predefined outcomes of interest were mortality, morbidity, and postoperative assessment of aortic remodeling. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes of interest using fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, eight observational studies involving 914 patients were included. There were no significant differences in overall aorta-related mortality (RR, 0.54; confidence interval [CI], 0.24-1.24; P = .15), complete thoracic false lumen (FL) thrombosis rate (RR, 1.23; CI, 0.83-1.81; P = .30), or complete abdominal FL thrombosis rate (RR, 1.96; CI, 0.68-5.69; P = .21) between the BS group and the non-BS group. The BS group had a lower rate of partial thoracic FL thrombosis (RR, 0.40; CI, 0.25-0.65; P = .0002), a lower stent graft-induced new entry rate (RR, 0.08; CI, 0.02-0.41; P = .003), and a lower reintervention rate (RR, 0.42; CI, 0.26-0.69; P = .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined proximal covered stent grafting with distal adjunctive bare stenting had the potential to reduce the partial thoracic FL thrombosis rate and the rates of stent graft-induced new entry and reintervention but was not associated with lower aorta-related mortality or the complete FL thrombosis rate. Further research with a stricter methodology is needed.

Outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration (ISLF)-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery.

METHODS

Twenty patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection who were found to be unfit for open surgery, underwent emergency ISLF-assisted TEVAR in our center between March 2016 and December 2018. Anatomic criteria for endovascular repair: coronary artery and aortic valve was not involved, proximal landing zone diameter of 45 mm or less, and proximal landing zone length of 20 mm or greater. Their clinical outcomes were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Twenty patients achieved a procedural success of 100.0%. The 30-day mortality was 10%; two patients died, one of severe pneumonia and the other from cerebral hemorrhage after the operation. Rate of stroke at 30 days was 5%. The average follow-up time was 16 months (range, 3-26 months). One death owing to heart failure occurred at 23 months postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis revealed that the 24-month survival rate was 77.1%. Two patients had type Ia endoleaks and one had a type II endoleak. There was no stent graft migration or fenestration-related endoleak and all patients had a thrombosed false lumen in the covered section of the stent grafts. No reintervention, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attacks, cerebral infarction, or other complications occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency ISLF-assisted TEVAR is a safe and effective alternative method for treating acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery.

Treatment experience of thoracic aortic aneurysm recurrence after multiple surgeries for Marfan syndrome: A case report

RATIONALE

Marfan syndrome (MFS), an autosomal dominant hereditary disease, often results in structural and functional abnormalities of the aortic wall. Because of residual aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection, patients with MFS usually need repeat operations after the first operation.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A patient diagnosed with MFS who had undergone 2 surgeries because of abdominal aortic dissection aneurysm and Stanford A type aortic dissection at different times.

DIAGNOSES

MFS.

INTERVENTIONS

Due to aneurysmal dilatation of the residual descending aorta, we performed the third surgery for him through using 2 artificial stent grafts to fix and package the area of the remaining vessel in our hospital.

OUTCOMES

The result was good, and the patient was discharged successfully.

LESSONS

Using artificial material to repair and wrap the area of the residual vessel during the first surgery can provide an anchor area for future endovascular stent implantation and also offer a possibility for stent implantation in patients with MFS.

Enlargement Rate of the Ascending Aorta After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

It is known that the elasticity of the thoracic aorta decreases when it is covered with endografts. It remains to be clarified, however, whether endografts in the descending aorta affect aortic stiffening in the ascending aorta. We analyzed 46 patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm between January 2008 and June 2016. We calculated the preoperative and postoperative rate of enlargement of the mid-ascending aorta using enhanced computed tomography. In 3 of these patients, we evaluated the peak systolic and time-averaged wall shear stress and relative cross-section area change at the level of the mid-ascending aorta using 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging. The postoperative rate of enlargement of the mid-ascending aorta was significantly greater than the preoperative rate (0.78 [0.31-1.38] mm/y vs 0.32 [0.12-0.60] mm/y; P < 0.001). In 2 of the 3 patients analyzed by 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging, the waveform of time-averaged wall shear stress had changed, and the relative cross-section area change decreased after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. There were no secondary surgical interventions for the ascending aorta after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. The rate of enlargement of the ascending aorta may be affected by the change in wall shear stress or aortic stiffening after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Aortic endovascular stenting in patients with systemic connective tissue disorders: does the prohibitive dogma still stand tall?

Endovascular repair of thoracic aortic diseases can provide satisfactory outcomes in elective and certain emergency cases involving the descending thoracic and aortic arch. However, open repair remains the gold standard method of aortic root pathologies and certain aortic arch pathologies, such as extended dissection. Nevertheless, the use of endovascular stenting in patients with connective tissue disorders has not been fully explored because the aortic tissues are fragile and the likelihood of keeping the stent in place is low because of its progressive dilatation and subsequent requirement for open repair at a later stage when the stent graft fails. Our brief review focuses on current evidence of the use of stents in patients with connective tissue disorders and whether such practice can be expanded further.

The Year in Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights From 2018

This special article is the second in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia that is specifically dedicated to highlights in vascular anesthesiology published in 2018. This review begins with 2 updates in preoperative medicine in the vascular surgery population, including recent publications regarding the management of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers and antiplatelet medications in the perioperative period. The next section focuses on complications related to thoracic endovascular aortic surgery, particularly as technology advances allow for endovascular repair of more complex anatomy. The final section focuses on quality in vascular surgery and evaluates recent publications that examine the safety and feasibility of fast-track endovascular aortic surgery. Even though this is only a sampling of the literature published in 2018 relevant to the cardiovascular anesthesiologist, these themes represent some of the topics most clinically relevant to the perioperative period.

Fracture of the Bare Spring of a Thoracic Endograft for Type A Aortic Dissection: A Case Report

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a devastating complication associated with high mortality rates. In particular, a deployed endograft in a bird-beak formation in an acute curve of the aortic arch can induce injury to the fragile aortic wall, with the subsequent development of RTAD. Here, we describe an extremely rare case of RTAD caused by fracture of the bare spring of the thoracic endograft for type A aortic dissection.

Risk Factors Associated With Reintervention After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Descending Aortic Pathologies

BACKGROUND:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with several short-term benefits, including reduced morbidity and mortality; however, the long-term durability of TEVAR and the need for secondary aortic reintervention remain unclear. We aimed to determine the adverse outcomes, including aortic reintervention, after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection.

METHODS:

Between October 2009 and July 2016, 130 patients underwent TEVAR at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We excluded 35 patients with traumatic injury and included the remaining 95 patients in our study after TEVAR. The patients included in this study were categorized into 2 groups (reintervention [R] and nonintervention [N] groups) according to the need for reintervention. The mean follow-up period for all 95 patients was 22.4 (20.6) months.

RESULTS:

The overall actuarial survival rates were 83.7% (4.1%) and 63.6% (8.8%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from aortic reintervention after TEVAR were 94.0% (3.5%), 72.8% (8.2%), and 48.9% (10.5%) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The independent risk factors for aortic reintervention were endoleaks after TEVAR (odds ratio [OR] 6.13, P = .017), increase in aortic size by over 5% per year (OR 20.40, P = .001), and peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; OR 13.62, P = .007). Patients with preoperative hemoptysis tended to show a greater need for aortic reintervention ( P = .059). Increase in aortic size by over 5% per year and PVOD were the primary risk factors for endoleaks (OR 3.82, P = .013 and OR 4.37, P = .021, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Survival after TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathologies was satisfactory in most of the patients chosen as candidates for the procedure. However, the occurrence of endoleaks, increase in aortic size by over 5% per year, and PVOD were the primary causes of aortic reintervention.

The most relevant unmet needs in endovascular management of descending thoracic aorta

Endovascular repair of descending thoracic aorta (DTA) is considered as first interventional option for most part of the aortic disorders. However, many unmet needs and issues are still limiting its applicability. One of the major limitations is related to the existing gaps in evidence. Clear and robust evidence is still needed in many aspects of the management of DTA pathologies. In numerous clinical scenarios, adequate trials are lacking. Besides those gaps in evidence, it is well recognized that thoracic endografting (TEVAR) is technically evolving in order to overcome technical and device-related complications and limitations. We can deploy endografts in any aortic segment: in the descending, in the ascending, in the arch, even preserving aortic branches. Nevertheless, from the pure technical point of view, current generations of endografts still need more development and improvement. Durability remains the major concern for any endovascular treatment, and thoracic endografting is not an exception. As Galenus said, the physician is only nature's assistant, thoracic endograft should also follow the natural anatomy instead of fighting against it. We will focus the following pages on the graft conformability and compliance, both related to durability and safety of thoracic endografting. We will review the current knowledge and concerns associated with the anatomical and hemodynamic modifications induced by the thoracic endograft strength, stiffness and straightness and their implications for the future thoracic endograft designs.

A graft inversion technique for retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection

Background

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a rare but life-threatening complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). A graft inversion technique was applied to distal anastomosis in total arch replacement for this complicated dissection. We reviewed our results of the processing for this serious complication. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of this technology.

Methods

From January 2013 to December 2017, 20 patients (80% male, mean age 50.9 ± 9.5 years) with retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection were scheduled for surgical treatment at our center. All patients underwent an ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement procedure. The 20 patients were divided into two groups, 1 group involved 9 patients underwent surgery using stepwise technique; the graft inversion technique was performed in the other group containing the remaining 11 patients. The postoperative variables, including cardiopulmonary bypass time, the circulatory arrest time, the aortic cross clamp time, were analyzed. Meanwhile we also analyzed the postoperative mortality and complications to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of surgical treatment for RTAD after TEVAR.

Results

In-hospital mortality was 10% (2 of 20 patients). No patient developed postoperative paraplegia, renal failure, stroke, or distal anastomotic bleeding. Two patients developed renal insufficiency, one developed neurologic insufficiency, and one developed pulmonary infection, all of which were managed accordingly. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the graft inversion group than in the stepwise group (165.8 ± 37.9 min versus 206.1 ± 46.8 min, p<0.05; 34.5 ± 5.6 min versus 42.4 ± 9.5 min, p<0.05, respectively). The 18 survivors had a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 18.2 months, and all patients remained alive and well.

Conclusion

Graft inversion can enable a secure distal anastomosis under good surgical exposure, resulting in reduced durations of CPB, and circulatory arrest for RTAD after TEVAR. Surgical treatment could be a safe alternative for treatment of this patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13019-019-0851-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Computational investigation of interaction between stent graft and aorta in retrograde type A dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been a major drawback of endovascular treatment. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated aortic injuries caused by stent grafts (SGs). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate and to quantify the SG-aorta interaction and to analyze the risk factors for injury through computational simulation.

METHODS

The aortic geometry was extracted from an RTAD case. Five SG models were assembled based on Valiant and Talent (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) SGs, and modifications were made to the original SG design by adding and removing the connecting bar. TEVAR simulations were performed seven times for each SG model with 0% and 15% oversizing ratio (OSR), and the maximum aortic stress (MAS) was calculated and compared within the groups.

RESULTS

In all TEVAR models, MAS was seen at the proximal bare stent (PBS). The PBS in the Valiant and Talent SGs generated higher stress toward the aortic wall than other SG parts did. MAS was significantly higher for the 15% OSR (0.54 ± 0.07 MPa) than for the 0% OSR (1.32 ± 0.74 MPa) in 172.5-mm Valiant models. MAS was significantly higher in the Talent with connecting bar SG model (0.73 ± 0.24 MPa) than in the Talent without connecting bar SG model (0.51 ± 0.11 MPa). MAS was significantly higher in the Valiant with connecting bar SG model (0.82 ± 0.29 MPa) than in the Valiant without connecting bar SG model (0.54 ± 0.07 MPa). MAS was not significantly different in models with 172.5-mm and 140-mm Valiant SG implantations with 0% OSR (0.54 ± 0.07 MPa vs 0.60 ± 0.12 MPa) and 15% OSR (1.32 ± 0.74 MPa vs 1.12 ± 0.33 MPa).

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristic MAS distribution remained at the location where the apexes of the PBS interacted with the aortic wall at its greater curve. Both higher OSR and the presence of a connecting bar can significantly increase the MAS after SG implantation. Moreover, the chronic MAS at the PBS area may injure the aortic wall, causing RTAD.

Management of Type B Aortic Dissections: Treatment of Acute Dissections and Acute Complications from Chronic Dissections

Aortic dissection is one of the most catastrophic vascular challenges faced by interventionalists, often misdiagnosed and frequently associated with devastating consequences. Stanford type B aortic dissections affects the descending thoracic aorta without any involvement of the ascending aorta. Dissections associated with refractory pain, rapid aneurysm formation, malperfusion syndromes, rupture, or impending rupture are categorized as complicated and distinct from initially uncomplicated type B dissections without the aforementioned complications. Traditionally, uncomplicated type B dissection is managed medically whereas complicated type B dissection requires intervention to limit mortality. Over the last two decades, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as an alternative to open surgical repair for treatment of complicated type B dissection. Various societal guidelines now unanimously propose TEVAR as the treatment of choice for management of complicated disease based on its relatively low morbidity and mortality compared to open surgical outcomes. As the consensually acknowledged standard of care for management of patients with complicated lesions, TEVAR is currently being considered for select patients with initially uncomplicated dissection to mitigate the risks of mid and late-term disease progression and aortic-related mortality. This article describes the decision-making treatment algorithm for management of type B aortic dissection. It also provides a comprehensive review of the indications and procedural recommendations for performing TEVAR based on current evidence in the literature. Additionally, the article guides the readers through step-by-step practical considerations, from choosing the optimal graft to insuring its ideal deployment in type B dissection, as well as providing advice on how to handle a variety of procedure-related complications.

Aortic treatment in connective tissue disease

Connective tissue disease (CTD) represents a group of genetic conditions characterized by disruptive matrix remodeling. When this process involves aortic and vascular wall, patients with CTD have a high risk of developing arterial aneurysms, dissections and ruptures. Open surgical repair is still the gold standard therapy for patients with CTD with reasonable morbidity and mortality risk. The surgical treatment of CTD often requires multiple operations. In the endovascular era, fenestrated and branched stent grafts may play a role in reducing the complications of multiple open operations. Although the long-term results of endovascular treatment in the setting of CTD are unknown, it is generally accepted that endovascular treatment is restricted to selected patients with high surgical risk. In an emergency setting, endovascular intervention can serve as a lifesaving bridge to elective open aortic repair. Aortic centers performing a large volume of complex open and endovascular aortic repairs have started to combine these two techniques in a staged fashion. The goal is to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with extensive aortic repairs in CTD patients. For this reason, recommend endovascular therapy when a "graft-to-graft" approach is possible. In this scenario, the surgeon who performs the open repair must take into consideration future interventions. Surgical repair in any aortic segment should allow creation of proximal and distal landing zones over 4 cm to secure the sealing of a future stent graft. Connective tissue disease should be treated with a multidisciplinary approach, in high volume centers. Endovascular treatment represents a potential option in patients at high risk for open repair. Staged hybrid procedures have emerged as a way to reduce spinal cord ischemia and avoid multiple open surgeries. The aim of this article is to discuss the management of aortic diseases in CTD, focusing on to the role of standard open surgery and emerging endovascular treatment, and to give an overview of the few series published regarding this topic with a small number of patients.

Application of triple-chimney technique using C-TAG and Viabahn or Excluder iliac extension in TEVAR treatment of aortic arch dilation diseases

Background

To report the experience of a single centre regarding the application of the triple-chimney technique using C-TAG with Viabahn or Excluder iliac extension devices for the endovascular management of aortic arch dilation diseases.

Methods

From July 2016 to August 2017, 7 patients (5 men; mean age 56.1±10.8 years) with aortic arch dilation diseases were treated with the triple-chimney technique. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter.

Results

Six innominate arteries were deployed with Excluder iliac extensions and one with a Viabahn cover-stent. All the left common carotid arteries and left subclavian arteries were placed with Viabahn. Reverse chimney technique was applied in four patients. Three (42.0%) type I endoleaks were found on the final angiogram. Two were apparently reduced, and one disappeared after balloon dilation. The mean follow-up time was 15.7 months (9-20 months). All the type I endoleak was found disappeared within 3 months. One patient died of myocardial infarction at 6 months after discharge. No other complications such as stent-graft migration, occlusion, type II endoleak or neurological stroke occurred.

Conclusions

The use of C-TAG coupled with Viabahn or Excluder iliac extension is feasible and effective for the treatment of aortic arch dilatation diseases. However, more patients and longer follow-up time are required to verify its long-term safety and efficacy.

Frozen elephant trunk and arch endografts for chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissections

Chronic aortic dissecting aneurysms (TAAD) presenting after acute Stanford type A or B dissection includes both arch and/or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). Approximately 60% of patients who survive surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissections will require another aortic procedure. Similarly, more than 70% of patients with chronic type B aortic dissections will experience false lumen dilation at 5-year follow-up, often requiring intervention. Open or hybrid aortic repairs of complex TAAD involving the arch and the TAAA are very demanding procedures for both patients and clinicians. Open surgery remains the first line therapy in fit patients. Recent development of branched arch devices has offered an alternative option for high-risk patients. Technical challenges associated with the endovascular management of these complex aneurysms include proximal sealing zone often located in the aortic arch or the ascending aorta, narrow true lumen working space, and aortic branch perfusion by either the true or false lumen, or both. Recent studies have reported encouraging results with endovascular treatment of these complex dissecting aneurysms, especially following open ascending aortic repair. The aim of this review was to describe the available strategies for arch repair in the setting of a chronic TAAD and to determine the subset of patients that can benefit from of a totally endovascular approach.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair to treat uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection: The surgeon's dilemma to preventing future complications

Uncomplicated type B aortic dissections have traditionally been managed non-operatively with aggressive blood pressure control. However, the best medical treatment is associated with a considerable risk of disease progression to complicated dissection or aneurysmal degeneration of the affected aortic segment. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair could prevent long-term complications but, because the dissected aorta is vulnerable, it is a high-risk procedure performed in asymptomatic patient. Therefore, endovascular treatment is not a solution for all patients and it should be performed only in the subgroup prone to developing progression of the disease and future complications. A number of studies have suggested several prognostic factors of early or late adverse events such as the patency of the false lumen in the follow-up, an initial aortic diameter ≥4 cm with a patent false lumen, an initial false lumen diameter ≥22 mm in the proximal descending aorta, visceral involvement and recurrent or refractory pain or hypertension. Partial false lumen thrombosis and a proximal entry tear size >10 mm have also been suggested to be associated with an increased rate of aortic growth. We need randomised trials focused on these prognostic factors to reach level 1, class A recommendation for the optimal timing of intervention. Meanwhile, we have to discuss with the patient the pro and cons of this prophylactic, low-invasive but high-risk treatment to personalise medical care and provide the optimal risk-to-benefit ratio.

How can genetic diagnosis inform the decision of when to operate?

Genetic discovery for heritable thoracic aortic disease (HTAD) has been progressing at a brisk pace. Surgical management of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections has become more personalized, with genetic factors increasingly informing the decision of when to operate on patients. An improved understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations in patients with HTAD will ultimately lead to gene- and mutation-specific recommendations for surgical repair. Until more robust data from larger cohorts can inform our decisions, patients with HTAD should be seen by an aortic specialist for a tailored approach to elective surgical repair.

[Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta]

Degenerative aneurysms of the thoracic aorta are increasing in prevalence. The recognition of the decreased morbidity of this approach compared with open repair was readily apparent, as it avoided left thoracotomy, aortic cross-clamping, and left heart bypass. Repair of isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms using stent grafts was introduced in 1995, and in an anatomically suitable subgroup of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm, repair with endovascular stent graft provides favorable outcomes, with decreased perioperative morbidity and mortality relative to open repair. The cornerstones of successful thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair are appropriate patient selection, thorough preprocedural planning, and cautious procedural execution. Since then, TEVAR is increasingly being used for other aortic pathologies such as complicated type B dissection, traumatic aortic transection, and aneurysmal disease extending into the arch or visceral segment, requiring debranching procedures.

Endovascular treatment of acute and chronic isolated abdominal aortic dissection

Objective

To discuss the strategies and clinical outcomes of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for acute and chronic isolated abdominal aortic dissection (IAAD).

Methods

From January 2012 to June 2017, 33 patients with IAAD were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into acute and chronic groups based on the time to EVAR from IAAD onset (acute: ≤90 days; chronic: >90 days). Patient demographics, clinical parameters, procedural factors, and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

Results

Among 33 patients, 21 were diagnosed with acute IAAD and 12 were diagnosed with chronic IAAD. All patients underwent EVAR, and no significant difference in EVAR-related procedural factors was observed between the two groups. The primary technical success rate in all patients was 100%. The overall survival rate in the chronic group was lower than that in the acute group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.186). However, the reintervention-free survival rate in the chronic group was significantly lower than that in the acute group ( P = 0.039). Significant enlargement of the true lumen (TL) and regression of the false lumen (FL) and maximal aortic diameter were observed in all patients after EVAR ( P < 0.05). The mean diameter of the TL in the acute group increased significantly more than that in the chronic group (14 ± 3 mm vs. 11 ± 3 mm, P = 0.040). A significant difference was not observed in the regression of the FL ( P = 0.628) or maximal aortic diameter ( P = 0.319) between the two groups.

Conclusion

EVAR continues to be a safe therapeutic approach with a high technical success rate and favorable clinical outcomes. The clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling in the chronic group seem to be poorer than those in the acute group.

Retrograde Ascending Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Combined With the Chimney Technique and Successful Open Repair Using the Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique

The chimney technique can be combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to both obtain an appropriate landing zone and maintain blood flow of the arch vessels. However, surgical repair becomes more complicated if retrograde type A aortic dissection occurs after TEVAR with the chimney technique. We herein report a case involving a 73-year-old woman who developed a retrograde ascending dissection 3 months after TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection. To ensure an adequate proximal sealing distance, the proximal edge of the stent graft was located at the zone 2 level and an additional bare stent was placed at the left subclavian artery (the chimney technique) at the time of TEVAR. Enhanced computed tomography revealed an aortic dissection involving the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Surgical aortic repair using the frozen elephant trunk technique was urgently performed. The patient survived without stroke, paraplegia, renal failure, or other major complications. Retrograde ascending dissection can occur after TEVAR combined with the chimney technique. The frozen elephant trunk technique is useful for surgical repair in such complicated cases.