Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with left subclavian artery coverage without prophylactic revascularisation-early and midterm results

Left subclavian artery revascularization is associated with less neurologic injury after endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze patients with acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) requiring thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage to determine whether LSA revascularization decreased the risk of neurologic complications.

METHODS

The national Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for all procedures performed between 2014 and 2021. Patients presenting with aortic aneurysms or aortic ruptures were excluded from the analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether their LSA was revascularized (prior to or during TEVAR) or not. Univariate followed by multivariate analysis was used to account for possible confounders and evaluate the association of LSA revascularization with the primary outcome of neurologic injury (stroke or spinal cord ischemia).

RESULTS

Among patients who had TEVAR for aTBAD, 501 patients had the LSA covered. The LSA was revascularized prior to or concomitant with TEVAR in 28% of these patients (n = 139). Average age was 57 years, and 73% (n = 366) were male. Neurologic injury developed in 88 patients (18%). On univariate analysis, patients who had their LSA revascularized were significantly less likely to develop neurologic injury (10% vs 20%; P < .01). This association persisted after accounting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .02). No significant difference was seen when comparing 30-day or 1-year mortality between patients who had LSA revascularization and those who did not. Follow-up averaged 1.9 years (range, 0-8.1 years). Long-term survival did not differ between the two groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with aTBAD who underwent LSA coverage during TEVAR, the addition of a LSA revascularization procedure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of neurological injury including spinal cord ischemia and/or stroke.

Endovascular Repair of Penetrating Thoracic Aortic Ulcers Using Tubular Stent Grafts Versus Stent Grafts With a Proximal Scallop

PURPOSE

In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

Left subclavian artery coverage during endovascular repair of thoracic aorta injury in trauma and non-trauma patients

PURPOSE

In thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often occluded. Although most patients tolerate this, some develop ischemic symptoms to the brain or left upper extremity (LUE). A revascularization procedure may be associated with significant complications. The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence of LSA occlusion, resulting ischemic symptoms, and complications related to revascularization operations in trauma patients compared to non-trauma patients.

METHODS

Studies from 2010 to 2020 were fully reviewed if they discussed incidence of LSA coverage, LUE ischemia, carotid-subclavian bypass, or complications associated with carotid-subclavian bypass.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included in this analysis. A total of 167 patients were identified as trauma cases. Incidence of LSA occlusion in trauma was 91/167 (54%) compared to 281/1446 (19%) in the population exclusive of trauma (p < 0.001). Following LSA occlusion, the rate of LUE claudication/ischemia was 21/56 (38%) for trauma, compared to 12/193 (6%) in non-trauma cases (p < 0.001). The overall complication rate after carotid-subclavian rescue bypass was 29.2% (33/112), with phrenic nerve palsy (24%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (5%), and pseudoaneurysm (1.7%) being the most common.

CONCLUSION

LSA coverage following TEVAR is common and associated with significant complications, often requiring operative management. The incidence of ischemic complications after occlusion of the LSA is significantly higher in the trauma population. Revascularization procedures to correct the occlusion have a high rate of complications.

Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Aortic Aneurysms with the GORE® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for Left Subclavian Artery Preservation

OBJECTIVE OR BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has emerged as the dominant paradigm for treatment of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. For aneurysms involving the aortic arch in the region of the left subclavian artery (LSA), branch vessel preservation to maintain blood flow to the LSA is recommended. Branched aortic endografts are an alternative to surgical revascularization of the LSA.

METHODS

Across 34 investigative sites, 84 patients with Zone 2 aneurysm were enrolled in a nonrandomized, prospective study of a single branched aortic endograft. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis device allows for graft placement proximal to the LSA and incorporates a single side branch for left subclavian perfusion.

RESULTS

Over half of the patients were male (63%). Their average age was 70 (±11) years. The aneurysm morphology was fusiform in 43 and saccular in 41 patients. The mean aneurysm diameter at screening was 56.2 mm. The mean follow up was 30 months (range 2.6 to 50.7 months). Reported here are the patient outcomes at 1 and 12 months. Pre-defined technical success with implantation of the device in landing Zone 2 was achieved in 92% (n=77) of patients. There were no cases of aortic rupture, lesion-related mortality, or new onset renal failure. There was no peri-operative (30-day) mortality. A single case each of permanent paraplegia and paraparesis occurred. Three patients experienced a procedure-related stroke. Through 12 months, four patients died; none of the deaths were adjudicated as related to the device or procedure. One aortic reintervention was required. A single case of aortic enlargement (core laboratory) was reported at 6 months. Type 1 (n=3) and III (n=5) endoleaks occurred in 9.8% of patients of which one (Type III) required reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this device study in patients with Zone 2 aneurysm demonstrate that early safety and efficacy outcomes are maintained up to 12 months after the endovascular procedure with low mortality and reintervention rates and an acceptable frequency of procedural complications, including neurologic complications.

A Systematic Review of Spinal Cord Ischemia Prevention and Management After Open and Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications after descending thoracic aortic (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) repairs. Patients who develop SCI have a poor prognosis with mortality rates reaching 75% within the first year after surgery. Many factors have been shown to increase the risk of this complication, including extent of TAA repair, length of aortic and collateral network coverage, embolization, and reduced spinal cord perfusion pressure. As a result, a variety of treatment strategies have evolved. We aimed to provide an up-to-date review of SCI rates with associated treatment algorithms from open and endovascular DTA and TAA repairs.

METHODS

Using PRISMA guidelines, a literature review with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "spinal cord ischemia; spinal cord ischemia prevention and mitigation strategies; spinal cord ischemia rates; spinal cord infarction" was performed in the Cochrane and PubMed databases to seek all peer-reviewed studies of DTA and TAA repairs with SCI complications, limited to 2012-2021 and the English language. MeSH subheadings including diagnosis, complications, physiopathology, surgery, mortality, and therapy were used to further restrict the articles. Studies were excluded if they were not in humans, not pertaining to SCI in DTA/TAA operative repairs, and if the study primarily discussed neuromonitoring techniques. Additionally, studies with <40 patients or limited information regarding SCI protection strategies were excluded. Each study was individually reviewed by two researchers to assess for type and extent of aortic pathology, operative technique, SCI protection or mitigation strategies, rates of overall and permanent SCI symptoms, associations with SCI on multivariate analysis, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 450 studies returned by the MeSH search strategy, 41 met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. For endovascular DTA repair patients, overall SCI rates ranged from 0-10.6% with permanent SCI symptoms ranging from 0-5.1%. Endovascular and open TAA repairs had rates of overall SCI of 0-35%. Permanent SCI symptom rate was reported by only one open study at 1.1% while endovascular TAA repairs had between 2-20.5%.

CONCLUSION

This review provides an up-to-date review of current rates of SCI as well as prevention and mitigation strategies for DTA and TAA repairs. We find that a multimodal approach, including a bundled institutional protocol, staging of multiple repairs, preservation of collateral blood flow network, augmented spinal cord perfusion, selective cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and distal aortic perfusion in open TAA repairs, appears to be important in reducing the risk of SCI.

Evaluation of the Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis in the treatment of proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has radically transformed the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, when aneurysms involve the aortic arch in the region of the left subclavian artery, branch vessel preservation must be considered. Branched aortic endografts have provided a new option to maintain branch patency.

METHODS

Six investigative sites enrolled 31 patients in a nonrandomized, prospective investigational device exemption feasibility trial of a single branched aortic endograft for the management of aneurysms that include the distal aortic arch. The Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz), an investigational device, allows for graft placement proximal to the left subclavian artery and incorporates a single side branch for left subclavian perfusion.

RESULTS

All 31 patients (100%) had undergone successful implantation of the investigational device in landing zone 2. Men slightly outnumbered women (51.6%). Their average age was 74.1 ± 10.4 years. The aneurysm morphology was fusiform in 12 and saccular in 19 patients, with a mean maximum aortic diameter of 54.8 ± 10.9 mm. The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 25.2 ± 11.1 months. We have reported the patient outcomes at 1 month and 1 year. At 1 month, the side branch patency was 100% and the freedom from core laboratory-reported device-related endoleak (types I and III) was 96.7%, without 30-day death or permanent paraplegia. One patient experienced a procedure-related stroke. Through 1 year, five patients had died; none of the deaths were related to the device or procedure (clinical endpoint committee adjudicated). One thoracic reintervention was required. No conversions were required, and no aneurysm growth (core laboratory) was reported. One case of the loss of side branch patency was diagnosed in the left subclavian artery in an asymptomatic individual from computed tomography at 6 months, with no reported subsequent adverse events due to loss of patency. Endoleaks were reported by the core laboratory in five patients at 12 months (two, type II; and three, indeterminate).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigational device exemption feasibility study has reported the preliminary results of the use of a single side branch endograft to treat patients with proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Partial subclavian artery coverage in TEVAR patients for acute type B aortic dissections: an alternative solution

BACKGROUND

Acute type B aortic dissection with origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is generally managed with endovascular therapy for acute coverage of the LSA with: 1) no revascularization; 2) revascularization with open methods; or 3) endovascular revascularization. To identify an alternative solution, we critically evaluated a small cohort of patients who had partial coverage of their LSA.

METHODS

Three thoracic endovascular repairs were performed from January-March 2015. Patients were deemed eligible for endovascular repair after they had failed conservative management. Indications included acute type B dissection with lower extremity ischemia, ruptured dissection, and persistent symptoms of dissection after medical therapy.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all three patients, and all procedures were performed percutaneously. The mean distance between the ostium of the LSA and the entry point of dissection was 11.1±3.4 mm. Within the 30-day postoperative period, there were no deaths, aortic ruptures, myocardial infarctions, or conversions to open repair. Freedom from re-intervention was noted in all 3 patients. There was no spinal cord ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence to support the current optimal approach for treatment of the thoracic aorta. Partial coverage of LSA in patients with <2 cm seal zones may be considered as an alternative. However, due to our small sample size, limited follow-up, and lack of comparison cohort, further investigation is necessary.

Implementation of a treatment algorithm to decrease incidence of paralysis post endovascular thoracoabdominal aorta repair

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a rare but devastating complication following aortic repair. Despite improvements in operative management and critical care of aortic disease patients, SCI remains one of the most serious and common complications after these procedures. Early recognition and rescue interventions can augment the outcome and reduce the morbidity or avoid permanent dysfunction. This is a single institution experience of creating an evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of SCI in patients after thoracoabdominal endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

INTERVENTION/METHODS

We implemented an evidence-based treatment algorithm for the management of acute SCI after TEVAR. A total of 131 TEVAR cases were reviewed, 59 cases preimplementation, and 72 cases postimplementation of an SCI treatment algorithm.

RESULTS

Lower extremity motor and/or sensory deficits were identified in 5.1% of preimplementation and 4.2% of postimplementation cases. SCI treatment interventions included increasing the mean arterial pressure (MAP) (66% pre and 100% post), placing lumbar drain (33% pre and 33% post), performing carotid subclavian bypass (33% pre and 33% post), initiating naloxone drip (66% pre and 100% post), and administering glipizide (0% pre and 100% post, P < .05). Long-term paralysis occurred in 66% of preimplementation and 0% of postimplementation cases.

CONCLUSIONS

By creating and implementing an SCI treatment algorithm we reduced both, time to detection and time to effective treatment of SCI and significantly improved our patients' neurological outcomes.

Management of the Left Subclavian Artery in TEVAR for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

Objectives:

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. Left subclavian artery coverage without revascularization can cause stroke and death. TEVAR has gained popularity for the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBD). Using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database, we reviewed outcomes of LSA revascularization in TEVAR for cTBD.

Methods:

The VQI registry identified 5683 patients treated with TEVAR from July 2010 to July 2016, including 208 repairs for cTBD. We analyzed outcomes per the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards.

Results:

Of the 208 patients, 150 (72.1%) were male with a median age of 65.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 55.0-72.0). Median aneurysm diameter was 5.7 cm (IQR, 5.0-6.5 cm). Data on the patency of the LSA was available in 131 (63.0%) patients. Twenty-five (19.1%) had occlusion of the LSA without revascularization, while 106 (80.9%) maintained patency or had revascularization. Successful device delivery occurred in all 131 (100%) patients. Maintaining LSA patency did not affect the rate of cerebrovascular accident ( P = .16), spinal cord ischemia ( P = 1.00), or death ( P = 1.00). This was also nonsignificant when analyzing the subgroup of 98 elective cases. There was no difference in the rates of endoleak. Any intervention for the LSA (revascularization or occlusion) led to a longer procedure time (203.6 minutes vs 163.7 minutes, P = .04).

Conclusions:

Maintaining LSA patency during TEVAR for cTBD offers no advantage in perioperative morbidity or endoleak. Occlusion of LSA may be performed safely in this cohort and revascularization reserved for those who have anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs.

Current Status of Endoluminal Treatment of Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was proved to be effective in thoracic descending aortic aneurysm (TDAA) repair in 1994 and approved by the FDA in 2005. Since then, TEVAR has become the first-line, recommended treatment for intact or ruptured DTAA or as a bridge to definitive open surgical repair in connective tissue disease. TEVAR has decreased perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery due to the lack of thoracotomy, aortic cross-clamping and left heart bypass. Improvement in materials, manufacturing and device delivery systems have allowed for the expansion of indications. Thoughtful and accurate pre-procedure planning is the hallmark of successful TEVAR. Familiarization and adherence to the instructions for use for an aortic device will give the best possible chance of success.

Previous thoracic aortic repair is not associated with adverse outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

As many as 20% of patients who have undergone previous thoracic aortic repair will require reintervention, which could entail thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). A paucity of data is available on mortality and the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) and other postoperative complications associated with TEVAR after previous aortic repairs exclusive to the thoracic aorta. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of previous thoracic aortic repair on the 30-day mortality and SCI outcomes for patients after TEVAR.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all cases of TEVAR from 2012 to 2018. Patients were excluded if they had undergone previous abdominal aortic repair, the TEVAR had extended beyond aortic zone 5, or SCI data were missing. The 3 cohorts compared were TEVAR with previous ascending aortic or aortic arch repair (group 1), TEVAR with previous descending thoracic aortic repair (group 2), and TEVAR without previous repair (group 3). The primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and SCI. The secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac complications, respiratory complications, postoperative length of stay, and reintervention. The patient variables were compared using χ2 tests, analysis of variance, or Kruskal-Wallis tests, as appropriate. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of 30-day mortality and SCI.

RESULTS

A total of 4010 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 470 in group 1, 132 in group 2, and 3408 in group 3. The 30-day mortality was 4% (19 of 470) in group 1, 6% (8 of 132) in group 2, and 6% (213 of 3408) in group 3 (P = .17). The incidence of SCI was 3% (14 of 470) in group 1, 3% (4 of 132) in group 2, and 3.8% (128 of 3408) in group 3 (P = .65). Stroke, reintervention, myocardial infarction, and cardiac complications were not significantly different among the 3 groups. The incidence of respiratory complications was greatest for group 3 (11%; 360 of 3408) compared with groups 1 (9%; 44 of 470) and 2 (4%; 5 of 132; P = .034). Similarly, the postoperative length of stay was longest for group 3 (9.6 ± 19.4 days vs 8.2 ± 18.3 days for group 1 and 5.9 ± 8.6 days for group 2; P = .038). The independent predictors of 30-day mortality for all TEVAR patients included units of packed red blood cells transfused intraoperatively, urgent or emergent repairs, older age, increasing serum creatinine level, inability to perform self-care, total procedure time, occlusion of the left subclavian artery intraoperatively, distal endograft landing zone 5, and diabetes. The predictors of SCI included the total procedure time, urgent and emergent repairs, and increasing serum creatinine level.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR after previous thoracic aortic repair was not associated with an increased risk of SCI or 30-day mortality compared with TEVAR without previous aortic repair.

Reparación Endovascular para Aneurisma de Aorta: Revisión Panorámica Sobre su Evidencia en el Mundo y su Aplicación en Latinoamérica

BACKGROUND

Aortic aneurysm (AA) is a pathology with high morbidity and mortality. The management can be expectant, surgical, or through endovascular repair (EVAR). In Latin America the incidence of AA has increased and the analysis of therapeutic options, especially if they are expensive, is fundamental.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze available evidence on the effectiveness, safety and coverage policies of the EVAR.

METHODOLOGY

Panoramic review in the main bibliographical bases (MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, DARE) and generic internet searchers, main health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and health insurance companies. Systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), HTA and coverage policies, followed by the identification of primary studies published after the SR search date were included. A search of studies published until November 2015 in English and Spanish was carried out.

RESULTS

311 references were recovered, from which seven SRs were selected, one clinical study and 15 CPGs, consensus or coverage policies and ETS.

CONCLUSIONS

For abdominal AA, high quality evidence showed no differences inlong-term survival with the use of EVAR compared to conventional surgery, but lower early mortality was observed (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 -0.55). EVAR was associated with a greater need for re-intervention. In the case of other types of AA, further evidence is still required to establish the benefit of EVAR. The CPGs, consensus, HTAs and coverage policies identified, mostly consider open surgery as the treatment of choice, reserving the EVAR for patients with high surgical risk for conventional surgery in the presence of favorable anatomy.

Traumatic aortic injury: does the anatomy of the aortic arch influence aortic trauma severity?

Purpose

Traumatic aortic injury (TAI) is a rare but life-threatening type of injury. We investigate whether the anatomy of the aortic arch influences the severity of aortic injury.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of twenty-two cases treated with TEVAR for TAI in our department from 2009 to 2014. Aortic injury was assessed in accordance with the recommendations of the Society of Vascular Surgery. We measured the aortic arch angle and the aortic arch index, based on the initial angio-CT scan, in each of the analyzed cases.

Results

The mean aortic arch index and mean aortic arch angle were 6.8 cm and 58.3°, respectively, in the type I injury group; 4.4 cm and 45.9° in the type III group; 3.3 cm and 37° in the type IV group. There were substantial differences in both the aortic arch index and the aortic arch angle of the type III and IV groups. A multivariate analysis confirmed that the aortic arch angle was significantly associated with the occurrence of type III damage (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.03–2.2).

Conclusions

The severity of TAI is influenced by the sharpness of the aortic arch. There is an inverse relationship between the severity of aortic injury and the aortic arch index.

Revascularisation of the left subclavian artery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists as to whether revascularisation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) confers improved outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Even though preemptive revascularisation of the LSA has theoretical advantages, including a reduced risk of ischaemic damage to vital organs, such as the brain and the spinal cord, it is not without risks. Current practice guidelines recommend routine revascularisation of the LSA in patients undergoing elective TEVAR where achievement of a proximal seal necessitates coverage of the LSA, and in patients who have an anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs. However, this recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy of routine LSA revascularisation versus either selective or no revascularisation in patients with descending thoracic aortic disease undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the LSA origin.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (June 2015). In addition, the TSC searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5)).Trials databases were also searched (June 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We had planned to consider all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine revascularisation of the LSA with selective or no revascularisation, in patients undergoing TEVAR.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstract of articles identified through literature searches. An independent third review author was consulted in the event of disagreement. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any RCTs relevant to our review topic. Therefore, no quantitative analysis was conducted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High quality RCT evidence for or against routine or selective revascularisation of the LSA in TEVAR is not currently available. It is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to the optimal management of LSA coverage in TEVAR, and whether routine revascularisation, which was defined as the intervention of interest in our review, confers beneficial effects, as indicated by reduced mortality, cerebrovascular events, and spinal cord ischaemia. This review highlights the need for continued research to provide RCT evidence and define the role of LSA revascularisation in the context of TEVAR with coverage of the LSA.

Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury in Case of a 15-Year-Old Boy: Difficulties and Possibilities of the Endovascular Approach

BACKGROUND

Blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) are rare but life threatening. Most BTAI are caused by high-energy trauma. Among children with blunt trauma, the incidence of BTAI is below 1 percent. The present case deals with covered thoracic aortic rupture of a 15-year-old boy. Emphasizing the value and the difficulties of endovascular surgery in children is the motivation for this case report.

CASE REPORT

We are presenting the case of a 15-year-old boy, who suffered multiple traumata after accident. Beneath multiple fractures and a liver laceration, a thoracic aortic rupture with pseudoaneurysm of the aortic wall was diagnosed. Owing to the comorbidities, an endovascular therapy in combination with a transposition of the left subclavian artery to the common carotid artery was performed. The chronological line-up of the events and the endovascular treatment as well as the in-hospital follow-up are described.

DISCUSSION

Injury-induced BTAI in pubescent children rarely occurs. Only few cases can be found in literature, none of which were associated with the presented pattern of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal treatment for childhood BTAI is a case-by-case decision. We critically discuss the value of endovascular therapy in the present case.