Midterm Cost and Effectiveness of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Versus Open Repair

Costs of endovascular and open repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms with either endovascular repair (TEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) represents major surgery, is costly and associated with significant complications. The aim of this study was to establish accurate costs of delivering TEVAR and OSR in a cohort of UK NHS patients suitable for open and endovascular treatment for the whole treatment pathway from admission and to discharge and 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective study of UK NHS patients from 30 NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units in England aged ≥18, with distal arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (CTAA) was undertaken. A multicentre prospective cost analysis of patients (recruited March 2014-July 2018, follow-up until July 2019) undergoing TEVAR or OSR was performed. Patients deemed suitable for open or endovascular repair were included in this study. A micro-costing approach was adopted.

RESULTS

Some 115 patients having undergone TEVAR and 35 patients with OSR were identified. The mean (s.d.) cost of a TEVAR procedure was higher £26 536 (£9877) versus OSR £17 239 (£8043). Postoperative costs until discharge were lower for TEVAR £7484 (£7848) versus OSR £28 636 (£23 083). Therefore, total NHS costs from admission to discharge were lower for TEVAR £34 020 (£14 301), versus OSR £45 875 (£43 023). However, mean NHS costs for 12 months following the procedure were slightly higher for the TEVAR £5206 (£11 585) versus OSR £5039 (£11 994).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical procedure costs were higher for TEVAR due to device costs. Total in-hospital costs were higher for OSR due to longer hospital and critical care stay. Follow-up costs over 12 months were slightly higher for TEVAR due to hospital readmissions.

Midterm outcomes of open repair versus endovascular descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

Objective

The study objective was to evaluate the midterm outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair compared with open repair in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

Methods

From August 1993 to February 2023, 499 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent open repair (n = 221) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (n = 278). Of these, 120 matched pairs were identified using propensity score matching based on age, sex, chronic lung disease, stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, ejection fraction, dialysis, peripheral vascular disease, prior cardiac surgery, connective tissue disease, and chronic dissection. Primary outcomes were postoperative paralysis, operative mortality, reoperation, and midterm survival.

Results

After matching, the preoperative demographics and comorbidities were balanced in both groups. Intraoperatively, open repair had a lower temperature (18 °C vs 36 °C) and more patients required blood products (66% vs 8%), P < .001. Postoperatively, patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair had fewer strokes (2.5% vs 9.2%; P = .03), less dialysis (0% vs 3.3%; P = .04), and shorter length of stay (5 days vs 12 days, P < .001), but similar lower-extremity paralysis (2.5% vs 2.5%, P = 1.00) compared with open repair. Furthermore, thoracic endovascular aortic repair had higher 7-year incidence of first reoperation (16.1% vs 3.6%, P < .001) but similar operative mortality (0.8% vs 4.2%; P = .10) and 10-year survival outcome (56%; 95% CI, 43-72 vs 58%; 95% CI, 49-68; P = .55) compared with open aortic repair. The hazard ratio was 0.93 (P = .78) for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for midterm mortality and 6.87 (P < .001) for reoperation.

Conclusions

Open repair could be the first option for patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms who were surgical candidates.

Case report: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a non-touch exclusion technique with a custom-made device for the treatment of a large patent ductus arteriosus

Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a common congenital heart disease affecting roughly one in every 2,000 term births. Although most of the patients are diagnosed and treated during childhood, few cases may persist into adulthood. We presented a 27-year-old male patient with a 20.2 mm diameter PDA who was referred to our hospital with progressive fatigue and exertional dyspnea. Given the potential complications, usual techniques such as coil occlusion and duct occluders were deemed inappropriate for this patient. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using a non-touch exclusion technique was successfully performed for this patient. The patient was discharged with no major post-surgical complications. TEVAR could be a new, safe, and effective alternative treatment to other transcatheter procedures for complicated PDAs in some patients.

Effectiveness of endovascular versus open surgical repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Since the approval, the TEVAR is widely used for the repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the long-term mortality and re-intervention rates compared to OSR are unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with open surgical repair (OSR) specifically for thoracic aortic aneurysms.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020. The main outcomes were early mortality, mid-to-long-term survival, and re-intervention. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. All analyses were performed using RevMan with the random effect model and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

One systematic review and 15 individual studies were included. Pooled analysis showed that 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications were significantly lower in TEVAR vs. open surgery. The pooled rate of re-intervention significantly favored the OSR. The long-term survival and mortality favored TEVAR and OSR in one and two studies, respectively, but was non-significant in 7 analyzes.

CONCLUSIONS

Early clinical outcomes including the 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications significantly favored the TEVAR. However, the mid-to-long-term re-intervention rate favored the OSR and long-term survival was inconsistent among the studies. The quality of evidence was very low. More studies with longer follow-ups are needed. The use of TEVAR should be decided by taking into account other factors including patient characteristics and preferences, cost, and surgeon expertise.

Predictors of 30-day readmission and resource utilization after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The introduction and expansion of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have revolutionized the treatment of a variety of thoracic aortic diseases. We sought to evaluate the incidence, causes, predictors and costs associated with 30-day readmission after TEVAR in a nationally representative cohort.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing isolated TEVAR were identified in the National Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014. Hospital costs were estimated by converting individual hospital charge data adjusted to 2014 consumer price indices. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to determine hospital- and patient-level factors associated with readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 24 983 TEVARs were noted during the study period; the average age of the patients was 65 ± 16 years; 40% were women. The most common indication was an intact thoracic aneurysm (43.5%), followed by aortic dissection (30.5%). The average cost of the index admission was $63 644 ± $52 312; the average hospital stay was 11 ± 14 days; the index mortality rate was 6.7%. Readmissions within 30 days occurred in 17.4% of patients. Indications for readmission were varied; the most common aetiologies were cardiac (17.8%), infectious (16.0%) and pulmonary (12.1%). On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of readmission was the diagnosis, with a ruptured thoraco-abdominal aneurysm having the highest readmission burden (adjusted odds ratio 2.23, 1.17-4.24; P = 0.015). Notably, hospital volume did not predict index hospital length of stay, costs or 30-day readmissions (all P > 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Annual TEVAR volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed. Rather, indication for TEVAR was the strongest predictor for many outcomes. As TEVAR becomes increasingly utilized, a focus on cardiac and vascular diseases may reduce readmissions and improve quality of care.

Hospitalization Cost and In-hospital Outcomes Following Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection Repair

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported lower mortality and morbidity after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) when compared to open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TbAD). However, there are few studies in the literature on the cost of both treatment options. Thus, the aim of this study is to focus on in-hospital outcomes and cost associated with TbAD repair procedures in a national database in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) between June 2009 and March 2015 was performed. ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify patients who underwent OSR or TEVAR for TbAD. Endpoints included in-hospital adverse events, in-hospital mortality and hospitalization cost. Logistic regression models and generalized linear models were used to assess the impact of treatment type on the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 1752 patients with TbAD, 54.3% underwent OSR and 45.7% underwent TEVAR. Patients in the TEVAR group were older [median age, 64 (IQR 54-73) vs. 59 (IQR 49-70), P < 1] and more likely to have preexisting comorbidities. IAE rates were 78.6% for the OSR group compared to 43.1% for the TEVAR group, P < 0.001. Patients in the OSR group showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality (15.3% vs. 5.9%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, OSR was associated with a 5-fold increase in IAE [aOR(95%CI): 4.8 (3.8-6.1), P < 0.001] and a 3-fold increase in in-hospital mortality [aOR(95%CI): 3.3 (2.1-5.1), P < 0.001]. In regards to charges related to the hospital stay, total cost was significantly higher among patients undergoing OSR $53,371 ($39,029-$80,471) vs. TEVAR $45,311 ($31,479-$67,960), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that TEVAR presents an advantage in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost when compared to OSR in the treatment of TbAD. However, long-term cost-effectiveness of both procedures remains unknown. Further research is warranted to see whether the superiority of TEVAR is maintained over time.

Primary Stroke and Failure-to-Rescue Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the impact, on failure to rescue, of cerebrovascular accident as a first postoperative complication after thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participants User File.

SETTING

United States hospitals taking part in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients >18 years, who underwent TEVAR for nonruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm between 2005 and 2018, and developed one or more major postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Out of 3,937 patients who underwent TEVAR for nonruptured thoracic aneurysm, 1,256 (31.9%) developed major postoperative complications (stroke incidence: 11.4% [143/1256]). In adults <65 years old, the occurrence of stroke as the primary complication, relative to the occurrence of other complications, was associated with ten times greater risk of failure to rescue (29.4% v 4.6%; odds ratio [OR]: 10.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45-41.56; p < 0.001). The effect size was relatively lower when stroke occurred but was not the primary complication (20.0% v 4.6%; OR: 7.55; 95% CI 1.37-41.71; p = 0.020). In patients ≥65 years, the occurrence of stroke as the primary complication did not carry the similar prognostic value.

CONCLUSION

Younger patients who developed stroke were up to ten times more likely to die, relative to patients who developed other major complications. Survival was substantially reduced when stroke was the primary complication. The authors' findings imply that to maximize the survival of patients undergoing TEVAR, efforts may be needed to predict and prevent stroke occurrence as a primary postoperative morbidity event.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in the Setting of Compromised Distal Landing Zones

BACKGROUND

The short-term and intermediate-term outcomes of two distinct approaches to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending aortic aneurysms in patients with compromised distal landing zones are reported.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients (38 female, average age 72 ± 9 years) underwent 55 TEVARs (2008 to 2018) for aneurysmal disease. Inclusion criteria consisted of TEVAR in a compromised distal landing zone, defined as follows: diameter 3.5 cm or greater; cross-sectional thrombus 50% or greater; or 25% or greater circumferential mural calcification in the 2 cm supraceliac aorta; or tortuosity index of 1.1 or more over the 10 cm supraceliac aorta. Treatment cohorts were (1) TEVAR alone (n = 29), and (2) TEVAR with adjunct consisting of visceral snorkel graft with distal stent extension (n = 20) or EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN [n = 6]).

RESULTS

Perioperative complication rate was 20%. Thirty-day mortality was 5% including one access-site related intraoperative death and one postoperative death from embolic mesenteric ischemia. Median clinical follow-up was 2.2 years. Intermediate-term outcomes include type 1B endoleaks, 35%; 0.5 cm or more per year maximal aortic diameter growth, 9%; reintervention, 15%; and all-cause mortality, 25%. The distal landing zone diameter increased by 0.3 cm per year in the TEVAR alone cohort; however, it decreased by 0.1 cm per year in the adjunct cohort ( P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a viable alternative for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in patients with compromised distal landing zones, although these patients may benefit significantly from the development of branched thoracoabdominal devices. In the interim, the use of TEVAR adjuncts may limit progressive degeneration of the distal landing zone in this patient population.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with true-false-true lumen deployment

Endovascular treatment of aortic dissection may be complicated by challenges to navigating the true lumen. In this report, we describe treatment of a type B dissection after open type A repair with aneurysmal degeneration, a short-segment occluded true lumen, and a distal re-entry tear near the celiac artery origin. Endovascular septal fenestration and subsequent thoracic endovascular aortic repair were used to bypass the short-segment midthoracic aortic occlusion, successfully excluding the thoracic aortic aneurysm. The patient was discharged without complications, and follow-up imaging demonstrated favorable aortic remodeling. The case demonstrates feasibility of an endovascular bypass of an intervening short-segment occluded true lumen using a thoracic endovascular aortic repair with true-false-true lumen deployment.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR versus OCSR for TBAD patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library to identify studies compared the effectiveness of TEVAR and OCSR in TBAD patients from the inception up to July 2019. The summary results were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: The electronic search identified 1,894 studies, and 18 studies with 9,664 TBAD patients were included. We noted patients received TEVAR were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality, acute renal failure, respiratory failure, and bleeding as compared with OCSR, whereas no significant differences between groups for the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, paraplegia, mesenteric ischaemia/infarction, reinterventions, sepsis, and spinal cord ischaemia.Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis study suggested that TEVAR resulted in more short-term survival benefits. Moreover, the reduced risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleeding was detected in TEVAR group. The treatment effects of TEVAR versus OCSR on specific complications should be further verified by a study with high-level of evidence.Key messageComprehensive collected studies investigated the treatment effectiveness between TEVAR and OCSR for TBAD patientsTEVAR resulted in more survival benefits, in addition to lower risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleedingThe results of stratified analyses according to patients' characteristics were conducted.

A review of endovascular treatment of thoracic aorta disease

INTRODUCTION

The development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair has altered the approach and reduced the risk of treating the majority of descending thoracic aortic conditions. Primarily developed for the exclusion of thoracic aortic aneurysms, it is now used in place of open repair surgery for most descending thoracic aortic diseases, and has also been used to treat aortic arch diseases in selected cases.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of Medline and Embase databases from January 2007 to February 2017, using the key words 'aortic disease', 'thoracic aorta' and 'endovascular repair'; 205 articles were identified, of which 25 studies were selected for review based on their relevance.

FINDINGS

The key findings of the indications, techniques, outcomes, complications and comparisons with open surgical repair were extracted from the published studies and are summarised in this review. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the preferred choice of intervention for patients with descending thoracic aortic disease. With time, it has improved to be safer and has the potential to expand aortic treatment choices in future.

Early outcomes of patients transferred with ruptured suprarenal aneurysm or dissection

Objective Despite centralisation of the provision of vascular care, not all areas in England and Wales are able to offer emergency treatment for patients with acute conditions affecting the aorta proximal to the renal arteries. While cardiothoracic centres have made network arrangements to coordinate care for the repair of type A dissections, a similar plan for vascular care is lacking. This study investigates early outcomes in patients with ruptured suprarenal aortic aneurysm or dissection (rSRAD) transferred to a specialist centre. Methods Retrospective observational study over a five-year period (2009-2014) assessing outcomes of patients with ruptured sRAD diagnosed at their local hospital and then transferred to a tertiary centre capable of offering such treatment. Results Fifty-two patients (median age 73 years, 32 male) with rSRAD were transferred and a further four died during transit. The mean distance of patient transfer was 35 miles (range 4-211 miles). One patient did not undergo intervention due to frailty and two died before reaching the operating theatre. A total of 23 patients underwent endovascular repair, 9 hybrid repair and 17 open surgery. Median follow-up was 12 months (range 1-43 months). Complications included paraplegia (n = 3), stroke (n = 2), type IA endoleak (n = 4); 30-day and in-hospital mortality were 16% and 27%. For patients discharged alive from hospital, one-year survival was 67%. Conclusions Although the number of patients with rSRAD is low and those who are transferred alive are a self-selecting group, this study suggests that transfer of such patients to a specialist vascular centre is associated with acceptable mortality rates following emergency complex aortic repair.

An Important but Forgotten Technique: Aortic Fenestration

Aortic fenestration is a technique that treats organ ischemia in descending aortic dissection. Open surgical aortic fenestration is an effective yet uncommonly used and widely forgotten procedure. Here, we describe 2 patients suffering from chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissection, and we aimed to identify under what circumstances surgical aortic fenestration should be applied, to assess its safety and efficacy.

Transient postoperative atrial fibrillation after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair increases mortality risk

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether new-onset transient postoperative atrial fibrillation (TPAF) affects mortality rates after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and to identify predictors for the development of TPAF.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open aortic repair or endovascular aortic repair for a principal diagnosis AAA were retrospectively identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-State Inpatient Database (Florida) for 2007 to 2011 and monitored longitudinally for 1 year. Inpatient and 1-year mortality rates were compared between those with and without TPAF. TPAF was defined as new-onset atrial fibrillation that developed in the postoperative period and subsequently resolved in patients without a history of atrial fibrillation. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities, rupture status, and repair method, were used to assess 1-year survival. Predictive models were built with preoperative patient factors using Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector decision trees and externally validated on patients from California.

RESULTS

A 3.7% incidence of TPAF was identified among 15,148 patients who underwent AAA repair. The overall mortality rate was 4.3%. The inpatient mortality rate was 12.3% in patients with TPAF vs 4.0% in those without TPAF. In the ruptured setting, the difference in mortality was similar between groups (33.7% vs 39.9%, P = .3). After controlling for age, gender, comorbid disease severity, urgency (ruptured vs nonruptured), and repair method, TPAF was associated with increased 1-year postoperative mortality (hazard ratio, 1.48; P < .001) and postdischarge mortality (hazard ratio, 1.56; P = .028). Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector-based models (C statistic = 0.70) were integrated into a Web-based application to predict an individual's probability of developing TPAF at the point of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of TPAF is associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients undergoing repair of nonruptured AAA. Predictive modeling can be used to identify those patients at highest risk for developing TPAF and guide interventions to improve outcomes.

A review of follow-up outcomes after elective endovascular repair of degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysms

Long-term outcomes of elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) are not well defined. A review of the literature on the follow-up outcomes of elective TEVAR for degenerative TAA resulted in 22 relevant articles. Two- and five-year freedom from aneurysm-related death varied between 93.0% and 100.0%, and 82.4% to 92.7%, respectively. Two-year and five-year all-cause survival ranged between 68.0% and 97.2% and 47.0% to 78.0%, respectively. Follow-up ranged between 17.3 and 66.0 months. Most common endograft-related complication was endoleak, with reported rate between 1.4% and 14.8% during six months up to five years of follow-up. Endovascular reinterventions were reported in 0.0–32.3%, secondary open surgery was needed in 0.0% to 4.7% during follow-up. Aneurysm-related survival rates after elective TEVAR for degenerative TAA are acceptable. However, reported incidences of endograft-related complications vary considerably in the literature, but the majority can be managed with conservative treatment or additional endovascular procedures.

Cost analysis of endovascular versus open repair in the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

For descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), it is generally considered that thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) reduce operative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair. However, long-term differences in survival of patients have not been demonstrated, and an increased need for aortic reintervention has been observed. Many assume that TEVAR becomes less cost-effective through time because of higher rates of reintervention and surveillance imaging. This study investigated midterm outcomes and hospital costs of TEVAR compared with open TAA repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-institution review of elective TAA repairs between 2005 and 2012. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, reintervention rates, and hospital costs were assessed. The literature was also reviewed to determine commonly observed complication and reintervention rates for TEVAR and open repair. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model and to forecast hospital costs for TEVAR and open TAA repair up to 3 years after intervention.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 131 TEVARs and 27 open repairs. TEVAR patients were significantly older (67.2 vs 58.7 years old; P = .02) and trended toward a more severe comorbidity profile. Operative mortality for TEVAR and open repair was 5.3% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 1.0). There was a trend toward more complications in the TEVAR group, although not statistically significant (all P > .05). In-hospital costs were significantly greater in the TEVAR group ($52,008 vs $37,172; P = .001). However, cost modeling by use of reported complication and reintervention rates from the literature overlaid with our cost data produced a higher cost for the open group in-hospital ($55,109 vs $48,006) and at 3 years ($58,426 vs $52,825). Interestingly, TEVAR hospital costs, not reintervention rates, were the most significant driver of cost in the TEVAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our institutional data showed a trend toward lower mortality and complication rates with open TAA repair, with significantly lower costs within this cohort compared with TEVAR. These findings were likely, at least in part, to be due to the milder comorbidity profile of these patients. In contrast, cost modeling by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated lower costs with TEVAR compared with open repair at all time points up to 3 years after intervention. Our institutional data show that with appropriate selection of patients, open repair can be performed safely with low complication rates comparable to those of TEVAR. The cost model argues that despite the costs associated with more frequent surveillance imaging and reinterventions, TEVAR remains the more cost-effective option even years after TAA repair.

Pathology-specific late outcome after endovascular repair of thoracic aorta: a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic lesions appears to be advantageous. However, long-term outcomes remain poorly reported. This retrospective study reported 6-year outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

A total of 74 patients underwent endovascular thoracic aorta treatments between 1999 and 2007; 13 had thoracic aortic dissections, 19 had traumatic aortic injuries, 35 had aneurysms, 6 had pseudoaneurysms and 1 had a penetrating ulcer. The mean follow-up was 66 months after 30 perioperative days. Yearly follow-ups included computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography. Patient demographics, mortality, complications and reinterventions were analysed.

RESULTS

The early 30-day mortality and the overall late mortality were 9.5 (7/74) and 37.8% (28/74), respectively. Late mortality was higher in patients with aneurysms than in the other groups (20/35; 57% vs 8/39; 20.5%; P = 0.002). Aortic-related mortality occurred in 5/35 (14%) patients with aneurysms, but not in other groups (P = 0.02). No relationships among late complications were found for traumatic aortic injuries. The most common complication was an endoleak (21/74, 28.4%), which occurred more frequently with aneurysms than other disorders (18/35, 51.4% vs 3/39, 7.7%; P < 0.001). Endoleaks also occurred most frequently in aortic-related deaths (16/69 vs 5/5; P = 0.001). Type 1 endoleaks occurred significantly more often with aneurysms (13/35) than with other disorders (P = 0.004). Reintervention was required in 9 patients (12%); 8 with atherosclerotic aneurysms (8/35; 23%). A false lumen was thrombosed in 54% of dissections (7/13), and shrank in 39% (5/13).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes depended on aortic pathology. Aortic aneurysms were the most complicated and caused the highest mortality, probably due to atherosclerotic disease evolution. Patients with traumatic aortic injuries appeared to have the best long-term outcomes.

Endovascular Stent Graft Repair of Suture-Line Pseudoaneurysm Following Ascending Aorta Replacement

Ascending aorta pseudoaneurysm (AAPA) is an uncommon complication following replacement of the ascending aorta with a prosthetic graft, carry a high risk of rupture, and warrant urgent intervention. The open surgical procedure “gold standard” of care is not always favorable, as the reoperations are technically more difficult or patient’s general condition doesn’t allow proceeding. Case discussed is an 80-year-old male patient who presented with worsening cough and hemoptysis. He underwent ascending aorta replacement 10 years ago. Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a contrast-filled mediastinal mass communicating with the ascending aorta and extended into the right lung. Due to the patient’s advanced age, friability and clinical condition, combined with the position of the AAPA behind the sternum, surgery was deemed to be high risk. However, favorable anatomical conditions provided a safe landing zone for an endovascular stent. The patient underwent closed procedure. Postprocedure CT showed complete obliteration of the AAPA.

Huge aortic pseudoaneurysm arising from the aorta-saphenous vein graft anastomosis after coronary artery bypass grafting

Pseudoaneurysm of the aortic root is a rare condition and potentially fatal if not treated. It may occur in different etiologies. In this case, we aim to show an aortic pseudoaneurysm arising from the aorta-saphenous vein graft anastomosis.

The role of mandatory lifelong annual surveillance after thoracic endovascular repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an attractive and well-accepted option for the management of the various thoracic aortic pathologies that vascular surgeons are confronted with. As in the abdominal aorta, current management trends include the treatment of younger patients with longer life expectancies, raising the issue of postoperative surveillance. There are several relevant differences between these anatomic areas when it comes to surveillance, including the relative inaccessibility of the thoracic aorta to ultrasound interrogation and the increased variability of thoracic aortic pathologies and post-TEVAR complications. In addition, concerns regarding radiation-induced carcinogenesis and contrast-induced nephropathy reduce the enthusiasm of many surgeons for regular computed tomography surveillance. Most agree that surveillance is important after TEVAR, but the method, duration, and frequency of that surveillance is much less clear and is the topic of this debate.