Outcomes After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Overstenting of the Left Subclavian Artery

Predicting the need for subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effectiveness of left subclavian artery revascularization compared with non-revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and to summarize the current evidence on its indications.

METHODS

A computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for studies published up to November 2023. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were independently conducted by two reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

RESULTS

In the 76 included studies, left subclavian artery revascularization was associated with reduced risks of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; n = 15,331), spinal cord ischemia (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99; n = 11,995), and arm ischemia (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; n = 8438). No significant reduction in paraplegia (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.21-1.47; n = 1802) or mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12; n = 11,831) was observed. Moreover, the risk of endoleak was comparable in both groups (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.55-2.84; P = .60; n = 793), whereas the risk of reintervention was significantly higher in the revascularization group (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.83; P = .04; n = 272). Both groups had similar risks of major (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.09; P = .08; n = 1113), minor (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-3.45; P = .27; n = 183), renal (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.12-3.06; P = .55; n = 310), and pulmonary (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.16-2.15; P = .42; n = 8083) complications. The most frequent indications for left subclavian artery revascularization were primary prevention of spinal cord ischemia, augmentation of the landing zone, and primary stroke prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair was associated with reduced neurological complications but was not found to impact mortality. The study highlights important indications for revascularization as well as significant predictors of complications, providing a basis for clinical decision-making and future research.

Outcome of Revascularizing the Left Subclavian Artery via Carotid-Subclavian Bypass

BACKGROUND

 Endovascular thoracic aortic treatment frequently requires extending the proximal landing zone up into the aortic arch with consecutive covering of the left subclavian artery orifice. Our aim was to report on our outcome of left subclavian artery revascularization using carotid-subclavian bypass via lateral access to the subclavian artery.

METHODS

 Patients' charts in our aortic center were screened for all those who had undergone carotid-subclavian bypass during endovascular thoracic aortic repair procedures. We analyzed perioperative complications such as cervical plexus nerve or phrenic nerve injury, bleeding, and primary and follow-up graft patency.

RESULTS

 Between 2001 and 2020, 118 patients underwent carotid-subclavian bypass implantation. Postoperative complications included left-sided stroke in 3% and axillary, phrenic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in 3, 2, and 3%, respectively. Carotid-subclavian bypass-related death rate was 0%. Bypass patency was 92 ± 7% at 5 years. We documented nine (8%) bypass late occlusions with one left upper extremity ischemia and one late stroke due to an embolized thrombus formed at the bypass anastomosis. All others were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

 Carotid-subclavian bypass surgery is associated with very low risk of death, stroke, or any nerve palsy. Lateral access to the left subclavian artery reduces the risk of phrenic nerve injury.

Expert opinion: How to treat type IA endoleakage

Type Ia endoleaks due to failed sealing or loss of landing zone and the adequate management thereof remain crucial for long-term therapeutic success following TEVAR. This expert opinion summarizes our institutional experience with endovascular, open surgical, and hybrid techniques in the context of recent scientific publications. The rapid turnover of technical innovations, but most importantly outcome data demonstrate the requirement for increasingly patient-tailored treatment strategies and the need for specialized aortic centers. The latter should offer a complete range of treatment options, an adequate perioperative management, and the highest level of multidisciplinary expertise.

Training in Aortic Arch Surgery as a Blueprint for a Structured Educational Team Approach: A Review

Background and objectives: The treatment of pathologies of the aortic arch is a complex field of cardiovascular surgery that has witnessed enormous progress recently. Such treatment is mainly performed in high-volume centres, and surgeons gain great experience in mastering potential difficulties even under emergency circumstances, thereby ensuring the effective therapy of more complex pathologies with lower complication rates. As the numbers of patients rise, so does the need for well-trained surgeons in aortic arch surgery. But how is it possible to learn surgical procedures in a responsible way that, in addition to surgical techniques, also places particular demands on the overall surgical management such as perfusion strategy and neuro-protection? This is why a good training programme teaching young surgeons without increasing the risk for patients is indispensable. Our intention was to highlight the most challenging aspects of aortic arch surgery teaching and how young surgeons can master them. Materials and Methods: We analysed the literature to find out which methods are most suitable for such teaching goals and what result they reveal when serving as teaching procedures. Results: Several studies were found comparing the surgical outcome of young trainees with that of specialists. It was found that the results were comparable whether the procedure was performed by a specialist or by a trainee assisted by the specialist. Conclusions: We thus came to the conclusion that even for such a complex type of intervention, the responsible training of young surgeons by experienced specialists is possible. However, it requires a clear strategy and team approach to ensure a safe outcome for the patient.

Efficacy of left subclavian artery revascularization strategies during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B dissection: A single-center experience of 105 patients

Background

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is necessary to reduce postoperative complications in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection and an insufficient proximal anchoring area. However, the efficacy and safety of different LSA revascularization strategies remain unclear. Here, we compared these strategies to provide a clinical basis for selecting an appropriate LSA revascularization method.

Methods

In this study, we included 105 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated using TEVAR combined with LSA reconstruction in the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from March 2013 to 2020. They were divided into four groups according to the method used for LSA reconstruction, namely, carotid subclavian bypass (CSB; n = 41), chimney graft (CG; n = 29), single-branched stent graft (SBSG; n = 21), and physician-made fenestration (PMF; n = 14) groups. Finally, we collected and analyzed the baseline, perioperative, operative, postoperative, and follow-up data of the patients.

Results

The treatment success rate was 100% in all the groups, and CSB + TEVAR was the most commonly used procedure in emergency settings compared with the other three procedures (P < 0.05). The estimated blood loss, contrast agent volume, fluoroscopic time, operation time, and limb ischemia symptoms during the follow-up were significantly different in the four groups (P < 0.05). Pairwise comparison among groups indicated that the estimated blood loss and operation time in the CSB group were the highest (adjusted P < 0.0083; P < 0.05). The contrast agent volume and fluoroscopy duration were the highest in the SBSG groups, followed by PMF, CG, and CSB groups. The incidence of limb ischemia symptoms was the highest in the PMF group (28.6%) during the follow-up. The incidence of complications (except limb ischemia symptoms) during the perioperative and follow-up periods was similar among the four groups (P > 0.05) The median follow-up time of CSB, CG, SBSG, and PMF groups was significantly different (P < 0.05), and the CSB group had the longest follow-up.

Conclusion

Our single-center experience suggested that the PMF technique increased the risk of limb ischemia symptoms. The other three strategies effectively and safely restored LSA perfusion in patients with type B aortic dissection and had comparable complications. Overall, different LSA revascularization techniques have their advantages and disadvantages.

MANAGEMENT OF LEFT SUBCLAVIAN ARTERY IN TYPE-B AORTIC DISSECTION TREATED WITH THORACIC ENDOVASCULAR AORTA REPAIR

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been the favored approach for the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To obtain an adequate proximal landing zone, coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) will often be necessary. The occurrence of possible neurologic complications has continued to be debated. We investigated the management of the LSA in patients with TBAD undergoing endovascular repair.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE databases to October 2020 for studies of TEVAR for TBAD. Data on the study design, demographics, endograft details, LSA coverage and revascularization, mortality, complications, and follow-up were extracted and analyzed. The effects of LSA coverage and revascularization on neurologic complications and outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 26 reports (24 retrospective and 2 prospective) were deemed eligible for our study. A total of 1483 patients (mean age, 56.9 ± 6.2 years) had undergone TEVAR for acute (n = 932; 62.9%), subacute (n = 36; 2.4%), or chronic (n = 515; 34.7%) TBAD, with a success rate of 97.8% and hospital mortality of 4.9%. The LSA origin had been covered for 707 patients (47.7%), and 326 had undergone LSA revascularization (surgical, n = 96; endovascular, n = 170; unspecified or not reported, n = 60). LSA revascularization was concomitant for 68.1% of cases, after TEVAR for 1.8%, and not reported for 30.1%. Of 1146 patients, 10 (0.9%) had experienced left arm claudication, and the overall stroke rate was 3.3% (2.7% for the LSA group and 1% for the uncovered LSA group; P = .0815). Of the patients with stroke and a covered LSA, 1% (2 of 203) had undergone LSA revascularization and 4.8% (5 of 105) had not (P = .0478). Twenty-six patients (1.9%) had developed paraplegia: 0.7% (3 of 433) with a covered LSA, 1.4% (7 of 491) with an uncovered LSA (P = .3508), and not reported for 16 patients. Endoleak was present in 138 patients (13.4%) at a mean follow-up of 32.1 ± 25.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review has shown that LSA coverage during endovascular repair for complicated TBAD will does not significantly increase the risk of neurologic complications; however, revascularization of the LSA should be always recommended.

Comprehensive review of hybrid aortic arch repair with focus on zone 0 TEVAR and our institutional experience

Even with increasing operator experience and a better understanding of the disease and the operation, intervention for aortic arch pathologies continues to struggle with relatively higher mortality, reintervention, and neurologic complications. The hybrid aortic arch repair was introduced to simplify the procedure and improve the outcome. With recent industry-driven advances, hybrid repairs are not only offered to poor surgical candidates but have become mainstream. This review discusses the evolution of hybrid repair, terminology pertinent to this technique, and results. In addition, we aim to provide a pervasive review of hybrid aortic arch repairs with reference to relevant literature for a detailed understanding. We have also discussed our institutional experience with hybrid repairs.

Endovascular repair of a ruptured, extremely tortuous, descending thoracic aorta aneurysm with aortic coarctation

We have presented a case of a ruptured descending aortic aneurysm that was accompanied by extreme tortuosity and a pseudocoarctation at the level of the ligamentum arteriosum. We performed successful endovascular repair, covering the left subclavian artery, using a transapical-to-femoral artery (through-and-through) guidewire technique to overcome the tortuosity, with the option to perform balloon angioplasty in the case of an increased gradient over the coarctation. In the present case report, we have underlined the role of close collaborations with aortic expertise centers.

Physician-Modified TEVAR versus Hybrid Repair of the Proximal Descending Thoracic Aorta

There are different surgical options for the treatment of proximal lesions of the descending thoracic aorta. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of physician-modified TEVAR (pmTEVAR) vs. hybrid repair of the thoracic aorta in terms of TEVAR with carotid-subclavian bypass (hdTEVAR). This was a single-centre, retrospective comparative study of all patients who underwent pmTEVAR and hybrid repair of the proximal descending aorta from January 2018 to June 2021. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30-day mortality, perioperative stroke, 30-day reinterventions and supraaortic access related complications. Secondary outcomes were patient survival, late complications, late reinterventions, and bypass/bridging stent patency. A total of 181 patients underwent TEVAR within the period of 42 months. In our study, only patients with proximal landing in zone 2 (n = 39) were included. A total of 5 of 15 pmTEVAR and 8 of 24 hybrid repair operations (33% vs. 33%, respectively) were performed due to aneurysms. Among the rest of the patients, 10 of 15 pmTEVAR and 16 of 24 hybrid operations (67% vs. 67%) were performed due to aortic dissection. Technical success was achieved in 100% of the patients. No significant difference in terms of postoperative complications could be detected in the early and midterm follow up period. The 30-day mortality was 12.5% in the hybrid repair group (n = 3) vs. 6.66% (n = 1) in the pmTEVAR group (p = 0.498). These patients underwent the operation in an emergency setting. No patient died after an elective operation. The causes of early mortality were major stroke (n = 2), haemorrhagic shock (n = 1) in the hybrid group and progredient spinal cord ischemia with tetraplegia and acute respiratory insufficiency (n = 1) in the pmTEVAR group. In conclusion, both therapies are robust techniques, with comparable patency rate and perioperative complications. pmTEVAR appears to be advantageous in terms of operation time and tendency to lower mortality rates.

Covering/Overstenting of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) to treat various thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic lesions: Is revascularization of the left arm a must? (A retrospective cohort study with 12 years of experience to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice and the literature review)

Background: Pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta inwardly extended towards the aortic arch actually shorten the proximal landing zone for aortic prosthesis. This, in turn, worsens the feasibility of the aorta for endovascular therapeutic options of those pathologies. Objective: This work considers the blockage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) through endovascular treatment of the pathologies of the descending aorta as a main work question, which is based on the hypothesis that there is no necessity for primary standard revascularization of the LSA in TEVAR with LSA covering. The researchers have 12 years of experience in treatment of different thoracic aortic lesions. Their experience will also be reviewed in this paper. Design: Retrospective unicenter cohort study in consecutive patients order to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice Material: All the patients who had undergone endovascular, hybrid, or open operative therapy of variant pathologies of descending aorta were included in this study. Methods: Various parameters were investigated, including therapeutic procedures such as i) pure endovascular vs. hybrid; ii) year of therapy; iii) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic status of the patients; iv) variant epidemiological factors (age, sex, risk factors, mortality, and follow up); v) overstenting/blocking of the LSA; vi) complications of applied therapies; vii) further operations/interventions to treat such complications; viii) radiologic aortic measurements (such as lumen extensions, false lumen measurements, distance to the supra-aortic and visceral vessels); and ix) multiple other pathological features. Different statistical parameters were also examined. Survival was analysed by the Kaplan–Meier assessment in the group of whole patients vs. the group of over-stented patients. Here the analysis of variance is performed for the independent parameters for the revascularized patients—not the revascularized patients—who had undergone LSA coverage. For statistical approval, U-test was used. The p-value < 0.05 was considered significantly different. The literature review was achieved by a search in PubMed, Google scholar, Research Gate, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library by using the following terms endovascular, TEVAR, revascularization, stroke, and left-subclavian-artery ischemia. The literature is classified accordingly in relation to the main topic. In fact, the literature undergoes further analysis if it goes with or against our hypothesis. Results: Overall, 112 patients were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference comparing the not-revascularized vs. the revascularized group of patients, considering the consequences on cerebrovascular blood circulation (in particular, n=1 case [4.8 %] vs. no case [0 %]; p=1) or the spinal cord ischemia (n=2 [9.5 %] vs. n=1 [7.1 %]; p=1). As the main result, there was no case of manifest left arm ischemia and deaths (mortality, 0). Survival was in both groups as follows: 22 [95% CI, 14.154–29.904] months vs. 43 [95% CI, 33.655–51.921] months with no significant statistical difference (p>0.05) . The only statistically significant risk factor found was renal insufficiency (p, 0.028), but this too is considered a trend by the urgency of revascularization. Postoperatively, pneumonia showed a trend of higher frequency (p=0.058) in the revascularized cases (n=0 in the not-revascularized vs. n=3 [21.4 %] in the revascularized cases). There was no significant difference in the occurance of postoperative neurovascular complications (such as cerebrovascular accidents, spinal cord ischemia, or left arm ischemia) by comparing the groups of not-revascularized and revascularized patients. Conclusion: The revascularization of the overstented LSA due to TEVAR should be limited to certain indications, including i) the inadequate intracerebral circle of Willis; ii) the predominantly perfused left vertebral artery with inadequate blood perfusion via the right vertebral artery (e.g., by stenosis), iii) anatomic variance such as the left vertebral artery originating directly from the aortic arch (and must be blocked by TEVAR); iv) the need of an adequate left internal thoracic artery for coronary-artery-bypass grafting (CABG); v) the need of patent LSA for the dialysis shunt of the left arm. However, there is no appropriate evidence as yet based on sufficient study results achieved in trials with an advanced design (such as [double-]blind, multicenter randomized study) that appears to be urgently required.

Surgical Debranching versus Branched Endografting in Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization is recommended in patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with proximal zone 2 landing requiring coverage of the LSA. The gold-standard remains surgical LSA revascularization, but recently the feasibility of branched endografts has been demonstrated. We compared the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR with proximal zone 2 landing at a single center from 2014-2020 was performed. Patients were divided into cohorts for comparison: those undergoing surgical revascularization (SR-TEVAR group) and those undergoing thoracic branched endografting with an investigational device (TBE group). Patients who did not receive LSA revascularization were excluded. Perioperative outcomes including procedural success, death, stroke, limb ischemia, and length of stay were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared with the log-rank test. The cumulative incidences of device-related endoleak (type I and III) and device-related reintervention, accounting for death as a competing hazard, were compared with the Fine-Gray test.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included: 31 (56%) SR-TEVAR and 24 (44%) TBE. Preoperative demographics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. Procedural success was 100% in both cohorts, and there were no periprocedural strokes or left upper extremity ischemic events. One operative/30-day mortality (TBE 4.2% vs SR-TEVAR 3.2%, p=0.99) occurred in each cohort. Total operative time (minutes, TBE 203 ± 79 vs SR-TEVAR 250 ± 79 p=0.03) and total length of stay (days, TBE 5.2 ± 3.6 vs SR-TEVAR 9.9 ± 7.2, p=0.004) were both significantly shorter in the TBE group. There was no difference in mid-term survival (log-rank p=0.50), nor the cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (Fine-Gray p=0.51) or reintervention (Fine-Gray p=0.72). There have been no occlusions of the TBE graft nor surgical bypass/transpositions after a mean follow-up for 28 ± 16 and 34 ± 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic branched endografting can be performed with similar procedural success and comparable safety profile to TEVAR with surgical revascularization, while reducing total length of stay, in patients requiring proximal zone 2 coverage. Mid-term outcomes of each approach are also similar. Prospective, randomized comparisons of these techniques are warranted.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Open versus Endovascular Left Subclavian Artery Debranching for Thoracic Aortic Diseases

Purpose: To compare open versus endovascular left subclavian artery debranching for thoracic endovascular aortic repair of thoracic aortic pathologies.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients receiving left subclavian artery debranching in our institution from October 2009 to January 2020. The primary outcome was freedom from aortic reintervention. Secondary outcomes were type I endoleaks, left subclavian artery (LSA) debranching failure, stroke, technical or clinical success, procedure-related reintervention, as well as 30-day or overall all-cause and aorta-related mortality.

Results: Forty-eight patients received parallel graft-based (n = 24, ENDO; median age 75 years [70–80 years]) or open (n = 24, OPEN; median age 71 years [59–75 years]) debranching for type B aortic dissection (n = 25), degenerative aneurysm (n = 12), type IA endoleak (n = 6), suture-associated (n = 3) or ostial LSA aneurysm (n = 1), or penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 1). The median follow-up was 36 months (13–61 months). After 16 months, aortic reintervention-free survival in groups OPEN and ENDO was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79 to 100%) and 86% (73 to 100%) (p = 0.71), respectively. After 36 months, all-cause survival in groups OPEN and ENDO was 74% (95% CI: 55 to 99%) and 79% (95% CI: 64 to 97%) (p = 0.74), respectively; freedom from aorta-related mortality was 81% (95% CI: 62 to 100%) and 91% (95% CI: 80 to 100%) (p = 0.78), respectively. Group OPEN presented less type I endoleaks (OPEN/ENDO = 3/19, p <0.001) and higher technical (OPEN/ENDO = 81/36%, p = 0.003) and clinical success rates (OPEN/ENDO = 67/36%, p = 0.047). No statistical differences were found for other outcomes.

Conclusion: Both strategies achieved comparable reintervention and mortality rates, but open debranching should be preferred due to its higher technical and clinical success and less type I endoleaks.

Long-term results of total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies using parallel grafts for supra-aortic debranching

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the long-term morphologic and clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with parallel grafts (PG-TEVAR) for arch-involving aortic pathologies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of perioperative and follow-up data of patients who had undergone PG-TEVAR at a single vascular surgery center from November 2010 to April 2018. Patients with prior or simultaneous open chest or cervical debranching procedures or arch repair were excluded. The primary endpoint was freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention. The secondary endpoints were parallel graft sealing zone failure (presence of gutter-related type I or Ic endoleak), PG failure (occlusion or reintervention), stroke, and 30-day and overall PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the freedom from reintervention and survival. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to find the optimal cutoff to prevent type Ia endoleak-related reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients, including 8 women, with a median age of 74 years (interquartile range, 67-79 years) had undergone PG-TEVAR (chimney, periscope, and sandwich in 20, 15, and 13 patients, respectively) with proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 0, 1, or 2 in 4, 5, and 24 patients, respectively. The aortic pathologies included type B aortic dissection (acute and chronic, eight and six, respectively), degenerative aneurysm (n = 10), type Ia endoleak (n = 3), para-anastomotic/patch aneurysm (n = 4), left subclavian artery aneurysm (n = 1), and traumatic rupture (n = 1). The perioperative stroke rate and 30-day mortality was 6% and 9%, respectively. Direct postoperative computed tomography revealed 28 endoleaks (gutter-related type Ia, 12; gutter-related type Ib, 9; type Ia, 2; type Ic, 2; type III, 1; undetermined, 2) in 27 patients. The technical and clinical success rate was 37% and 30%, respectively. The mean follow-up for survival was 48 ± 31 months. The latest radiologic follow-up demonstrated 12 remaining and 1 new endoleak. The early and overall PG sealing zone failure and PG failure was 73% and 36% and 9% and 18%, respectively. The overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention rate was 33% (n = 11). The estimated freedom from overall PG-TEVAR-related reintervention was 68% at 60 months. The main graft oversizing and length oversizing rates were not significantly associated statistically with the type Ia endoleak-related reintervention rate. The PG-TEVAR-related and all-cause mortality were 18% and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PG-TEVAR for total endovascular repair of arch-involving aortic pathologies resulted in a high rate of type I endoleaks and the need for long-term reintervention. Gutter-related endoleaks might be more frequent than reported and should not be underestimated because they can lead to sac enlargement and reintervention. Frequent radiologic surveillance is mandatory. Further studies comparing PG-TEVAR to other total endovascular alternatives are required to confirm these findings.

Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: single center's clinical experiences from 171 patients

Background

Left subclavian artery revascularization (LSA) is frequently performed in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study was to compare different techniques for LSA revascularization during TEVAR.

Methods

We performed a single center’s retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019. Patients were categorized by LSA revascularization methods, including direct coverage without revascularization (Unrevascularized), carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), fenestrated TEVAR (F-TEVAR). Indications, demographics, operation details, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical analysis.

Results

171 patients underwent TEVAR with LSA coverage, 16.4% (n = 28) were unrevascularized and the remaining patients underwent CSB (n = 100 [58.5%]) or F-TEVAR (n = 43 [25.1%]). Demographics were similar between the unrevascularized and revascularized groups, except for procedure urgent status (p = 0.005). The incidence of postoperative spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher between unrevascularized and revascularized group (10.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.032). There was no difference in 30-day and mid-term rates of mortality, stroke, and left upper extremity ischemia. CSB was more likely time-consuming than F-TEVAR [3.25 (2.83–4) vs. 2 (1.67–2.67) hours, p = 0], but there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or midterm outcomes for CSB versus F-TEVAR. During a mean follow-up time of 24.8 months, estimates survival rates had no difference.

Conclusions

LSA revascularization in zone 2 TEVAR is necessary which is associated with a low 30-day rate of spinal cord ischemia. When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, CSB and F-TEVAR are all safe and effective methods, and F-TEVAR appears to offer equivalent clinical outcomes as a less time-consuming and minimally invasive alternative.

Narrative review on endovascular techniques for left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair and risk factors for postoperative stroke

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures.

METHODS

Non-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010-1 August 2020.

RESULTS

Current general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.

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.