Short-term conversion to open surgery after endovascular stent-grafting of the thoracic aorta: The Talent thoracic registry

Open Thoracoabdominal Aortic Procedures following Endovascular Intervention

Open conversion of thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) disease after failed attempts of endovascular treatment is increasingly required. The main causes are endoleak, endograft failure, infection, disease progression, or persistent false lumen perfusion in dissected aortas. Mortality and morbidity rates are high, higher than after standard TAA open repair. Therefore, this surgery should be performed only in dedicated centers by experienced teams. Specific perioperative organ protection protocols, as well as surgical techniques, are crucial to guarantee acceptable results.

Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury and Contemporary Management Strategy

Thoracic aortic injury (TAI) is a leading cause of death in blunt chest trauma. Motor vehicle collisions are the commonest cause, and most patients die before receiving medical attention. Survivors who make it to the hospital also typically have other debilitating injuries with high morbidity. It is imperative to understand the nature of these injuries and implement current management strategies to improve patient outcomes. A literature review on contemporary management strategies on blunt thoracic aortic injuries was performed to evaluate the available evidence using online databases (PubMed and Google Scholar). We found that there has been an improved survival owing to the current advancement in diagnostic modalities, the use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography, and contemporary management techniques with an endovascular approach. However, careful assessment of patients and a multidisciplinary effort are necessary to establish an accurate diagnosis. Minimal aortic injuries (intimal tear and aortic hematoma) can be managed medically with careful monitoring of disease progression with imaging. Endovascular approaches and delayed intervention are key strategies for optimal management of high-grade TAI.

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

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

Endovascular surgery in Marfan syndrome: CON

The frequency of endovascular stent grafting procedures to treat various conditions of the thoracic aorta has increased dramatically over the past three decades. Stent grafting has been applied on a limited basis in patients with Marfan syndrome and other connective tissue disorders, despite recommendations from current guidelines and expert consensus statements against its use in this setting. A review of publications reporting outcomes after stent grafting of the descending thoracic aorta in Marfan patients with acute or chronic aortic dissection indicates that these procedures can be accomplished with rates of early mortality, stroke and spinal cord ischemic injury that are comparable to those observed in patients who do not have Marfan syndrome. However, the rates of primary treatment failure (principally endoleak), secondary treatment failure, need for open repair and late death among the Marfan patients are substantially higher than those observed in patients without this condition. In addition, the rates of retrograde aortic dissection and development of stent-graft induced new entry (SINE), are also greater among patients with Marfan syndrome. All of these findings argue strongly against the routine use of endovascular grafts in Marfan patients with type B or residual type A dissection. Few data are available to assess the role of endografting in Marfan patients with aneurysmal disease, but the progressive aortic dilatation noted in these patients argues strongly against its use in this setting as well. At present, the available data indicate that there is no justification for elective stent grafting in Marfan patients with aortic dissection or aneurysm. The only reasonable indications for primary aortic stent grafting are in the setting of acute aortic dissection or rupture, where the intervention is considered life-saving and rarely, considering the relatively young age of these patients, where the risk of open operation is considered to be prohibitive.

Secondary Open Aortic Procedure Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Meta-Analytic State of the Art

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is characterized by a substantial need for reintervention. Secondary open aortic procedure becomes necessary when further endoluminal options are exhausted. This synopsis and quantitative analysis of available evidence aims to overcome the limitations of institutional cohort reports on secondary open aortic procedure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were searched from 1994 to the present date with a prospectively registered protocol. Pooled quantification of pre/intraoperative variables, and proportional meta-analysis with random effect model of early and midterm outcomes were performed. Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients who had early mortality. Fifteen studies were elected for final analysis, encompassing 330 patients. The following values are expressed as "pooled mean, 95% confidence interval." Type B dissection was the most common pathology at index thoracic endovascular aortic repair (51.2%, 44.4-57.9). The most frequent indication for secondary open aortic procedure was endoleak (39.7%, 34.6-45.1). More than half of patients had surgery on the descending aorta (51.2%, 45.8-56.6), and one fourth on the arch (25.2%, 20.8-30.1). Operative mortality was 10.6% (7.4-14.9). Neurological morbidity was substantial between stroke (5.1%, 2.8-9.1) and paraplegia (8.3%, 5.2-13.1). At 2-year follow-up, mortality (20.4%, 11.5-33.5) and aortic adverse event (aortic death 7.7%, 4.3-13.3, tertiary aortic open procedure 7.4%, 4.0-13.2) were not negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

In the secondary open aortic procedure population, type B dissection was both the most common pathology and the one associated with the lowest early mortality, whereas aortic infection and extra-anatomical bypass were associated with the most ominous prognosis.

Biomechanical Changes After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Type B Dissection

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved into an established treatment option for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) since it was first introduced 2 decades ago. Morbidity and mortality have decreased due to the minimally invasive character of TEVAR, with adequate stabilization of the dissection, restoration of true lumen perfusion, and subsequent positive aortic remodeling. However, several studies have reported severe setbacks of this technique. Indeed, little is known about the biomechanical behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and the impact on the vascular system. This study sought to systematically review the performance and behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and related biomechanical aortic changes in TBAD patients in order to update current knowledge and future perspectives.

Reintervention for endograft failures after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has emerged as an effective therapy for a variety of thoracic aortic pathologic entities. However, endograft failure remains a concern, and its treatment is often challenging. We examined our experience with endograft failure and its treatment by endovascular and open repair.

METHODS

From January 2000 to January 2012, 680 patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair at the University of Pennsylvania, and their charts were reviewed for the late outcomes and follow-up data.

RESULTS

Of the 680 patients, 73 underwent 80 reinterventions (11.7%) during follow-up. The indications for index thoracic endovascular aortic repair were thoracic aortic aneurysms in 381, type A dissection with frozen elephant trunk in 52, type B dissection in 111, hybrid arch repair in 46, traumatic transection in 37, infection in 10, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer in 25, and others in 18. The median interval from index thoracic endovascular aortic repair to reintervention was 210 days. Endograft failures included endoleak in 45, proximal aortic events in 11, distal aortic events in 15, endograft infection in 3, and others in 6. Endovascular reintervention (n = 80) was performed in 60 patients. In 20 patients, open aortic reconstructive procedures were performed. The overall 30-day mortality was 8.7% (7/80). During follow-up, 10 late deaths occurred. The overall survival in all patients was 81%, 60%, and 52% at 1, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The late survival for patients after reintervention for endograft failure was similar that for the patients who did not require reintervention (P = .31).

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention for endograft failure can be performed with acceptable early outcomes. The mid-term survival for patients requiring reintervention for endograft failure was similar to that of the patients without endograft failure. Thus, reintervention for endograft failure should be aggressively considered when indicated.

Thoracic or thoracoabdominal approaches to endovascular device removal and open aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair is becoming increasingly common and diverse in its application despite ongoing uncertainty about long-term durability. Recent reports detail late conversion to open surgical repair to treat disease progression and repair failure. We describe our experience with using thoracic or thoracoabdominal approaches to endovascular device removal and open aortic repair after previous endovascular procedures.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients underwent open aortic repair through thoracotomy (n=7) or thoracoabdominal incision (n=28) 0.5 to 48 months after undergoing endovascular thoracic (n=27) or abdominal (n=8) aortic procedures. Indications for open repair included expanding aneurysm (n=23), device infection (n=8), fistula (n=5), pseudoaneurysm (n=2), aneurysm rupture (n=2), and restenosis (n=1). Endovascular devices were completely removed in 26 patients and partially removed in 9. Descending thoracic aortic repair was performed in 10 patients, thoracoabdominal aortic repair in 24, and juxtarenal abdominal aortic repair in 1.

RESULTS

There were 2 in-hospital deaths (6%), both in patients who presented with endovascular device infection. There were 8 late deaths. Overall 1-year survival was 83%±7%. Among the patients who presented with infected devices, 3 experienced major late complications, including persistent infection, pseudoaneurysm, and recurrent fistula; 2 of these patients succumbed to late deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Open surgical repair after previous endovascular aortic procedures is successful in the majority of patients, particularly in those without device infections. Achieving definitive aortic repair in patients with infected endovascular devices is particularly challenging.

Endovascular aortic repair versus open surgical repair for descending thoracic aortic disease a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) reduces death and morbidity compared with open surgical repair for descending thoracic aortic disease.

BACKGROUND

The role of TEVAR versus open surgery remains unclear. Metaregression can be used to maximally inform adoption of new technologies by utilizing evidence from existing trials.

METHODS

Data from comparative studies of TEVAR versus open repair of the descending aorta were combined through meta-analysis. Metaregression was performed to account for baseline risk factor imbalances, study design, and thoracic pathology. Due to significant heterogeneity, registry data were analyzed separately from comparative studies.

RESULTS

Forty-two nonrandomized studies involving 5,888 patients were included (38 comparative studies, 4 registries). Patient characteristics were balanced except for age, as TEVAR patients were usually older than open surgery patients (p = 0.001). Registry data suggested overall perioperative complications were reduced. In comparative studies, all-cause mortality at 30 days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.59) and paraplegia (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.63) were reduced for TEVAR versus open surgery. In addition, cardiac complications, transfusions, reoperation for bleeding, renal dysfunction, pneumonia, and length of stay were reduced. There was no significant difference in stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic reintervention, and mortality beyond 1 year. Metaregression to adjust for age imbalance, study design, and pathology did not materially change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data from nonrandomized studies suggest that TEVAR may reduce early death, paraplegia, renal insufficiency, transfusions, reoperation for bleeding, cardiac complications, pneumonia, and length of stay compared with open surgery. Sustained benefits on survival have not been proven.