Reoperative surgery on the thoracoabdominal aorta

Comparative analysis of long-term outcomes in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair between Marfan syndrome patients and non-Marfan syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

A consensus on the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) has not yet been established. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes after open TAAA repair in patients with and without MFS.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined 230 consecutive patients who underwent TAAA repair between 2012 and 2022, including of 69 MFS patients and 161 non-MFS patients. The primary endpoint was long-term mortality. The secondary endpoint was a composite of early adverse events, including early mortality, permanent stroke, permanent paraplegia, permanent renal failure, and reoperation. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the impact of MFS on early composite adverse events, and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the association between MFS and overall mortality.

RESULTS

Compared with non-MFS patients, MFS patients were younger (mean, 31.9 ± 8.5 years vs 44.8 ± 12.3 years; P < .001), had less comorbid coronary artery disease (0 vs 8.1%; P = .034), more frequently underwent Crawford extent III repair (56.5% vs 34.8%; P = .002) and applied normothermic iliac perfusion (91.3% vs 81.4%; P = .057). There was no significant difference in the rate of early composite adverse events between the MFS and non-MFS groups (23.2% vs 14.3%; P = .099), which was verified by multivariable logistic regression analyses with multiple models. Overall mortality was significantly lower in the MFS group compared to the non-MFS group (P = .026, log-rank test), with 1-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative mortality of 4.4% versus 8.7%, 8.1% versus 17.2%, and 20.9% versus 36.4%, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses across different models further confirmed MFS as a significant protective factor for overall mortality (model 1: hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.73; P = .007; model 2: HR, 0.32, 95% CI, 0.13-0.75; P = .009; model 3: HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.95; P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varying risk profiles, MFS patients undergoing open TAAA repair can achieve comparable or even superior outcomes to non-MFS patients with tailored surgical strategies, meticulous perioperative care, and close follow-up surveillance, especially in the long term.

Transaxillary Tri-Branch Aortic Endovascular Graft Repair of Recurrent Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm With Pararenal Aortic Occlusion

The absence of an adequate ileo-femoral access is usually considered an absolute contraindication to fenestrated and branched aortic repairs. Alternative routes and dedicated stent-graft designs have been advocated. Hereby, we describe the case of a 73-year-old man with a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and complete thrombotic pararenal aortic occlusion treated successfully with a tri-branch custom-made endograft deployed via a transaxillary access.

Outcomes After Endovascular Aortic Intervention in Patients With Connective Tissue Disease

Importance

Endovascular treatment is not recommended for aortic pathologies in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) other than in redo operations and as bridging procedures in emergencies. However, recent developments in endovascular technology may challenge this dogma.

Objective

To assess the midterm outcomes of endovascular aortic repair in patients with CTD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this descriptive retrospective study, data on demographics, interventions, and short-term and midterm outcomes were collected from 18 aortic centers in Europe, Asia, North America, and New Zealand. Patients with CTD who had undergone endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020 were included. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to November 2022.

Exposure

All principal endovascular aortic repairs, including redo surgery and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Short-term and midterm survival, rates of secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair.

Results

In total, 171 patients were included: 142 with Marfan syndrome, 17 with Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 12 with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS). Median (IQR) age was 49.9 years (37.9-59.0), and 107 patients (62.6%) were male. One hundred fifty-two (88.9%) were treated for aortic dissections and 19 (11.1%) for degenerative aneurysms. One hundred thirty-six patients (79.5%) had undergone open aortic surgery before the index endovascular repair. In 74 patients (43.3%), arch and/or visceral branches were included in the repair. Primary technical success was achieved in 168 patients (98.2%), and 30-day mortality was 2.9% (5 patients). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 96.2% and 80.6% for Marfan syndrome, 93.8% and 85.2% for Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 75.0% and 43.8% for vEDS, respectively. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 4.7 years (1.9-9.2), 91 patients (53.2%) had undergone secondary procedures, of which 14 (8.2%) were open conversions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that endovascular aortic interventions, including redo procedures and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta, in patients with CTD had a high rate of early technical success, low perioperative mortality, and a midterm survival rate comparable with reports of open aortic surgery in patients with CTD. The rate of secondary procedures was high, but few patients required conversion to open repair. Improvements in devices and techniques, as well as ongoing follow-up, may result in endovascular treatment for patients with CTD being included in guideline recommendations.

Endovascular repair of intercostal and visceral aortic patch aneurysms following open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

Reoperative open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) for the treatment of intercostal or visceral aortic patch aneurysms after OSR of TAAAs.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of consecutive patients treated at 8 academic centers by F-BEVAR for visceral and intercostal aortic patch aneurysms after OSR of TAAAs (2011-2019). All patients had involvement of at least one target vessel requiring incorporation by a fenestration or directional branch. End points were technical success, 30-day and/in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, patient survival, target vessel patency/instability, and freedom from reintervention.

RESULTS

There were 29 patients with a median age of 70 (interquartile range, 63-74) years. Seven patients (24%) had connective tissue disorders. Technical success was 100%. There were no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. Major adverse events occurred in 5 patients (17%), including estimated blood loss >1 L in 3 patients (10%), acute kidney injury and respiratory failure in 2 patients (7%) each, and transient paraparesis in 1 patient (3%). Median follow-up was 14 (interquartile range, 7-37) months. At 2 years, primary and secondary patency, freedom from target artery instability, freedom from reintervention, and patient survival were 95%, 100%, 83%, 61%, and 96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

F-BEVAR could be considered as an alternative to reoperative OSR in patients with visceral or intercostal aortic patch aneurysms. This series showed no mortality and a low rate of major adverse events, but a significant need for reintervention.

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.

Single-stage total aortic replacement in patients with mega-aortic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Staged total aortic replacement (TAR) is standard for patients with mega-aortic syndrome (MAS) and severe comorbidities, but a single-stage approach may be better for younger and fit patients. This report described the mid-term results of this approach.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of all MAS patients in our centre between May 2016 and December 2020 to analyze outcomes of single-stage TAR. Primary endpoints were mortality and major adverse postoperative events; secondary endpoints included aortic re-intervention, all complications, and survival.

RESULTS

Of 47 MAS patients, 13 (27.7%) received single-stage TAR from valve to bifurcation through thoracophrenolumbotomy using circulatory arrest, antegrade cerebral and visceral perfusion. Mean age was 40.1 ± 6.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 15.4%; two patients died on post-operative day (POD) 14 due to fatal stroke and POD 85 due to prosthesis infection. Mean intensive care stay was 7 (15) day, mean hospital stay was 27.5 ± 16.2 day. Stroke occurred in two patients with "shaggy" aortas (one fatal, one transient); paraplegia in one; temporary acute renal failure in two (15.4%), and respiratory failure in 4 (30.8%). There was no aortic re-intervention or further mortality during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Total aortic replacement from valve to bifurcation is a safe approach for younger and fit patients with MAS and provides acceptable midterm outcomes in an experienced centre. Thoracoabdominal incision at fourth intercostal space with retroperitoneal approach of abdominal aorta provides satisfactory exposure for the thoracic aorta and TAA and minimizes surgical trauma in comparison with a combination of two surgical incision.

Imaging surveillance after open aortic repair: a feasibility study of three-dimensional growth mapping

 

OBJECTIVES

Confident growth assessment during imaging follow-up is often limited by substantial variability of diameter measurements and the fact that growth does not always occur at standard measurement locations. There is a need for imaging-based techniques to more accurately assess growth. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of a three-dimensional aortic growth assessment technique to quantify aortic growth in patients following open aortic repair.

METHODS

Three-dimensional aortic growth was measured using vascular deformation mapping (VDM), a technique which quantifies the localized rate of volumetric growth at the aortic wall, expressed in units of Jacobian (J) per year. We included 16 patients and analysed 6 aortic segments per patient (96 total segments). Growth was assessed by 3 metrics: clinically reported diameters, Jacobian determinant and targeted diameter re-measurements.

RESULTS

VDM was able to clearly depict the presence or absence of localized aortic growth and allows for an assessment of the distribution of growth and its relation to anatomic landmarks (e.g. anastomoses, branch arteries). Targeted diameter change showed a stronger and significant correlation with J (r = 0.20, P = 0.047) compared to clinical diameter change (r = 0.15, P = 0.141). Among 20/96 (21%) segments with growth identified by VDM, growth was confirmed by clinical measurements in 7 and targeted re-measurements in 11. Agreement of growth assessments between VDM and diameter measurements was slightly higher for targeted re-measurements (kappa = 0.38) compared to clinical measurements (kappa = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic growth is often uncertain and underappreciated when assessed via standard diameter measurements. Three-dimensional growth assessment with VDM offers a more comprehensive assessment of growth, allows for targeted diameter measurements and could be an additional tool to determine which post-surgical patients at high and low risk for future complications.

Open vs. endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: tale of the tape

Open surgical repair persists as the gold-standard operation for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm; however, endovascular repair has become commonplace. Technical considerations in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm treatment are particularly complex, insofar as it involves critical branching arteries feeding the visceral organs. Newer, low-profile devices make total endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair more feasible and, thus, appealing. For younger and low-risk patients, the choice between open and endovascular therapy remains controversial. Despite the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, data suggest that endovascular aortic repair incurs a greater risk of spinal cord deficit, and the durability of endovascular aortic repair remains unclear. It is difficult to compare outcomes between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, primarily because of the current investigational status of endovascular devices, the variety of approaches to endovascular repair, differing patient populations, lack of prospective randomized studies, and minimal medium- and long-tern follow-up data on endovascular repair. When deciding between open and endovascular approaches, one should consider which is more suitable for each patient. Older patients generally benefit from a less invasive approach. Open repair should be considered for young patients and those with heritable thoracic aortic disease. Infection and fistulae are best treated by open repair, although endovascular intervention as a lifesaving bridge to definitive repair has evolved to become a critical component of initial treatment. It is crucial to have technical expertise in both open and endovascular procedures to provide the best aortic repair for the patient. This may require dedicated aortic programs at tertiary institutions.

Reflection of pioneers: redo thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair controversies in thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery

Reoperative thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is frequently necessary and brings with it a unique set of challenges. Typically, most reoperative repairs are necessitated by aortic disease progressing into previously healthy aortic tissue from a replaced section of the aorta (an extension of the previous repair) or, to a lesser degree, because of a late complication of prior distal aortic repair (an open or endovascular repair failure). Characterizing the reason for the reoperation as well as the location of prior repair is the first step towards anticipating major outcomes following such repair. Since the introduction of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysms, indications for open repair have become more specific and limited; many centers have justified using endovascular approaches in patients with prior open aortic repair by deeming these patients "high risk" because of their previous incision. Our analysis found that reoperative repairs were not typically subject to worse early outcomes than patients without prior distal aortic repair, except for the more complicated types of reoperation, which involve infection.

Protecting the brain and spinal cord in aortic arch surgery

Protection of the central nervous system-either the brain or the spinal cord-during aortic surgery has been the subject of intense research over the past several decades. While it took some 30 years to prove that some of the techniques first practiced in animals are valuable, surgeons can now take courage from 50 years of research that has resulted in superb outcomes, particularly when compared with historical results. Complex total arch operations and descending aortic operations can now be performed with less than a 2% rate of stroke, spinal cord injury, or death. Thoracoabdominal aortic operations and endovascular procedures have also become considerably safer with excellent results reported. The following review will discuss some of the historical outcomes, innovations, iterations, current techniques, and outcomes.

Hybrid thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: is the future here?

Open surgical repair has been the gold standard for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair for more than 6 decades, but 2 additional options have emerged: total endovascular TAAA repair and a hybrid approach that combines open and endovascular repair. Despite the optimism for an endovascular approach, long-term results for these repairs are still lacking. Some of the issues with this emerging technology include the risk of paraplegia after extensive endovascular repair, the need for multiple reinterventions, continuous stent-graft surveillance, endograft branch stenosis, as well as the significant learning curve. Interest in a hybrid approach has resurged despite the non-superior results compared to open TAAA. Commonly, the focus of the hybrid approach is now on performing a less extensive open TAAA repair, which is then extended with a stent-graft or vice versa. Moreover, this approach is now often performed in two stages in an effort to decrease the associated spinal cord ischemia. Open surgical repair after endovascular aortic repair is increasingly being performed to address serious complications, such as infection or fistula, that cannot be repaired by further endovascular intervention. As with any new technology, there will be an increase in the number of procedure-related complications and a decrease in the number of surgeons who can perform the traditional open operation with good results.