Learning curve analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in relation to credentialing guidelines

Long-term outcomes of TEVAR for thoracic aortic diseases: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) vary depending on thoracic aortic pathologies, comorbidities. This study presents our comprehensive endovascular experience, focusing on exploring the outcome in long term follow-up.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2018, we conducted TEVAR on 97 patients presenting with various aortic pathologies. This retrospective cohort study was designed primarily to assess graft durability and secondarily to evaluate mortality causes, complications, reinterventions, and the impact of comorbidities on survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The most common indication was thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 52). Ten patients had aortic arch variations and anomalies, and the bovine arch was observed in eight patients. Endoleaks were the main complications encountered, and 10 of 15 endoleaks were type I endoleaks. There were 18 reinterventions; the most of which was TEVAR (n = 5). The overall mortality was 20 patients, with TEVAR-related causes accounting for 12 of these deaths, including intracranial bleeding in three patients. Multivariant Cox regression revealed chronic renal diseases (OR = 11.73; 95% CI: 2.04-67.2; p = 0.006), previous cardiac operation (OR = 14.26; 95% CI: 1.59-127.36; p = 0.01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (OR = 7.82; 95% CI: 1.43-42.78; p = 0.001) to be independent risk factors for 10-year survival. There was no significant difference in the survival curves of the various aortic pathologies. In the follow-up period, two non-symptomatic intragraft thromboses and one graft infection were found.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities can increase the risk of TEVAR-related mortality without significantly impacting endoleak rates. TEVAR is effective for severe aortic pathologies, though long-term graft durability may be compromised by its thrombosis and infection.

Real-world comparative claims analysis of a novel single-branched aortic stent graft device versus thoracic endograft placement with extra-anatomic debranching/revascularization in zone 2 aortic disease

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450).

Results

Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943), P = 0.94. TBE resulted in reduced operating room charges ($36,849 [$8750] vs. $48,073 [$10,825], P = 0.02) and reduced intensive care unit and telemetry room charges, which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.23 and 0.12, respectively). Device/implant charges were the primary cost driver in both groups. Charges associated with TBE were significantly higher: $105,525 ($36,137) vs. $51,605 ($31,326), P > 0.01.

Conclusions

TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).

National trends in utilization and outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for traumatic thoracic aortic injuries

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of traumatic thoracic aortic injuries (TTAI) is an alternative to conventional open surgical repair. Single-institution studies have shown a survival benefit with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), but whether this is being realized nationally is not clear. The purpose of our study was to document trends in the increase in use of TEVAR and its effect on outcomes of TTAI nationally.

METHODS

Patients admitted with a TTAI between 2005 and 2011 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were grouped by treatment into TEVAR, open repair, or nonoperative management. Primary outcomes were relative use over time and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

Included were 8384 patients, with 2492 (29.7%) undergoing TEVAR, 848 (10.1%) open repair, and 5044 (60.2%) managed nonoperatively. TEVAR became the dominant treatment option for TTAI during the study period, starting at 6.5% of interventions in 2005 and accounting for 86.5% of interventions in 2011 (P < .001). Nonoperative management declined concurrently with the widespread of adoption TEVAR (79.8% to 53.7%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality after TEVAR decreased during the study period from 33.3% in 2005 to 4.9% in 2011 (P < .001), and an increase in mortality was observed for open repair from 13.9% to 19.2% (P < .001). Procedural mortality (TEVAR or open repair) decreased from 14.9% to 6.7% (P < .001), and mortality after any TTAI admission declined from 24.5% to 13.3% during the study period (P < .001). In addition to lower mortality, TEVAR was followed by fewer cardiac complications (4.1% vs 8.5%; P < .001), respiratory complications (47.5% vs 54.8%; P < .001), and shorter length of stay (18.4 vs 20.2 days; P = .012) compared with open repair. In adjusted mortality analyses, open repair proved to be associated with twice the mortality risk compared with TEVAR (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.7), and nonoperative management was associated with more than a fourfold increase in mortality (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.8-5.3).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is now the dominant surgical approach in TTAI, with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality benefits over open aortic repair. Overall mortality after admission for TTAI has declined, which is most likely the result of the replacement of open repair by TEVAR as well as the broadened eligibility for operative repair.

Learning curves for cardiothoracic and vascular surgical procedures--a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the learning curve (LC) literature and identify the LC of cardiothoracic and vascular surgical procedures.

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

The LC describes an observation that a learner's performance improves over time during acquisition of new motor skills. Measuring the LC of surgical procedures has important implications for surgical innovation, education, and patient safety. Numerous studies have investigated LCs of isolated operations in cardiothoracic and vascular surgeries, but a lack of uniformity in the methods and variables used to measure LCs has led to a lack of systematic reviews.

METHODS

The MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, and PsycINFO® databases were systematically searched until July 2013. Articles describing LCs for cardiothoracic and vascular procedures were included. The type of procedure, statistical analysis, number of participants, procedure setting, level of participants, outcomes, and LCs were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 48 studies investigated LCs in cardiothoracic and vascular surgeries. Based on operating time, the LC for coronary artery bypass surgery ranged between 15 and 100 cases; for endoscopic vessel harvesting and other cardiac vessel surgery between 7 and 35 cases; for valvular surgery, which included repair and replacement, between 20 and 135 cases; for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, between 15 and 35 cases; for vascular neurosurgical procedures between 100 and 500 cases, based on complications; for endovascular vessel repairs between 5 and 40 cases; and for ablation procedures between 25 and 60 cases. However there was a distinct lack of standardization in the variables/outcome measures used, case selection, prior experience, and supervision of participating surgeons and a range of statistical analyses to compute LCs was noted.

CONCLUSION

LCs in cardiothoracic and vascular procedures are hugely variable depending on the procedure type, outcome measures, level of prior experience, and methods/statistics used. Uniformity in methods, variables, and statistical analysis is needed to derive meaningful comparisons of LCs. Acknowledgment and application of learning processes other than those reliant on volume-outcomes relationship will benefit LC research and training of surgeons.

Predictors and outcomes of acute kidney injury after thoracic aortic endograft repair

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the incidence and the predictive factors of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and evaluated the effect of AKI on postoperative survival.

METHODS

Between November 2000 and April 2011, all consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR of the descending thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta were enrolled at four teaching hospitals. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was evaluated during the entire hospitalization. AKI was defined by the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of function, End-stage renal disease) consensus criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 171 patients (80% men) who were a mean age of 69±14 years (range, 18-87 years). AKI occurred in 24 patients (14%). Independent predictors of postoperative AKI were preoperative depressed eGFR, thoracoabdominal extent, and postoperative transfusion. Patients with AKI experienced major postoperative complications (P=.001), longer hospitalization (P=.008), and higher hospital mortality (29% vs 4%; P<.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a survival of 82%, 51%, and 51% at 1, 3, and 5 years for patients who developed AKI, which was significantly worse than the 99%, 89%, and 80% for patients who did not experience AKI (P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative poor renal function, blood transfusions, and the thoracoabdominal extent of the aortic disease were the most important predictors for AKI.