Surgical correction of failed thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Open Tacking of a Migrated Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Graft

Complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are beginning to emerge as novel vascular issues. While endovascular solutions exist for most, some graft complications require a more traditional open solution. These operations are most commonly performed for endoleak or disease progression. Much less frequently observed is the migration of the endograft requiring open reintervention. Herein we present a case of a proximally migrated TEVAR graft, which required open fixation under deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA).

Proposed classification of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of Stanford type-B aortic dissections

Objectives

Despite two decades of experience, no dedicated classification system exists to document and prognosticate patterns of endoleak encountered after endovascular therapy of type-B aortic dissection. This nomenclature gap has led to inconsistent management and underreporting of significant findings associated with adverse outcomes after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection. Our goal was to propose a reproducible and prognostically relevant classification.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team of seven experienced open and endovascular aortic surgeons was assembled to provide consensus opinion. Extensive literature review was conducted. Deficiencies in the current classification approach of the various patterns of persistent filling of false lumen after endovascular therapy were identified.

Results

Our focus was to categorize high-risk and low-risk subgroups within endoleaks after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection. In this classification, type-Ia endoleak refers to persistent filling of the false lumen in an antegrade manner. Causes include failure to cover the primary entry tear and sizing or technical related proximal seal failure. False lumen filling via distal entry tears is classified as type Ib endoleak, which is further sub-classified into b1 (major branch-related tears), and b2 (multiple small branches related tears). Retrograde ascending aortic dissection and stent graft-induced new entry were classified as type-I endoleaks (type-Ir and type-Is, respectively). Another focus was reclassification type-II endoleaks, with type-IIa endoleak referring to conventional retroleak from one or more posterior branches and type-IIx referring to retroleak from major branches (visceral or left subclavian arteries).

Conclusions

The majority of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection are related to persistent or new filling of the false lumen. We propose a new false lumen-based classification schema for endoleaks occurring after endovascular therapy of type-B aortic dissection.

Distal Neo-Neck Formation for Chronic Type B Dissection: False Lumen Closure After TEVAR

OBJECTIVES:

Patients with chronic aortic dissection often require repeat interventions due to enlargement of the pressurized false lumen or disseminated intravascular coagulation even after additional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to occlude the entry tear. Residual false lumen flow can persist even after performing the candy-plug technique or branched stent-graft placement in some cases. We have devised a new method for false lumen closure.

METHODS:

From December 2010 to May 2017, 5 patients (mean age: 57 [13] years, range: 43-77 years) with chronic dissection at the aortic arch and descending aorta, who underwent initial TEVAR, required additional treatment. Using an open surgical approach, the endograft was fixed with an outer felt under cardiopulmonary bypass after the endograft with stent was expanded by fenestration. The false lumen was closed using this procedure, and the aortotomy was repaired by direct closure in 2 cases and by graft replacement in 3 cases.

RESULTS:

No major operative complications occurred, such as respiratory failure or paraplegia. Postoperative enhanced computed tomography (CT) images showed that the false lumen flow disappeared in all cases. All patients were discharged under normal conditions. They were all followed up and their CT did not indicate any complications for a mean of 33.6 (20.3) months.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our combined procedure was effective and provided a higher success rate compared with endovascular therapy alone. This staged treatment approach, using a combination of TEVAR and false lumen closure, is less invasive compared with open surgery alone and may represent a valid treatment option for chronic type B dissection.

Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a potentially lethal complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, data are limited regarding the development of RTAD post‐TEVAR. This systematic review aims to define the incidence, mortality, and potential risk factors of RTAD post‐TEVAR.

Methods and Results

Multiple electronic searches were performed. Fifty publications with a total of 8969 patients were analyzed. Pooled estimates for incidence and mortality of RTAD were 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–3.1) and 37.1% (95% CI, 23.7–51.6), respectively. Metaregression analysis evidenced that RTAD rate was associated with hypertension (P=0.043), history of vascular surgery (P=0.042), and American Surgical Association (P=0.044). The relative risk of RTAD was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.04–3.14) for acute dissection (relative to chronic dissection) and 5.33 (95% CI, 2.70–10.51) for aortic dissection (relative to a degenerative aneurysm). Incidence of RTAD was significantly different in patients with proximal bare stent and nonbare stent endografts (relative risk [RR]=2.06; 95% CI, 1.22–3.50). RTAD occurrence rate in zone 0 was higher than other landing zones.

Conclusions

The pooled RTAD rate after TEVAR was calculated at 2.5% with a high mortality rate (37.1%). Incidence of RTAD is significantly more frequent in patients treated for dissection than those with an aneurysm (especially for acute dissection), and when the proximal bare stent was used. Rate of RTAD after TEVAR varied significantly according to the proximal Ishimaru landing zone. The more‐experienced centers tend to have lower RTAD incidences.

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.

Iatrogenic aortic dissection after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a case report

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive cardiac and vascular procedures are on the rise, the incidence of iatrogenic acute aortic dissection (IAAD) will increase. Cardiovascular professionals should be aware about the risk factors, means of prevention and best management options for IAAD in the perioperative setting.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the successful clinical management of a complicated case of IAAD after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSION

High index of suspicion is required for prompt diagnosis of IAAD; collaboration of the whole perioperative team is imperative for management of this catastrophe.

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.

Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose:

Endovascular repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms has become an acceptable surgical option over the past decade. We sought to compare the results of open versus endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TEVAR) in the United States.

Methods:

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried to identify all patients undergoing elective repair of a thoracic aortic aneurysm from 1998 to 2007 in the United States. Patient demographic data, preoperative comorbidities, and postoperative complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed comparing open versus endovascular repair. Multivariate analyses were conducted controlling for preoperative comorbidities including the presence of diabetes mellitus, cardiac, respiratory, and renal comorbidities as well as patient’s age, gender, and ethnicity. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were postoperative neurologic, cardiac, and respiratory complications.

Results:

There were 8967 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 8255 (92%) had an open repair and 712 (8%) had an endovascular repair. The overall mortality was 4.5% (4.6% for open and 3.6% for endovascular). On multivariate analysis, the odds of death were reduced by 46% among patients undergoing endovascular repair when compared to open repair (odds ratio [OR]: 0.54; P = .016). There was also reduced odds of a postoperative neurologic complication (OR: 0.48; P = .015), cardiac complication (OR: 0.24; P < .001), and respiratory complication (OR: 0.38: P = .001) in the endovascular group.

Conclusions:

Nationwide data comparing open and TEVAR in the United States reveal decreased postoperative mortality and a decreased incidence of postoperative neurologic, cardiac, and respiratory complications for TEVAR.

Restrictive bare stent for prevention of stent graft-induced distal redissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Stent graft-induced distal redissection (SIDR) is one of the major concerns in the durability of endovascular repair for complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection. The characteristics and means of prevention of this complication remain unknown.

METHODS

From April 1997 to March 2010, 674 patients with type B aortic dissections were treated primarily by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) at our center. Criteria for inclusion in this study were treatment primarily with TEVAR and an estimated mismatch rate (ratio of distal diameter of stent graft to long diameter of true lumen) greater than 120%. By this protocol, 465 patients were included in this study and were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 266 patients were treated in the acute phase, and 199 were treated in the chronic phase.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were treated with standard TEVAR and 154 patients with TEVAR + restrictive bare stent (RBS). The preoperative mismatch rate (measured as the preoperative long diameter of the true lumen at the level of the intended distal end of the stent graft) of the SIDR was significantly higher than that of the non-SIDR (192.7 ± 54.9% vs 131.9 ± 10.4%; P ＜ .05). The follow-up mismatch rate of the SIDR was significantly higher than that of the non-SIDR (145.4 ± 34.6 vs 120.3 ± 16.1; P ＜ .05). Compared with the standard TEVAR, TEVAR + RBS was associated with a lower incidence of SIDR (0% vs 2.9%; P = .033) and less secondary intervention (3.9% vs 9.3%; P = .040). Placement of the RBS significantly expanded the true lumen at the level of the descending aorta with the narrowest true lumen and at the level of the distal end of the stent graft.

CONCLUSIONS

The mismatch between the distal diameter of the stent graft and the diameter of the compressed true lumen seems to be the major factor in the occurrence of SIDR. Placement of an RBS, as an adjunctive technique to TEVAR, could reduce the incidence of SIDR. On the basis of early- to midterm observations, RBSs may improve morphological remodeling of the dissected aorta at certain levels.

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.

Stent graft-induced new entry after endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Stent graft-induced new entry (SINE), defined as the new tear caused by the stent graft and excluding those arising from natural disease progression or iatrogenic injury from the endovascular manipulation, has been increasingly observed after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Stanford type B dissection in our center. SINE appears to be remarkably life threatening. We investigated the incidence, mortality, causes, and preventions of SINE after TEVAR for Stanford type B dissection.

METHODS

Data for 22 patients with SINE were retrospectively collected and analyzed from 650 patients undergoing TEVAR for type B dissection from August 2000 to June 2008. An additional patient was referred to our center 14 months after TEVAR was performed in another hospital. The potential associations of SINE with Marfan syndrome, location of SINE and endograft placement, and the oversizing rate were analyzed by Fisher exact probability test or t test.

RESULTS

We found 24 SINE tears in 23 patients, including SINE at the proximal end of the endograft in 15, at the distal end in 7, and at both ends in 1. Six patients died. SINE incidence and mortality reached 3.4% and 26.1%, respectively. Two SINE patients were diagnosed with Marfan syndrome, whereas there were only 6 Marfan patients among the 651 patients. The 16 proximal SINEs were evidenced at the greater curve of the arch and caused retrograde type A dissection. The eight distal SINEs occurred at the dissected flap, and five caused enlarging aneurysm whereas three remained stable. The endograft was placed across the distal aortic arch during the primary TEVAR in all 23 patients. The incidence of SINE was 33.33% among Marfan patients vs 3.26% among non-Marfan patients (P = .016). There was no significant difference in mortality between proximal and distal SINE (25% vs 28.6%, P > .99), incidence of SINE between endograft placement across the arch and at the straight portion of descending thoracic aorta (23 of 613 vs 0 of 38, P = .39), and the oversizing rate between SINE and non-SINE patients (13% ± 4.5% vs 16% ± 6.5%, P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

SINE appears not to be rare after TEVAR for type B dissection and is associated with substantial mortality. The stress yielded by the endograft seems to play a predominant role in its occurrence. It is important to take this stress-induced injury into account during both design and placement of the endograft.

Surgical technique of total arch replacement for failed thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Since its introduction in the 1990s, the number of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs is increasing rapidly. However, data on the operative method for reoperation after failed thoracic endovascular aortic repairs are still scanty. We describe the surgical technique of total arch replacement with partial stent removal and the elephant trunk procedure for failed thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Thoracic Aortic Endograft Explant: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives: We report our experience following thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) explant. Methods: A total of 500 TEVARs were performed from 1999 to 2009, with 4 requiring explant. Chart review was performed to identify the indications of explant, operative technique, and perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: Indications of graft removal included device maldeployment, type I endoleak, aortoenteric fistula, and retrograde type A dissection necessitating aortic root replacement. Reconstruction was achieved with aortic homograft, Dacron, or explant of the proximal component with incorporation of the distal stent into the suture line. Mean follow-up was 13 months (0-50 months). Paraplegia and perioperative death occurred in 1 patient who underwent intraoperative conversion to open repair. There were no other major complications, and graft removal was achieved in all patients. Conclusions: Although rare, familiarity with TEVAR explant is imperative as it is increasingly performed for broader indications. Our limited data suggest that explant can be performed successfully albeit with morbidity.

Endovascular graft deployment in the false lumen of type B dissection

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is particularly indicated in a patient with complicated type B dissection. The object of this communication is to report a case of deployment of the endograft in the false lumen, to propose a protocol in order to prevent it and discuss the possible surgical options when this complication has occurred.

METHODS

A case of complicated acute type B dissection is described where the endovascular prosthesis was positioned in the false lumen. The literature on the subject is briefly reviewed for the insertion techniques and conversion to surgery.

RESULTS

The occurrence was recognized and treated with replacement of the entire aorta from the sinotubular junction to a level of the eighth thoracic vertebra under deep circulatory arrest with selective antegrade cerebral perfusion.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR for complicated type B dissection should be carried out according to a precise and stepwise protocol in institutions familiar with all the different options of conversion to open repair.

Emergency endovascular treatment of sac rupture for type IIIa endoleak in thoracic aortic aneurysm previously excluded with endovascular repair

Elective endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic pathology has been applied in a variety of conditions. The complications of thoracic aortic stenting are also well recognized. Endoleak after endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms is the most frequent complication; among them, type III is the least frequent. Endovascular treatment of type III endoleak is generally performed under elective conditions; less frequently, in emergency. We report a successful emergency endovascular management of post-thoracic endovascular repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm rupture due to type IIIa endoleak.