Simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair and endovascular aortic repair is feasible with minimal morbidity and mortality

Simultaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Combined with Saccular Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm

With the recent increase in imaging tests, coexisting abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) are being discovered accidentally. We report two cases of simultaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for AAA and TAA. Both 74-year-old and 79-year-old male with infrarenal AAA and saccular TAA were treated simultaneously with EVAR and TEVAR. Saccular TAAs were identified in the upper thoracic aorta during the evaluation of AAA. During endograft placement, carotid-subclavian bypass and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage were performed. Both patients were successfully discharged without spinal cord ischemia. Simultaneous EVAR and TEVAR can be considered for patients with AAA and saccular TAA in the upper thoracic aorta. Moreover, CSF drainage may be necessary to protect the spinal cord.

Spinal cord ischemia following simultaneous EVAR and TEVAR for concomitant thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, 10-20% have concomitant thoracic aortic pathologies. These are typically managed with staged endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) due to a perceived higher risk of spinal cord ischemia from a simultaneous intervention. We aimed to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing simultaneous EVAR and TEVAR for concomitant aneurysms.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from December 2003 to January 2021. Patients undergoing same-day EVAR and TEVAR were included and analyzed in accordance with the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards. Primary outcomes were technical success and spinal cord ischemia.

RESULTS

Simultaneous EVAR and TEVAR was performed in 25 patients. Median age was 75.0 (IQR 63.0-79.0) years and 20 (80.0%) patients were male. Two (4.0%) patients were symptomatic and four (16.0%) presented with rupture. Median maximum infrarenal and thoracic aortic diameter was 57.0 (IQR 52.0-65.0). Infrarenal aortic neck length was 15.0mm (IQR 10.0-25.0), and diameter was 27.0mm (IQR 24.5-30.0). Median procedure time was 185.0 minutes (IQR, 117.8-251.3), fluoroscopy time 32.7 minutes (IQR, 21.8-63.1), and contrast volume 165 ml (IQR 115.0-207.0). There were three (12.0%) Type Ia endoleaks and three (12.0%) Type II endoleaks in EVAR's, with one (4.0%) Type Ia and one (4.0%) Type II endoleak in TEVARs. In-hospital mortality occurred in three (12.0%) patients (one elective, two ruptures). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in one (4.0%) patient. This patient had a symptomatic aneurysm. Thoracic coverage extended from Zone 4 to Zone 5 and an emergent spinal drain was placed postoperatively. Symptoms were present on discharge. There was one (4.0%) conversion to open repair which occurred in a ruptured aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in 19 (76.0%) patients, however when excluding ruptured aneurysms, was achieved in 17 (81.0%) patients. Follow-up data was available for 19 (76.0%) patients at a median of 426.0 (IQR 329.0-592.5) days postoperatively. A total of 3 (12.0%) patients died during the late mortality period, at a mean of 509.0 (±503.7) days. Median change in abdominal and thoracic aortic sac diameter was -1.35mm (IQR -11.5-2.5) and 8.0 (IQR -10.5-12.0) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous EVAR and TEVAR for concomitant abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms can be performed with low rates of spinal cord ischemia. Short- and mid-term outcomes are acceptable.

Simultaneous Endovascular Repair Is Not Associated With Increased Risk for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Pathologies: Early and Midterm Outcomes

Coexisting multilevel aortic pathologies were caused by atherosclerosis and hypertension and presented in a small subgroup of patients. Endovascular repair is a safe and effective treatment for a variety of aortic pathologies. However, fewer small series and cases were reported using simultaneous thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for both aortic segments. To determine the outcomes of simultaneous and separately TEVAR and EVAR treating for multilevel aortic pathologies. Between 2010 and 2020, 31 patients and 22 patients were treated by one-staged and two-staged repair, respectively at a single center. All patients had the concomitant thoracic and abdominal aortic disease (aortic dissection, aneurysms, and penetrating aortic ulcers). Compared with the patients with two-staged aortic repair, the one-staged repair patients were older (mean age, 68 vs. 57 years; P < 0.001) and had a larger preoperative maximal aortic diameter (67.03 ± 10.65 vs. 57.45 ± 10.36 mm; p = 0.002). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes show that the procedure times and length of hospital stay (LOS) were longer in the two-staged group. There is no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. In the follow up, the freedom from re–intervention and the mean survival rate for the one-staged group were 100 vs. 100%, 92.4 vs. 95%, and 88 vs. 88% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, whereas the mean survival rate for the two-staged group was 86.4 vs. 90.5%, 87 vs. 90.5%, and 76 vs. 84% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, all with no statistical difference. Combined TEVAR and EVAR can be performed successfully with minimal morbidity and mortality. The one-staged repair was not associated with the increased risk for multilevel aortic pathologies treatment.

Simultaneous Endovascular Repair for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Pathologies: Early and Midterm Results

BACKGROUND

To analyze information from a single clinical center, evaluating early and midterm results of simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for coexisting thoracic and abdominal aortic pathologies.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2014, 13 patients (8 men, 5 women; mean age, 75.3 years; range, 69-82 years) with concomitant thoracic and abdominal aortic disease (aneurysms, type B dissection, penetrating aortic ulcers) were treated with simultaneous TEVAR and EVAR. All patients had significant comorbidities. No preoperative cerebrospinal fluid drainage was performed. The follow-up rate was 100% during a period of 36 months (range, 1-60 months).

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all 13 patients, including deliberate partial or total coverage of the left subclavian artery in 3 patients, coverage of both internal iliac arteries in 1 patient, and coverage of left subclavian artery and unilateral internal iliac artery in 1 patient. The average procedural time was 160 min (range, 120-200 min). Mean blood loss was 140 mL (range, 100-250 mL). Four types of commercially available stent grafts (SGs) were used. The lengths of the thoracic SGs were 150-200 cm. Overall survival was 92.3% at 1- and 3-year follow-ups. None of the patients developed stroke or paralysis. The average hospital stay was 9 days (range, 7-12 days). No patients developed endoleak or SG migration.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined TEVAR and EVAR can be performed successfully with minimal morbidity and mortality. When anatomically feasible, simultaneous TEVAR and EVAR is a viable alternative to staged or hybrid repair.

Single-center experience with simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair and abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods A total of 21 patients (20 men; mean 65 ± 7 years, range 54-77) underwent simultaneous TEVAR and EVAR between September 2010 and June 2015 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had concomitant thoracic pathologies (aneurysm, penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, or dissection) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. The abdominal aneurysms diameters ranged from 5.9 cm to 10 cm. Thoracic lesions in 17 patients were complicated with acute aortic syndrome, and the remainders had indications for simultaneous repair. All patients were followed up postoperative at 1 month, 6 months, and yearly thereafter. Technique success, procedure-related complications were evaluated. Results All patients received local anesthesia, perioperative relative high arterial pressure (above 130/80 mmHg) maintenance, and prophylactic high-dose corticosteroid. The technical success rate was 100%. Average procedural time was 157.6 ± 45.6 min. The length of thoracic coverage was 20.4 ± 4.7 cm (range 15-27). Two patients required left subclavian artery coverage during TEVAR and two patients required lowest renal artery coverage during EVAR. Chimney stents were deployed simultaneously. Patients were followed between 2 and 59 months postoperatively. No patients developed acute cardiopulmonary complications and contrast-induced nephropathy. Two patients developed transient lower extremity weakness that resolved with blood pressure elevation, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and intravenous drips of high-dose corticosteroid. The average hospital stay was 10.7 ± 7.9 days (range 4-30). During follow-up, one patient died of aneurysm rupture at postoperative 6 months, two patients developed type Ib endoleak at 9 months and 48 months respectively, one was successfully sealed with iliac stent-graft extension, the other received conservative treatment and is symptom free till now. Conclusion Combined TEVAR and EVAR can be performed safely with minimal morbidity and mortality. When anatomically feasible, simultaneous TEVAR and EVAR can be considered as an acceptable alternative for multilevel aortic diseases.

Hybrid endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aorta: early results

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) present a significant clinical challenge, as they are complex and require invasive surgery. In an attempt to prevent considerably high mortality and morbidity in open repair, hybrid endovascular repair has been developed by many authors. In this study, we evaluated the early-term results obtained from this procedure.

METHODS

From November 2010 to February 2013, we performed thoracoabdominal hybrid aortic repair in 18 patients. The mean age was 68 years (12 men, 6 women). All of the patients had significant comorbidities. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

All patients were operated on in a staged procedure and stent graft deployment was achieved. Procedural success was achieved in all cases. All patients were discharged with complete recovery. No endoleaks weres detected in further CT examination.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggests that hybrid debranching and endovascular repair of extensive thoracoabdominal aneurysms represents a suitable therapeutic option to reduce the morbidity and mortality of TAAA repair, particularly in those typically considered at high risk for standard repair.

Spinal cord ischemia after simultaneous and sequential treatment of multilevel aortic disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study is to report a risk analysis for spinal cord injury in a recent cohort of patients with simultaneous and sequential treatment of multilevel aortic disease.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter study with a retrospective data analysis. Simultaneous treatment refers to descending thoracic and infrarenal aortic lesions treated during the same operation, and sequential treatment refers to separate operations. All descending replacements were managed with endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Of 4320 patients, multilevel aortic disease was detected in 77 (1.8%). Simultaneous repair was performed in 32 patients (41.5%), and a sequential repair was performed in 45 patients (58.4%). Postoperative spinal cord injury developed in 6 patients (7.8%). At multivariable analysis, the distance of the distal aortic neck from the celiac trunk was the only independent predictor of postoperative spinal cord injury (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.99; P=.046); open surgical repair of the abdominal aortic disease was associated with a higher risk of spinal cord injury but did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.06; P=.057). Actuarial survival estimates at 1, 2, and 5 years after the procedure were 80%±5%, 68%±6%, and 63%±7%, respectively. Spinal cord injury did not impair survival (P=.885).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, the risk of spinal cord injury is still substantial at 8% in patients with multilevel aortic disease. The distance of the distal landing zone from the celiac trunk is a significant predictor of spinal cord ischemia.

Hybrid repair of penetrating aortic ulcer associated with right aortic arch and aberrant left innominate artery arising from aneurysmal Kommerell's diverticulum with simultaneous repair of bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms

We present the first case of a hybrid endovascular approach to a penetrating aortic ulcer on the left descending aorta with a right aortic arch and aberrant left innominate artery arising from an aneurysmal Kommerell's diverticulum. The patient also had bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms. The three-step procedure consisted of a carotid-carotid bypass, followed by endovascular exclusion of the ulcer and the aneurysmal Kommerell's diverticulum, and then completion by covering the iliac aneurysms. The patient had no complications at 18 months after surgery. In such rare configurations, endovascular repair is a safe therapeutic option.

Single-stage repair of a complex type B aortic dissection associated with a pressurized infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

The decision-making involved in managing type 2 aortic dissections remains challenging despite the advances in endovascular technology. We report a challenging case of a patient presenting with a type 2 aortic dissection and false lumen extension into an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Severe back pain and hypertension were the patient's initial complaints, and dynamic magnetic resonance angiography revealed 1-way pulsatile flow into the AAA sac from the false lumen. This patient underwent endovascular repair with a thoracic and infrarenal aortic endograft, successfully excluding the false lumen and decompressing the infrarenal aneursymal sac. This is a unique presentation of total endovascular repair of a symptomatic type B aortic dissection with a pressurized infrarenal AAA sac from false lumen flow into the sac.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair to facilitate access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve insertion is an accepted treatment for select patients at high-risk for standard aortic valve insertion. Constraints imposed by the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee require a transfemoral approach in certain patients. The presence of aortoiliac aneurysms, occlusive disease, and excessive vessel tortuosity may create difficulties for safe transfemoral access. We report a case in which the limitation of severe iliac artery occlusive disease was overcome by placement of an abdominal aortic endovascular graft that subsequently allowed successful transfemoral access and transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Single-stage thoracic and abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair for multilevel aortic disease

This investigation evaluated the results of single-stage thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for multilevel aortic disease in a series of nine patients. The lesions repaired included thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms (n= 7) and subacute type B dissections with abdominal aortic aneurysms (n=2). All procedures were successfully performed, and none of the patients experienced postoperative stroke or spinal cord ischemia. The median follow-up period for these patients was 18.9 months (range 1.7-31.4 months) and none of the patients exhibited any signs of type I endoleaks or aneurysmal diameter enlargements more than 5 mm. In conclusion, single-stage TEVAR and EVAR procedures for multilevel aortic disease were found to be safe and feasible modalities for high-risk patients.

Safety of elective management of synchronous aortic disease with simultaneous thoracic and aortic stent graft placement

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous treatment of multilevel aortic disease is controversial due to the theoretic increase in morbidity. This study was conducted to define the outcomes in patients treated electively with simultaneous thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and abdominal aortic endovascular endografting for synchronous aortic pathology.

METHODS

Patients treated with simultaneous TEVAR and endovascular aneurysm repair (T&E) at the University of Florida were identified from a prospectively maintained endovascular aortic registry and compared with those treated with TEVAR alone (TA). The study excluded patients with urgent or emergency indications, thoracoabdominal or mycotic aneurysm, and those requiring chimney stents, fenestrations, or visceral debranching procedures. Demographics, anatomic characteristics, operative details, and periprocedural morbidity were recorded. Mortality and reintervention were estimated using life-table analysis.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2011, 595 patients underwent TEVAR, of whom 457 had elective repair. Twenty-two (18 men, 82%) were identified who were treated electively with simultaneous T&E. Mean ± standard deviation age was 66 ± 9 years, and median follow-up was 8.8 months (range, 1-34 months). Operative indications for the procedure included dissection-related pathology in 10 (45%) and various combinations of degenerative etiologies in 12 (55%). Compared with TA, T&E patients had significantly higher blood loss (P < .0001), contrast exposure (P < .0001), fluoroscopy time (P < .0001), and operative time (P < .0001). The temporary spinal cord ischemia rate was 13.6% (n = 3) for the T&E group and 6.0% for TA (P = .15); however, the permanent spinal cord ischemia rate was 4% for both groups (P = .96). The 30-day mortality for T&E was 4.5% (n = 1) compared with 2.1% (n = 10) for TA. Temporary renal injury (defined by a 25% increase over baseline creatinine) occurred in two T&E patients (9.1%), with none requiring permanent hemodialysis; no significant difference was noted between the two groups (P = .14). One-year mortality and freedom from reintervention in the T&E patients were 81% and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptable short-term morbidity and mortality can be achieved with T&E compared with TA, despite longer operative times, greater blood loss, and higher contrast exposure. There was a trend toward higher rates of renal and spinal cord injury, so implementation of strategies to reduce the potential of these complications or consideration of staged repair is recommended. Short-term reintervention rates are low, but longer follow-up and greater patient numbers are needed to determine procedural durability and applicability.