A systematic review of spinal cord injury and cerebrospinal fluid drainage after thoracic aortic endografting

Complications of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR): A pictorial review

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) has replaced open surgical repair as the treatment of choice for several aortic conditions. Despite its lower morbidity and mortality, several TEVAR-related complications can occur and some of which may necessitate surgical or endovascular re-intervention. The current article reviews common and rare complications of TEVAR procedure with emphasis on complications identifiable on cross-sectional imaging and potential pitfalls of pre-procedural planning.

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.

Use of Spinal Anesthesia during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes after spinal anesthesia (SA) versus general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing thoracic endograft placement and to evaluate the adjunctive use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) placement.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review of patients that underwent thoracic endograft placement from 2001 to 2019 was performed. Patients were stratified based on the type of anesthesia they received: GA, SA or epidural, GA with CSFD, and SA with CSFD. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS). Baseline characteristics were analyzed with Student's t-test and Pearson's chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

RESULTS

A total of 333 patients underwent thoracic endograft placement; 104 patients received SA, 180 patients received GA, 30 patients received GA and CSFD, and 19 patients received SA and CSFD. Of the total patients, 16.2% underwent thoracic endograft placement for type B aortic dissection, 3.3% for type A aortic dissection, and 12.3% for penetrating ulcer. The mean age of the study population was 68.7 years old. Patients undergoing SA were older with a mean age of 73.4 years versus 64.7 years for patients undergoing GA (P < 0.001). Spinal anesthesia (SA) was preferred in patients at high risk for GA (>75 years old: 52.9% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001; renal comorbidities: 20.6% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.03, and current smokers: 26.7% vs. 9.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay (LOS) was decreased in the SA group (4.29 days vs. 9.70 days, P < 0.001). There was a lower incidence of spinal cord ischemia in the SA group (1.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.44), as well as significantly decreased 30-day mortality (0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.01), reintervention (19.2% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.02), and return to the operating room (6.8% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.02). Of the 19 patients that had SA + CSFD, there were no signs and symptoms of spinal cord ischemia and decreased incidence of perioperative complications (0% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.01). There was no difference in the risk for intraoperative complications, neurologic complications, or 30-day mortality between GA + CSFD patients versus SA + CSFD patients. Age >75 (P = 0.002), intraoperative complications (P < 0.001), and perioperative complications (P = 0.02) were associated with increased mortality after thoracic endograft placement per multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia (SA) in select high-risk patients was associated with reduced 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, and LOS compared to GA. The concurrent use of spinal drainage and SA had satisfactory results compared to spinal drainage and GA.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Spinal cord protection in open and endovascular approaches to thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Despite advancements in surgical and postoperative management, spinal cord injury has been a persistent complication of both open and endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. Spinal cord injury can be explained with an ischemia-infarction model which results in local edema of the spinal cord, damaging its structure and leading to reversible or irreversible loss of its function. Perfusion of the spinal cord during aortic procedures can be enhanced by several adjuncts which have been described with a broad variety of evidence in their support. These adjuncts include systemic hypothermia, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, extracorporeal circulation and distal aortic perfusion, segmental arteries reimplantation, left subclavian artery revascularization, and staged aortic repair. The Authors here reviewed and discussed the role of such adjuncts in preventing spinal cord injury from occurring, pinpointing current evidence and outlining future perspectives.

Highlights and Perioperative Implications from the 2022 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease

As the understanding of aortic diseases and their complications grow, increasing importance of uniformity in diagnosis and management is crucial for optimal care of this patient population. The 2022 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease discusses these considerations in detail. The purpose of this review is to highlight essential recommendations that are of relevance to the perioperative physician who manages these patients. A few notable points include, shared decision-making with patients, creation of multidisciplinary aortic teams, lower diameter thresholds for surgery in certain situations, and increased testing for patients with heritable aortic diseases. In addition to briefly reviewing basics of aortic diseases, the authors discuss changes to guidelines that are especially relevant to perioperative care.

Effect of cerebrospinal fluid drainage pressure in descending and thoracoabdominal aortic repair: a prospective multicenter observational study

PURPOSE

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is recommended during open or endovascular thoracic aortic repair. However, the incidence of CSFD complications is still high. Recently, CSF pressure has been kept high to avoid complications, but the efficacy of CSFD at higher pressures has not been confirmed. We hypothesize that CSFD at higher pressures is effective for preventing motor deficits.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 14 hospitals that are members of the Japanese Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Patients who underwent thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repair were divided into four groups: Group 1, CSF pressure around 10 mmHg; Group 2, CSF pressure around 15 mmHg; Group 3, CSFD initiated when motor evoked potential amplitudes decreased; and Group 4, no CSFD. We assessed the association between the CSFD group and motor deficits using mixed-effects logistic regression with a random intercept for the institution.

RESULTS

Of 1072 patients in the study, 84 patients (open surgery, 51; thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 33) had motor deficits at discharge. Groups 1 and 2 were not associated with motor deficits (Group 1, odds ratio (OR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.71-3.29, p = 0.276; Group 2, OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.62-4.82) when compared with Group 4. Group 3 was significantly more prone to motor deficits than Group 4 (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.27-5.17, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

CSFD is not associated with motor deficits in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repair with CSF pressure around 10 or 15 mmHg.

Preoperative Spinal Drain Placement is Associated with Reduced Risk of Spinal Cord Ischemia in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a rare but serious complication of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). Several measures including spinal drain (SD) placement have been proposed to reduce the risk of SCI in TEVARs performed for aneurysms. However, there are no specific large-scale data on potential benefits of SD placement in Stanford Type B aortic dissection (TBAD). We aimed to assess the impact of preoperative SD placement on preventing SCI during TEVARs performed for TBAD.

METHODS

We included all TEVAR cases performed for TBAD in Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2012 to 2021. Patients with connective tissue disease, open conversion, rupture, proximal disease > zone 5, proximal landing zone <2 or SCI on presentation were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance patients on 34 dimensions by the nearest neighbor principle to compare patients based on preoperative SD placement. The primary outcome was SCI. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality, perioperative complications, and 90-day2intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 2,683 TEVARs were performed for TBAD with 1,227 (45.7%) undergoing preoperative SD placement. Propensity matching produced 672 well-matched pairs. In the matched cohort, SD placement was not associated with significant reduction in temporary SCI (3.0% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.45). However, SD placement was associated with significant reduction of the risk of permanent SCI at discharge (1.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.012). SD was also associated with lower risk of 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 6.4%, P = 0.025) and shorter length of stay but not 90-day mortality or 90-day reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that preoperative SD placement in patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD is beneficial in reducing the risk of permanent SCI without increasing risks of perioperative complications. Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Inverted Thoracic Stent Graft Technique for Separation of a Stent Graft and Bare Stent Caused by Aortic Elongation

Introduction

Component separation (CS) of the Zenith Dissection Endovascular Graft and Stent have been reported with some causes. However, CS caused by aortic elongation has not yet been reported. A long treatment range with the sacrifice of some intercostal arteries (ICAs) is sometimes needed when repairing CS because of the large difference in the diameter between the proximal and distal landing zones with a reverse taper.

Case presentation

A 78-year-old man, who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using a Zenith Dissection Graft and stents for acute type B aortic dissection 3 years and 8 months previously was admitted to our hospital with severe back pain. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) showed separation of the SG and bare stent, and aortic elongation. As there was a large difference in the diameter of the proximal and distal landing zones with a reverse taper, a long treatment range with the sacrifice of two large ICAs was needed. Thus, TEVAR using an inverted thoracic SG technique was performed in order to shorten the treatment range to preserve a large ICA and reduce the risk of paraplegia. Completion angiography showed that the separation was repaired with preservation of the large ICA. The postoperative course was uneventful, and he was discharged on postoperative day 10 with relief of his severe pain. At 1 year after secondary TEVAR, CT showed that the diameter of the descending aorta had decreased with no separation of the SGs.

Conclusion

Deployment of an inverted thoracic SG for the treatment of CS of the Zenith Dissection Endovascular Graft and Stent is a feasible and effective procedure to preserve ICAs. An overlapping range of >1.5 times the length of a bare stent within an SG is needed to prevent CS of the Zenith Dissection Endovascular Graft and Stent caused by aortic elongation.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage for Prevention of Spinal Cord Ischemia in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Surgery-Pros and Cons

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) carries a risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) which exerts a devastating impact on patient's quality of life and life expectancy. Although routine prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is not unequivocally supported by current data, several studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes. Patients at high risk for SCI following TEVAR likely will benefit from prophylactic CSF drains. However, the intervention is not risk free, and thorough risk/benefit analysis should be individualized to each patient.

Postoperative management in patients with complex aortic aneurysms

Patients with complex aortic aneurysms (CAA) are often high risk due to advanced age and widespread atherosclerosis affecting numerous vascular territories. Therefore, a thorough perioperative evaluation is needed prior to performing in any type of aortic repair, regardless of whether an endovascular or open surgical approach is selected. Because these operations are technically demanding and often result in end organ ischemia, it is not surprising that complex aortic repair carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Disabling complications such as dialysis, major stroke and paraplegia constitute the main limitation of complex aortic repair. The aim of this article was to review postoperative management to mitigate complications after CAA repair.

How much should be covered a type B aortic dissection? Just do it, but don't forget about spinal cord protection

Revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is considered a method of spinal cord protection from ischemia during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Coverage of the artery of Adamkiewicz with TEVAR is usually well tolerated because of collateral pathways to this vessel, but on the other side, the LSA is crucial in this regard since it represents the primary source of collateral pathways. In our commentary, we wish to focus the discussion on the LSA revascularization and about the complexity of the anatomy of spinal cord supply in order to underline what have been already studied, analyzed, and recommended from the current guidelines.

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.

Imaging and Surveillance of Chronic Aortic Dissection: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

All patients surviving an acute aortic dissection require continued lifelong surveillance of their diseased aorta. Late complications, driven predominantly by chronic false lumen degeneration and aneurysm formation, often require surgical, endovascular, or hybrid interventions to treat or prevent aortic rupture. Imaging plays a central role in the medical decision-making of patients with chronic aortic dissection. Accurate aortic diameter measurements and rigorous, systematic documentation of diameter changes over time with different imaging equipment and modalities pose a range of practical challenges in these complex patients. Currently, no guidelines or recommendations for imaging surveillance in patients with chronic aortic dissection exist. In this document, we present state-of-the-art imaging and measurement techniques for patients with chronic aortic dissection and clarify the need for standardized measurements and reporting for lifelong surveillance. We also examine the emerging role of imaging and computer simulations to predict aortic false lumen degeneration, remodeling, and biomechanical failure from morphological and hemodynamic features. These insights may improve risk stratification, individualize contemporary treatment options, and potentially aid in the conception of novel treatment strategies in the future.

Endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms using fenestrated and/or branched stent grafts is technically feasible and efficacious but carries a steep learning curve. This innovative surgical approach is associated with less perioperative morbidity than traditional open repair and its early and mid-term outcomes are very favorable. Spinal cord ischemia remains a devastating complication after these procedures, hence the importance of various neuroprotective strategies. Widespread applicability remains limited in the United States, as no custom-made or off-the-shelf endografts are commercially available. Access to these devices remains limited to physician-sponsored or industry-sponsored clinical trials, but results from the Cook p-Branch and Gore Thoracoabdominal Branch Endoprosthesis trials are on the horizon.

Stroke, spinal cord ischemia and upper limb ischemia in patients undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the left subclavian artery: a case series study

Background

We performed routine spinal fluid drainage for patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology together with left subclavian artery coverage, which was needed for achievement of a safe proximal sealing zone. We assessed the occurrence of spinal cord ischemia as well the rate of occurrence of other complications such as stroke, and upper limb ischemia.

Results

This was a case series study done between July 2014 and April 2020, in them all the left subclavian artery was covered to ensure a proximal safe seal zone. Routine spinal fluid drainage was done, keeping the spinal fluid pressure < 10–15 mmHg with catheter in place for 48 h. Data was obtained from twenty-three patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic dissection (73.91%), thoracic aortic aneurysm (21.74%), or ulcer (4.35%). Planning was based upon multi-slice computed tomographic angiography and covering the left subclavian was mandatory to achieve a proximal sealing zone. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. 4.35% of patients had three endograft, 56.52% had two endografts, 39.13% had one endograft. All patients lost their radial pulsations immediately after implantation, 8.70% developed post implantation syndrome(fever) that was managed conservatively, 4.35% developed stroke related to the anterior circulation, 4.35% developed signs of spinal cord ischemia. During the follow up, one patient died within 6 h after the procedure due to extensive myocardial infarction (patient was scheduled for CABG after our procedure). 17.40% developed upper limb symptoms that were tolerable and were managed conservatively.

Conclusion

By adopting routine spinal cord drainage and pressure monitoring, we can consider not to revascularize the left subclavian artery prior to TEVAR if it will be covered.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm and dissection.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before April 1, 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We assessed the association between CSFD strategies, including routine CSFD vs selective CSFD or no CSFD, and the SCI rates after TEVAR for patients with aortic dissection (AD), solitary thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the association between different aortic pathologies, including AD and thoracic aneurysms, and SCI rates after TEVAR with and without prophylactic CSFD. The data are presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies of 3561 patients (2671 with TAA or TAAA and 890 with type B AD) were included in the present analysis. The data are presented as the pooled ERs and 95% CIs. The overall SCI rate for patients who had undergone TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD for AD (ER, 1.80%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.72%) was significantly lower than that for the aortic aneurysm group (ER, 5.73%; 95% CI, 4.20%-7.27%; P < .0001). The SCI rate after TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD was not significantly different from that without CSFD for AD (P = .51). No association was found between the rates of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD vs selective prophylactic CSFD for aortic aneurysms (P = .76) and AD (P = .70). The SCI rate after TEVAR without CSFD for aortic aneurysms, including isolated TAA and TAAA (ER, 3.49%; 95% CI, 0.23%-6.76%) was not significantly different from that for AD (ER, 3.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-7.20%; P = .91). For the patients with TAAAs, the rate of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD was significantly lower than that with selective prophylactic CSFD (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that SCI occurs more often after TEVAR for aortic aneurysms than for AD. Routine prophylactic CSFD, compared with selective CSFD, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative SCI after TEVAR for TAAAs. No significant association was found between the SCI rate and routine prophylactic CSFD for patients undergoing TEVAR for isolated TAA or AD.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Survey of Current Clinical Practice in European Medical Centers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this survey was to evaluate the daily clinical practice in European hospitals regarding the modalities to prevent spinal cord ischemia, with an emphasis on cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), in patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular repair.

DESIGN

A 21-item online survey on current practice of spinal cord protection with an emphasis on CSFD.

SETTING

Online service using Castor EDC software.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and European Society of Vascular Surgeons.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred eighty invitations were sent and 104 were used for analysis. A majority of respondents used a written protocol for spinal cord protection during endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair (81/104 = 78%). The most common protective measures used were CSFD (79/81 = 98%), controlled hypertension (59/81 = 73%), drugs (11/81 = 14%), and hypothermia (6/81 = 7%). The two most common indications for placement of a spinal catheter were the length of the stent (83/104 = 80%) and location of aneurysm (71/104 = 68%). Preventive placement of the spinal drain (96/104) is the most common approach. In the subgroup of high-volume centers, 86% (12/14) of the respondents used a written protocol and all protocols include CSFD. Ninety-two percent (11/12) had included controlled arterial hypertension in the protocol compared with 70% (48/69) of the non-high-volume centers respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of European centers use a written protocol that includes CSFD. This survey showed the similarities and differences in the management of CSFD in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair.

Thoracic Trauma: Aortic Injuries

Thoracic aortic injuries caused by high impact trauma are life-threatening and require emergent diagnosis and management. With improvement in the acute care services, an increasing number of such injuries are being managed such that patients survive to undergo definitive therapies. A high index of clinical suspicion is required to order appropriate imaging. Computed tomography angiography is used to classify the injuries and guide treatment strategy. While low-grade injuries might be managed conservatively, high-grade injuries require urgent surgical or endovascular intervention. Over the past decade, endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta with or without a surgical bypass has become the preferred treatment with reduced mortality and morbidity. Rapid advancements in the stent graft technology have reduced the anatomic barriers to endovascular therapy and increased the confidence of the operators. Detailed planning prior to the procedure, understanding of the anatomy, correct choice of hardware, and adherence to technical protocol are essential for a successful endovascular procedure. These patients are often young and the limited data on the long-term outcome of aortic stent grafts make a case for a robust follow-up protocol.

The Initial Experience on Branched and Fenestrated Endografts in the Aortic Arch. A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Branched and fenestrated endografts (fEVAR/bEVAR) are complex techniques used to treat thoracic aorta pathologies involving the aortic arch. This systematic review aims to determine all the reported results regarding these techniques in the aortic arch, in order to describe their clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed, considering all articles published until October 2019. PubMed, Cochrane database resources were used. The protocol of the study was previously registered in the Prospero database (CRD42020147037). Primary exclusion criteria included opinion articles, merely technique descriptions, articles without the follow-up of at least 1 month, studies conducted on animals, mixed treatments, and ongoing trials without published data. Included variables were study design, aortic pathology, type of endovascular technique (fEVAR/bEVAR), endograft manufacturing, number of fenestrations/branches and type of bridge stents. Technical success, complications during surgery and follow-up were also described.

RESULTS

From a total of 164 articles, 29 (28 retrospective, 1 prospective) were analyzed with a total of 693 cases (341 fEVAR and 352 bEVAR). The most common indications for repair were aneurysm (54.8%) and dissection (40%). Only fEVAR and bEVAR were considered, but different endograft materials and techniques were used and, therefore, reported upon in the current review. Zenith Alpha Thoracic Endovascular Graft was the most representative (24% of cases). Custom made, off-the-shelf, physician modified and in situ fenestrated endografts were also used in 39%, 22.4%, 18.6% and 18.9% of cases, respectively. Bridge stents were implanted in the 50.5% of cases. Technical success rate was 96%. The main intraoperative complication was the endoleak (5.2%) followed by stroke (4.8%). The in-hospital mortality was 2.5%. The mean follow-up was 18.5 months. The mortality related to the main operation during follow-up was 3.2% and not directly related to the main operation was 11.3%. During the follow-up, 92 cases (13.3%) in total had to undergo through a reintervention, 46.7% with endovascular repair and 26.1% with open surgical repair (the rest were not specified).

CONCLUSION

published experience with bEVAR and fEVAR in the aortic arch showed acceptable short-term effectiveness and safety. More well-conducted prospective clinical studies with long term follow-up, combined with comparative meta-analysis, are needed to elucidate the real benefit of those endovascular techniques in the aortic arch pathology.

Arch replacement with collared elephant trunks: The Siena approach

Objective

To illustrate our experience and results in patients with diffuse aneurysmal disease treated with arch replacement using the Siena collared graft, a device designed in 2002 to improve the elephant trunk technique. Results of the first step surgical implant and the subsequent treatment strategies, with extensive use of endovascular techniques, are reported.

Methods

All aortic arch–replacement procedures using the Siena graft between February 2002 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed for early and late clinical outcomes.

Results

Of 146 patients (54 women, 36.9%) with a median age of 69.1 years (interquartile range 58.4-75.0 years), 55 (37.6%) had acute/chronic dissection with false lumen aneurysmal dilatation, 91 (62.3%) had degenerative aneurysms, 45 (30.8%) were redo operations, and 14 (9.5%) had connective tissue disease. First-stage outcomes: 10.9% 30-day mortality (n = 16); 5.4% stroke (n = 8, 6 disabling, 2 nondisabling; 3 fatal); and 0.6% paraplegia. Outcomes for 113 second-stage procedures (77.3%, n = 97 endovascular [66.4%], n = 16 surgical [10.9%]) were 5.3% and 8.8% 30-day and 180-day mortality; no stroke; 10.6% paraplegia. Median follow-up was 5.7 years (range: 0-18.02 years) median survival was 16.65 years (95% lower confidence limit, 10.06 years) with no significant difference between aneurysm and dissection patients. Freedom from further treatment was 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.9%-94.7%) at 5 years and 71.4% (95% confidence interval, 71.4%-84.7%) at 10 years; median time to reintervention was 2.59 years (interquartile range, 0.52-5.20 years) with no difference (P = .22) between dissection and aneurysm groups.

Conclusions

Siena collared graft represents a reliable platform for the treatment of diffuse aneurysmal disease. This device offers the flexibility required in the treatment of extended aortic lesions and guarantees the choice of the most appropriate approach for treatment completion. In this context, the availability of hybrid grafts has not modified the role of this device in arch surgery.

Complications and Management of the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Endovascular treatment in thoracic aortic diseases has increased in use exponentially since Dake and colleagues first described the use of a home-made transluminal endovascular graft on 13 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm at Stanford University in the early 1990s. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was initially developed for therapy in patients deemed unfit for open surgery. Innovations in endograft engineering design and popularization of endovascular techniques have transformed TEVAR to the predominant treatment choice in elective thoracic aortic repair. The number of TEVARs performed in the United States increased by 600% from 1998 to 2007, while the total number of thoracic aortic repairs increased by 60%. As larger multicenter trials and meta-analysis studies in the 2000s demonstrate the significant decrease in perioperative morbidity and mortality of TEVAR over open repair, TEVAR became incorporated into standard guidelines. The 2010 American consensus guidelines recommend TEVAR to be “strongly considered” when feasible for patients with degenerative or traumatic aneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta exceeding 5.5 cm, saccular aneurysms, or postoperative pseudoaneurysms. Nowadays, TEVAR is the predominant treatment for degenerative and traumatic descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. Although TEVAR has been shown to have decreased early morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair, endovascular manipulation of a diseased aorta with endovascular devices continues to have significant risks. Despite continued advancement in endovascular technique and devices since the first prospective trial examined the complications associated with TEVAR, common complications, two decades later, still include stroke, spinal cord ischemia, device failure, unintentional great vessel coverage, access site complications, and renal injury. In this article, we review common TEVAR complications with some corresponding radiographic imaging and their management.

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage to prevent postoperative spinal cord injury in thoracic aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is recommended as a spinal cord protective strategy in open and endovascular thoracic aortic repair. Although small studies support the use of CSFD, systematic reviews have not suggested definite conclusion and a large-scale study is needed. Therefore, we reviewed medical records of patients who had undergone descending and thoracoabdominal aortic repair (both open and endovascular repair) at multiple institutions to assess the association between CSFD and postoperative motor deficits.

METHODS

Patients included in this study underwent descending or thoracoabdominal aortic repair between 2000 and 2013 at 12 hospitals belonging to the Japanese Association of Spinal Cord Protection in Aortic Surgery. We conducted a retrospective study to investigate whether motor-evoked potential monitoring is effective in reducing motor deficits in thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. We use the same dataset to examine whether CSFD reduces motor deficits after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We reviewed data from 1214 patients [open surgery, 601 (49.5%); endovascular repair, 613 (50.5%)]. CSFD was performed in 417 patients and not performed in the remaining 797 patients. Postoperative motor deficits were observed in 75 (6.2%) patients at discharge. After propensity score matching (n = 700), mixed-effects logistic regression performed revealed that CSFD is associated with postoperative motor deficits at discharge [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 3.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.30-6.51].

CONCLUSION

CSFD may not be effective for postoperative motor deficits at discharge.

Interventions to improve perioperative neurologic outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Few outcomes in surgery are as important to patients as that of their neurologic status. The purpose of this review is to discuss and categorize the most common perioperative neurologic complications. We will also discuss strategies to help prevent and mitigate these complications for our patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several strategies the anesthesiologist can undertake to prevent or treat conditions, such as perioperative neurocognitive disorders, spinal cord ischemia, perioperative stroke, and postoperative visual loss.

SUMMARY

A thorough understanding of threats to patients' neurologic well-being is essential to excellent clinical practice.

New Preoperative Spinal Cord Ischemia Risk Stratification Model for Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine significant predictors of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) and to further develop a simple and clinically orientated risk score model.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from the Society of Vascular Surgery/Vascular Quality Initiative national data set was performed for all patients undergoing TEVAR from January, 2014 to June 2018. Preoperative demographics, procedure-related variables, and clinical details related to SCI were examined. A SCI risk score was developed utilizing a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

For the 7889 patients in the final analysis who underwent TEVAR during the study period, the mean age was 67.6 ± 13.9, range 18 to 90 years, and the majority was male (65%). Postoperative outcomes included stroke (3.0%), myocardial infarction (2.9%), inhospital mortality (5.4%), transient SCI (1.5%), and permanent SCI (2.1%). Nearly half of the overall cases were performed in high volume centers. Predictors of increased risk for SCI included age by decade (odds ratio [OR]: 1.2), celiac coverage (OR: 1.5), current smoker (OR: 1.6), dialysis (OR: 1.9), 3 or more aortic implanted devices (OR: 1.7), emergent or urgent surgery (OR: 1.5), adjunct aorta-related procedure (OR: 2.5), adjunct not related (OR: 2.6), total estimated length of aortic device (19-31 cm, OR: 1.9 and ≥32 cm, OR: 3.0), ASA class 4 or 5 (OR: 1.6), and procedure time ≥154 minutes (OR: 1.8). Two predictors decreased the risk of SCI, cases from high-volume centers (OR: 0.6) and eGFR ≥ 60 (OR: 0.6). To evaluate the risk score model, probabilities of SCI from the original regression, raw score, and raw score categories resulted in area under the curve statistics of 0.792, 0.786, and 0.738, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cord ischemia remains one of the most feared complications of TEVAR. Incidence of SCI in this large series of patients with TEVAR was 3.6% with nearly 60% being permanent. The proposed model provides an assessment tool to guide clinical decisions, patient consent process, risk-assessment, and procedural strategy.

Spinal cord injury after open and endovascular repair of descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

An inclusive contemporary analysis of spinal cord injury (SCI) rates in patients undergoing aneurysm repair and the factors associated with complications has not been performed.

METHODS

Following a systematic literature search, studies from 2008 to 2018 on repair of descending thoracic aneurysm (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) were pooled in a meta-analysis performed using the generic inverse variance method. The primary outcome was permanent SCI. Secondary outcomes were temporary SCI, operative mortality, long-term mortality, postoperative stroke, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain-related complications.

RESULTS

One-hundred sixty-nine studies (22,634 patients) were included. The pooled rate of permanent SCI was 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-5.4); 3.5% (95% CI, 1.8-6.7) for DTA and 7.6% (96% CI, 6.2-9.3) for TAAA repair (P for subgroups = .02), 5.7% (95% CI, 4.3-7.5) for open repair and 3.9% (95% CI, 3.1-4.8) for endovascular repair (P for subgroups = .03). Rates for Crawford extents I, II, III, IV, and V aneurysms were 4.0% (95% CI, 3.0-5.0), 15.0% (95% CI, 10.0-22.0), 7.0% (95% CI, 6.0-9.0), 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0-4.0), and 7.0% (95% CI, 2.0-23.0) respectively (P for subgroups <.001). The pooled rates for operative mortality, late mortality at a mean follow-up of 5.0 years, stroke, and temporary SCI were 7.4% (95% CI, 6.1-9.4), 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0-1.0), 4.2% (95% CI, 3.6-4.8), and 3.7% (95% CI, 3.0-4.6), respectively. The pooled rates for severe, moderate, and minor CSF-drain related complications were 5.1% (95% CI, 2.23-11.1), 4.1% (95% CI, 0.6-22.0), and 3.6% (95% CI, 1.2-8.0) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improvement, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair remain associated with a substantial risk of permanent SCI. The risk is greater for TAAA repair, especially extent II, III, and V.

Epidural Corticosteroids, Lumbar Spinal Drainage, and Selective Hemodynamic Control for the Prevention of Spinal Cord Ischemia in Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: A New Clinical Protocol

INTRODUCTION

In patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aorta repair, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains one of the most common and important complications resulting in transient paraparesis through to permanent flaccid paraplegia. In this manuscript, after a brief introduction to spinal cord ischemia complication and its prevention in thoracoabdominal endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), we propose a new clinical protocol potentially able to prevent such complication.

METHODS

The proposed protocol suggests the use of high dosages of corticosteroids by epidural route, along with drainage of cerebrospinal fluid and controlled vascular hypertension, to reduce the incidence of SCI in TEVAR. Moreover, we paid particular attention to the control of the hemodynamic parameters to obtain adequate peripheral tissue perfusion (oxygen delivery), including in the spinal cord.

RESULTS

We applied this new protocol in 50 consecutive patients treated with TEVAR for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAs); 47 patients completed the procedure: 27 patients Crawford type I and 20 Crawford type II. Three patients died during surgery because of untreatable aneurysm rupture. The results show that in all patients there were no cases of SCI, after 5 days from TEVAR.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, there are no clinical studies on the use of epidural corticosteroids in patients undergoing treatment of aortic syndrome (both in "open surgery" and endovascular aortic repair). This initial study on 50 consecutive patients has shown that the clinical protocol used could be of great interest to prevent one of the worse complications of TEVAR. Its limitations are the low number of patients studied till now, and the non-randomized protocol adopted. Further studies would be necessary.

CONCLUSION

Our experience and the results obtained with this new perioperative protocol with epidural corticosteroid and accurate hemodynamic control have been encouraging and it seems a valid proposal to be explored in future by well-structured prospective, randomized protocols.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage During Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Treatment Recommendations

Introduction:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a known complication of aortic aneurysm repair. Previous reports indicate that cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) may reduce incidence of SCI during open aortic aneurysm repair but its utility in endovascular repair remains poorly understood. We performed a systematic review of the literature to examine the protocols and outcomes of CSFD in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Methods:

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were utilized to conduct a systematic literature review. PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Cochrane, and EMBASE were queried for articles published since 2016 using search terms “(cerebrospinal fluid diversion OR CSF diversion OR lumbar drain OR subarachnoid drain OR spinal) AND (aortic aneurysm AND thoracic AND endovascular OR TEVAR).” Ninety-two articles were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers, and 23 studies met criteria for full-text review after initial screening.

Results:

A total of 8 studies met full inclusion criteria for final analysis. Six studies reported incidence of SCI in patients with CSFD and 2 compared SCI incidence between patients with and without CSFD. Protocols for drainage most commonly included draining to a target pressure intra- and postoperatively, between 8 and 12 mm Hg. Incidence of SCI ranged from 0% to 17% in patients with CSFD, and from 0% to 50% in those without CSFD. Rates of CSFD-related complications ranged from <1% to 28%.

Conclusion:

There may be a protective benefit of CSFD in preventing SCI, but there remains significant variation in drain placement protocols. Significant potential bias exists in the reviewed data. Higher quality studies on the role of CSFD in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair are needed.

Surgical Strategies for Type B Aortic Dissection by Frozen Elephant Trunk

The timing and choice of surgical method for type B aortic dissection, is still a topic of much debate. We performed total arch replacement using frozen elephant trunk (TAR-FET) as a means of preventing distant aortic events, such as retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD). We conducted analysis of 142 patients with acute type B dissection who were admitted between January of 2010 and July of 2017. Fifty-five cases required surgical intervention to treat enlargement of the false lumen diameter and ULP formation 2 weeks after the onset of symptoms. 17 TAR-FET were performed with a mean of 42±26 days period from onset to surgery. There were no complications of RTAD or paraplegic, and 90% of patient demonstrated aortic event free survival (5 years) and false lumen reduction ratio of 35%. Based on our analysis, using TAR-FET properly avoids serious complications like RTAD, and is a viable treatment option for type B dissection. (This is a translation of J Jpn Coll Angiol 2018; 58: 151-157.).

A practical guide for anesthetic management during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring

Postoperative motor dysfunction can develop after spinal surgery, neurosurgery and aortic surgery, in which there is a risk of injury of motor pathway. In order to prevent such devastating complication, intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) has been conducted. However, to prevent postoperative motor dysfunction, proper understanding of MEP monitoring and proper anesthetic managements are required. Especially, a variety of anesthetics and neuromuscular blocking agent are known to attenuate MEP responses. In addition to the selection of anesthetic regime to record the baseline and control MEP, the measures to keep the level of hypnosis and muscular relaxation at constant are crucial to detect the changes of MEP responses after the surgical manipulation. Once the changes of MEP are observed based on the institutional alarm criteria, multidisciplinary team members should share the results of MEP monitoring and respond to check the status of monitoring and recover the possible motor nerve injury. Prevention of MEP-related adverse effects is also important to be considered. The Working Group of Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA) developed this practical guide aimed to help ensure safe and successful surgery through appropriate anesthetic management during intraoperative MEP monitoring.

Outcomes of a Spinal Drain and Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring Protocol in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Adjuncts for early detection and treatment of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in thoracic aortic surgery are supported by robust clinical experience in open repair. The utility of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage and neurophysiologic monitoring (NPM) in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is less clear. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the influence of a selective institutional spinal cord protection protocol using prophylactic NPM and CSF on outcomes for standard TEVAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing standard TEVAR entered into a prospectively maintained database from a single institution from 2007 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative characteristics, aneurysm extent, and etiology were reviewed. Utilization of CSF drains including volume of fluid removed, duration of drainage, and catheter-related complications were collected. NPM data were reviewed to determine the influence on intraoperative management. Exact logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of SCI.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients undergoing TEVAR, 130 met inclusion criteria for the study. CSF drains were used in 71 patients (54.6%), and 56 of 130 (43%) had NPM. SCI occurred in 7 patients (5.4%), of whom 5 had partial or complete recovery. Median time to symptoms of SCI was delayed in all cases (median 52 hr, range 8-312), and none of the 4 of 7 patients with adjunct NPM demonstrated intraoperative changes. Intraoperative changes in NPM occurred in 26 (46%), and represented unilateral leg ischemia in all but 2 cases. In both patients, changes consistent with SCI were associated with intraoperative hypotension and resolved with blood pressure augmentation. Neither patient developed postoperative SCI. Median length of stay (22 vs. 9 days, P = 0.012), operative room time (262 vs. 209, P = 0.040), and perioperative mortality (28.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.046) were significantly higher for patients with SCI versus those without. Length of aortic coverage was found to be the sole independent predictor of SCI (odds ratio 8.2, P = 0.026). Complications related to CSF drainage occurred in 4 patients (5.6%) with major complications occurring in 2 patients (2.8%), including 1 with an intrathecal hematoma and permanent bilateral paraparesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective use of prophylactic CSF drainage in TEVAR was associated with moderate risk and questionable benefit. The use of neurophysiological monitoring allowed for early detection and treatment of spinal ischemia, but its utility is limited by logistical factors and to the minority of patients with intraoperative spinal ischemic events.

Reinterventions in the modern era of thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Using a national data set, we sought to describe the population of patients and the nature and timing of reinterventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by aortic disease as well as their impact on survival.

METHODS

We evaluated the national data set for TEVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2017. Student t-test and χ² analysis were used to compare continuous and categorical variables in the reintervention and no reintervention groups, respectively. Freedom from reintervention and survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

A total of 7006 patients were evaluated: 51.2% thoracic aortic aneurysm, 33.5% type B dissection (TBD), 7.0% penetrating aortic ulcer, 6.7% trauma, and 1.6% intramural hematoma. Overall, 553 patients (7.9%) underwent at least one reintervention, with an in-hospital reintervention rate of 3.5%. Reinterventions were most commonly performed for TBD (11.5%), with reinterventions for other diseases occurring at lower rates: thoracic aortic aneurysm, 6.7%; intramural hematoma, 5.4%; penetrating aortic ulcer, 4.8%; and trauma, 1.8%. The most common cause of reintervention across all aortic diseases was type I endoleak. The most common long-term reinterventions were placement of endovascular stent graft (65%), other surgical treatments (15.9%), other endovascular treatment (13%), endovascular branch treatment (12.4%), surgical treatment with no device removal (11.0%), and surgical branch treatment (10.4%). Freedom from reintervention was decreased for TBD compared with other diseases (P < .001). There was no difference in survival comparing patients undergoing reinterventions and those without (P = .87). However, patients undergoing in-hospital reintervention trended toward increased mortality (P = .075).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas reinterventions were not rare after TEVAR, there was no difference in mortality between patients undergoing reintervention and those without. Patients undergoing TEVAR for TBD demonstrated the highest reintervention rate. This study highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to address disease-specific patterns of reintervention.

A case report of successful endovascular repair of a giant 15 cm diameter asymptomatic thoracic aortic aneurysm

INTRODUCTION

Giant thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) are extremely uncommon, and there are only a few cases reported in the literature. Most patients presented with symptoms before the size of the aneurysm reached a magnitude >10 cm, and most of the reported cases were treated with open repair.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Here we report a 15 cm asymptomatic thoracic aortic aneurysm of a 72-year-old male patient, treated successfully with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The patient was discharged asymptomatic on postoperative day 2.

DISCUSSION

Only 20 case reports of giant TAAs were found in the literature, and this is the biggest TAA reported treated with TEVAR. This procedure is a promising treatment as morbidity and mortality is lower when compared with open aortic repair (OAR).

CONCLUSION

Even though there is limited documented experience, use of TEVAR seems a safe and promising option in the treatment of giant thoracic aneurysms as presented in this case.