Reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of complicated aortic dissection

The Impact of Oversizing in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Outcomes in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD.

CLINICAL IMPACT

For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.

Aggressive Treatment Strategy at Index Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Surgery is Associated with Reduced Need for Short-Term Reintervention in Patients with Aortic Dissection

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic endovascular aortic surgery (TEVAR) is the modern standard of treatment for patients with Type B aortic dissection, however it is unclear how the initial length of treated aorta affects long-term outcomes. This study aims to elucidate risk factors for secondary intervention after TEVAR for aortic dissection, focusing on length of aortic treatment at index operation.

METHODS

A retrospective multihospital chart review was completed for patients treated between 2011 and 2022 who underwent TEVAR for aortic dissection with at least 1 year of post-TEVAR imaging and follow-up. Patient demographics and characteristics were analyzed. In this study, aortic zones treated only included those managed with a covered stent graft. The primary outcome measure was any need for secondary intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients were identified. Demographics included a mean age of 57 years, with 31.8% of the patients being female. Forty-three patients (28.5%) underwent secondary intervention after TEVAR, with a mean follow-up of 1.6 years. The most common indication for secondary intervention was aneurysmal degeneration of the residual false lumen (76%). There was a significant difference in the number of aortic zones treated in patients who did and did not require secondary intervention (2.3 ± 1 vs. 2.7 ± 1, P = 0.04). Additionally, patients with 3 or more aortic zones of treatment had a significant difference in the need for reintervention (32% secondary intervention versus 52% no secondary intervention, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

At least 3 zones of aortic treatment at index TEVAR is associated with a decreased need for overall reintervention. Modern treatment of acute and subacute type B dissection should stress an aggressive initial repair, balanced by the potential increased risk of spinal cord ischemia.

Volumetric analysis in primary and residual type B aortic dissection treated with stented-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination technique can predict aortic reintervention

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term results of stented-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) in patients with aortic dissection with the implementation of volumetric analysis.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. From May 2017 to September 2022, 42 patients underwent STABILISE for acute complicated or subacute high-risk aortic dissection. STABILISE was completed with distal extended endovascular aortic repair in 24 patients. A computed tomography scan was performed at baseline, before hospital discharge, and at 1, 3, and 5 years. Perfused total aortic, true lumen, and false lumen volumes were assessed for thoracic, visceral, and aorto-iliac segment. The ratio between false lumen and total volume was named perfusion dissection index (PDI). Complete remodeling was defined as PDI = 0, and positive remodeling as PDI ≤0.1.

RESULTS

Technical success was 97.6%. No 30-day deaths, spinal cord injuries, or retrograde dissections were observed. Mean follow-up was 44 ± 19.4 months. Thoracic diameter was lower at last available computed tomography scan (36.7 vs 33.0 mm; P = .01). Aortic growth >5 mm was observed in 9.5% of the patients. Thoracic and visceral aortic complete remodeling were 92.8% and 83.3%, respectively, with no difference between acute and subacute group. Distal extended endovascular aortic repair significantly increased complete remodeling in the aorto-iliac segment, compared with STABILISE alone (69.6% vs 21.4%; P < .001). Freedom from vascular reinterventions at 3 years was 83.1% (95% confidence interval, 71.5%-96.6%). Total PDI ≤0.1 at first postoperative control was a predictor of vascular reinterventions (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

STABILISE is a safe and feasible technique associated with high mid-term rates of complete remodeling in the thoracic and visceral aorta. Volumetric analysis allows the quantification of aortic remodeling and represents a predictor of aortic reinterventions.

Clinical study of reoperation for acute type A aortic dissection

Objective

The initial operation for type A aortic dissection has limitations, and there may be a need for reoperation in cases such as giant pseudoaneurysm formation and reduced blood supply to the distal vessels. In this study, we collected case data of patients who underwent cardiac major vascular surgery at our hospital to analyze the effectiveness of reoperation treatment options for type A aortic dissection and to summarize our treatment experience.

Method

Between June 2018 and December 2022, 62 patients with type A aortic dissection (TAAD) underwent reoperation after previous surgical treatment. Of these, 49 patients (45 males) underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with a mean age of (49.69 ± 10.21) years (30-75 years), and 13 patients (11 males) underwent thoracoabdominal aortic replacement (TAAR) with a mean age of (41.00 ± 11.18) years (23-66 years). In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the recorded data of 62 patients. In addition, we summarized and analyzed their Computed Tomographic Angiography (CTA) results and perioperative complications.

Outcome

In the EVAR group, 47 patients (95.92%) were successfully implanted with overlapping stents, and 2 patients died in the perioperative period. Postoperative complications included cerebral infarction (4.08%), acute renal insufficiency (30.61%), pulmonary insufficiency and need for ventilator (6.12%), poor wound healing (2.04%), postoperative reoperation (16.33%), and lower limb ischemia (2.04%). In the TAAR group, 12 patients (92.31%) were successfully revascularized and 1 patient died in the perioperative period. Postoperative complications included cerebral infarction (7.69%), acute kidney injury (46.15%), pulmonary insufficiency and need for ventilator (15.38%), poor wound healing (30.77%) and postoperative reoperation (15.38%).

Conclusion

According to the results of the study, compared with TAAR, EVAR was less invasive, faster recovery, and offered a better choice for some high-risk and high-age patients with comorbid underlying diseases. However, the rate of revascularization was higher after EVAR than TAAR due to vascular lesions. Compared with the use of ascending aortic replacement + hemi-aortic arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection in many countries and regions, the use of ascending aortic replacement + aortic arch replacement + elephant trunk stent is more traumatic in China, but facilitates reoperation. For young patients, the choice of treatment should be individualized combining vascular lesions and long-term quality of life.

STABILISE (Stent-Assisted Balloon-Induced Intimal Disruption and Relamination in Aortic Dissection Repair) Is Associated With Good Anatomical Results on the Distal Thoracoabdominal Aorta at 2 Years

PURPOSE

The aim of this comparative study was to evaluate the increased aortic diameter of the distal aorta after implementing the STABILISE technique in complicated type B aortic dissection (AD).

DESIGN

This is a comparative monocentric retrospective study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent an STABILISE procedure for complicated AD between 2018 and 2020 were included and compared with a historic cohort treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) alone. Aortic diameters were measured at 6 different levels on the thoracic and abdominal aorta. The primary end point was an increased aortic diameter at 1 and 2 years. The exclusion criterion was the absence of a computed tomography (CT) scan at 1 or 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included: 24 in the TEVAR group and 31 in the STABILISE group. At the level of the stent graft, there was a decrease in aortic diameters in both groups without significant differences. At the level of the distal aorta, there was an increase in aortic diameters in both groups without significant differences. There were significantly more patients in the TEVAR group with an unfavorable increase in aortic diameter >5 mm of the distal aorta at 2 years than in the STABILISE group: 8 (33%) vs 1 (3%) (p=0.01). For chronic ADs, a significantly greater increase in aortic diameters of the distal aorta was observed in the STABILISE group.

CONCLUSIONS

The STABILISE technique is technically feasible and potentially leads to decreased longer re-intervention rates; indeed, more patients had an unfavorable increase in aortic diameter in the TEVAR group than in the STABILISE group at 2 years. The high rate of long-term distal aortic aneurysm progression and reintervention after TEVAR alone suggests that this option is not sufficient to definitively treat these complex patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This article reported the results of stent assisted balloon induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) with a follow-up at 2 years. This is the first comparative study between STABILISE, which has emerged as a new technique inducing aortic remodeling and therefore better long-term outcome, and the standard technique TEVAR alone. STABILISE technique is associated with good results on the distal aorta at 2 years with a rate of patient with unfavorable aortic diameter evolution greater in TEVAR group compared to STABILISE group and could improve the long-term results on the distal aorta by inducing extensive aortic remodeling.

In Vivo Efficacy of an Adhesive Bioresorbable Patch to Treat Aortic Dissections

Endovascular repair of aortic dissection still presents significant limitations. Preserving the mechanical and biological properties set by the aortic microstructure is critical to the success of implantable grafts. In this paper, we present the performance of an adhesive bioresorbable patch designed to cover the entry tear of aortic dissections. We demonstrate the power of using a biomimetic scaffold in a vascular environment.

Reinterventions after TEVAR

Thoracic cardiovascular aortic repair is an alternative procedure to open surgery for degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysm and thoracic aortic dissection. The advancements in graft design and imaging techniques have expanded its utility. However, the long-term patency of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) graft is still a concern. This review delves into the literature on re-intervention following TEVAR, highlighting factors that influence the re-intervention rate.

Race-based outcomes of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study characterizes racial differences in presentation, as well as short- and long-term outcomes after endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

We queried the Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment for thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVARs) performed between 2010 and 2016 and followed through 2022. Pathologies represented were descending TAA, complicated TBAD, and uncomplicated TBAD. Using standard statistical tests, we compared overall and pathology-specific demographics, procedural factors, and outcomes among Black and White patients undergoing TEVAR.

RESULTS

We identified 438 TEVAR cases, including 236 descending TAA, 121 complicated TBAD, and 74 uncomplicated TBAD. Overall, Black patients were younger and had a higher incidence of renal insufficiency (P = .001), whereas White patients had more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .003) and cardiac arrhythmias (P = .037). In patients treated for descending TAA, Black patients had increased device- and procedure-related complications (34.3% vs 17.4%; P = .014), conversion to open repair (2.9% vs 0%; P = .011) and type II endoleak (5.7% vs 1.0%; P = .040), but no differences in mortality, length of hospital stay, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Whereas outcomes of TEVAR for uncomplicated TBAD were comparable, Black patients more frequently presented with complicated TBAD than White patients (Black, 40.5% vs White, 24.8%; P = .008) and had subsequently greater reintervention rates (28.1% vs 12.4%; P = .012), all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-10.5; P = .002) and aortic-related mortality (hazard ratio, 16.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-186; P = .022).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased device- and procedure-related complications, similar short- and long-term outcomes are achieved in Black and White patients undergoing TEVAR for descending TAA and uncomplicated TBAD. However, Black patients are more likely to present with, require reintervention for, and suffer mortality from complicated TBAD.

In Marfan Syndrome and Related Diseases, STABILISE Technique Should Be Used with Care: Results from a Volumetric Comparative Study of Endovascular Treatment for Aortic Dissection

Objectives: Aortic dissection in patients with Marfan and related syndromes (HTAD) is a serious pathology whose treatment by thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to assess the results of the TEVAR for aortic dissection in patients with HTAD as compared to a young population without HTAD. Methods: The study received the proper ethical oversight. We performed an observational exposed (confirmed HTAD) vs. non-exposed (<65 years old) study of TEVAR-treated patients. The preoperative, 1 year, and last available CT scans were analyzed. The thoracic and abdominal aortic diameters, aortic length, and volumes were measured. The entry tears and false lumen (FL) status were assessed. The demographic, clinical, and anatomic data were collected during the follow-up. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, 17 patients were included in the HTAD group and 22 in the non-HTAD group. At 1 year, the whole aortic volume increased by +21.2% in the HTAD group and by +0.2% the non-HTAD groups, p = 0.005. An increase in the whole aortic volume > 10% was observed in ten cases (58.8%) in the HTAD group and in five cases (22.7%) in the non-HTAD group (p = 0.022). FL thrombosis was achieved in nine cases (52.9%) in the HTAD group vs. twenty (90.9%) cases in the non-HTAD group (p < 0.01). The risk factors for unfavorable anatomical evolution were male gender and the STABILISE technique. With a linear model, we observed a significantly different aortic volume evolution between the two groups (p < 0.01) with the STABILISE technique; this statistical difference was not found in the TEVAR subgroup. In the HTAD patients, there was a significant difference in the total aortic volume evolution progression between the patients treated with the STABILISE technique and the patients treated with TEVAR (+160.1 ± 52.3% vs. +47 ± 22.5%, p < 0.01 and +189.5 ± 92.5% vs. +58.6 ± 34.8%, p < 0.01 at 1 year and at the end of follow-up, respectively). Conclusions: TEVAR in the HTAD patients seemed to be associated with poorer anatomical outcomes at 1 year. This result was strongly related to the STABILISE technique which should be considered with care in these specific patients.

The fate of spinal arteries after the stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair technique: a case series

Objective

We evaluated the patency of the spinal arteries (intercostal and lumbar) after the STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients with aortic dissection treated with the STABILISE technique between April 2018 and July 2021 was performed. Imaging analysis of the spinal cord vascular supply was accomplished using multiplanar and maximum intensity projection reconstructed images of pre- and postoperative computed tomography angiograms at 1 month, 12 months, and annually thereafter.

Results

Twelve patients were treated for complicated aortic dissection. Primary technical success was 100% and mid-term clinical success, at a mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months, was 90%. No cases of spinal cord ischemia were identified. One patient died after 1 year (non-aortic related), and one patient was lost to follow-up. A significant decrease was found in the mean number of patent spinal arteries in the stent graft area at 1 month (P < .001), 1 year (P < .001), and 2 years (P = .004). However, no significant reduction was found in the number of spinal arteries in either the bare metal stented or nonstented aorta (P > .05).

Conclusions

Use of the STABILISE technique decreased intercostal artery patency in the thoracic stent graft area, but spinal artery patency was not significantly affected by the bare metal stent nor its aggressive ballooning. These findings constitute a step toward a better understanding of the safety of this technique.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with low incidence but high mortality. The objective of this study is to report the incidence, mortality, potential risk factors, clinical manifestation and diagnostic modalities, and medical and surgical treatments.

METHODS

A systematic review and single-arm and two-arm meta-analyses evaluated all published reports of RTAD post-TEVAR through January 2021. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. Outcomes of interest were procedural data (implanted stent-grafts type, and proximal stent-graft oversizing), the incidence of RTAD, associated mortality rate, clinical manifestations, diagnostic workouts and therapeutic management.

RESULTS

RTAD occurred in 285 out of 10,600 patients: an estimated RTAD incidence of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.9-2.8); incidence of early RTAD was approximately 1.8 times higher than late. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing showed that the proportion of RTAD patients with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) was significantly higher than those with chronic TBAD (P = .008). Pooled meta-analysis showed that the incidence of RTAD with proximal bare stent TEVAR was 2.1-fold higher than with non-bare stents: risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.87-2.75; P = .13). Single arm meta-analysis estimated a mortality rate of 42.2% (95% CI: 32.5-51.8), with an I2 heterogeneity of 70.11% (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

RTAD is rare after TEVAR but with high mortality, especially in the first month post-TEVAR with acute TBAD patients at greater risk as well as those treated with proximal bare stent endografts.

Prediction of preoperative in-hospital mortality rate in patients with acute aortic dissection by machine learning: a two-centre, retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a comprehensive analysis of demographic information, medical history, and blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) variability during hospitalisation so as to establish a predictive model for preoperative in-hospital mortality of patients with acute aortic dissection (AD) by using machine learning techniques.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Data were collected from the electronic records and the databases of Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine and the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University between 2004 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

380 inpatients diagnosed with acute AD were included in the study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Preoperative in-hospital mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients (14.47%) died in the hospital before surgery. The results of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, decision curve analysis and calibration curves indicated that the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model had the highest accuracy and robustness. According to the SHapley Additive exPlanations analysis of the XGBoost model, Stanford type A, maximum aortic diameter >5.5 cm, high variability in HR, high variability in diastolic BP and involvement of the aortic arch had the greatest impact on the occurrence of in-hospital deaths before surgery. Moreover, the predictive model can accurately predict the preoperative in-hospital mortality rate at the individual level.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, we successfully constructed machine learning models to predict the preoperative in-hospital mortality of patients with acute AD, which can help identify high-risk patients and optimise the clinical decision-making. Further applications in clinical practice require the validation of these models using a large-sample, prospective database.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900025818.

Reintervention after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Data are scarce regarding the incidence, reasons, potential risk factors, and long-term outcomes of reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2020, 238 patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical baseline data, aorta anatomy, dissection characteristics, and details of the TEVAR procedure were evaluated and compared. A competing-risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative incidences of reintervention. The multivariate Cox model was used to identify the independent risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 68.6 months. A total of 27 (11.3%) cases of reintervention were observed. The competing-risk analyses showed that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidences of reintervention were 5.07%, 7.08%, and 14.0%, respectively. Reasons for reintervention included endoleak (25.9%), aneurysmal dilation (22.2%), retrograde type A aortic dissection (18.5%), distal stent-graft-induced new entry and false lumen expansion (18.5%), and dissection progression and/or malperfusion (14.8%). Multivariable Cox analysis demonstrated that a larger initial maximal aortic diameter (Hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% Confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.69, p = 0.011) and increased proximal landing zone oversizing (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47, p = 0.033) were the significant risk factors for reintervention. Long-term survival rates were comparable between patients with or without reintervention (p = 0.915).

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention after TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD is not uncommon. A larger initial maximal aortic diameter and excessive proximal landing zone oversizing are associated with the second intervention. Reintervention does not significantly affect long-term survival.

Peripheral Eosinophil Count Is Associated With the Prognosis of Patients With Type B Aortic Dissection Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background Eosinophil count (EOS) has been proposed to provide prognostic information in multiple cardiovascular disorders. However, few researchers have investigated the predictive value of EOS for patients with type B aortic dissection who had thoracic endovascular repair. Methods and Results The authors reviewed the records of 912 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated with thoracic endovascular repair in Changhai Hospital, Shanghai. By using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups based on the admission EOS cutoff value (<7.4×10⁶/L [n=505] and ≥7.4×10⁶/L [n=407]). To reduce selection bias, propensity score matching was applied. Multivariable regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to assess the association between EOS and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we investigated nonlinear correlations between EOS and outcomes using general additive models with restricted cubic splines. In the matched population, lower EOS was associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.1% vs 0%, P=0.007). There was no statistically difference in 30-day adverse events between the 2 groups (all P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with an EOS <7.4×10⁶/L had a higher incidence of 1-year all-cause death (7.95% vs. 2.34%, P=0.008) and aortic-related death (5.98% vs 1.81%, P=0.023) than those with higher EOS. Multivariable Cox analysis showed that continuous EOS was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.20-8.33], P=0.019). In addition, we discovered a nonlinear association between EOS and 1-year outcomes. Conclusions Lower admission EOS values predict higher short- and long-term mortality after thoracic endovascular repair.

STABILISE; treatment of aortic dissection, a single Centre experience

Purpose

To outline the process of the STABILISE technique and its use; reporting patient outcomes and midterm follow up for complicated aortic dissection.

Materials and methods

Single centre retrospective analysis from January 2011 to January 2021 using the STABILISE technique which utilises balloon assistance to facilitate intimal disruption and promote aortic relamination.

Results

Sixteen patients underwent endovascular aortic repair with the STABILISE technique for aortic dissection over the study period. Fourteen patients (14/16; 88%) had acute dissection. Two of 16 (12%) were chronic. The median age of the patient cohort was 61 years (range 32–80 years) and consisted of a male majority (n = 11; 69%). The median time from diagnosis to intervention was 5 days (1–115 days; IQR 1–17.3). More than half (56%) had surgical repair of a acute type A aortic dissection prior to radiological intervention. The procedure was technically successful with no procedural mortality. Two patients were lost to follow up and two died in the post-operative period. Twelve patients had ongoing follow up with an average number of 2.9 ± 1.6 scans performed. Follow up was available in thirteen patients (81%) with a median follow up period of 1097 days (IQR 707–1657). The rate of re-intervention (n = 2/16; 13%) requiring additional stenting was in line with published re-intervention data (15%). Follow up showed a reduction in false lumen size following treatment with total luminal dimensions remaining stable over the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The STABILISE technique as a procedure for complicated aortic dissection, either acute or chronic, appears safe with stable mid-term aortic remodelling and patient outcomes.

Level of evidence

Level 3, Retrospective cohort study.

Endovascular repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection-systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term survival and reintervention

Background

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is considered the first-line therapy in the repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (AC-BAD). Given the difficulty of designing randomized trials in this surgical cohort, long-term outcome data is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a complete aggregation of reported long-term survival and freedom from reintervention of AC-BAD patients based on the existing literature.

Methods

Three databases were searched from date of database inception to January 2021. The relevant references were identified and baseline cohort characteristics, survival and freedom from reintervention were extracted. The primary endpoints were survival and freedom from reintervention, whilst secondary endpoints were post-operative outcomes such as cord ischemia and endoleak. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized and aggregated as per established procedure.

Results

A total of 2,812 references were identified in the literature search for review, with 46 selected for inclusion. A total of 2,565 patients were identified, of which 1,920 (75%) were male. The mean age of the cohort was 59.8±5.8. Actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 10 years was 87.5%, 83.2%, 78.5% and 69.7%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years was 74.7%, 69.1%, 65.7%, 63.9% and 60.9%, respectively. When accounting for study quality, actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 85.4%, 79.1%, 69.8% and 63.1%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 73.2%, 67.6%, 63.7% (maintained), respectively.

Conclusions

TEVAR is associated with promising long-term survival extended to 10 years, though rates of freedom from reintervention remain an ongoing point for improvement. Randomized controlled trials comparing endovascular with open repair in the setting of acute, complicated type B aortic dissection are needed.

Aortic-related Readmission after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection Patients: A Single-center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of and risk factors for aortic-related readmission after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Data from TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR from 2009-2018 at a Chinese tertiary center were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups according to whether aortic-related readmission occurred during follow-up, which was defined as hospitalization at least once after the initial procedure due to events that were related to or caused by aortic dissection or the initial procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 1 288 TBAD patients were enrolled, and 99 patients experienced aortic-related readmissions (7.7%), among whom chronic patients had the highest readmission rate (9.8%). The yearly proportion of readmission during the first year after initial procedure revealed a decreasing trend with a -9.7% annual percentage change. Seventy-one patients underwent reintervention (71.7%). Distal aneurysmal degeneration (43.7%) and distal stent graft-induced new entries (32.4%) were two major causes for reintervention. Fourteen patients in the reintervention subgroup underwent a second reintervention (19.7%). In-hospital mortality was 1.0% during the readmission and 14.3% during the second readmission. The overall survival was comparable between two groups (p=.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the importance of surveillance after initial procedure for TBAD patients with potential risk factors for aortic-related readmission, and the predisposition of patients with reintervention to multiple readmissions deserves attention.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgery for Ruptured Descending Thoracic Aorta

OBJECTIVE

The comparisons between thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aorta (TEVAR) and open surgery (OS) have not been well documented, although both procedures have been widely utilized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and safety between TEVAR and OS in the repair of ruptured descending thoracic aorta.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find relevant studies to assess TEVAR and OS outcomes. The comparative parameters were perioperative mortality (30 day/in-hospital), 1 year mortality, paraplegia or paraparesis, renal insufficiency, stroke, pulmonary embolism, re-intervention rate, pulmonary complications, and cardiac complications. A fixed-effects model was applied to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on pooled outcomes from different studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen observational trials involving 2088 patients were evaluated (TEVAR=560; OS=1528). Meta-analysis showed that TEVAR in repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta was associated with lower perioperative mortality (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.66; p<0.01), 1 year mortality (OR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.75; p<0.01), renal insufficiency incidence (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p=0.03), and pulmonary complications (OR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; p=0.01) when compared with OS. There was no significant difference between TEVAR and OS in terms of paraplegia, stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications, and early re-intervention rates. However, the late re-intervention rate was higher in the TEVAR group than that in the OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

When repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR may be performed rapidly and safely. TEVAR is associated with lower rates of perioperative morbidity and early postoperative complications than OS.

Secondary Interventions After TEVAR for Aortic Dissection

The goal of thoracic endograft placement in type B aortic dissection is to prevent aneurysmal degeneration and other complications. Although TEVAR is a highly effective tool for managing type B aortic dissection, many patients will require additional interventions. In this article, we present a case-based review of techniques for the management of persistent false lumen perfusion and stent-graft induced new entry tears after TEVAR for aortic dissection.

Predicting reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection using machine learning

OBJECTIVES

To construct models for predicting reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

A total of 192 TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR were included; 68 (35.4%) had indications for reintervention. Clinical characteristics, aorta characteristics on pre- and postoperative computed tomography angiography, and aorta characteristics on immediate postoperative aortic digital subtraction angiography were collected. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was applied to identify the risk factors for reintervention. Eight classifiers were used for modeling. The models were trained on 100 train-validation random splits with a ratio of 2:1. The performance was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Seven predictors of reintervention were identified, including maximum false lumen diameter, aortic diameter measured at the level of approximately 15 mm distal to the left subclavian artery, aortic diameter measured at the level of the diaphragm, false lumen diameter measured at the level of the celiac artery, number of bare-metal and covered stents, number of bare-metal stents, and residual perfusion of the false lumen. Logistic regression (LR) yielded the highest performance, with an area under the curve of 0.802. A nomogram built for clinical use showed good calibration. The cutoff value for dividing patients into low- and high-risk subgroups was 0.413. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the overall survival of high-risk patients was significantly shorter than that of low-risk patients (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram could predict the reintervention after TEVAR in patients with TBAD, which may facilitate patient selection and surveillance strategies.

KEY POINTS

• Seven risk factors of reintervention after TEVAR of TBAD were identified for modeling. • Logistic regression performed best in predicting reintervention with an AUC of 0.802. • Patients with a high risk of reintervention had shorter OS than those with a low risk.

Adjunctive branch interventions during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute complicated type B dissection are not associated with inferior outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been shown to effectively treat malperfusion associated with acute type B thoracic aortic dissection (TBAD). A subset of patients might still require adjunctive peripheral or visceral artery branch interventions during TEVAR to remedy persistent end organ malperfusion. Our objectives were to determine the incidence of these adjunctive interventions and to compare the outcomes between patients who had and had not undergone such interventions.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the TEVAR and complex EVAR module of the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2019 to identify all patients treated for malperfusion due to acute TBAD. The anatomic branch and procedure performed at TEVAR were recorded. The 30-day mortality, need for reintervention, complication rates, and overall survival were compared between these patients stratified by adjunctive intervention status.

RESULTS

A total of 426 patients had undergone TEVAR for acute TBAD with end organ malperfusion. Of the 426 patients, 126 (29.6%) had undergone 182 adjunctive branch interventions during TEVAR. The most common interventions were stenting (n = 86; 47.3%) and stent grafting (n = 49; 26.9%), with the most common site being the left renal artery (n = 49; 26.9%). The patients in both groups had similar 30-day mortality (12.4% with branch intervention vs 15.6% without; P = .511) and rates of in-hospital reintervention (19.2% with branch intervention vs 20.7% without; P = .732). No differences were found in the rates of postoperative complications or overall survival at 3 years between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive peripheral and visceral artery branch interventions in conjunction with TEVAR for acute TBAD with malperfusion occurred in one third of index cases, but did not predispose patients to worse overall outcomes. Adjunctive arterial branch interventions should be included in the treatment paradigm for acute TBAD with end organ malperfusion that does not improve with primary entry tear coverage alone.

Hybrid two-stage repair of Stanford A dissection with visceral or peripheral malperfusion

Background

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of two-stage hybrid aortic repair at the distal aorta of Stanford A dissection with malperfusion.

Methods

This retrospective case series included 20 patients with Stanford A dissection administered two-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) about 1 month after central repair because of visceral or limb malperfusion. The patients were examined by computed tomography (CT) angiography at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after operation. Recovery of malperfusion and true lumen index were evaluated during follow-up.

Results

Twenty patients underwent two-stage hybrid aortic repair, including 11 males and 9 females. The follow-up time was 24 ± 7 months. No intervention-related complications were observed, including stent graft-induced new re-entry tears, death, stroke and spinal cord injury. Malperfusion in all cases was corrected. The true lumen was not enlarged enough 1 month after the first surgery. Thrombosis of the false lumen was observed around the elephant trunk at the carina level and the celiac artery. Three months after second stage TEVAR, the false lumen thrombosis was resorbed; in addition, the trunk was fully expanded at the carina level, and the true lumen was enlarged at the celiac artery.

Conclusions

Two-stage hybrid aortic repair for residual true lumen in the distal aorta 1 month after initial surgery is helpful for descending aorta remodeling and effective in treating malperfusion. This procedure may be a good option for patients suffering from Stanford A dissection with small true lumen in the distal aorta and malperfusion.

Twelve-Month Computed Tomography Follow-Up after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Acute Complicated Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

To explore the impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on aortic remodeling (AR) and the relationship between AR and complications after TEVAR.

METHODS

A total of 56 patients (2 type IIIA aortic dissection [AD] and 54 type IIIB AD) with complicated acute type B aortic dissection suitable for TEVAR were prospectively enrolled. There were 44 men (78%) and 12 women (22%) with an average age of 54 ± 13.8 years. Aortic enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed pre-TEVAR and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The morphological changes in AR, namely aortic volume and false lumen thrombosis, were obtained by analyzing the CT data. The effect of TEVAR on AR was determined by the morphological changes in the aorta. The relationship between AR index, false lumen thrombosis, and complications was analyzed.

RESULTS

The volume of the thoracic aortic true lumen gradually increased post-TEVAR, whereas the volume of the thoracic aortic false lumen gradually decreased. The volume of abdominal aortic total lumen and false lumen increased 6 months postoperatively. The AR index increased significantly 3 months postoperatively, which was negatively correlated with complications and mortality. The thoracic and abdominal aortic false lumen thrombosis developed gradually after TEVAR, and the degree of thoracic aortic false lumen thrombosis was negatively correlated with complications and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR promotes AR. AR index and the degree of thoracic aortic false lumen thrombosis can serve as predictors of complications and mortality.

Improved Remodeling With TEVAR and Distal Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Complicated Type B Dissection

BACKGROUND

The ASSIST (A multicentre Study in Survivors of type B aortic dissection undergoing Stenting) study compared both 1-year outcomes and evolution of true and false lumen (eg, remodeling) in patients with complicated type B aortic dissection subjected to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with distal true lumen scaffolding by self-expanding nitinol open stent in comparison with TEVAR alone.

METHODS

The ASSIST study was a multicenter prospective single-arm study comparing clinical and imaging data from 39 consecutive patients (59.4 ± 13 years of age) who received TEVAR and the JOTEC E-XL open stent with data from matched control subjects treated with TEVAR alone based on 1:1 propensity score matching. Clinical data were collected by an independent Contract Research Organization (CRO) and computed tomography images were subjected to blinded core-lab analysis.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline demographics, clinical profiles, morphological data, procedural details, and in-hospital and 1-year outcomes between groups. Differences emerged with regard to evolution of both true lumen distal to stent graft, false lumen over the entire length of dissection, and remodeling (P < .001). At 1 year, TEVAR with the E-XL stent revealed false lumen thrombosis at the level of celiac trunk in 53.8% vs 17.9% with TEVAR alone (P = .004). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated favorable clinical outcomes with the additional E-XL stent.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR for acute complicated type B aortic dissection proved to be safe and promoted remodeling of the stent grafted thoracic aorta. Additional scaffolding of the true lumen distal to TEVAR with a self-expanding stent supported distal true lumen expansion, false lumen regression, and thrombosis, with evidence of improved distal remodeling at 1 year.

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.

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.

Risk Factors Associated With Reintervention After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Descending Aortic Pathologies

BACKGROUND:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with several short-term benefits, including reduced morbidity and mortality; however, the long-term durability of TEVAR and the need for secondary aortic reintervention remain unclear. We aimed to determine the adverse outcomes, including aortic reintervention, after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection.

METHODS:

Between October 2009 and July 2016, 130 patients underwent TEVAR at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We excluded 35 patients with traumatic injury and included the remaining 95 patients in our study after TEVAR. The patients included in this study were categorized into 2 groups (reintervention [R] and nonintervention [N] groups) according to the need for reintervention. The mean follow-up period for all 95 patients was 22.4 (20.6) months.

RESULTS:

The overall actuarial survival rates were 83.7% (4.1%) and 63.6% (8.8%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from aortic reintervention after TEVAR were 94.0% (3.5%), 72.8% (8.2%), and 48.9% (10.5%) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The independent risk factors for aortic reintervention were endoleaks after TEVAR (odds ratio [OR] 6.13, P = .017), increase in aortic size by over 5% per year (OR 20.40, P = .001), and peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; OR 13.62, P = .007). Patients with preoperative hemoptysis tended to show a greater need for aortic reintervention ( P = .059). Increase in aortic size by over 5% per year and PVOD were the primary risk factors for endoleaks (OR 3.82, P = .013 and OR 4.37, P = .021, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Survival after TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathologies was satisfactory in most of the patients chosen as candidates for the procedure. However, the occurrence of endoleaks, increase in aortic size by over 5% per year, and PVOD were the primary causes of aortic reintervention.

Long-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Open Repair for Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury

IMPORTANCE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been adopted rapidly for treating traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TAI). The long-term durability and efficacy remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and those of open repair (OR) for traumatic TAI.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

This nationwide cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database to evaluate patients with traumatic TAI between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. This single-payer National Health Insurance program covered more than 99.9% of the Taiwanese population. Those who received OR or TEVAR for TAI by propensity score matching were included. Data analysis was conducted in October 2017.

EXPOSURES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair vs open repair.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

In-hospital outcomes, all-cause mortality, aorta reintervention, and stroke during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 287 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.66 [17.98] years; 80.5% male) who received OR or TEVAR for TAI, propensity score matching yielded 100 patients each in the OR and TEVAR groups. After propensity score matching, in-hospital mortality risk was significantly lower in the TEVAR group (9 [9.0%]) than in the OR group (27 [27.0%]; TEVAR vs open repair: odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.60). With a mean (SD) follow-up of 2.80 (2.63) years, the proportion of survivors was 71.9% at 1 year, 70.8% at 2 years, 68.2% at 3 years, and 65.1% at 5 years in the OR group vs 88.9% at 1 year, 88.9% at 2 years, 88.9% at 3 years, and 88.9% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P < .001). The TEVAR group had only 2 events (2%) of late reintervention and 1 event (1%) of late cerebrovascular accident. The proportion of freedom from reintervention was 100% at 1 year, 100% at 2 years, 100% at 3 years, and 100% at 5 years in the OR group vs 97.4% at 1 year, 97.4% at 2 years, 97.4% at 3 years, and 97.4% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P = .18).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Compared with OR, TEVAR was associated with better long-term outcomes, mainly owing to lower mortality during the perioperative period. In addition, TEVAR was associated with a similar rate of survival and reintervention after hospital discharge.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival.

METHODS

All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors.

RESULTS

TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI.

CONCLUSIONS

SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Validated Computational Model to Compute Re-apposition Pressures for Treating Type-B Aortic Dissections

The use of endovascular treatment in the thoracic aorta has revolutionized the clinical approach for treating Stanford type B aortic dissection. The endograft procedure is a minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgery for the management of complicated type-B patients. The endograft is first deployed to exclude the proximal entry tear to redirect blood flow toward the true lumen and then a stent graft is used to push the intimal flap against the false lumen (FL) wall such that the aorta is reconstituted by sealing the FL. Although endovascular treatment has reduced the mortality rate in patients compared to those undergoing surgical repair, more than 30% of patients who were initially successfully treated require a new endovascular or surgical intervention in the aortic segments distal to the endograft. One reason for failure of the repair is persistent FL perfusion from distal entry tears. This creates a patent FL channel which can be associated with FL growth. Thus, it is necessary to develop stents that can promote full re-apposition of the flap leading to complete closure of the FL. In the current study, we determine the radial pressures required to re-appose the mid and distal ends of a dissected porcine thoracic aorta using a balloon catheter under static inflation pressure. The same analysis is simulated using finite element analysis (FEA) models by incorporating the hyperelastic properties of porcine aortic tissues. It is shown that the FEA models capture the change in the radial pressures required to re-appose the intimal flap as a function of pressure. The predictions from the simulation models match closely the results from the bench experiments. The use of validated computational models can support development of better stents by calculating the proper radial pressures required for complete re-apposition of the intimal flap.

Hypoxia-inducible factor 1a induces phenotype switch of human aortic vascular smooth muscle cell through PI3K/AKT/AEG-1 signaling

To date, hypoxia-inducible factor 1a (HIF-1a) and astrocyte elevated gene-1 (AEG-1) have been involved in the proliferation, migration and morphological changes of vascular smooth muscle cells. However, the potential relationship of HIF-1a-AEG-1 pathway in human aortic smooth muscle cell (HASMC) has not been reported. In the present study, in-vitro assays were utilized to explore the potential impact of HIF-1a-AEG-1 signaling on HASMC phenotype. Here, we found that HIF-1a expression was up-regulated in the media of thoracic aortic dissection tissues as compared with normal aortic tissues, and was associated with increased apoptotic SMCs and decreased AEG-1 expression. Mechanically, hypoxia promoted the expression of HIF-1a by PI3K-AKT pathway in HASMCs; HIF-1a further suppressed the expressions of AEG-1, a-SMA and SM22a, and promoted osteopontin (OPN) expression. Functionally, HIF-1a inhibited the proliferation and migration of HASMCs. However, si-HIF-1a or Akt inhibitor abrogated HIF-1a-mediated related expressions and biological effects above. In conclusion, HIF-1a induces HASMC phenotype switch, and closely related to PI3K/AKT and AEG-1 signaling, which may provide new avenues for the prevention and treatment of aortic dissection diseases.

Result of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients with Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bleeding from the thoracic aorta is potentially fatal in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was recently applied for aortic invasion by esophageal cancer. However, only a few case reports have been published. This study was performed to clarify the effectiveness and safety of TEVAR for patients with advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 18 patients who underwent TEVAR for esophageal cancer. We also performed a literature search and reviewed 21 similar cases.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2016, 10 patients were treated on an emergent basis for aortic hemorrhage (salvage group) and 8 patients underwent urgent prophylactic surgery (prophylactic group). Hemostasis was achieved in all cases. One (10%) patient in the salvage group died of aspiration pneumonia on postoperative day 1, while all patients in the prophylactic group survived for >1 month. The median survival period in the salvage and prophylactic group was 3.25 and 11.10 months, respectively. The longest survivor was still alive 9 years after TEVAR and chemoradiotherapy. No fatal adverse events or negative impacts on subsequent treatment for esophageal cancer occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is feasible, safe, and effective in preventing fatal aortic hemorrhage secondary to esophageal cancer invasion, although it is palliative in most cases. Because the outcomes of emergent TEVAR after bleeding tended to be worse in the salvage than in prophylactic group, prophylactic TEVAR may be considered a viable treatment option for patients with aortic invasion by advanced esophageal cancer.