Late open conversion after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Anterolateral thoracotomy with partial sternotomy: a feasible approach for treating the complex pathology of the aortic arch

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to review our surgical experiences in patients with complex pathologies of the aortic arch who have undergone anterolateral thoracotomy with a partial sternotomy (ALPS).

METHODS

From October 2019 to November 2023, a total of 23 patients underwent one-stage repairs of complex pathologies of the aortic arch through the ALPS approach. The mean age was 61.9 ± 16.7 years old. The aortic pathologies were as follows: aorta-related infection in 11 (aorto-oesophageal fistula: 4, graft infection: 6, native aortic infection: 1); aortic dissection in 9 including shaggy aorta in 2, non-dissecting aneurysm in 1, and coarctation of the aorta (CoA) in 2.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients underwent aortic replacement from either the sinotubular junction or the ascending aorta to the descending aorta; 1 patient underwent it from the aortic root to the descending aorta (redo Bentall procedure and extensive aortic arch replacement); 3 patients underwent it from the aortic arch between the left carotid artery and left subclavian artery to the descending aorta; and 1 patient underwent a descending aortic replacement. Ten patients underwent omentopexy, latissimus dorsi muscle flap installation or both procedures. The hospital mortality rate was 13.0% (3/23). The overall survival and freedom from aortic events were 73.3%±10.2% and 74.1%±10.2%, respectively, at the 3-year follow-up. There was an absence of aorta-related deaths, and no recurrent infections were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes using the ALPS approach for the treatment of complex pathologies of the aortic arch were acceptable. Further studies will be required to determine the long-term results.

Outcomes of Endovascular Treatment for Infective Aortic Aneurysms - A Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In Taiwan, infective native aortic aneurysms (INAAs) are relatively common, so the aim of present study was to demonstrate the comparative outcomes of endovascular repair for thoracic and abdominal INAAs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with naïve thoracic or abdominal INAAs managed with endovascular repair between 2001 and 2018 were included in this multicenter retrospective cohort. The confounding factors were adjusted with propensity score (PS). Of the 39 thoracic and 43 abdominal INAA cases, 41 (50%) presented with aneurysmal rupture, most of which were at the infrarenal abdominal (n=35, 42.7%) or descending thoracic aorta (n=25, 30.5%). Salmonella spp. was the most frequently isolated pathogen. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 18.3%. The risks of in-hospital death and death due to rupture were significantly lower with thoracic INAAs (12.8% vs. 23.3%; PS-adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.96; 0.1% vs. 9.3%; PS-adjusted OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.90). During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher with thoracic INAAs (35.3% vs. 15.2%; PS-adjusted HR 6.90, 95% CI 1.69-28.19). Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was associated with death.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with thoracic INAAs, endovascular repair of abdominal INAAs was associated with a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate. However, long-term outcomes were worse for thoracic INAAs, with CKD and infections being the most important predictor and cause of death, respectively.

Open vs. endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: tale of the tape

Open surgical repair persists as the gold-standard operation for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm; however, endovascular repair has become commonplace. Technical considerations in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm treatment are particularly complex, insofar as it involves critical branching arteries feeding the visceral organs. Newer, low-profile devices make total endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair more feasible and, thus, appealing. For younger and low-risk patients, the choice between open and endovascular therapy remains controversial. Despite the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, data suggest that endovascular aortic repair incurs a greater risk of spinal cord deficit, and the durability of endovascular aortic repair remains unclear. It is difficult to compare outcomes between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, primarily because of the current investigational status of endovascular devices, the variety of approaches to endovascular repair, differing patient populations, lack of prospective randomized studies, and minimal medium- and long-tern follow-up data on endovascular repair. When deciding between open and endovascular approaches, one should consider which is more suitable for each patient. Older patients generally benefit from a less invasive approach. Open repair should be considered for young patients and those with heritable thoracic aortic disease. Infection and fistulae are best treated by open repair, although endovascular intervention as a lifesaving bridge to definitive repair has evolved to become a critical component of initial treatment. It is crucial to have technical expertise in both open and endovascular procedures to provide the best aortic repair for the patient. This may require dedicated aortic programs at tertiary institutions.

Survival and cause of death after aortic arch aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify differences in prognosis, causes of death, and outcomes between open and endovascular repair for aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the survival status and causes of death determined from the medical records of 124 consecutive elderly patients (age>70 years) with aortic arch aneurysms that were treated between 2010 and 2018 at our hospital. Forty patients (male, N.=30; mean age, 76 years) underwent open repair and 84 (male, N.=68; mean age, 78 years) underwent endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Early postoperative complications (10.0% vs. 6.3%; P=0.4) and rates of in-hospital death (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P=0.2) did not significantly differ between open and endovascular repair. Cumulative long-term and event free survival rates at eight years were similar in both groups (78.7% vs. 66.3%, P=0.1 and 66.6% vs. 58.4%; P=0.4, respectively). The causes of death at follow-up after endovascular repair comprised malignancies in 11 (52.4%) patients and cardiopulmonary and cerebral events unrelated to aortic aneurysms in 10 (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late outcomes did not statistically differ after both procedures. However, the prevalence of cancer-related death occurring late after arch repair was significantly higher after endovascular repair. The most important observation from this series was that significantly more patients died of malignant disease during follow-up after endovascular repair than open repair.

Descending thoracic endovascular aortic repair does not require cardiothoracic surgery support

Objective

Descending thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (D-TEVAR) is often performed by vascular surgeons. At many institutions, cardiothoracic surgery support is required for an elective TEVAR to take place. Oftentimes, this means a dedicated cardiopulmonary bypass team must be available. This study aims to investigate that TEVAR is a safe procedure that does not require such a resource-intensive “back-up plan.”

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of data collected from March 2014 to January 2018 of 18 patients who underwent TEVAR at a tertiary care facility with a level I trauma center. There were 11 males and 7 females with an average age of 68.8 years old (range 19–97; SD ± 19.52). The average body mass index (BMI) was 24.7 kg/m2 (range 16.8–35; SD ±4.67). Nine were never smokers, four were former smokers, and five were currently smoking at the time of the procedure. The most common presenting symptom prior to intervention was chest pain ( n = 10), followed by cough/dyspnea ( n = 5), back pain ( n = 3), and trauma ( n = 2).

Results

The average maximum diameter of the thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) treated with TEVAR was 5.49 cm ( n = 7; range 4.3–6.7; SD ± 0.855). Six patients had Stanford Type B aortic dissections. Two patients with TAAs had concomitant, rapidly expanding aortic ulcers. Two patients had traumatic pseudoaneurysms, one of which ruptured prior to TEVAR. One patient had an expanding 1.9 × 1.8 cm saccular pseudoaneurysm of the aortic arch. The mean follow-up time was 69.2 weeks ( n = 17; range 3–166; SD ± 62.67), and one patient did not follow up following their initial TEVAR procedure. Of the 18 patients who received TEVAR, there were no major complications. Two patients experienced a type II endoleak. No patients required conversion to an open procedure, nor did any patients necessitate intervention by cardiothoracic surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass support.

Conclusion

These data suggest that cardiothoracic surgery support is not required for descending thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (D-TEVAR). Further research is warranted on the risk factors associated with open conversion during these procedures.