Improved outcomes of endovascular repair of thoracic aortic injuries at higher volume institutions

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed.

RESULTS

We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Current expert-based opinions on endovascular treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injury: A state-of-the-art narrative review on indications, techniques, results, and challenges

INTRODUCTION

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents one of the most devastating scenarios of vascular trauma which warrants prompt recognition with expedited management. Clinical manifestations of BTAI may not be straightforward to detect and may be misdiagnosed. Therefore, diagnosis of BTAI requires a high index of suspicion based on the mechanism of injury along with urgent transfer to centers with appropriate expertise and facilities.

METHODS

We provide an expert-based narrative review on endovascular treatment of BTAI highlighting indications, techniques, results, and challenges.

RESULTS

Multiple imaging modalities can be used including computed tomography angiography, transesophageal echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and intravascular ultrasound. Whilst conservative pharmacological management can be a safe option in low-grade BTAI, thoracic endovascular aortic repair has become the gold-standard strategy in most cases, replacing open surgical repair. Nevertheless, it is important to account for patient demographics particularly age, severity of injury, choice of endograft including its type and size, and endovascular technique including landing zone and left subclavian artery revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, TEVAR in BTAI has been shown to be an efficacious strategy with favorable early outcomes. In contrast, less is known on the long-term clinical outcomes of TEVAR in BTAI. Hence, despite the optimal early technical and clinical success rates, concerns remain about the need for long-term surveillance. The exact timing of follow-up and the integration of different modalities that can also investigate potential downstream cardiovascular effects remain hot topics for future research. Finally, industry should focus on developing more compliant endografts to improve the stiffness mismatch between the endograft and the aorta to optimize results.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury

OBJECTIVE

Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes.

RESULTS

Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Males and females have similar mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury

OBJECTIVE

Prior literature has demonstrated worse outcomes for female patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Also, prior studies in the context of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysms have reported conflicting results regarding sex-related outcomes. Because the influence of sex on the outcomes after TEVAR for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) remains understudied, we evaluated the association between sex and outcomes after TEVAR for BTAI.

METHODS

We identified patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2013 to 2022 and included those who had undergone TEVAR within zones 2 to 5 of the thoracic aorta. Patients with missing information regarding the aortic injury grade (Society for Vascular Surgery aortic injury grading system) were excluded. We performed multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression to determine the influence of sex on the perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 1311 patients, of whom 27% were female. The female patients were significantly older (female, 47 years [interquartile range (IQR), 30-63 years]; male, 38 years [IQR, 28-55 years]; P < .001) with higher rates of comorbidities. Although the female patients had had higher Glasgow coma scale scores (median, 15 [IQR, 11-15]; vs 14 [IQR, 8-15]; P = .028), no differences were found in the aortic injury grade or other coexisting traumatic injuries between the sexes. Apart from the longer procedure duration for the female patients (median, 79 minutes [IQR, 52-119 minutes]; vs 69 minutes [IQR, 48-106 minutes]; P = .008), the procedural characteristics were comparable. After adjustment, no significant association was found between female sex and perioperative mortality (7.1% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.3; P = .34). The male and female patients had had comparable rates of postoperative complications (26% vs 29%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52-1.5]; P = .26) including access-related complications (0.5% vs 0.8%; P=.83). However, females had a significantly higher risk for reintervention during the index admission (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .024). No significant difference was found between the male and female patients with respect to 5-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.35; P = .50).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike the sex-based outcome disparities observed after thoracic aortic aneurysm repair, we found no significant association between sex and perioperative outcomes or long-term mortality after TEVAR for BTAIs. This contrast in the sex-related outcomes after other vascular pathologies might be explained by differences in the pathology, demographics, and anatomic factors in these patients.

Outcomes after concomitant arch replacement at the time of aortic root surgery

Background

Contemporary series of aortic arch replacement at the time of aortic root surgery are limited in number of patients and mostly address hemiarch replacement. We describe outcomes after aortic root and concomitant arch replacement, including total arch replacement.

Methods

This single-institution retrospective review studied 1196 consecutive patients from May 2004 to September 2020 who underwent first-time aortic root replacement. Patients undergoing surgery for endocarditis were excluded (n = 68, 5.7%). Patients undergoing concomitant root and arch replacement were propensity matched with patients undergoing isolated root surgery based on indication, clinical and operative characteristics, demographics, medical history including connective tissue disorders, and urgency. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression modeling were used to assess the primary outcome of all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes of prolonged ventilator use, postoperative blood transfusion, and debilitating stroke, adjusted for patient and operative characteristics.

Results

Among the 1128 patients who underwent aortic root intervention during the study period, 471 (41.8%) underwent concomitant aortic arch replacement. Most underwent hemiarch replacement (n = 411, 87.4%); 59 patients (12.6%) underwent total arch replacement (with elephant trunk: n = 23, 4.9%; without elephant trunk: n = 36, 7.7%). The mean follow-up time was 4.6 years postprocedure. Operative mortality was 2.2%, and total mortality over the entire study period was 9.2%. Propensity matching generated 348 matches (295 concomitant hemiarch, 53 concomitant total arch). Concomitant hemiarch (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.86, P = .99) and total arch replacement (hazard ratio, 1.60, 95% confidence interval, 0.72-3.57, P = .24) were not significantly associated with increased mortality. Rates of stroke were not significantly different among each group: isolated root (n = 11/348, 3.7%), root + hemiarch (n = 17/295, 5.8%), and root + total arch (n = 3/53, 5.7%) replacement (P = .50), nor was the adjusted risk of stroke. Both concomitant arch interventions were associated with prolonged ventilator use and use of postoperative blood transfusions.

Conclusions

Hemiarch and total arch replacement are safe to perform at the time of aortic root intervention, with no significant differences in survival or stroke rates, but increased ventilator and blood product use.