Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta

Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm: case presentation and review

Descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, similar to other aneurysms, are often incidentally diagnosed in patients with unrelated complaints. Management of these aneurysms is largely dependent on their size and anatomy. Most individuals with asymptomatic descending thoracic aortic aneurysms may be safely managed with cardiovascular risk factor modification until the aneurysm size reaches 6 cm. A subset of individuals, such as those whose descending thoracic aortic aneurysm measures > 6 cm or in cases of rapid growth, should be offered repair, increasingly performed via an endovascular approach. The higher risk of aneurysm rupture in women poses a unique consideration, although to date no gender-specific consensus screening guideline exists for aneurysmal disease of the thoracic aorta.

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: current endovascular perspectives

Thoracoabdominal aneurysms account for roughly 3% of identified aneurysms annually in the United States. Advancements in endovascular techniques and devices have broadened their application to these complex surgical problems. This paper will focus on the current state of endovascular thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair, including specific considerations in patient selection, operative planning, and perioperative complications. Both total endovascular and hybrid options will be considered.

Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose:

Endovascular repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms has become an acceptable surgical option over the past decade. We sought to compare the results of open versus endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TEVAR) in the United States.

Methods:

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried to identify all patients undergoing elective repair of a thoracic aortic aneurysm from 1998 to 2007 in the United States. Patient demographic data, preoperative comorbidities, and postoperative complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed comparing open versus endovascular repair. Multivariate analyses were conducted controlling for preoperative comorbidities including the presence of diabetes mellitus, cardiac, respiratory, and renal comorbidities as well as patient’s age, gender, and ethnicity. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were postoperative neurologic, cardiac, and respiratory complications.

Results:

There were 8967 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 8255 (92%) had an open repair and 712 (8%) had an endovascular repair. The overall mortality was 4.5% (4.6% for open and 3.6% for endovascular). On multivariate analysis, the odds of death were reduced by 46% among patients undergoing endovascular repair when compared to open repair (odds ratio [OR]: 0.54; P = .016). There was also reduced odds of a postoperative neurologic complication (OR: 0.48; P = .015), cardiac complication (OR: 0.24; P < .001), and respiratory complication (OR: 0.38: P = .001) in the endovascular group.

Conclusions:

Nationwide data comparing open and TEVAR in the United States reveal decreased postoperative mortality and a decreased incidence of postoperative neurologic, cardiac, and respiratory complications for TEVAR.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair: update on indications and guidelines

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized thoracic aortic surgery and has increased the options available to the aortic specialist in treating thoracic aortic disease. TEVAR is less invasive, and is associated with a decrease in perioperative morbidity and mortality when compared with open surgical repair. The dramatic expansion of TEVAR activity has necessitated a better definition for the indications, contraindications, and limitations of this new technology. Ideally TEVAR should be performed in specialized aortic centers providing a full range of diagnostic and treatment options, using a multidisciplinary team approach.

Progress in management of malperfusion syndrome from type B dissections

OBJECTIVE

Malperfusion syndrome is a known predictor of poor outcomes in acute type B dissection. We describe our experience with revascularization in the acute setting.

METHODS

Patients undergoing intervention for ischemia complicated acute type B dissection between November 1999 and March 2011 were reviewed. Details of presenting condition, surgical intervention, and postoperative course were collected. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses included survival and freedom from reintervention using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were identified with malperfusion in at least one territory, including spinal cord 7/61 (12%), mesenteric 37/61 (61%), renal 45/61 (73%), and lower extremity 38/61 (62%). Thoracic stent grafts were placed in all patients, and 41% of patients required adjunctive branch vessel stenting. After intervention, resolution of the ischemia was reported in 57/61 (93%) of patients. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 21.3%. The 6-month, 1-year, and 5-year survival was 75% (95% CI, 65%-87%), 71% (95% CI, 61%-84%), and 56% (95% CI, 43%-74%), respectively. The 6-month, 1-year, and 5-year freedom from reintervention was 84% (95% CI, 75%-95%), 76% (95% CI, 65%-90%), and 42% (95% CI, 24%-76%), respectively. Territory of ischemia was not independently associated with mortality, but placement of a stent graft proximal to the subclavian artery was associated with poor outcome hazard ratio 2.91 (95% CI, 1.09-8.11; P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

Malperfusion in any territory at the time of presentation in patients with type B dissections can be treated with endovascular intervention with acceptable outcomes. Opposed to branch vessel intervention alone, increased aortic intervention with regard to proximal coverage may signify more serious disease is associated with worse outcome.