Predicting the need for subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effectiveness of left subclavian artery revascularization compared with non-revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and to summarize the current evidence on its indications.

METHODS

A computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for studies published up to November 2023. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were independently conducted by two reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

RESULTS

In the 76 included studies, left subclavian artery revascularization was associated with reduced risks of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; n = 15,331), spinal cord ischemia (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99; n = 11,995), and arm ischemia (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; n = 8438). No significant reduction in paraplegia (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.21-1.47; n = 1802) or mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12; n = 11,831) was observed. Moreover, the risk of endoleak was comparable in both groups (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.55-2.84; P = .60; n = 793), whereas the risk of reintervention was significantly higher in the revascularization group (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.83; P = .04; n = 272). Both groups had similar risks of major (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.09; P = .08; n = 1113), minor (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-3.45; P = .27; n = 183), renal (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.12-3.06; P = .55; n = 310), and pulmonary (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.16-2.15; P = .42; n = 8083) complications. The most frequent indications for left subclavian artery revascularization were primary prevention of spinal cord ischemia, augmentation of the landing zone, and primary stroke prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair was associated with reduced neurological complications but was not found to impact mortality. The study highlights important indications for revascularization as well as significant predictors of complications, providing a basis for clinical decision-making and future research.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR.

RESULTS

Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Hybrid repair of an innominate artery pseudoaneurysm after blunt traumatic injury in a bovine arch

Innominate artery injury is an uncommon consequence of blunt trauma to the neck due to its protected position behind the thorax. A 38-year-old male presented as a trauma with a right-sided pseudoaneurysm emanating from the distal innominate artery after falling from a three-story building. On imaging, he also had a bovine arch. He underwent hybrid repair with covered stent placement from the common carotid into the innominate artery, carotid-subclavian bypass, and plugging of the subclavian artery. The patient recovered with no cerebral insult, neurological deficits, or rupture. Post-traumatic innominate artery pseudoaneurysms can successfully be repaired via a hybrid surgical approach.

Comparison of surgical and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic aortic endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Left subclavian artery revascularization is associated with less neurologic injury after endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze patients with acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) requiring thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage to determine whether LSA revascularization decreased the risk of neurologic complications.

METHODS

The national Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for all procedures performed between 2014 and 2021. Patients presenting with aortic aneurysms or aortic ruptures were excluded from the analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether their LSA was revascularized (prior to or during TEVAR) or not. Univariate followed by multivariate analysis was used to account for possible confounders and evaluate the association of LSA revascularization with the primary outcome of neurologic injury (stroke or spinal cord ischemia).

RESULTS

Among patients who had TEVAR for aTBAD, 501 patients had the LSA covered. The LSA was revascularized prior to or concomitant with TEVAR in 28% of these patients (n = 139). Average age was 57 years, and 73% (n = 366) were male. Neurologic injury developed in 88 patients (18%). On univariate analysis, patients who had their LSA revascularized were significantly less likely to develop neurologic injury (10% vs 20%; P < .01). This association persisted after accounting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .02). No significant difference was seen when comparing 30-day or 1-year mortality between patients who had LSA revascularization and those who did not. Follow-up averaged 1.9 years (range, 0-8.1 years). Long-term survival did not differ between the two groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with aTBAD who underwent LSA coverage during TEVAR, the addition of a LSA revascularization procedure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of neurological injury including spinal cord ischemia and/or stroke.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION

Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE.

METHODS

We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE.

RESULTS

Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

Mid-term outcomes of left subclavian artery revascularization with Castor stent graft in treatment of type B aortic dissection in left subclavian artery

Background

Here we analyzed mid-term data of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) surgery with Castor single-branched stent graft placement for the management of Stanford type B aortic dissection (STBAD) involving the left subclavian artery (LSA).

Methods

Between April 2014 and February 2019, 32 patients with STBAD involving a Castor single-branched stent graft were included. We analyzed their outcomes, including technical success rate (TSR), surgical duration (SD), presence of ischemia, perioperative complications, LSA patency, and survival rate (SR), using computed tomography angiography and clinical evaluation during mid-term follow-up.

Results

The mean patient age was 54.63 ​± ​12.37 years (range, 36-83 years). The TSR was 96.88% (n ​= ​31/32). The mean SD was 87.44 ​± ​10.89 with a mean contrast volume of 125.31 ​± ​19.30 ​mL. No neurological complications or deaths occurred during the study period. The patients had a mean hospital stay of 7.84 ​± ​3.20 days. At a mean follow-up of 68.78 ​± ​11.26 months, four non-aortic deaths (12.5%) were observed. The LSA patency rate was 100% (n ​= ​28/28). There was only one case of type I endoleak immediately after surgery (3.12%) (type I from LSA). However, none of the patients experienced type II endoleaks, and there were no cases of retrograde type A aortic dissection or stent graft-driven new distal entry. Finally, all patients exhibited good LSA patency.

Conclusion

TEVAR using a Castor single-branched stent graft may be a highly feasible and efficient procedure for the management of STBAD involving the LSA.

Efficacy of left subclavian artery revascularization strategies during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B dissection: A single-center experience of 105 patients

Background

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is necessary to reduce postoperative complications in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection and an insufficient proximal anchoring area. However, the efficacy and safety of different LSA revascularization strategies remain unclear. Here, we compared these strategies to provide a clinical basis for selecting an appropriate LSA revascularization method.

Methods

In this study, we included 105 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated using TEVAR combined with LSA reconstruction in the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from March 2013 to 2020. They were divided into four groups according to the method used for LSA reconstruction, namely, carotid subclavian bypass (CSB; n = 41), chimney graft (CG; n = 29), single-branched stent graft (SBSG; n = 21), and physician-made fenestration (PMF; n = 14) groups. Finally, we collected and analyzed the baseline, perioperative, operative, postoperative, and follow-up data of the patients.

Results

The treatment success rate was 100% in all the groups, and CSB + TEVAR was the most commonly used procedure in emergency settings compared with the other three procedures (P &lt; 0.05). The estimated blood loss, contrast agent volume, fluoroscopic time, operation time, and limb ischemia symptoms during the follow-up were significantly different in the four groups (P &lt; 0.05). Pairwise comparison among groups indicated that the estimated blood loss and operation time in the CSB group were the highest (adjusted P &lt; 0.0083; P &lt; 0.05). The contrast agent volume and fluoroscopy duration were the highest in the SBSG groups, followed by PMF, CG, and CSB groups. The incidence of limb ischemia symptoms was the highest in the PMF group (28.6%) during the follow-up. The incidence of complications (except limb ischemia symptoms) during the perioperative and follow-up periods was similar among the four groups (P &gt; 0.05) The median follow-up time of CSB, CG, SBSG, and PMF groups was significantly different (P &lt; 0.05), and the CSB group had the longest follow-up.

Conclusion

Our single-center experience suggested that the PMF technique increased the risk of limb ischemia symptoms. The other three strategies effectively and safely restored LSA perfusion in patients with type B aortic dissection and had comparable complications. Overall, different LSA revascularization techniques have their advantages and disadvantages.

Comparison of techniques for left subclavian artery preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of both endovascular and surgical revascularization

Background

Currently, the optimal technique to revascularize the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. Our study seeks to characterize early and late clinical results and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endovascular vs. surgical strategies for the preservation of LSA.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library searches were conducted under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses) standards. Only literature published after January 1994 was included. Studies reporting on endovascular revascularization (ER), surgical revascularization (SR) for LSA preservation were included. 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, restenosis rates, and rates of early and late reintervention are measured as outcomes.

Results

A total of 28 studies involving 2,759 patients were reviewed. All articles were retrospective in design. Single-arm analysis found no significant statistical differences in ER vs. SR in terms of 30-day mortality and perioperative complication rates. The mean follow-up time for the ER cohort was 12.9 months and for the SR cohort was 26.6 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed a higher risk of perioperative stroke (4.2%) and endoleaks (14.2%) with the chimney technique compared to the fenestrated and single-branched stent approaches. Analysis of the double-arm studies did not yield statistically significant results.

Conclusion

Both ER and SR are safe and feasible in the preservation of LSA while achieving an adequate proximal landing zone. Among ER strategies, the chimney technique may presents a greater risk of neurological complications and endoleaks, while the single-branched stent grafts demonstrate the lowest complication rate, and the fenestration method for revascularization lies in an intermediate position. Given that the data quality of the included studies were relatively not satisfactory, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to provide convincing evidence for optimal approaches to LSA revascularization in the future.

Endovascular repair of a ruptured, extremely tortuous, descending thoracic aorta aneurysm with aortic coarctation

We have presented a case of a ruptured descending aortic aneurysm that was accompanied by extreme tortuosity and a pseudocoarctation at the level of the ligamentum arteriosum. We performed successful endovascular repair, covering the left subclavian artery, using a transapical-to-femoral artery (through-and-through) guidewire technique to overcome the tortuosity, with the option to perform balloon angioplasty in the case of an increased gradient over the coarctation. In the present case report, we have underlined the role of close collaborations with aortic expertise centers.

Transposition of Anomalous Left Vertebral to Carotid Artery During the Management of Thoracic Aortic Dissections and Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Preservation of antegrade flow to the left vertebral artery is often achieved by transposition or bypass to the left subclavian artery during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). An anomalous left vertebral artery (aLVA) originating directly from the aortic arch is a common arch variant with a reported incidence of 4-6%. In addition, 6-10% of vertebral arteries terminate in a posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA), increasing the risk of stroke if not revascularized. Few series of aLVA to carotid transposition have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent aLVA to carotid transposition for the management of aortic disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all aLVA-carotid transpositions performed for the management of thoracic aortic dissection or aneurysm at a single center from 2018 to 2021 was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative stroke and patency of the transposed aLVA. Secondary outcomes were spinal cord ischemia, postoperative cranial nerve injury (CNI), and Horner's syndrome.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent aLVA to carotid transposition as an adjunct to management of aortic disease during the study period. Most were men (14) and the mean age was 54 (±16 years). The primary indication for aortic repair was dissection in 10, aneurysm in 6, and Kommerell diverticulum in 1. Nine patients underwent zone 2 TEVAR, seven received open total arch repair and there was one attempted total endovascular arch repair which was aborted due to unfavorable anatomy. Twelve transpositions were performed prior to or concomitant with planned aortic repair due to high-risk cerebrovascular anatomy (3 PICA termination, 6 dominant aLVA, 4 intracranial left vertebral artery stenosis), and two were performed postoperatively for treatment of type II endoleak. LVA diameter ranged from 2 - 6mm (mean 3.3 mm). Mean operative time for transposition was 178 (±38) minutes, inclusive of left subclavian artery revascularization and mean estimated blood loss was 169 (±188) mL. No patients experienced 30-day postoperative spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or mortality. There were two cases of postoperative hoarseness, presumably due to recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, both of which resolved within 4 months. There were no cases of Horner's syndrome. At follow-up (mean 306 days [6-714 days]), all transpositions were patent.

CONCLUSIONS

Vertebral-carotid transposition is a safe and effective adjunct in the management of aortic disease with anomalous origin of the LVA.

Covering/Overstenting of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) to treat various thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic lesions: Is revascularization of the left arm a must? (A retrospective cohort study with 12 years of experience to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice and the literature review)

Background: Pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta inwardly extended towards the aortic arch actually shorten the proximal landing zone for aortic prosthesis. This, in turn, worsens the feasibility of the aorta for endovascular therapeutic options of those pathologies. Objective: This work considers the blockage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) through endovascular treatment of the pathologies of the descending aorta as a main work question, which is based on the hypothesis that there is no necessity for primary standard revascularization of the LSA in TEVAR with LSA covering. The researchers have 12 years of experience in treatment of different thoracic aortic lesions. Their experience will also be reviewed in this paper. Design: Retrospective unicenter cohort study in consecutive patients order to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice Material: All the patients who had undergone endovascular, hybrid, or open operative therapy of variant pathologies of descending aorta were included in this study. Methods: Various parameters were investigated, including therapeutic procedures such as i) pure endovascular vs. hybrid; ii) year of therapy; iii) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic status of the patients; iv) variant epidemiological factors (age, sex, risk factors, mortality, and follow up); v) overstenting/blocking of the LSA; vi) complications of applied therapies; vii) further operations/interventions to treat such complications; viii) radiologic aortic measurements (such as lumen extensions, false lumen measurements, distance to the supra-aortic and visceral vessels); and ix) multiple other pathological features. Different statistical parameters were also examined. Survival was analysed by the Kaplan–Meier assessment in the group of whole patients vs. the group of over-stented patients. Here the analysis of variance is performed for the independent parameters for the revascularized patients—not the revascularized patients—who had undergone LSA coverage. For statistical approval, U-test was used. The p-value < 0.05 was considered significantly different. The literature review was achieved by a search in PubMed, Google scholar, Research Gate, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library by using the following terms endovascular, TEVAR, revascularization, stroke, and left-subclavian-artery ischemia. The literature is classified accordingly in relation to the main topic. In fact, the literature undergoes further analysis if it goes with or against our hypothesis. Results: Overall, 112 patients were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference comparing the not-revascularized vs. the revascularized group of patients, considering the consequences on cerebrovascular blood circulation (in particular, n=1 case [4.8 %] vs. no case [0 %]; p=1) or the spinal cord ischemia (n=2 [9.5 %] vs. n=1 [7.1 %]; p=1). As the main result, there was no case of manifest left arm ischemia and deaths (mortality, 0). Survival was in both groups as follows: 22 [95% CI, 14.154–29.904] months vs. 43 [95% CI, 33.655–51.921] months with no significant statistical difference (p>0.05) . The only statistically significant risk factor found was renal insufficiency (p, 0.028), but this too is considered a trend by the urgency of revascularization. Postoperatively, pneumonia showed a trend of higher frequency (p=0.058) in the revascularized cases (n=0 in the not-revascularized vs. n=3 [21.4 %] in the revascularized cases). There was no significant difference in the occurance of postoperative neurovascular complications (such as cerebrovascular accidents, spinal cord ischemia, or left arm ischemia) by comparing the groups of not-revascularized and revascularized patients. Conclusion: The revascularization of the overstented LSA due to TEVAR should be limited to certain indications, including i) the inadequate intracerebral circle of Willis; ii) the predominantly perfused left vertebral artery with inadequate blood perfusion via the right vertebral artery (e.g., by stenosis), iii) anatomic variance such as the left vertebral artery originating directly from the aortic arch (and must be blocked by TEVAR); iv) the need of an adequate left internal thoracic artery for coronary-artery-bypass grafting (CABG); v) the need of patent LSA for the dialysis shunt of the left arm. However, there is no appropriate evidence as yet based on sufficient study results achieved in trials with an advanced design (such as [double-]blind, multicenter randomized study) that appears to be urgently required.

One-year outcome of postoperative stroke and nerve injury after supraclavicular revascularization of the left subclavian artery for proximal landing zone extension in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcome of stroke and nerve injury after supraclavicular revascularization of the left subclavian artery for proximal landing zone extension in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing left-sided carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB) and subclavian-carotid transposition (SCT) with simultaneous or staged TEVAR between January 2010 and June 2019. Endpoints were perioperative cerebrovascular events and nerve injuries, patency and re-intervention due to the debranching, and mortality at 30 days and during follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (median age 66 years, 81 % male) had 25 (52%) CSB and 23 (48%) SCT. TEVAR was performed simultaneously in 39 (81%) patients, eleven (23%) of them in an emergent setting. There were seven (15%) re-interventions within 30 days: three due to local hematoma, one for bypass occlusion, two for stenosis (of which one was not confirmed intraoperatively), and one after initially abandoned SCT with subsequent CSB on the next day. Thirty-day mortality was 2%; one patient died on the first postoperative day after emergency coronary artery bypass surgery and multiorgan failure. Four (8%) patients suffered postoperative strokes; three occurred after simultaneous emergency procedures and none was fatal. There were nine (19%) left neck nerve injuries in eight patients, five patients had SCT and three CSB. During a median follow-up of 37.5 months (IQR 23-83) with a Follow-up Index of 0.77, there were no reinterventions or occlusions, and no graft infections. Primary patency was 90% and primary assisted patency 98% during follow-up. Eight patients died during follow-up, all of them with patent cervical debranching.

CONCLUSION

Supraclavicular LSA revascularization for proximal landing zone extension in TEVAR is safe with an acceptable rate of early re-interventions. There is higher risk for perioperative stroke during concomitant emergency LSA revascularization and TEVAR. Left neck nerve injuries are common complications but resolve completely in vast majority of the cases during first postoperative year. During follow-up, excellent patency could be expected.

Physician-modified Endograft with Left Subclavian Artery Fenestration for Ruptured Type B Aortic Dissection

A 56-year-old male patient was transferred to our institution with acute chest and back pain and deteriorating vital signs for 3 days. Emergent computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed ruptured type B aortic dissection with large left hemothorax. The dissection extended into the left subclavian artery (LSA). Immediate endovascular aortic repair with LSA coverage to extend the proximal landing zone was planned. Fenestrated thoracic endovascular repair (fTEVAR) was performed using a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) to maintain LSA perfusion. The thoracic endograft was modified on a back table while anesthesia was given, and arterial accesses were acquired. FTEVAR was performed smoothly without any complication. Completion angiogram showed no evidence of endoleak or active bleeding. Chest tube was then placed, and the left lung gradually expanded. Postoperative hospital courses were uneventful. Follow-up CTA showed the thoracic endograft and the LSA stent were in good position, and the rupture thoracic aorta was completely sealed. Chest tube was removed on postoperative day (POD) 7. He was discharged home on POD 20 without any complications. Detailed techniques of PMEG for LSA fenestration are described.

Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: single center's clinical experiences from 171 patients

Background

Left subclavian artery revascularization (LSA) is frequently performed in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study was to compare different techniques for LSA revascularization during TEVAR.

Methods

We performed a single center’s retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019. Patients were categorized by LSA revascularization methods, including direct coverage without revascularization (Unrevascularized), carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), fenestrated TEVAR (F-TEVAR). Indications, demographics, operation details, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical analysis.

Results

171 patients underwent TEVAR with LSA coverage, 16.4% (n = 28) were unrevascularized and the remaining patients underwent CSB (n = 100 [58.5%]) or F-TEVAR (n = 43 [25.1%]). Demographics were similar between the unrevascularized and revascularized groups, except for procedure urgent status (p = 0.005). The incidence of postoperative spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher between unrevascularized and revascularized group (10.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.032). There was no difference in 30-day and mid-term rates of mortality, stroke, and left upper extremity ischemia. CSB was more likely time-consuming than F-TEVAR [3.25 (2.83–4) vs. 2 (1.67–2.67) hours, p = 0], but there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or midterm outcomes for CSB versus F-TEVAR. During a mean follow-up time of 24.8 months, estimates survival rates had no difference.

Conclusions

LSA revascularization in zone 2 TEVAR is necessary which is associated with a low 30-day rate of spinal cord ischemia. When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, CSB and F-TEVAR are all safe and effective methods, and F-TEVAR appears to offer equivalent clinical outcomes as a less time-consuming and minimally invasive alternative.

Complex endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection and predicting left arm ischemia: a case report

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the gold standard for surgical management of descending thoracic aortic pathology. Depending on the anatomy, TEVAR often requires deployment across the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA) to obtain a proximal seal, thus potentially compromising perfusion to the left upper extremity (LUE). However, in most patients this is generally well tolerated without revascularization due to collateralization from the left vertebral artery (LVA).

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a complex 59-year-old Caucasian patient case of TEVAR with a history of prior arch debranching and intraoperative LSA coverage requiring subsequent LSA embolization and emergency take-back for left carotid-subclavian bypass.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this case report is to highlight an often overlooked anatomic LVA variant and an atypical, delayed presentation of acute LUE limb ischemia.

Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions

BACKGROUND

Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques.

METHODS

The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid-subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.

Periscope sandwich stenting as an alternative to open cervical revascularization of left subclavian artery during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) maintains collateral circulation to decrease ischemic complications, including stroke, spinal cord ischemia, and upper extremity ischemia. Both open surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization techniques have been described, each with unique risks and benefits. We describe our "periscope sandwich" technique for the LSA during zone 2 TEVAR, which maintains antegrade access to the distal abdominal aorta if subsequent interventions are necessary. Technical results and short-term outcomes are compared with LSA open surgical debranching.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was performed for patients requiring zone 2 TEVAR with LSA revascularization by periscope sandwich technique or open surgical debranching with subclavian to carotid transposition (SCT) or carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB). The presenting aortic disease and perioperative details were recorded. Intraoperative angiography and postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed for occurrence of endoleak and branch patency.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and December 2018, the LSA was revascularized by periscope sandwich in 18 patients, SCT in 22 patients, and CSB in 13 patients. Compared with open surgical debranching, periscope sandwich had a lower median estimated blood loss (100 mL vs 200 mL for pooled SCT and CSB; P = .03) and lower median case duration (133.5 minutes vs 226 minutes; P < .001). Contrast material volume (120 mL vs 120 mL; P = .98) and fluoroscopy time (13.1 minutes vs 13.3 minutes; P = .92) did not differ significantly between the groups. There was no difference in aorta-related mortality (P = .14), and LSA patency was 100%. Median follow-up for the periscope sandwich group was 11 months, with an overall estimated 91% freedom from gutter leak at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LSA periscope sandwich technique provides safe and effective LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. LSA periscope sandwich can be used emergently with off-the-shelf endovascular components and facilitates future branched-fenestrated endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic diseases.

A challenging double bubble thoracic aortic and proximal subclavian aneurysm treated via transapical access

This case report describes a patient with a distal aortic arch and left subclavian artery aneurysm who was considered unsuitable for open surgical repair because of comorbidities and previous bypass surgery. Inadequate peripheral access precluded standard transfemoral thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Nonetheless, successful endovascular repair was possible via transapical access using the new Gore cTAG deployment mechanism, which allowed precise antegrade stent graft deployment in a short proximal neck.

Midterm outcomes of subclavian artery revascularization in the setting of thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The outcomes of subclavian artery revascularization (SAR) have been examined extensively in the setting of atherosclerotic occlusive disease but have been poorly characterized in the setting of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). As trials for branched thoracic endovascular stent grafts materialize, the outcomes of the subclavian artery branched prosthesis will need to be compared with TEVAR with SAR by carotid-subclavian bypass or subclavian transposition.

METHODS

A database of 1516 patients undergoing TEVAR from 2000 to 2015 was queried. Of those undergoing TEVAR, 19% (282 patients) also underwent SAR. Patient demographics, TEVAR indication, 30-day morbidity and mortality, and midterm patency and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 282 patients underwent 288 SARs in the setting of TEVAR. A total of 269 (93%) carotid-subclavian bypasses and 19 (7%) subclavian artery transpositions were performed; 76% of the SARs occurred before TEVAR, 14% occurred concurrently with TEVAR, and 10% occurred after TEVAR. The most common indications for TEVAR was aortic aneurysm (56%), chronic aortic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (23%), and aortic dissections (13%). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke rate was 3.5%. Eight patients (2.8%) underwent an unplanned return to the operating room (2.1% for hematoma evacuation and 0.7% for management of chyle leak). Six patients (2.1%) sustained a nerve injury. The mean follow-up was 4.2 years. All-cause 30-day mortality was 4.6%. The overall survival rates at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years were 82%, 60%, and 42%, respectively. The median survival was 7.2 years. Four patients were found to have a failure in primary patency during follow-up. All four patients had undergone a carotid-subclavian bypass. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year primary patency rates were 99.5%, 98.9%, and 98.0%, respectively, for carotid-subclavian bypass and 100% for carotid-subclavian transposition.

CONCLUSIONS

During our 16-year study, we found SAR in the setting of TEVAR to be associated with low morbidity, durable long-term patency, and infrequent need for reintervention.