The effect of obesity on the outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Obesity is a well-known predictor for poor postoperative outcomes of vascular surgery. However, the association between obesity and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the roles of obesity in the outcomes of TEVAR.

Methods

We systematically searched the Web of Science and PubMed databases to obtain articles regarding obesity and TEVAR that were published before July 2023. The odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was used to assess the effect of obesity on TEVAR outcomes. Body mass index (BMI) was also compared between patients experiencing adverse events after TEVAR and those not experiencing adverse events. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the enrolled studies.

Results

A total of 7,849 patients from 10 studies were included. All enrolled studies were high-quality. Overall, the risk of overall mortality (OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.02-2.17], p = 0.04) was increased in obese patients receiving TEVAR. However, the associations between obesity and overall complications (OR = 2.41, 95% CI [0.84-6.93], p = 0.10) and specific complications were all insignificant, including stroke (OR = 1.39, 95% CI [0.56-3.45], p = 0.48), spinal ischemia (OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.64-1.47], p = 0.89), neurological complications (OR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.01-2.37], p = 0.17), endoleaks (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.46-2.29], p = 0.96), wound complications (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.28-2.96], p = 0.88), and renal failure (OR = 2.98, 95% CI [0.92-9.69], p = 0.07). In addition, the patients who suffered from postoperative overall complications (p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (p = 0.006) were found to have a higher BMI. In conclusion, obesity is closely associated with higher risk of mortality after TEVAR. However, TEVAR may still be suitable for obese patients. Physicians should pay more attention to the perioperative management of obese patients.

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.

Outcome of Revascularizing the Left Subclavian Artery via Carotid-Subclavian Bypass

BACKGROUND

 Endovascular thoracic aortic treatment frequently requires extending the proximal landing zone up into the aortic arch with consecutive covering of the left subclavian artery orifice. Our aim was to report on our outcome of left subclavian artery revascularization using carotid-subclavian bypass via lateral access to the subclavian artery.

METHODS

 Patients' charts in our aortic center were screened for all those who had undergone carotid-subclavian bypass during endovascular thoracic aortic repair procedures. We analyzed perioperative complications such as cervical plexus nerve or phrenic nerve injury, bleeding, and primary and follow-up graft patency.

RESULTS

 Between 2001 and 2020, 118 patients underwent carotid-subclavian bypass implantation. Postoperative complications included left-sided stroke in 3% and axillary, phrenic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in 3, 2, and 3%, respectively. Carotid-subclavian bypass-related death rate was 0%. Bypass patency was 92 ± 7% at 5 years. We documented nine (8%) bypass late occlusions with one left upper extremity ischemia and one late stroke due to an embolized thrombus formed at the bypass anastomosis. All others were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

 Carotid-subclavian bypass surgery is associated with very low risk of death, stroke, or any nerve palsy. Lateral access to the left subclavian artery reduces the risk of phrenic nerve injury.

A Systematic Review on Thoracic Endovascular Repair Outcomes in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries

PURPOSE

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents a potentially life-threatening condition and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first-line treatment (Class I level of evidence C) by the current guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the perioperative and mid-term follow-up outcomes of patients with BTAI treated with TEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the English literature published between 2000 and 2022, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until July 30, 2022. Observational studies and case series, with ≥5 patients, reporting on the perioperative and follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular morbidity. Secondary outcomes were mortality and re-interventions during the mid-term follow-up.

RESULTS

From 5201 articles identified by the literature search, 35 eligible studies were included in this review. All studies had a retrospective study design. In total, 991 patients were included. The mean age was 34.5±16.5 years (range=16-89 years). Technical success was 98.0% (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98, 0.99, p<0.001, I2=0%). Mortality at 30 days was 5.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.03, 0.06, p<0.001, I2=5.56%). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and stroke rate was 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%). The available follow-up was estimated at 29 months (range=3-119 months) with mortality rate at 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and re-intervention rate at 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=10.5%).

CONCLUSION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair showed high technical success and low early cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality rates. In the mid-term follow-up, the estimated mortality and re-intervention rates were also low. Furthermore, higher quality prospective studies are needed.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first line treatement in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). This systematic review of 35 retrospective studies and 991 patients showed high technical success (98.0%) with an associated 30-day mortality at 5.0% and low spinal cord ischemia (1%) and stroke rates (2.0%). Mid-term mortality and re-intervention rates reassure the effectiveness of TEVAR in BTAI cases.

Early experience with the Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis for treatment of acute aortic pathology

The Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved device for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair, allowing for graft placement proximal to the left subclavian artery origin and maintaining vessel patency through a side branch. We describe our experience with the Gore TBE device in 20 patients for acute indications, including blunt thoracic aortic injuries, complicated dissections, and ruptured aneurysms. Technical success, with exclusion of pathology and left subclavian patency, was 100% without major complications within 30 days. Our early Gore TBE device experience demonstrates safe use in acute aortic pathology without an increased risk of complications.

Anatomic Feasibility of In-Situ Fenestration for Isolate Left Subclavian Artery Preservation during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using an Adjustable Needle Puncturing System

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using the Ankura™ device (Lifetech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) with left subclavian artery (LSA) in-situ fenestration (ISF) using an adjustable puncture device system.

METHODS

It is a single center, retrospective, financially unsupported cohort study of TEVAR performed from 16 February 2007 to 10 January 2023. Inclusion criteria were isolate LSA revascularization for elective or urgent/emergent "zone 2" TEVAR, and the availability of the preoperative computed tomography angiography.

RESULTS

Post-hoc analysis identified 52 TEVARs. There were 39 (75.0%) males, and 13 (25.0%) females: median age was 74.5 years (IQR, 65.5-78). Index TEVAR was performed for atherosclerotic aneurysm in 27 (51.9%) cases, dissection-related diseases in 18 (34.6%), penetrating aortic ulcer in 5 (9.6%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury in 2 (3.8%). Access-vessel feasibility rate of TEVAR using the Ankura™ device would have been 98.1% (51/52). Considering the morphology of the aortic arch, ISF TEVAR feasibility would have been 61.5% (32/52). Binary logistic regression analysis identified LSA angulation (OR: 1.1, 95%CI: 1.03-1.14, p = 0.003) to be associated with ISF feasibility using this endograft and a self-centering adjustable needle-based puncture device.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential feasibility of TEVAR using the Ankura™ endograft with ISF using a self-centering adjustable needle system was 61.5%. Left subclavian artery angulation seems to be the most important and limiting anatomical constraint.

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.

Mid-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Hybrid Procedures to Treat Complex Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

To compare the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies with an unfavorable proximal landing zone, and analyze the different indications of the 2 methods.

METHODS

We collected the clinical data from 59 patients with complex aortic arch pathologies who underwent endovascular or hybrid surgery from March 2018 to April 2020 at a single center. Among the patients, 45 were treated by branched or fenestrated surgery and 14 by hybrid surgery. The clinical data of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results were retrospectively analyzed and compared. The main study indexes were the branch patency rate and endoleakage rate during the follow-up period. The secondary study indexes included the operation success rate, operative time, hospital expenses, complication incidence, freedom from reintervention rate, mortality, etc.

RESULTS

The operation success rate of all the groups was 100%. The hospital expenses of the hybrid group were lower than those of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The operative time of the hybrid group was longer than that of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The incidence of anatomic variants in the hybrid group was 28.6%, which was significantly higher than that in the endovascular group (2.2%, p=0.011). However, there were no significant differences in operative bleeding, ventilator use duration, and treatment time in intensive care units between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Follow-up was conducted for a period of 12 to 34 months. Four patients of the hybrid group experienced numbness of the upper limb (28.57%); the proportion was higher than the endovascular group (0%, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of endoleaks, retrograde aortic dissection, target lesion, secondary operation, branch patency rate, paraplegia, cerebral apoplexy, renal failure, or other complications in either group (p>0.05). The mortality of the endovascular group was 6.67% (3/45). Overall cumulative survival at 1 year was 100% in the hybrid group and 93.3% in the endovascular group. There was no statistical difference in the increase of the true lumen between the 2 groups for vascular remodeling (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The hybrid surgery costs less and proves more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch. The endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.

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.

Evaluation and Management of Complications of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of the Thoracic Aorta

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the standard of care for descending thoracic aortic pathology as the procedure has a historically low rate of reintervention and a high rate of success. However, TEVAR can be associated with complications such as endoleak, upper extremity limb ischemia, cerebrovascular ischemia, spinal cord ischemia, and post-implantation syndrome. An 80-year-old man with a history of complex thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent repair of a large thoracic aneurysm with a frozen elephant trunk procedure in 2019 at an outside institution. The proximal aortic graft extended to the arch and the innominate and left carotid artery were implanted into the distal portion of the graft. The endograft, extending from the proximal graft to the descending thoracic aorta, was fenestrated to maintain left subclavian artery flow. In an attempt to gain a seal at the fenestration, a Viabahn graft (Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was inserted. A type III endoleak was identified postoperatively at the fenestration, and a second Viabahn graft was required to gain a seal during the initial hospitalization. In 2020, an endoleak persisted at the fenestration on follow-up imaging, but the aneurysmal sac was stable. No intervention was recommended. The patient later presented to our institution with three days of chest pain. A type III endoleak at the level of the subclavian fenestration persisted with significant enlargement of the aneurysm sac. The patient underwent an urgent repair of the endoleak. This consisted of covering the fenestration with an endograft and left carotid to subclavian bypass. Subsequently, the patient developed a transient ischemic attack (TIA) due to kinking and extrinsic compression by the large aneurysm sac of the proximal left common carotid artery, requiring a right carotid to left carotid-axillary graft bypass. This report with a literature review discusses TEVAR complications and outlines methods to approach them. TEVAR complications and their management should be firmly understood to improve overall treatment outcomes.

Anaesthesia for vascular emergencies - a state of the art review

In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the presenting symptoms and management strategies for vascular emergencies. Although vascular emergencies are best treated at a vascular surgical centre, patients may present to any emergency department and may require both immediate management and safe transport to a vascular centre. We describe the surgical and anaesthetic considerations for management of aortic dissection, aortic rupture, carotid endarterectomy, acute limb ischaemia and mesenteric ischaemia. Important issues to consider in aortic dissection are extent of the dissection and surgical need for bypasses in addition to endovascular repair. From an anaesthetist's perspective, aortic dissection requires infrastructure for massive transfusion, smooth management should an endovascular procedure require conversion to an open procedure, haemodynamic manipulation during stent deployment and prevention of spinal cord ischaemia. Principles in management of aortic rupture, whether open or endovascular treatment is chosen, include immediate transfer to a vascular care centre; minimising haemodynamic changes to reduce aortic shear stress; permissive hypotension in the pre-operative period; and initiation of massive transfusion protocol. Carotid endarterectomy for carotid stenosis is managed with general or regional techniques, and anaesthetists must be prepared to manage haemodynamic, neurological and airway issues peri-operatively. Acute limb ischaemia is a result of embolism, thrombosis, dissection or trauma, and may be treated with open repair or embolectomy, under either general or local anaesthesia. Due to hypercoagulability, there may be higher numbers of acutely ischaemic limbs among patients with COVID-19, which is important to consider in the current pandemic. Mesenteric ischaemia is a rare vascular emergency, but it is challenging to diagnose and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several peri-operative issues are common to all vascular emergencies: acute renal injury; management of transfusion; need for heparinisation and reversal; and challenging postoperative care. Finally, the important development of endovascular techniques for repair in many vascular emergencies has improved care, and the availability of transoesophageal echocardiography has improved monitoring as well as aids in surgical placement of endovascular grafts and for post-procedural evaluation.

Emergency Endovascular Interventions on Descending Thoracic Aorta: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Implementation of emergency endovascular aortic repair provides an attractive opportunity in the treatment of complicated acute aortic syndromes involving descending aorta.

Aim

The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of acute surgical emergencies involving the descending thoracic aorta.

Methods

A retrospective review of the medical records of all patients undergoing TEVAR in a single center since 2007 was undertaken. Patients with the aortic disease treated on emergency inclusion criteria were complicated spontaneous acute aortic syndrome (csAAS), traumatic aortic acute injuries (TAIs), and other indications requiring emergent intervention. Technical and clinical success with patient mortality, survival, and reoperation rate was evaluated according to Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Results

The emergency interventions were necessary in 74 cases (51.0%), including patients with the complicated spontaneous acute aortic syndrome (csAAS) (64.8%; n = 48) and traumatic aortic acute injuries (TAIs) (31.1%). In addition, in one case aortic iatrogenic dissection (AID) and in 2 other fistulas after the previous stent graft, implantations were diagnosed. All procedures were done through surgically exposed femoral arteries while 2 hybrid procedures required additional approaches. The primary technical success rate was 95.9%, in 3 cases endoleak was reported. The primary clinical success occurred in 94.5%. All patients survived the endovascular interventions, whereas during in-hospital stay one of them died due to multiorgan failure (early mortality 1.3%). During the follow-up period, lasting 6 through 164 months (median 67), 11 patients died. Annual, five- and ten-year probability of survival was 86.4 ± 0.04%, 80.0 ± 0.05%, and 76.6 ± 0.06%, respectively. However, the rate of 5-year survivors was significantly higher after TAI (95.2%) than scAAS (63.4%) (p=0.008). Early after the procedure, one individual developed transient paraparesis (1.3%). No other serious stent-graft-related adverse events were noted within the postdischarge follow-up period.

Conclusions

Descending aortic pathologies requiring emergent interventions can be treated by endovascular techniques with optimal results and low morbidity and mortality in an experienced and dedicated team.

Subclavian Artery: Anatomic Review and Imaging Evaluation of Abnormalities

The subclavian artery is an important structure that may be overlooked at CT of the chest and neck, in part because of its anatomic location at the periphery of the field of view but also because the clinical indication for CT examinations infrequently directs attention specifically to evaluation of the subclavian artery. As with all arteries, the subclavian artery has the potential to be involved in a variety of abnormalities, including pseudoaneurysms, dissections, stenosis or thrombosis, and vasculopathies. In addition, the subclavian artery can be secondarily involved as a collateral pathway because of an abnormality elsewhere. The subclavian artery may also be involved in surgical procedures to supply blood to other sites in the body or as an arterial access site. In these cases, recognizing the postsurgical appearance of the subclavian artery has become increasingly complex because of the use of the artery in an increasing number of procedures. Recognizing expected postoperative changes remains important to avoid mistaking them for abnormalities. The authors describe the imaging appearance of the normal anatomy of the subclavian artery and its anatomic variants, related abnormalities, and important postsurgical considerations. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Applicability of endovascular branched and fenestrated aortic arch repair devices to treat residual type A dissection after ascending replacement

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular repair of post-type-A aortic dissection after open ascending replacement (PTAD) has recently been shown as safe and feasible, but with limited anatomic applicability since only one stent graft was evaluated. We assessed anatomic and clinical applicability of six commercially available branched/fenestrated stent grafts for endovascular repair of PTAD.

METHODS

On postoperative CT-scans of 101 patients, we measured aortic diameter at: sino-tubular junction, supra-aortic vessels (SAV), and descending aorta, as well as the distances between these landmarks along the outer curvature of the arch and the diameters of the SAV. Anatomical applicability was evaluated according to the instructions-for-use, clinical applicability with regard to supra-aortic and iliac arteries. Assessed devices were: Cook aortic double branch; Terumo double branch; Najuta fenestrated; Endospan Nexus; Medtronic Mona LSA; and Gore TAG thoracic branch.

RESULTS

Single devices were anatomically and clinically applicable between 19/101 (Mona LSA) and 83/101 (Najuta) cases. Reasons for rejection varied considerably across devices. With all devices available, anatomical applicability was 97/101 and clinical applicability 95/101. Combinations of a fenestrated and a branched device showed the most favorable clinical applicability for a pair of two devices, ranging from 86/101 to 94/101.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical and clinical applicability of endovascular devices for the repair of PTAD is high for fenestrated and branched devices, and very high for the combination of fenestrated and branched devices. Manufacturers should amend specific device requirements for PTAD. Surgeons should emphasize the need for a sufficiently long and straight graft as a potential landing zone.

Left subclavian artery coverage during endovascular repair of thoracic aorta injury in trauma and non-trauma patients

PURPOSE

In thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often occluded. Although most patients tolerate this, some develop ischemic symptoms to the brain or left upper extremity (LUE). A revascularization procedure may be associated with significant complications. The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence of LSA occlusion, resulting ischemic symptoms, and complications related to revascularization operations in trauma patients compared to non-trauma patients.

METHODS

Studies from 2010 to 2020 were fully reviewed if they discussed incidence of LSA coverage, LUE ischemia, carotid-subclavian bypass, or complications associated with carotid-subclavian bypass.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included in this analysis. A total of 167 patients were identified as trauma cases. Incidence of LSA occlusion in trauma was 91/167 (54%) compared to 281/1446 (19%) in the population exclusive of trauma (p < 0.001). Following LSA occlusion, the rate of LUE claudication/ischemia was 21/56 (38%) for trauma, compared to 12/193 (6%) in non-trauma cases (p < 0.001). The overall complication rate after carotid-subclavian rescue bypass was 29.2% (33/112), with phrenic nerve palsy (24%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (5%), and pseudoaneurysm (1.7%) being the most common.

CONCLUSION

LSA coverage following TEVAR is common and associated with significant complications, often requiring operative management. The incidence of ischemic complications after occlusion of the LSA is significantly higher in the trauma population. Revascularization procedures to correct the occlusion have a high rate of complications.

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.

Prognosis and Risk Factors of Stroke After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection

Background: Stroke is a severe complication of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Our aim is to identify predictors of stroke after TEVAR.

Methods: From February 2016 to February 2019, 445 patients with TBAD who underwent TEVAR were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of stroke after TEVAR.

Results: The total incidence of stroke was 11.5%, with transient neurological dysfunction (TND) of 10.6% and permanent neurological dysfunction (PND) of 0.9%. The average age of the patients was 53.0 ± 3.2 years, and the male/female ratio was 1.17. Univariate analysis suggested that age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the urgency of repair, type of anesthesia, and left subclavian artery (LSCA) processing were potential risks factors of stroke after TEVAR. Multiple logistic regression identified that LSCA coverage (OR = 5.920, 95% CI: 2.077–16.878), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.036, 95% CI: 1.025–8.995), and general anesthesia (OR = 2.498, 95% CI: 1.002–6.229) were independent predictors of stroke after TEVAR.

Conclusions: Left subclavian artery (LSCA) coverage, diabetes mellitus, and general anesthesia were independent risk factors of stroke after TEVAR for TBAD.

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.

Stroke, spinal cord ischemia and upper limb ischemia in patients undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the left subclavian artery: a case series study

Background

We performed routine spinal fluid drainage for patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology together with left subclavian artery coverage, which was needed for achievement of a safe proximal sealing zone. We assessed the occurrence of spinal cord ischemia as well the rate of occurrence of other complications such as stroke, and upper limb ischemia.

Results

This was a case series study done between July 2014 and April 2020, in them all the left subclavian artery was covered to ensure a proximal safe seal zone. Routine spinal fluid drainage was done, keeping the spinal fluid pressure < 10–15 mmHg with catheter in place for 48 h. Data was obtained from twenty-three patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic dissection (73.91%), thoracic aortic aneurysm (21.74%), or ulcer (4.35%). Planning was based upon multi-slice computed tomographic angiography and covering the left subclavian was mandatory to achieve a proximal sealing zone. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. 4.35% of patients had three endograft, 56.52% had two endografts, 39.13% had one endograft. All patients lost their radial pulsations immediately after implantation, 8.70% developed post implantation syndrome(fever) that was managed conservatively, 4.35% developed stroke related to the anterior circulation, 4.35% developed signs of spinal cord ischemia. During the follow up, one patient died within 6 h after the procedure due to extensive myocardial infarction (patient was scheduled for CABG after our procedure). 17.40% developed upper limb symptoms that were tolerable and were managed conservatively.

Conclusion

By adopting routine spinal cord drainage and pressure monitoring, we can consider not to revascularize the left subclavian artery prior to TEVAR if it will be covered.

Short-Term Outcomes of In Situ Fenestration in Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term outcomes of in situ fenestration and discuss its feasibility and safety for the treatment of aortic dissection or aneurysm involving aortic arch.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center review was conducted on patients who were treated with ISF technique to revascularize supra-arch branches from Jun 2017 to Oct 2019. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) was performed to assess the patency of bridging stents, endoleaks and prognosis prior to discharge, after 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed and then discussed in this paper.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were diagnosed with arch pathologies, 5 type A aortic dissections, 12 type B aortic dissections and 4 thoracic aortic aneurysms. There were 19 men and 2 women (mean age 60.7 ± 15.3). 8 cases were treated with t hree-fenestration stent grafts, 1 case with two-fenestration stent graft, and 12 case with single-fenestration stent grafts. Overall technical success rate was 95.2%. Mean operation time was 227.4 ± 143.8 min. Complications were intraoperative hemorrhage (>1000 ml, 2), stroke (2), hydropericardium (1) and endoleaks (2 type Ⅲ, 1 type Ⅰ). There was no aorta-related mortality or late endoleaks during the mean follow-up of 25.5 ± 6.2 months. All the bridging stents remained patent and there was no migration according to follow-up CTA.

CONCLUSION

With low complication and mortality rate, ISF is an effective and feasible method for the total endovascular aortic arch repair. Long-term follow-up study is needed to evaluate its durability.

Development and evaluation of an early death risk prediction model after acute type A aortic dissection

Background

The purpose of the study was to assess the relationship between preoperative laboratory examination, clinical imaging data, and postoperative death of patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) and to establish a prediction model of hospital death risk after the operation.

Methods

A total of 224 cases of acute Standford A aortic dissection were treated by total arch replacement using a tetrafurcate graft with stented elephant trunk implantation in Tianjin Chest Hospital. Based on preoperative laboratory examination and clinical imaging data of patients with ATAAD, the independent risk factors of postoperative hospital death were obtained using logistic analysis, and a risk prediction model of postoperative hospital death was developed.

Results

Independent risk factors of postoperative death in patients with ATAAD were: body mass index (BMI), preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), mean platelet volume (MPV), creatinine (Cr), D-dimer, high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-CTnT), apolipoprotein A1, left subclavian artery involvement, and iliac artery involvement. The regression equation of postoperative death risk was: logitP1 = −9.584 + 1.060 × NLR + 1.586 × MPV + 1.009 × Cr + 1.067 × D-dimer + 2.023 × hs-CTnT; the regression equation of postoperative death risk was: logitP2 = −3.296 + 3.242 × left subclavian artery involved + 4.564 × iliac artery involved; the regression equation of postoperative death risk was: logitP3 = −12.864 + 1.149 × BMI + 4.731 × left subclavian artery involved + 4.150 × iliac artery involved + 1.064 × NLR + 1.011 × Cr + 1.084 × D-dimer + 2.242 × hs-CTnT + 3.233 × apolipoprotein A1.

Conclusions

BMI, NLR, MPV, Cr, D-dimer, hs-CTnT, apolipoprotein A1, left subclavian artery involvement and iliac artery involvement can affect the hospital mortality rate of aortic dissection undergoing Sun’s operation to varying degrees, which may be helpful to guide the design of the perioperative treatment strategy.

Identifying risk factors for early neurological outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the SUMMIT database

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for early neurological complications following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for multiple thoracic aortic diseases using an aggregated dataset.

METHODS

The Study to Assess Outcomes After Endovascular Repair for Multiple Throacic Aortic Disease dataset included data from 6 studies evaluating Zenith thoracic endografts. Post hoc analysis identified early (30-day) neurological complications by TEVAR indication and corresponding risk factors.

RESULTS

The study included 594 TEVAR patients (67% male; mean age 66 ± 15 years) with thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 329), ulcer (n = 56), acute (n = 126) or non-acute (n = 33) type B aortic dissection (TBAD) or blunt injury (n = 50). Overall early stroke rate was 3.5% (n = 21). Overall early paraplegia and paraparesis rates were 1.3% (n = 8) and 2.5% (n = 15), respectively. Multivariable analysis identified acute TBAD [versus others, odds ratio (OR) = 3.47, 95% confidence internal (CI): 1.41-8.52) and longer procedural time (OR = 1.33, CI: 1.02-1.73) as early stroke risk factors. Risk factors for paraplegia or paraparesis included more endografts deployed (OR = 2.43, CI: 1.30-4.55), older age (OR = 1.05, CI: 1.01-1.10) and higher preoperative serum creatinine (OR = 1.31, CI: 1.05-1.64). Endografts landing proximal to the left subclavian artery (LSA) increased stroke rate (versus distal to the LSA; 6.8% vs 2.3%, P = 0.014). Intraoperative LSA revascularization was performed in 20.9% of patients with endografts proximal to the LSA; revascularization did not significantly alter stroke rate (8.1% with revascularization vs 6.4% without, P = 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute TBAD and prolonged procedure time increased early stroke risk, while more endografts placed, age and preoperative renal impairment increased early paraplegia or paraparesis risk. For acute TBAD, endograft placement proximal to the LSA, but not LSA patency, increased stroke risk.

Bail-out technique to detach a locked Viabahn endoprosthesis in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair

A 69-year-old female patient presented with a 5.8 cm thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm Crawford type II after partial arch replacement. She was treated by a branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedure using a branched arch endograft with one retrograde branch to the left subclavian artery. After deployment of a Viabahn as a bridging covered stent to the left subclavian artery, the deployment line did not detach and the delivery catheter could not be removed. With the use of a physician-modified sidehole catheter and balloon fixation, the pulling line could be released without displacement of the Viabahn endoprosthesis.

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.

The fate of the left subclavian artery in TEVAR for aortic arch pathology

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY

The origin of the vertebral artery (VA) from the left subclavian (LSA) is variable and must be considered when proximal ligation or embolization is performed post thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and extra-anatomical bypass (EAB). A retrospective study was conducted to understand the patency of the LSA and VAs after TEVAR and the relationship of the EAB to the LSA.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients underwent TEVAR where the LSA origin was occluded. A comparison was performed between the length of the proximal LSA from the arch of the aorta to the origin of the VA. Patient outcomes included posterior or anterior circulation cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and symptoms and signs of left arm ischemia (LAI). Thirty one underwent EAB with 8 undergoing occlusion of the LSA proximal to the origin of the left VA. A further 25 underwent TEVAR with no EAB performed. The mean (standard deviation) of origin of the VA from the origin at the arch was 37.0 (12.9) mm compared to 34.0 (13.7) mm in those where no bypass was performed (p 0.45). Four patients underwent intraluminal plug occlusion and four had external ligation of the proximal LSA in those undergoing EAB.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful evaluation of the LSA is needed when planning TEVAR as occlusion techniques may be dependent on a minimum length of the VA from the aortic arch. The mean length of the VA from the aorta has high heterogeneity which may dictate the optimum occlusion method for LSA.

A more proximal landing zone is preferred for thoracic endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissections

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first line therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). However, the strategy for optimal proximal landing zone remains to be determined. We compared early outcomes and late aortic-related adverse events in patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD with endograft deployment in proximal landing zone 2 versus 3.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within 6 weeks of diagnosis from 1/2008 to 12/2018. We excluded patients with connective tissue disorders and prior type A repair. Patients were divided into landing zone 2 TEVAR (Z2T) and zone 3 TEVAR (Z3T) groups. Z2 patients were divided between left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization (Z2R) versus LSA coverage without revascularization (Z2C). Groups were compared for need for aortic re-intervention within 36 months of initial admission and freedom from aortic related adverse events and mortality (AREM), defined as need for aortic re-intervention, aortic-related death or rupture.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within a mean of 4.1±7.8 days. 89.5% of patients had less than 2 cm of healthy proximal descending thoracic aorta. Landing zone was Z3T in 35 patients and 48 underwent Z2T: 10 Z2C and 38 Z2R. There were no differences between Z2T and Z3T in time from diagnosis to TEVAR, demographics, comorbidities and diameter aortic measurements. 30-day survival was 87.8%: 89.5% for Z2R, 88.6% for Z3 and 80.0 % for Z2C (p=0.610). Post-operative spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7%: 2.7 % for Z2R, 0% for Z3T and 20.0% for Z2C (p=0.012). Post-operative thoracic aortic rupture was 2.2% in Z2 and 0 in Z3. Need for aortic re-intervention at 36 months post-TEVAR was lower for Z2T (10.4%) vs. Z3T (31.4%), p=0.025. Freedom from AREM at 36 months was higher in Z2T vs. Z3T - 87.5% vs. 68.6%, p= 0.048. Freedom from proximal re-intervention was higher in Z2T (95.8%) compared to Z3T (80.0%), p=0.019. Z3T deployment was predictive for AREM (OR:3.648,95%CI:1.161-11.465,p=0.027) and need for proximal re-intervention (OR: 5.542,95%CI:1.062-28.927,p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with aTBAD have less than 2 cm of proximal healthy descending thoracic aorta. In patients treated for complicated aTBAD, zone 2 TEVAR is associated with a lower need for aortic re-intervention and aortic-related adverse events than zone 3 TEVAR. Patients may benefit from a more aggressive proximal landing zone with similar perioperative morbidity when zone 2 TEVAR is done with LSA revascularization.

In Situ Laser Fenestration for Delayed Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection

In situ laser fenestration (ISLF) is currently used to reconstruct the aortic major branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). To our knowledge, there have been no reports on the application of ISLF for delayed revascularization of the LSA previously sealed in TEVAR. This report describes 5 patients who underwent ISLF for delayed LSA revascularization, with a technical success rate of 80%. No endoleakage occurred, and stents remained patent during more than 6-month follow-up. ISLF is an effective, safe and minimally invasive method for delayed revascularization of the LSA following TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) when patients are selected appropriately.

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.

Complications and Management of the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Endovascular treatment in thoracic aortic diseases has increased in use exponentially since Dake and colleagues first described the use of a home-made transluminal endovascular graft on 13 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm at Stanford University in the early 1990s. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was initially developed for therapy in patients deemed unfit for open surgery. Innovations in endograft engineering design and popularization of endovascular techniques have transformed TEVAR to the predominant treatment choice in elective thoracic aortic repair. The number of TEVARs performed in the United States increased by 600% from 1998 to 2007, while the total number of thoracic aortic repairs increased by 60%. As larger multicenter trials and meta-analysis studies in the 2000s demonstrate the significant decrease in perioperative morbidity and mortality of TEVAR over open repair, TEVAR became incorporated into standard guidelines. The 2010 American consensus guidelines recommend TEVAR to be “strongly considered” when feasible for patients with degenerative or traumatic aneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta exceeding 5.5 cm, saccular aneurysms, or postoperative pseudoaneurysms. Nowadays, TEVAR is the predominant treatment for degenerative and traumatic descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. Although TEVAR has been shown to have decreased early morbidity and mortality compared with open surgical repair, endovascular manipulation of a diseased aorta with endovascular devices continues to have significant risks. Despite continued advancement in endovascular technique and devices since the first prospective trial examined the complications associated with TEVAR, common complications, two decades later, still include stroke, spinal cord ischemia, device failure, unintentional great vessel coverage, access site complications, and renal injury. In this article, we review common TEVAR complications with some corresponding radiographic imaging and their management.

Trends and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open concomitant cervical debranching

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the most common surgical procedure for treatment of descending thoracic aortic pathology. Cervical debranching in the form of carotid-subclavian bypass or transposition (CSBT) and carotid-carotid bypass (CCB) has enabled the use of TEVAR for the treatment of more complex anatomy involving the arch. The present study examined the effects of concomitant cervical bypass on the perioperative outcomes of TEVAR.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files (2005-2017) were reviewed. Using the Current Procedural Terminology codes, all patients who had undergone TEVAR were identified and were divided into three groups: TEVAR, TEVAR with one bypass (CSBT or CCB), and TEVAR with two bypasses (CSBT and CCB). The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of the three groups were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3281 patients had undergone TEVAR and 10% had also undergone one or more debranching procedure (one bypass, 9%; two bypasses, 1%). The frequency of debranching had increased from 3.4% to 10.9% (P = .01) during the study period. Significant differences were found among the three groups in age, sex, smoking history, urgency of surgery, and anesthesia technique. The patients who had undergone TEVAR with cervical debranching had had significantly greater morbidity, longer operating times, and longer hospital stays compared with those who had undergone TEVAR alone. The mortality of TEVAR with two bypasses (22.6%) was significantly greater than that of TEVAR alone (7.5%) and TEVAR with one bypass (6.8%; P < .01). The total morbidity (30.9% vs 35.1% vs 67.7%; P < .001) and stroke rate (3% vs 7.5% vs 12.9%; P < .0001) increased with the increasing number of bypasses. A subgroup analysis of patients who had undergone TEVAR with one bypass showed no significant differences in mortality between TEVAR plus CSBT (6.6%) vs TEVAR plus CCB (8.8%; P = .63). Multivariable analysis showed that TEVAR with two bypasses was associated with significantly increased mortality compared with TEVAR alone (odds ratio [OR], 4.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-10.73) and TEVAR with one bypass (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.24-9.51). Older age (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13), dependent functional status (OR, 1.48; 1.00-2.19), dialysis (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.57-4.33), and emergent status (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.73-4.90) were also associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR with concomitant cervical debranching has been increasingly used to treat complex aortic pathology but is associated with significantly worse outcomes than TEVAR alone. As advanced endovascular technology to treat the aortic arch emerges, the outcomes of open surgical debranching in the present study constitute an important benchmark for comparison.

Management of the Left Subclavian Artery in TEVAR for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

Objectives:

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. Left subclavian artery coverage without revascularization can cause stroke and death. TEVAR has gained popularity for the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBD). Using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database, we reviewed outcomes of LSA revascularization in TEVAR for cTBD.

Methods:

The VQI registry identified 5683 patients treated with TEVAR from July 2010 to July 2016, including 208 repairs for cTBD. We analyzed outcomes per the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards.

Results:

Of the 208 patients, 150 (72.1%) were male with a median age of 65.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 55.0-72.0). Median aneurysm diameter was 5.7 cm (IQR, 5.0-6.5 cm). Data on the patency of the LSA was available in 131 (63.0%) patients. Twenty-five (19.1%) had occlusion of the LSA without revascularization, while 106 (80.9%) maintained patency or had revascularization. Successful device delivery occurred in all 131 (100%) patients. Maintaining LSA patency did not affect the rate of cerebrovascular accident ( P = .16), spinal cord ischemia ( P = 1.00), or death ( P = 1.00). This was also nonsignificant when analyzing the subgroup of 98 elective cases. There was no difference in the rates of endoleak. Any intervention for the LSA (revascularization or occlusion) led to a longer procedure time (203.6 minutes vs 163.7 minutes, P = .04).

Conclusions:

Maintaining LSA patency during TEVAR for cTBD offers no advantage in perioperative morbidity or endoleak. Occlusion of LSA may be performed safely in this cohort and revascularization reserved for those who have anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Left Subclavian Artery Coverage Is Associated With a High 30-Day Stroke Incidence With or Without Concomitant Revascularization

Purpose: To evaluate the perioperative stroke incidence following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with differing left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage and revascularization approaches in a real-world setting of a nationwide clinical registry. Materials and Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was interrogated from 2005 to 2017 to identify all nonemergent TEVAR and/or open LSA revascularization procedures. In this time frame, 2346 TEVAR cases met the selection criteria for analysis. The 30-day stroke incidence was compared between patients undergoing TEVAR with (n=888) vs without (n=1458) LSA coverage, for those with (n=228) vs without (n=660) concomitant LSA revascularization among those with coverage, and following isolated LSA revascularization for occlusive disease (n=768). Multivariable logistic regression was employed for risk-adjusted analyses and to identify factors associated with stroke following TEVAR. Results of the regression analyses are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The stroke incidence was 2.3% following TEVAR without vs 5.2% with LSA coverage (p<0.001). In TEVARs with LSA coverage, the stroke incidence was 7.5% when the LSA was concomitantly revascularized and 4.4% without concomitant revascularization, while stroke occurred in 0.5% of isolated LSA revascularizations. Of 33 TEVAR patients experiencing a perioperative stroke, 8 (24%) died within 30 days. LSA coverage was associated with stroke both with concomitant revascularization (OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 7.5, p<0.001) and without concomitant revascularization (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8, p=0.002). Other preoperative factors associated with stroke were dyspnea (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0, p=0.014), renal dysfunction (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.8, p=0.049), and international normalized ratio ≥2.0 (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 13, p=0.045). Conclusion: Stroke following TEVAR with LSA coverage occurs frequently in the real-world setting, and concurrent LSA revascularization was not associated with a lower stroke incidence.

Early and midterm outcomes of in situ laser fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and subacute aortic arch diseases and analysis of its complications

OBJECTIVE

An analysis was conducted of early and midterm outcomes of a large series of patients treated with in situ laser fenestration (ISLF) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases, such as Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD), type B aortic dissection (TBAD) requiring proximal sealing at zone 2 or more proximal, thoracic aortic aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm, and penetrating aortic ulcer. We present the perioperative and follow-up outcomes and discuss the rate of complications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from January 2017 to March 2019 of patients treated with TEVAR and ISLF of aortic arch branches at a large tertiary academic institution in an urban city in China. Preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up clinical and radiographic data are analyzed and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients presented with symptomatic and acute or subacute TAAD, TBAD, thoracic aortic aneurysm, or penetrating aortic ulcer for a total of 183 arch vessels. There were 105 men and 43 women, 21 to 79 years of age (mean, 54.9 ± 12.9 years). Time from symptom onset to time of surgery was an average of 7 ± 3 days. Survivor follow-up duration ranged from 5 to 24 months (mean, 15 ± 5 months). Single-vessel fenestration was carried out in 124 cases, two-vessel fenestration in 13 cases, and three-vessel fenestration in 11 cases. There were four cases with technical failure to laser fenestration, with a technical success rate of 97.3%. Postoperatively, there were seven cases of endoleak (4.7%; one type IB distal from the left subclavian artery branch stent graft, three type IIIC at the fenestration site, and three type II), three retrograde dissections (2.0%), and five strokes (3.4%); death occurred in three patients with 30-day mortality of 2.9%, and two deaths occurred during follow-up for 3.4% mortality at an average 15 months of follow-up. There was no branch stent graft occlusion or spinal ischemia postoperatively or during follow-up. The distribution of arch diseases varied significantly according to the number of vessels that were laser fenestrated; TAAD was more likely to receive multivessel laser fenestrations, and TBAD was more likely to receive single-vessel fenestration (P < .001). The rate of complications was distributed differently between the three ISLF groups, with more complications occurring in multivessel fenestrations. However, a statistical weakening was observed when frequency of complications between the three groups was stratified by type of arch disease. The complication rate varied significantly between the different arch diseases, higher in TAAD than in TBAD (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

ISLF during TEVAR for treatment of acute and subacute complex aortic arch diseases in the proximal aortic arch is safe and effective on the basis of these early to midterm follow-up data of a large cohort. However, care should be taken in intervening on TAAD using TEVAR with adjunctive multivessel laser fenestration. Continued investigation of TEVAR and adjunctive ISLF is needed to elucidate the long-term outcomes of this minimally invasive treatment for complex aortic arch disease in an urgent setting.

Midterm Follow-up of Fenestrated and Scalloped Physician-Modified Endovascular Grafts for Zone 2 TEVAR

Purpose: To investigate the midterm outcomes of scalloped or fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: Between November 2013 and May 2019, 54 consecutive patients (mean age 63 years; 41 men) were treated with thoracic PMEGs modified with 7 scallops or 47 fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA). Indications for aortic repair were acute complicated type B aortic dissection (17, 31%), degenerative aneurysm (13, 24%), acute traumatic rupture of the aortic isthmus (9, 16%), post chronic dissection aneurysmal evolution (8, 15%), penetrating aortic ulcer (3, 6%), intramural hematoma (2, 4%), and floating thrombus (2, 4%). Results: Technical success was 94%; 3 (6%) LSAs were unintentionally covered. An intraoperative type Ia endoleak was treated during the index procedure. One (2%) patient suffered spinal cord ischemia, with irreversible bilateral paraplegia. Three (6%) patients experience postoperative minor strokes with full neurological recovery. Four (7%) patients died in the perioperative period; 2 (2%) were due to aneurysm rupture. Mean follow-up was 26±16 months; 15 (28%) patients had at least 3 years of follow-up. Two (4%) type II endoleaks were identified and successfully treated (4% reintervention rate); no other endoleaks were identified. All the LSAs remained clinically and radiologically patent. There were no conversions to open repair, ruptures, retrograde dissection, stent fracture, migrations, or other aortic complications. Conclusion: Scalloped or single-fenestrated PMEGs for the LSA appear to be durable and safe in the midterm. Combined with low periprocedural morbidity and mortality, these results suggest that this approach can be considered as an off-label alternative to extend proximal seal to zone 2 for TEVAR. Further studies with a larger number of patients and long-term outcomes are needed to fully validate this approach.

Off pump hybrid extra-anatomic techniques for aortic arch repair-own experience

Background

Treatment of the aortic arch pathologies is technically challenging. In this study we assess early and late outcomes of hybrid aortic arch repairs that comprise extra-anatomic surgical procedures completed by thoracic endovascular interventions [thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)].

Methods

Since 2007, 21 patients (8 women and 13 men) with a median age of 48 years have undergone hybrid procedures for aortic arch pathologies. All of them were treated without cardio-pulmonary bypass. All survivors were followed up regularly and imaging examination were performed. A technical success, procedural complications as well as the early and late mortality and morbidity rates were evaluated.

Results

All patients survived surgery and TEVAR was technically successful in all of them. However, 2 individuals died (in-hospital mortality rate 9.5%) during in-hospital stay, both due to multi-organ failure (MOF). Additionally, one patient developed symptoms of cerebral stroke, another one of spinal cord ischemia. During the follow-up that ranged from 6 to 118 months and was completed by 100% of the survivors, one patient died 3 years after procedure because of sepsis (aorto-oesophageal fistula prior to intervention) and late vascular graft occlusions were noted in three cases.

Conclusions

Hybrid procedures on the aortic arch that comprise surgical and endovascular interventions has become an attractive and safe therapeutic option with acceptable mortality and morbidity rate. They may be considered as a method of choice in treatment of the elderly and high-risk patients.

Endovascular treatment of complex diseases of the thoracic aorta-10 years single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Introduction of invasive endovascular techniques constituted a real a breakthrough in the treatment of aortic aneurysm dissection and rupture. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with thoracic aortic pathologies.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2017, 118 patients with thoracic aortic pathology underwent TEVAR. Among them, 20 (16.9%) patients required hybrid procedures. Stent grafts indication were thoracic aortic aneurysm in 46 (39.0%) patients, type B dissection in 68 (57.6%) patients and other indications in 4 (3.3%). Procedural success rate, in-hospital and late mortality and morbidity were evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients were followed-up for a mean of 55 months (range, 6-118 months). The technical success rate was 96%. Five patients died during the first 30 days after procedure (mortality 4.2%), four due to ischemic stroke followed by multi-organ failure and another one hemodynamically significant type I endoleak. Most of them were noted in the first years of our study. Five others died during post-discharged period. Four patients developed neurological complications, including stroke (n=2; 1.7%) and paraparesis (n=2; 1.7%). There were 6 (5.1%) primary (5 type I and 1 type II) and 3 (2.5%) secondary endoleaks (1 type I and 2 type III). Secondary interventions were required in 8 subjects. There was one case of stent collapse and two retrograde aortic dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of descending aortic diseases by using stent graft implantation has become the method of choice, decreasing the risk of open surgery, especially in patients with severe clinical state and comorbidities. However, effectiveness and safety may be achieved by experience team.

Quantitative evaluation of blood flow in each cerebral branch associated with zone 1-2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

Optimal methods to quantitatively evaluate the blood flow in each cerebral artery after zone 1-2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the differences between preoperative and postoperative cerebral artery blood flows after zone 1-2 debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR).

METHODS

Between January 2016 and August 2018, a prospective analysis of the blood flow in both the internal carotid artery and the vertebral artery in 16 patients before and after zone 1-2 dTEVAR was conducted. Zone 1 dTEVAR with right axillary artery-left common carotid artery-left axillary artery (RAxA-LCCA-LAxA) bypass was performed on 7 patients. Zone 2 dTEVAR was performed on 9 patients: 4 underwent RAxA-LAxA bypass and 5 underwent LCCA-LAxA bypass. Quantitative magnetic resonance angiography was performed before and after zone 1-2 dTEVAR.

RESULTS

Total intracranial blood flow was preserved postoperatively [The median (interquartile range) preoperatively vs postoperatively: 621 (549-686) vs 638 (539-703) ml/min, not significant]. The anterior [469 (400-504) vs 475 (404-510) ml/min, not significant] and posterior cerebral blood flows [157 (121-199) vs 163 (123-210) ml/min, not significant] were also maintained postoperatively. In the 3 debranching procedures, the postoperative anterior and posterior cerebral blood flows were maintained at rates similar to preoperative rates, with the proportion of anterior and posterior cerebral circulations reaching almost 75% and 25%, respectively. No significant differences between preoperative and postoperative distributions of internal carotid artery blood flows were observed. Regarding vertebral artery blood flows, the distribution of blood flow through the left vertebral artery was significantly lower postoperatively than preoperatively; however, the postoperative right vertebral artery blood flow distribution significantly increased compared with the preoperative flow.

CONCLUSIONS

In zone 1-2 dTEVAR, total intracranial blood flow was preserved postoperatively, and the postoperative anterior and posterior cerebral circulations were maintained at rates similar to their preoperative rates.

Efficacy and safety of TEVAR with debranching technique for blunt traumatic aortic injury in patients with severe multiple trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) patients are severely ill, with high mortality and morbidity. As 60% of BTAIs occur in the distal arch, left subclavian artery (LSCA) management is determined without knowing posterior cerebral or left arm circulation in emergent cases. Because we perform thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) + debranching technique for thoracic BTAI, we assessed efficacy and safety of debranching TEVAR in BTAI patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed vital signs on arrival, injury mechanism, characteristics, clinical time-series, concomitant injuries, injury description, operative procedures, and results from patient records. We excluded patients in cardiopulmonary arrest on arrival.

RESULTS

From April 2014 to December 2018, nine of 25 patients admitted with BTAI underwent TEVAR. Median Injury Severity Score was 34 (29-34) and probability of survival was 0.82 (0.16-0.94). Society for Vascular Surgery BTAI injury grade was III or IV in all patients. Three patients underwent simple TEVAR and six underwent debranching TEVAR (LSCA occlusion + left common carotid artery to LSCA bypass). Median operation time was 108 (75-157) min for simple TEVAR and 177 (112-218) min for debranching TEVAR. Concomitant injuries included intracranial hemorrhage (N = 1), intra-abdominal injuries (N = 3), pneumo- or hemothoraxes (N = 4) and pelvic/extremities fractures (N = 7). Only one complication of left-hand claudication occurred postoperatively in a patient with simple TEVAR with LSCA occlusion.

CONCLUSION

Despite debranching TEVAR taking approximately 60 min longer than simple TEVAR, short-term results indicated it to be acceptable for BTAI in multiple trauma patients to avoid LSCA complications unless we fail to stop bleeding first.