A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgery for Ruptured Descending Thoracic Aorta

OBJECTIVE

The comparisons between thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aorta (TEVAR) and open surgery (OS) have not been well documented, although both procedures have been widely utilized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and safety between TEVAR and OS in the repair of ruptured descending thoracic aorta.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find relevant studies to assess TEVAR and OS outcomes. The comparative parameters were perioperative mortality (30 day/in-hospital), 1 year mortality, paraplegia or paraparesis, renal insufficiency, stroke, pulmonary embolism, re-intervention rate, pulmonary complications, and cardiac complications. A fixed-effects model was applied to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on pooled outcomes from different studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen observational trials involving 2088 patients were evaluated (TEVAR=560; OS=1528). Meta-analysis showed that TEVAR in repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta was associated with lower perioperative mortality (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.66; p<0.01), 1 year mortality (OR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.75; p<0.01), renal insufficiency incidence (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p=0.03), and pulmonary complications (OR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; p=0.01) when compared with OS. There was no significant difference between TEVAR and OS in terms of paraplegia, stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications, and early re-intervention rates. However, the late re-intervention rate was higher in the TEVAR group than that in the OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

When repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR may be performed rapidly and safely. TEVAR is associated with lower rates of perioperative morbidity and early postoperative complications than OS.

RETRACTED: Anesthesic and surgical guideline for the treatment of the thoraco-abdominal aorta. Consensus Document of the Spanish Societies of Anesthesia and Cardiovascular Surgery

Este artículo ha sido retirado por indicación del Editor Jefe de la revista, después de constatar que parte de su contenido había sido plagiado, sin mencionar la fuente original: European Heart Journal (2014) 35, 2873 926.: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/35/41/2873/407693#89325738 El autor de correspondencia ha sido informado de la decisión y está de acuerdo con la retirada del artículo. El Comité Editorial lamenta las molestias que esta decisión pueda ocasionar. Puede consultar la política de Elsevier sobre la retirada de artículos en https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal

TEVAR versus open repair of blunt traumatic descending aortic injury in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard-of-care for treating traumatic aortic injury (TAI). Few retrospective studies compared TEVAR to open repair in blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). Our objectives were to compare the early outcomes of TEVAR for blunt traumatic descending aortic injury to open repair (OR) in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents (MVA).

Results

Between February 2005 and April 2017, 71 patients with TAI due to MVA presented to our institution. All patients with descending aortic injuries were considered for open repair (n = 41) or TEVAR (n = 30) if there was no contraindication. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay.

The mean age was 28.4 ± 10.1 years in the OR group and 33.3 ± 16.6 years in TEVAR-group (P = 0.13). The injury severity scores were 41 ± 10 in the OR group and 33 ± 17 in the TEVAR group (P = 0.03). Patients in the OR group underwent emergency repair with a mean time of 0.56 ± 0.18 days from arrival. The TEVAR group had a longer time interval between arrival and procedure (2.1 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.001). The OR group had more blood transfusion (24 (58.5%) vs. 8 (27.5%), P = 0.002), renal impairment (6 (14.6%) vs. 1 (5.50%), P = 0.23), and wound infection (21 (51.2%) vs. 3 (10%), P < 0.001). Three TEVAR patients had a perioperative stroke compared to two patients in the OR group (P = 0.64). There was no difference in the mean ICU (6 ± 8.9 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.1) or hospital stay (20.1 ± 12.3 vs. 20.1 ± 18.3, P = 0.62) between the two groups. There were four deaths in the OR group and none in the TEVAR group (P = 0.13).

Conclusion

The results of TEVAR were comparable with the open repair for traumatic aortic injury with good early postoperative outcomes. TEVAR repair could be associated with lower mortality, blood transfusion, and infective complications. However, the complexity of the injury and technical challenges were higher in the open group.

[Acute post-trauma dissection of the descending thoracic aorta]

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury to the descending thoracic aorta other than the isthmus is rare, and little known. Acute post-trauma rupture may occur in a context of multiple or rarely unique localizations.

CASE REPORT

We report the case of a young man who was the victim of multiple injuries with an isolated rupture of the descending thoracic aorta. Early diagnosis and adapted endovascular treatment led to favorable outcome.

CONCLUSION

In 90% of cases, acute post-trauma rupture of the aorta in a single localization involve the isthmus. Rupture of the descending aorta is more exceptional but must not be missed. The pathophysiological mechanism and appropriate management are discussed in light of a review of the literature.

[Traumatic injuries of the descending thoracic aorta apart from the isthmus: diagnosis and therapeutic approach]

Lesions involving the descending thoracic aorta apart from isthmus are rare and less known by anesthetists. We report the clinical course of two severely injured patients who sustained a thoracic aortic rupture in whom favorable outcome was achieved with endovascular treatment. Mechanisms, diagnosis and therapeutics aspects of these rare lesions are discussed according to literature.

Potential long-term complications of endovascular stent grafting for blunt thoracic aortic injury

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a rare, but lethal, consequence of rapid deceleration events. Most victims of BTAI die at the scene of the accident. Of those who arrive to the hospital alive, expedient aortic intervention significantly improves survival. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been accepted as the standard of care for BTAI at many centers, primarily due to the convincing evidence of lower mortality and morbidity in comparison to open surgery. However, less attention has been given to potential long-term complications of TEVAR for BTAI. This paper focuses on these complications, which include progressive aortic expansion with aging, inadequate stent graft characteristics, device durability concerns, long-term radiation exposure concerns from follow-up computed tomography scans, and the potential for (Victims of Modern Imaging Technology) VOMIT.

Repair of a penetrating aortic arch injury using deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion

The traumatic rupture of the thoracic aorta is a severe and life-threatening entity. The incidence of penetrating trauma to the aortic arch is not known, because most patients die of haemorrhage even before they receive adequate treatment. Clinical signs of such injuries include external or internal haemorrhage, bruit, distal pulse deficit, neurological deficit and shock. We present a 42-year old female with a penetrating aortic arch injury successfully repaired using deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion.