Neurological complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Does the left subclavian artery coverage without revascularization increase the risk of neurological complications in patients after thoracic endovascular aortic repair?

Spinal cord ischemia and reinterventions following thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissections

OBJECTIVE

The technical aspects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), specifically the location of proximal seal zone (PSZ) (need to cover the left subclavian artery [LSA]), distal seal zone (DSZ) (length of aortic coverage), benefit of LSA revascularization, and prophylactic lumbar drainage are still debated. Each of these issues has potential benefits but also has known risks. This study aims to identify factors associated with reintervention and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following TEVAR for acute TBAD with a zone 3 entry tear.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute TBAD with zone 3 entry tear, zone 3 proximal zone of disease, treated with TEVAR extending between zone 2 and zone 5. The primary outcomes were SCI and related reintervention. Secondary outcomes were stroke, arm ischemia, and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). The exposure variables were PSZ 2 vs 3, DSZ 4 vs 5, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA revascularization. Univariate analyses were conducted with χ2 analysis, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association with outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 583 patients who met inclusion criteria, 266 had PSZ 2 and 317 had PSZ 3. On univariate analysis, PSZ 2 was associated with a higher rate of reintervention, but PSZ2 was not significant on multivariable analysis after accounting for age, sex, race, smoking, PSZ, DSZ, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA patency. PSZ 2 was not associated with SCI, arm ischemia, or RTAD. PSZ 2 was associated with a trend towards a higher rate of stroke. DSZ 4 and DSZ 5 were performed in 161 and 422 TEVARs, respectively, and DSZ 5 was associated with a higher rate of SCI on univariate (3 [1.9%] vs 39 [9.2%]; P = .01) and multivariable (odds ratio, 7.384; 95% confidence interval, 2.193-24.867; P = .001) analyses. Prophylactic lumbar drain placement was not statistically significantly associated with SCI, but lack of postoperative LSA patency was associated with SCI (odds ratio, 2.966; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-8.656; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that PSZ 2 was not associated with lower reinterventions or higher rates of SCI but trended towards a higher rate of stroke than PSZ 3. Additionally, DSZ 5 was strongly associated with SCI when compared with DSZ 4, highlighting the importance of limiting aortic coverage to coverage of the proximal entry tear when possible.

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.

Early Postoperative Neurologic Events Are Associated With Worse Outcome and Fatal Midterm Survival After Adult Heart Transplantation

Background Neurologic events during primary stay in heart transplant (HTx) recipients may be associated with reduced outcome and survival, which we aim to explore with the current study. Methods and Results We screened and included all patients undergoing HTx in our center between September 2010 and December 2022 (n=268) and checked for the occurrence of neurologic events within their index stay. Neurologic events were defined as ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, hypoxic ischemic injury, or acute symptomatic neurologic dysfunction without central nervous system injury. The cohort was then divided into recipients with (n=33) and without (n=235) neurologic events after HTx. Using a multivariable Cox regression model, the association of neurologic events after HTx and survival was assessed. Recipients with neurologic events displayed a longer intensive care unit stay (30 versus 16 days; P=0.009), longer mechanical ventilation (192 versus 48 hours; P<0.001), and higher need for blood transfusion, and need for hemodialysis after HTx was substantially higher (81% versus 55%; P=0.01). Resternotomy (36% versus 26%; P=0.05) and mechanical life support (extracorporeal life support) after HTx (46% versus 24%; P=0.02) were also significantly higher in patients with neurologic events. Covariable-adjusted multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed a significant independent association of neurologic events and increased 30-day (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5 [95% CI, 1.0-6.0]; P=0.049), 1-year (HR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.1-4.3]; P=0.019), and overall (HR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.5-4.2]; P<0.001) mortality after HTx and reduced Kaplan-Meier survival up to 5 years after HTx (P<0.001). Conclusions Neurologic events after HTx were strongly and independently associated with worse postoperative outcome and reduced survival up to 5 years after HTx.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair with Supra-Aortic Trunk Revascularization is Associated with Increased Risk of Periprocedural Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Ischemic stroke is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This risk may be higher in more proximal aneurysms that require arch manipulation. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe 30-day stroke and death rates in patients undergoing TEVAR, (2) compare stroke rates in patients undergoing TEVAR for arch versus descending aneurysm pathology, and (3) identify predictive factors associated with stroke after TEVAR.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried (2015-2021) for TEVAR procedures performed for degenerative aneurysms. Our primary outcomes were any stroke or death at 30 days. Patient-, procedure-, and hospital-level predictors of stroke were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Among 3,072 patients with degenerative aneurysms (197 [6.4%] arch versus 2,875 [93.6%] descending) treated with elective TEVAR, the median age was 73 years (interquartile range 67-79) and 54.8% were male. Within the arch aneurysm group, there were 27.4% zone 0, 22.8% zone 1, and 49.8% zone 2 interventions. Overall 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% and 3.8%. The distribution of stroke events was bilateral (52.9%), left carotid (20.7%), left vertebrobasilar (11.5%), right carotid (9.2%), and right vertebrobasilar (5.7%). Although mortality was similar between groups, the rate of ischemic stroke was higher for patients undergoing TEVAR for arch aneurysm versus descending aneurysms (7.1% arch versus 2.9% descending, P = 0.001). Factors that were associated with ischemic stroke after TEVAR included age (>79 years, relative risk [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.98 vs. <79 years), dependent functional status (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.78), procedural time (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), and endovascular intervention for supra-aortic trunk revascularization (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.06-6.70 versus no intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemic stroke risk after TEVAR was increased for arch aneurysms compared to descending aneurysms. More proximal zone coverage and endovascular interventions on the supra-aortic trunks were associated with increasing risk for stroke. Adequate preparation for stroke prevention is necessary prior to TEVAR with supra-aortic trunk revascularization.

Risk profile analysis of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Laboratory and radiographic predictors

BACKGROUND

There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remain debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological, and radiological parameters, which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR.

AIM

This review summarizes evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Scopus to collate all research evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients RESULTS: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter, and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in the future to optimize the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols.

CONCLUSION

There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameters emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.

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.

Safety of Left Subclavian Artery Selective Coverage without Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissections

PURPOSE

Whether to proceed left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in patients with LSA coverage due to insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial.

METHODS

A total of 903 patients who received TEVAR were retrospectively analyzed. LSA could be covered if the PLZ was less than 15 mm accompanied with 1) a dominant or balanced right vertebral artery, 2) a complete circle of Willis, and 3) a left vertebral artery with a diameter ≥3 mm and without severe stenosis.

RESULTS

LSA selective coverage was necessary for 35.0% (316/903) of the patients to extend the PLZ. Patients presented with weakness, pain, cooling and discoloration of the left upper extremity (LUE), and pulselessness of the left brachial artery were more in the LSA-covered group. The ischemia of LUE occurred more often in patients with LSA covered completely than in those with LSA covered partially. Functional arm status showed no significant difference in the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire scores at 12 months postoperative between the LSA-covered group and LSA-uncovered group, or between the LSA-covered completely group and LSA-covered partially group.

CONCLUSION

It was safe to cover the LSA origin without revascularization if the PLZ was less than 15 mm accompanied with careful evaluation (description in method).

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.

Avoiding Arch Manipulation with Catheterization of Left Subclavian Artery for Endovascular Repair of Distal Descending Aorta: Acibadem Technique

Although thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with reduced mortality and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery, the decrease in stroke risk did not reach the desired rates. Aortic arch manipulation is one of the main concerns leading to stroke during TEVAR. Here, we describe a new technique called "Acibadem Technique" to avoid arch and ascending aorta manipulation with catheterization of left subclavian artery for endovascular distal descending aortic repair.