Two-Year Single-Center Experience With Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using the EndoFit Thoracic Stent-Graft

Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm and dissection.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before April 1, 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We assessed the association between CSFD strategies, including routine CSFD vs selective CSFD or no CSFD, and the SCI rates after TEVAR for patients with aortic dissection (AD), solitary thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the association between different aortic pathologies, including AD and thoracic aneurysms, and SCI rates after TEVAR with and without prophylactic CSFD. The data are presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies of 3561 patients (2671 with TAA or TAAA and 890 with type B AD) were included in the present analysis. The data are presented as the pooled ERs and 95% CIs. The overall SCI rate for patients who had undergone TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD for AD (ER, 1.80%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.72%) was significantly lower than that for the aortic aneurysm group (ER, 5.73%; 95% CI, 4.20%-7.27%; P < .0001). The SCI rate after TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD was not significantly different from that without CSFD for AD (P = .51). No association was found between the rates of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD vs selective prophylactic CSFD for aortic aneurysms (P = .76) and AD (P = .70). The SCI rate after TEVAR without CSFD for aortic aneurysms, including isolated TAA and TAAA (ER, 3.49%; 95% CI, 0.23%-6.76%) was not significantly different from that for AD (ER, 3.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-7.20%; P = .91). For the patients with TAAAs, the rate of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD was significantly lower than that with selective prophylactic CSFD (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that SCI occurs more often after TEVAR for aortic aneurysms than for AD. Routine prophylactic CSFD, compared with selective CSFD, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative SCI after TEVAR for TAAAs. No significant association was found between the SCI rate and routine prophylactic CSFD for patients undergoing TEVAR for isolated TAA or AD.

[Stent graft of the thoracic aorta]

Considering the demographic changes in our society and the proliferation of imaging-based improved diagnostics, both acute and chronic aortic diseases attract increasing attention and require dedicated care. Cardiac as well as vascular surgery used to represent the gold standards for therapeutic management of pathologies of the ascending aorta and the arch; however, the technological evolution of endoluminal strategies has had a serious impact on the treatment of the descending aorta, the aortic arch in combination with vascular debranching or bypass, and in selected cases even on managing pathologies of the ascending aorta. Although several case series and meta-analyses of published observations hint towards superiority of endografting in comparison to open surgical repair, the affected usually multimorbid patients with highly complex aortic disease should be subjected to an individual evaluation by a team of cardiologists, cardiac and vascular surgeons as well as imaging specialists; a dedicated individualized treatment concept in highly experienced centers of excellence is likely to provide the best results for such challenging patients.

A systematic review of spinal cord injury and cerebrospinal fluid drainage after thoracic aortic endografting

BACKGROUND

The use of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is increasing. Similar to open repair, TEVAR carries a risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI). We undertook a systematic review to determine whether preoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage reduces SCI.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts were searched using the keywords thoracic endovascular aortic repair, cerebrospinal fluid, spinal cord ischaemia, TEVAR, and aneurysm. Studies reporting SCI rates and CSF drain rates for TEVAR patients were eligible for inclusion. SCI rates across studies were pooled using random-effects modeling. Study quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black score.

RESULTS

Study quality was generally poor to moderate (median Downs and Black score, 9). The systematic review identified 46 eligible studies comprising 4936 patients; overall, SCI affected 3.89% (95% confidence interval, 2.95.05%-4.95%). Series reporting routine prophylactic drain placement or no prophylactic drain placement reported pooled SCI rates of 3.2% and 3.47%, respectively. The pooled SCI rate from 24 series stating that prophylactic drainage was used selectively was 5.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal chord injury is uncommon after TEVAR. The role of prophylactic CSF drainage is difficult to establish from the available literature. High-quality studies are required to determine the role of prophylactic CSF drainage in TEVAR.

Endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm

A thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a potentially life-threatening condition with structural weakness of the aortic wall, which can progress to arterial dilatation and rupture. Today, both an increasing awareness of vascular disease and the access to tomographic imaging facilitate the diagnosis of TAA even in an asymptomatic stage. The risk of rupture for untreated aneurysms beyond a diameter of 5.6 cm ranges from 46% to 74% and the two-year mortality rate is greater than 70%, with most deaths resulting from rupture. Treatment options include surgical and non-surgical repair to prevent aneurysm enlargement and rupture. While most cases of ascending aortic involvement are subject to surgical repair (partially with valve-preserving techniques), aneurysm of the distal arch and descending thoracic aorta are amenable to emerging endovascular techniques as an alternative to classic open repair or to a hybrid approach (combining debranching surgery with stent grafting) in an attempt to improve outcomes.

Endovascular device design in the future: transformation from trial and error to computational design

Endovascular devices have been designed by trial and error, with bench and animal testing followed by human clinical trials to determine whether the devices are safe and effective. Despite remarkable advances over the past 15 years, there are persistent concerns regarding the long-term durability of endovascular devices. This may be due to deficiencies in device design, which has lagged behind other industries in adopting computational methods that are now routinely used to design, develop, and test new aircraft and automobiles. Similar computational design and failure mode simulations that evaluate performance under stress conditions have not been widely applied in the development of endovascular devices. Advances in medical imaging and computational modeling now allow simulation of physiological conditions in patient-specific 3-dimensional vascular models, which can provide a framework to design and test the next generation of endovascular devices. This modeling will allow the prospective design of devices that can withstand the force variations in the cardiovascular system that occur during bending, coughing, and varying degrees of exercise, as well as the extremes encountered during sudden impact in contact sports. Utilization of computational design methodology that takes into consideration the physiology of the cardiovascular system will improve future endovascular devices so that they are safer and more effective and durable.

Endovascular repair in the thoracic and abdominal aorta: no increased risk of spinal cord ischemia when both territories are treated

PURPOSE

To evaluate the morbidity associated with thoracic and abdominal aortic repair using endovascular exclusion alone or combined endovascular and open repair.

METHODS

Between January 1998 and February 2007, 49 patients (36 men; mean age 70 years) underwent treatment for thoracic and abdominal aorta disease with descending thoracic aortic (DTA) stent-graft and abdominal aortic repair. Thirty-nine patients with coexisting thoracic and abdominal pathologies were classified with multilevel aortic disease (MLAD), whereas 10 patients presented with thoracoabdominal aneurysm. Patients were separated into 3 groups: 1: thoracic stent-grafts and open abdominal repair (n = 18), group 2: thoracic and abdominal stent-grafts (n = 21), and group 3: thoracic stent-grafts with visceral artery debranching (n = 10). Prior carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 3 (6%) patients with a dominant left vertebral artery.

RESULTS

Stent-graft deployment was technically successful in all cases. Eight (16%) patients underwent emergent thoracic stent-graft placement. In 9 (18%) patients, the left subclavian artery was covered. No incidence of spinal cord ischemia was observed. The 30-day mortality was 4%, and overall mortality was 6% over a mean 33-month follow-up. The endoleak rate was 6% (1 type I, 1 type II, and 1 type III).

CONCLUSION

Conventional or endovascular abdominal open repair in combination with DTA stent-grafting is feasible and a safe alternative to traditional open repair. Management of MLAD did not show increased incidence of spinal cord ischemia and was associated with fewer complications and deaths than simultaneous or staged open thoracic and abdominal repairs.