Endovascular therapy for patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease

Diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease in patients with heritable connective tissue disorders or heritable thoracic aortic diseases

Patients with heritable connective tissue disorders (HCTDs), represented by Marfan syndrome, can develop fatal aortic and/or arterial complications before age 50. Therefore, accurate diagnosis, appropriate medical treatment, and early prophylactic surgical treatment of aortic and arterial lesions are essential to improve prognosis. Patients with HCTDs generally present with specific physical features due to connective tissue abnormalities, while some patients with heritable thoracic aortic diseases (HTADs) have few distinctive physical characteristics. The development of genetic testing has made it possible to provide accurate diagnoses for patients with HCTDs/HTADs. This review provides an overview of the diagnosis and treatment of HCTDs/HTADs, including current evidence on cardiovascular interventions for this population.

Endovascular aortic repair in patients with Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndrome is safe and durable when employed by a multi-disciplinary aortic team

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to report on mid-term outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in patients with Marfan (MFS) or Loeys-Dietz (LDS) syndrome.

METHODS

We analysed data from 2 European centres of patients with MFS and LDS undergoing EVAR. Patients were analysed based on (i) timing of the procedure (planned versus emergency procedure) and (ii) the nature of the landing zone (safe versus non-safe). The primary end-point was freedom from reintervention. Secondary end-points were freedom from stroke, bleeding and death.

RESULTS

A population of 419 patients with MFS (n = 352) or LDS (n = 67) was analysed for the purpose of this study. Thirty-nine patients (9%) underwent EVAR. Indications for thoracic endovascular aortic repair or EVAR were aortic dissection in 13 (33%) patients, aortic aneurysm in 22 (57%) patients and others (intercostal patch aneurysm, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, pseudoaneurysm, kinking of frozen elephant trunk (FET)) in 4 (10%) patients. Thoracic endovascular repair was performed in 34 patients, and abdominal endovascular aortic repair was performed in 5 patients. Mean age at 1st thoracic endovascular aortic repair/EVAR was 48.5 ± 15.4 years. Mean follow-up after 1st thoracic endovascular aortic repair/EVAR was 5.9 ± 4.4 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of reinterventions between patients with non-safe landing zone and the patients with safe proximal landing zone (P = 0.609). Furthermore, there was no increased probability for reintervention after planned endovascular intervention compared to emergency procedures (P = 0.916). Mean time to reintervention, either open surgical or endovascular, after planned endovascular intervention was in median 3.9 years (95% confidence interval 2.0-5.9 years) and 2.0 years (95% confidence interval -1.1 to 5.1 years) (P = 0.23) after emergency procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR in patients with MFS and LDS and a safe landing zone is feasible and safe. Endovascular treatment is a viable option when employed by a multi-disciplinary aortic team even if the landing zone is in native tissue.

Hereditary Thoracic Aortic Diseases

Advances in both imaging techniques and genetics have led to the recognition of a wide variety of aortic anomalies that can be grouped under the term 'hereditary thoracic aortic diseases'. The present review aims to summarize this very heterogeneous population's clinical, genetic, and imaging characteristics and to discuss the implications of the diagnosis for clinical counselling (on sports activity or pregnancy), medical therapies and surgical management.

Outcomes After Endovascular Aortic Intervention in Patients With Connective Tissue Disease

Importance

Endovascular treatment is not recommended for aortic pathologies in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) other than in redo operations and as bridging procedures in emergencies. However, recent developments in endovascular technology may challenge this dogma.

Objective

To assess the midterm outcomes of endovascular aortic repair in patients with CTD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this descriptive retrospective study, data on demographics, interventions, and short-term and midterm outcomes were collected from 18 aortic centers in Europe, Asia, North America, and New Zealand. Patients with CTD who had undergone endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020 were included. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to November 2022.

Exposure

All principal endovascular aortic repairs, including redo surgery and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Short-term and midterm survival, rates of secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair.

Results

In total, 171 patients were included: 142 with Marfan syndrome, 17 with Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 12 with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS). Median (IQR) age was 49.9 years (37.9-59.0), and 107 patients (62.6%) were male. One hundred fifty-two (88.9%) were treated for aortic dissections and 19 (11.1%) for degenerative aneurysms. One hundred thirty-six patients (79.5%) had undergone open aortic surgery before the index endovascular repair. In 74 patients (43.3%), arch and/or visceral branches were included in the repair. Primary technical success was achieved in 168 patients (98.2%), and 30-day mortality was 2.9% (5 patients). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 96.2% and 80.6% for Marfan syndrome, 93.8% and 85.2% for Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 75.0% and 43.8% for vEDS, respectively. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 4.7 years (1.9-9.2), 91 patients (53.2%) had undergone secondary procedures, of which 14 (8.2%) were open conversions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that endovascular aortic interventions, including redo procedures and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta, in patients with CTD had a high rate of early technical success, low perioperative mortality, and a midterm survival rate comparable with reports of open aortic surgery in patients with CTD. The rate of secondary procedures was high, but few patients required conversion to open repair. Improvements in devices and techniques, as well as ongoing follow-up, may result in endovascular treatment for patients with CTD being included in guideline recommendations.

Iliac branch endoprosthesis for repair of a common iliac artery aneurysm in Loeys-Dietz syndrome type 3

The commercial availability of the iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) has permitted endovascular repair of iliac artery aneurysms with the preservation of pelvic circulation. However, the device instructions for use require certain anatomic criteria that can limit deployment in ≤30% of patients. Moreover, branched endovascular treatment of common iliac artery aneurysms with IBE in patients with connective tissue disorders such as Loeys-Dietz syndrome has not been described. In the present report, we have described our technique of alternative endograft aortoiliac reconstruction to overcome anatomic barriers to IBE placement in a patient with a giant common iliac artery aneurysm in the setting of a rare pathogenic variant in the SMAD3 gene.

Comprehensive review of hybrid aortic arch repair with focus on zone 0 TEVAR and our institutional experience

Even with increasing operator experience and a better understanding of the disease and the operation, intervention for aortic arch pathologies continues to struggle with relatively higher mortality, reintervention, and neurologic complications. The hybrid aortic arch repair was introduced to simplify the procedure and improve the outcome. With recent industry-driven advances, hybrid repairs are not only offered to poor surgical candidates but have become mainstream. This review discusses the evolution of hybrid repair, terminology pertinent to this technique, and results. In addition, we aim to provide a pervasive review of hybrid aortic arch repairs with reference to relevant literature for a detailed understanding. We have also discussed our institutional experience with hybrid repairs.

Endovascular Repair in Patients with Marfan Syndrome: Concerns Amid Controversy

Endovascular aortic repair is widely used to treat patients with degenerative aneurysms or aortic dissection within the distal aorta. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is generally associated with fewer short-term complications than open surgical repair, which is particularly important for older patients with significant comorbid conditions. However, for patients with Marfan syndrome, a heritable thoracic aortic disease associated with aortic dilatation, dissection, and rupture, the utility of endovascular aortic repair remains questionable. Marfan patients have friable aortic tissue and are typically treated at a relatively young age; they therefore need a durable solution. Furthermore, those who need distal aortic repair tend to have chronic aortic dissection. Although TEVAR is generally superior to open surgery with regard to short-term complications, it is less durable, and TEVAR reintervention rates are highest in patients with chronic aortic dissection. Thus, Marfan patients seeking definitive aortic repair are often better served by open repair. Nonetheless, TEVAR may be useful in patients with Marfan syndrome as a bridge to open repair or as treatment for late complications of previous open repair.