Arch and access vessel complications in penetrating aortic ulcer managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Endovascular Repair of Penetrating Thoracic Aortic Ulcers Using Tubular Stent Grafts Versus Stent Grafts With a Proximal Scallop

PURPOSE

In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

Midterm results of complicated penetrating abdominal aortic ulcer treated by aortobi-iliac endograft and embolization

BACKGROUND

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) is determined by atherosclerotic degeneration of the tunica media with disruption of the intima. Usually it is detected in the thoracic aorta, with few series describing an abdominal location. The aim of the study was to report early and late outcomes of the endovascular repair of complicated infrarenal abdominal PAU (a-PAU) by aortobi-iliac endograft and embolization.

METHODS

Data from all complicated a-PAU submitted to endovascular repair by aortobi-iliac endograft (Cook-Zenith Alpha) between 2016 and 2021 (February) were analyzed. The a-PAU coil embolization was performed to decrease the risk of persistent type II endoleak whenever possible. Complicated a-PAU were defined according with the presence of symptoms, aortic rupture, or saccular or pseudo-aneurysm. Technical success, 30-day morbidity and mortality, and reinterventions were assessed as early outcomes. Survival, endoleaks, and freedom from reinterventions were evaluated during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 1153 endovascular aortic procedures, 45 cases (4%) of complicated a-PAU were identified. Fourteen cases (31%) were managed in urgent setting (symptoms, n = 10 [22%]; shock, n = 4 [9%]). The median diameter of a-PAU was 49 mm (interquartile range, 14 mm). Thirteen patients (29%) had severe femoral or iliac access (angle >90°, circumferential calcification [>50%], hemodynamic iliac stenosis or obstruction, an external iliac artery diameter of less than 7 mm, or a previous femoral surgical graft). The a-PAU embolization was performed in 30 cases (67%). Technical success was achieved in all patients. Postoperative cardiac, pulmonary and renal morbidity occurred in one (2%), two (4%), and eight (18%) patients, respectively. Two patients (4%) required reintervention within 30 days for access related complications. The 30-day mortality was 2%. At a median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range, 18 months), no type I or III endoleaks, iliac leg occlusion, or graft infection occurred and no patient required late reinterventions; the 36-month survival rate was 72%. No a-PAU enlarged or ruptured during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of complicated a-PAU by a low-profile aortobi-iliac endograft and embolization is safe and effective. Excellent technical results are reported even in challenging anatomic features. Midterm clinical results are satisfactory in terms of aortic-related complications or mortality, freedom from reintervention, and survival.

Vascular Access Challenges in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

This review aims to comprehensively summarize access challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by describing vascular access routes, associated risks, outcomes, and complications.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Qualitative and quantitative data from selected studies are extracted and discussed according to available standards for narrative reviews.

RESULTS

In total, there were 109 eligible studies based on predefined inclusion- and exclusion criteria. There were 39 original articles or reviews and 57 case series or case reports. This article summarizes the evidence from these studies and discusses traditional retrograde access routes and techniques for TEVAR via a femoral or iliac route, with or without the use of conduits. Next, alternative antegrade access routes and techniques via a brachial, axillary, carotid, ascending aorta, transapical, transcaval, or another route are discussed. Vascular access complications are presented with specific attention to the importance of gender and alternative antegrade access routes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple access routes and techniques are currently available to overcome access challenges associated with TEVAR, based on low grade evidence from heterogeneous studies. Future research that compares different access routes and techniques might help in the development of a tailored access protocol for specific patients with challenging TEVAR access.

Transthoracic minimally invasive closure for the treatment of arch penetrating aortic ulcer: a case report

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) is one of the three subtypes of acute aortic syndrome. PAUs occur at any point throughout the aorta, most commonly in the descending thoracic aorta and less frequently in the aortic arch. Open surgical repair and total/hybrid endovascular repair are currently available to treat aortic arch PAUs. Herein, we present a patient with aortic arch PAU who underwent transthoracic minimally invasive closure, which is a novel method for the treatment of PAU. We describe a 52-year old Asian man who presented with sudden chest and back pain for 8 h. Computed tomography angiography showed that the PAU occurred in the aortic arch and had a diameter of 16 mm and a depth of 6 mm. The opening was successfully closed via transthoracic minimally invasive closure with an atrial septal defect occluder.

Multicentre experience with the frozen elephant trunk technique to treat penetrating aortic ulcers involving the aortic arch

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate the use of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for the treatment of penetrating aortic ulcers involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and January 2020, a total of 34 patients had the FET technique at 3 aortic centres. The indication for the FET technique was unsuitability for thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to the lack of a sufficient proximal landing zone even after supra-aortic rerouting (subclavian transposition, double transposition), ectasia of the ascending aorta/aortic arch (>40 mm) and/or a shaggy proximal thoracic aorta.

RESULTS

Additional cardiac procedures were performed in 14 patients (41%), and the beating heart technique was used in 7 patients (21%). Perioperative mortality was 18% (n = 6); 3 of these patients had a major stroke (9%). No case of spinal cord ischaemia was observed, and 2 patients (6%) developed a non-disabling stroke. After a median follow-up of 7 (first quartile: 1; third quartile 29) months, 2 patients (6%) died (1 of malignant disease and 1 of an unclear cause); 10 additional aortic interventions in all aortic segments (29%; endovascular: n = 8 [24%] and conventional surgical: n = 2 [6%]) were performed in 8 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The FET technique is a good treatment option for patients with penetrating aortic ulcers involving the aortic arch unsuitable for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. However, the high obliterative atherosclerotic load in these patients is accompanied by an un-neglectable risk of perioperative neurological injury. Concomitant cardiac surgical procedures are frequently needed. Patients commonly require secondary aortic procedures in all aortic segments, emphasizing the need for thorough primary conceptual planning and stringent follow-up.

Results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system.

METHODS

Forty-three patients with thoracic aortic pathology involving the aortic arch have been treated with the Relay Branch system (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) in 10 centres. We assessed in-hospital mortality, neurological injury, treatment success according to current reporting standards and the need for secondary interventions. In addition, outcome was analysed according to the underlying pathology: non-dissective disease versus residual aortic dissection (RAD) (defined as remaining dissection after previous type A repair, chronic type B aortic dissections).

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 9% (0% in patients with RAD). Disabling stroke occurred in 7% (0% in patients with RAD); non-disabling stroke occurred in 19% (7% in patients with RAD). Early type IA and B endoleak formation occurred in 4%. Median follow-up was 16 ± 18 months. During the follow-up period, 23% of the patients died. Aortic-related deaths were low (3% in patients with RAD).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of endovascular aortic arch repair using the Relay Branch system in a selected patient population with regard to technical success are good. In-hospital mortality is acceptable, the number of disabling strokes is low and technical success is high. Non-disabling stroke is a major concern, and every effort has to be taken to reduce this to a minimum. The best outcome is seen in patients with underlying RAD. Finally, more data are needed.

Analysis of clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure without thoracotomy for aorta lesion involving distal aortic arch

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure for aortic lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 99 consecutive patients who underwent the hybrid procedure (thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with supra-arch branch vessel bypass) in our center between April 2009 and January 2020 for lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

RESULTS

Median age was 64.0 (57.0-69.0) years, and 83 (83.8%) patients were male. There were five deaths in the perioperative period (three due to cerebral infarction and two due to intimal rupture). During the median follow-up of 41.0 months, 20 patients died, three had endoleak, one had a newly formed intimal tear, and two had femoral artery pseudoaneurysm. The 5- and 10-year survival rates of the total population were 72.2% and 48.8%, respectively. Additionally, there was no difference in the 5-year survival rate among the four groups according to different pathologies (Type B aortic dissection, aortic ulcer, aortic aneurysm, aortic pseudoaneurysm: 74.7%, 78.2%, 61.1%, and 75.5%, respectively, p = .58). Furthermore, there was no difference in the 5- and 10-year survival rates between the two groups according to the different bypass methods (right axillary artery [RAA]-left axillary artery [LAA] vs. RAA-LAA-left common carotid artery: 74.1% vs. 68.9%, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although one-staged hybrid procedure has fewer complications in high-risk patients with lesions involving the distal aortic arch, the long-term survival rate is not optimistic.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcers and intramural hematomas is associated with poor outcomes

BACKGROUND

The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs) of the aorta has not been well described. Although repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain, or growth, no threshold has been established for treating those found incidentally. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach for treating these pathologic entities. However, the periprocedural and postoperative outcomes have not been well defined.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone TEVAR for PAUs and/or IMHs from January 2011 to February 2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had follow-up data available. The patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify the risk factors for major adverse events (MAEs) and postoperative and late mortality.

RESULTS

The cohort was 54.8% female, and 69.9% were former smokers, with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent, with 57.8% classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4. Of the 1042 patients, 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure. Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%), and 44.5% had undergone nonelective repair. The MAE incidence was 17%. The independent predictors of MAEs were a history of coronary artery disease, nonwhite race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Of the index hospitalization mortalities, 73% were treatment related. For the 809 patients with follow-up (mean, 25.1 ± 19 months), the all-cause mortality was 10.6%. The predictors of late mortality during follow-up included age >70 years, ruptured presentation, and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and end-stage renal disease. A subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated that the former were frequently women (58.2% vs 45.3%; P < .001), with a greater incidence of MAEs (20.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001), including higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs 1.5%; P = .002) and mortality (5.6% vs 0.7%; log-rank P = .015), and a prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs 3.7 days; P < .0001), despite similar procedural risks. During follow-up, late mortality was greater in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs 6.5%; log-rank P = .025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significantly greater morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared with asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality during follow-up, with the overall prognosis largely dependent on preexisting comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with increasing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMHs and PAUs.

The Jailed Coiling Technique for the Treatment of Penetrating Ulcers and Saccular Aneurysms of the Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the technical success and short-term outcome of patients with penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and saccular aneurysms (SAs) of the aortic arch treated with the jailed coiling technique.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 9 patients (mean age 70 years, 9 males) treated for PAUs and SAs of the aortic arch between 2018 and 2019 at our institution. Treatment included thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) with a short (1cm) proximal landing zone, followed by coiling of aneurysm through a jailed extraluminal catheter.

RESULTS

All 9 patients underwent TEVAR followed by jailed coiling of the lumen of the aneurysms. Debranching of supra-aortic vessels was performed in 4 patients in order to create a proximal landing zone of at least 10 mm. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Coils were placed accurately within the aneurysm lumen in all patients. No distal embolization occurred. One patient expired in the perioperative period from a cardiac event. No patient developed spinal cord ischemia or stroke in the perioperative period. Mean follow-up was 10 months (range 3-18). On follow-up imaging, complete thrombosis of the aneurysm lumen was seen in all patients. None experienced enlargement of ulcer dimensions and none required reintervention.

CONCLUSION

PAUs and SAs of the aortic arch with a very short landing zone can be treated successfully by jailed coiling of the aneurysm and TEVAR. The procedure is technically feasible and can be performed with minimal morbidity. Long-term durability of the repair needs to be determined.