Five-year outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of symptomatic type B penetrating aortic ulcer with intramural hematoma in Chinese patients

Comparison of population characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with type B aortic dissection or aortic intramural hematoma underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Survival and aortic-related adverse events after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) and aortic dissection (AD) are controversial. We aimed to assess the preoperative characteristics and to evaluate TEVAR outcomes of acute type B IMH and AD.

METHODS

Between June 2002 and May 2021, 83 patients with acute type B IMH and 755 patients with acute type B AD underwent TEVAR at the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command. We retrospectively analyzed data from these patients, including clinical characteristics and follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

The patients with IMH were significantly older than the ones with AD (P < 0.001). Diabetes mellitus (P = 0.035) and ischemic cerebrovascular disease (P = 0.017) were more common in the IMH group than in the AD group. The results demonstrated a less long-term aortic-related death-free survival rate in the IMH group than the AD group for all the patients (P = 0.014) and the matched patients (P = 0.027). It also presents a lower long-term overall survival rate (P = 0.047) and aortic-related event-free rate (P = 0.048) in the IMH group than in the matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AD patients, patients with IMH who underwent TEVAR had a worse long-term outcome of aortic-related survival in all and matched patients.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair and optimal medical treatment for acute type B penetrating aortic ulcer associated with intramural hematoma

To compare the safety and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and optimal medical treatment (OMT) for type B penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) associated with intramural hematoma (IMH). From January 2015 to December 2018, 68 consecutive patients with acute type B PAU associated with IMH were enrolled in the study. TEVAR was performed following initially OMT in 30 patients (group A), and OMT was performed in 38 patients (group B). Primary outcome was aortic-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, aortic-related adverse events, and complete aortic remodeling. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of patients among the 2 groups except for the depth of PAU and the thickness of IMH. Patients in group B had a significant higher risk of aortic-related mortality (13.3% vs 0%, P = .045), as the same to aortic-related adverse events during follow-up. Compared to OMT, TEVAR contributed to the favorable aortic remodeling more significantly during the mid-term follow-up (85.7% vs 18.2%, P < .001). Comparing with optimal medical repair, TEVAR for patients with PAU associated with IMH could promote the favorable aortic remolding more significantly and result in lower aortic-related mortality during mid-term follow-up. It should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option when intervention is required.

Zone 2 hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Is it a good option for all types of thoracic aortic disease?

BACKGROUND

Zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is performed for the treatment of various thoracic aortic diseases involving the left subclavian artery. This study aimed to analyze the late clinical outcomes of zone 2 hybrid TEVAR according to the various indications.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients who underwent zone 2 TEVAR at our institution between December, 2010 and July, 2020 were enrolled. The indications were aortic aneurysm (AA, n = 15), acute type B aortic dissection (AD, n = 14), penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU, n = 8), traumatic aortic injury (TAI, n = 8), and others (n = 3). The clinical outcomes including early complications and mid-term aortic measurements were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100% and in-hospital mortality occurred in one patient. The early postoperative complications included stroke (n = 1), transient spinal cord ischemia (n = 1), neck wound hematoma (n = 1), and left phrenic or vagus nerve injury (n = 9). In patients with AD, positive remodeling was observed in ten patients (76.9%) (false lumen regression in the entire or thoracic aorta [n = 9], false lumen thrombosis in the thoracic aorta [n = 1]). However, in patients with AA, increased aneurysm was found in six patients (40%). Persistent aneurysmal growth was found in patients with a maximal aortic diameter of > 60 mm on initial imaging (4/6, 50%). No aortic expansion was observed in those with TAI or PAU. Endoleak was noted in five patients (10.4%), and among them, aortic reintervention was required only in patients with large AAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 2 hybrid TEVAR was associated with an acceptable early complication rate and provided acceptable mid-term aortic results for patients with AD, PAU, and TAI. However, patients with large AAs were at increased risk of aortic reintervention. In cases of large AA, clinicians should carefully consider whether zone 2 hybrid TEVAR or open surgical repair will be more effective for the patient.

Single-center midterm results with the low-profile Zenith Alpha thoracic endovascular stent graft

OBJECTIVE

The analysis of endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic diseases using new low-profile stent grafts in large series is crucial to understanding the durability of these devices. The present study reports the midterm outcomes of a single-center experience using the Zenith Alpha thoracic endovascular stent graft.

METHODS

The outcomes of 270 procedures performed on 262 patients (197 men; mean age, 70.5 ± 9.5 years) using the Zenith Alpha thoracic endovascular stent graft from November 2013 to December 2019 for different thoracic aortic diseases were analyzed. The primary endpoints were 30-day clinical success and midterm (5-year) clinical success. The secondary endpoints were the adverse event rate at 30 days and midterm and access- and device-related complications. The follow-up of surviving patients was performed using computed tomography angiography and office visits at 1, 6, and 12 months and annually thereafter. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival, and freedom from thoracic aortic endovascular repair-related mortality and related reinterventions.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality was 5.2% (2.5% for elective and 30.8% for nonelective cases). Type I endoleaks were identified in six patients. The 30-day primary technical and clinical success rates were 97.8% and 92.6%, respectively. Femoral cutdown was used in 41.1% of cases and percutaneous access in 58.5%. The rate of femoral artery complications after the percutaneous approach was 5.1%, with the need for surgical conversion in 1.9%. The stroke rate was 4.1% (major stroke, 2.2%), and the spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7% (permanent paraplegia, 0.7%). Of the 248 survivors, 239 complied with the follow-up protocol with adequate computed tomography angiograms available images. Overall follow-up survival was 94.0% at 1 year, 91.6% at 2 years, 88.9% at 3 years, and 88.5% at 5 years. The unplanned secondary endovascular procedure rate was 5.3%. No stent fractures or new-onset type I endoleaks due to stent graft migration were observed in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The midterm outcomes of this new generation of low-profile devices were satisfactory. The reported low incidence of secondary procedures and the absence of migrations are promising for the long-term durability of these devices.