Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Open versus Endovascular Left Subclavian Artery Debranching for Thoracic Aortic Diseases

Comparison of chimney technique and single-branched stent graft in a cohort of patients with type B aortic dissections: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique are widely used in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The main objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique in the treatment of TBAD.

Methods

From January 2019 to December 2021, the retrospective cohort study contained a cohort of 91 patients with TBAD undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique. Group A included 55 patients treated with single-branched covered stents, and Group B included 36 patients treated with the chimney technique. We compared the effects of the procedures on peri-/post-operative outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint is clinical death, and the secondary endpoints include the patency of branch stents, the incidence of cerebral infarction, false lumen thrombosis, and the proportion of paraplegia.

Results

For the baseline data, the two groups of patients show no differences in terms of age, gender, and associated symptoms. All procedures were successfully performed in both groups. The median follow-up period was 17.6 months (range, 10-34 months). During TEVAR, 5 (9.1%) type I endoleaks occurred in group A, and 11 (30.6%) occurred in group B (P<0.05). During follow-up, there were 2 cases (3.6%) of paraplegia and 1 case (1.8%) of cerebral infarction in Group A, while Group B had 1 case (2.8%) of paraplegia. Three patients in group B reported retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), and 1 of them died (2.8%); however, there were no RTAD cases in group A. Complete thrombosis of the false lumen in the thoracic aorta was observed in 45.5% (25/55) of patients in group A and in 41.7% (15/36) in group B (P=0.72). No significant difference in the thrombosis-volume ratio in the whole false lumen was found during follow-up between group A (81.0%±2.9%) and group B (81.8%±2.6%; P=0.23).

Conclusions

Branched stent grafts can be used in cases with insufficient proximal landing zones and reduce the occurrence of type 1 endoleak compared to the chimney technique. This may help to prevent RTAD. Further research, including more cases and longer follow-up periods, is needed to substantiate these results.

Comparison of surgical and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic aortic endovascular repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Long-Term Outcomes in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Complicated Type B Aortic Dissection or Intramural Hematoma Depending on Proximal Landing Zone

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) or intramural hematoma (IMH). This study aimed to investigate the association of the proximal landing zone and its morphology with long-term outcomes in patients with TBAD or IMH. A total of 94 patients who underwent TEVAR for TBAD or IMH between 10/2003 and 01/2020 were included. The cohort was divided according to the proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 2 or 3 and the presence of a healthy landing zone (HLZ; non-dissected or aneurysmatic, ≥2 cm length). Primary outcome was freedom from aortic reintervention. Secondary endpoints were freedom from aortic growth, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, retrograde dissection, proximal stent-graft induced new entry (pSINE), debranching failure, and mortality. Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with mortality as a competing risk. A proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 was associated with higher rates of reinterventions compared to zone 3 (33% vs. 15%, p = 0.031), spinal cord ischemia (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.037), and pSINE (13% vs. 2%, p = 0.032). No difference was found for the other outcomes, including mortality. Landing in dissected segments was not associated with impaired results. Proximal TEVAR landing in zone 3 may be preferable with regard to long-term aortic reintervention in patients with TBAD or IMH.

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.

Physician-Modified TEVAR versus Hybrid Repair of the Proximal Descending Thoracic Aorta

There are different surgical options for the treatment of proximal lesions of the descending thoracic aorta. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of physician-modified TEVAR (pmTEVAR) vs. hybrid repair of the thoracic aorta in terms of TEVAR with carotid-subclavian bypass (hdTEVAR). This was a single-centre, retrospective comparative study of all patients who underwent pmTEVAR and hybrid repair of the proximal descending aorta from January 2018 to June 2021. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30-day mortality, perioperative stroke, 30-day reinterventions and supraaortic access related complications. Secondary outcomes were patient survival, late complications, late reinterventions, and bypass/bridging stent patency. A total of 181 patients underwent TEVAR within the period of 42 months. In our study, only patients with proximal landing in zone 2 (n = 39) were included. A total of 5 of 15 pmTEVAR and 8 of 24 hybrid repair operations (33% vs. 33%, respectively) were performed due to aneurysms. Among the rest of the patients, 10 of 15 pmTEVAR and 16 of 24 hybrid operations (67% vs. 67%) were performed due to aortic dissection. Technical success was achieved in 100% of the patients. No significant difference in terms of postoperative complications could be detected in the early and midterm follow up period. The 30-day mortality was 12.5% in the hybrid repair group (n = 3) vs. 6.66% (n = 1) in the pmTEVAR group (p = 0.498). These patients underwent the operation in an emergency setting. No patient died after an elective operation. The causes of early mortality were major stroke (n = 2), haemorrhagic shock (n = 1) in the hybrid group and progredient spinal cord ischemia with tetraplegia and acute respiratory insufficiency (n = 1) in the pmTEVAR group. In conclusion, both therapies are robust techniques, with comparable patency rate and perioperative complications. pmTEVAR appears to be advantageous in terms of operation time and tendency to lower mortality rates.