Outcome Comparison of TEVAR with and without Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization from Analysis of Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) without and with left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. NIS records from 2005 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed to identify patients undergoing TEVAR without and with LSA revascularization. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. The LSA revascularization group was further subdivided to compare perioperative outcomes if the revascularization was performed pre- or post-TEVAR or if the revascularization was performed open versus endovascular. Comparisons were examined using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable models were constructed using a forward selection approach with P<0.05 required for model entry. Odds ratios are expressed per standard deviation change for continuous covariates. Continuous variables were compared between different groups using t-test, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test. All statistical analyses were performed using R (cran.r-project.org). 7,773 TEVAR patients were included in this study. 6,411 (82.5%) were performed without and 1,362 (17.5%) with LSA revascularization. The rate of revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR doubled after the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines recommending revascularization were published in 2009. Groups were not significantly different in age (65.5±15.8 and 66.1±14.4years old, respectively), gender, or race. Multivariable analysis showed that although rates of spinal cord ischemia and upper extremity ischemia were similar, perioperative cardiac complications (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.2, 1.9], P=0.025), stroke (OR 2.1, 95% CI [1.6, 2.8], P=0.001), and pulmonary complications (OR 1.9, 95% CI [1.7, 2.3], P<0.001) were significantly higher in the patients undergoing TEVAR with LSA revascularization than those without. Of the 1,362 patients with LSA revascularization, 1,251 (91.9%) were performed pre-TEVAR and 111 (8.1%) were performed post-TEVAR. Among the 1,251 patients with pre-TEVAR LSA revascularization, 583 had open surgery and 553 had stenting. In 115 patients, LSA revascularization was coded as both open and endovascular. Compared with pre-TEVAR revascularization, post-TEVAR revascularization was associated with higher risks of pulmonary complications and spinal cord ischemia. Endovascular LSA revascularization had lower pulmonary and stroke morbidity versus open LSA revascularization. The perioperative outcomes for the LSA revascularization subgroups are summarized. TEVAR with LSA revascularization is associated with significantly increased rates of perioperative stroke and cardiopulmonary complications. LSA revascularization before TEVAR, compared with post-TEVAR revascularization, had lower perioperative complications. In high-risk patients, endovascular LSA revascularization may be recommended over open surgery.