Risk Factors for Perioperative Stroke during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repairs (TEVAR)

Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization for Thoracic Aortic Stentgrafting: Single Center Experience in 101 Patients

In recent years, supra-aortic rerouting and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for treating aortic arch pathology have emerged as a less invasive option for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess our strategy for preventing stroke and improving late outcomes after supra-aortic rerouting and TEVAR. Between July 2008 and July 2015, we performed 280 cases of TEVAR for arch pathologies, using manufactured stent grafts. This study reviewed 101 patients who underwent supra-aortic rerouting and TEVAR for degenerative distal arch aneurysms (80 men, mean age 73.1 years, Zone 1/Zone 2 = 48/53). Since 2011, we have routinely used the brain protection method, which comprises blocking native forward flow from the left common carotid artery (LCA) and left subclavian artery (LSA) for zone 1 cases and the LSA for zone 2 cases before TEVAR. The mean operation time was 178 ± 65 min. The stroke and 30-day death rates were 3 and 1%, respectively. Before the brain protection method was introduced, the perioperative risk factor for stroke was atheroma Grade ≥III (P = 0.035). Proximal landing zone (P = 0.58) and LSA sacrifice (P = 1.00) were not risk factors for stroke. No strokes occurred after using the brain protection method (before protection: 6% and after protection: 0%). Regarding late results, the rate of freedom from aorta-related death at 1 and 4 years was 97 and 95%, respectively. The rate of freedom from aortic events at 1 and 4 years was 91 and 86%, respectively. During follow-up, no type Ia endoleak developed and one type A dissection was observed. Our strategy for supra-aortic rerouting and TEVAR showed satisfactory early and late results. The chief risk factor for perioperative stroke was atheroma, and blocking native forward flow from the LCA and the LSA prior to the TEVAR procedure helped prevent stroke.

Left subclavian artery coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair does not mandate revascularization

Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization May Not Influence the Incidence of Spinal Cord Ischemia in Elective Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Spinal Cord Protection with a Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain in a Patient Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Endovascular repair of extent I thoracoabdominal aneurysms with landing zone extension into the aortic arch and mesenteric portion of the abdominal aorta

Objective To compare selective coverage and chimney technology of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).Methods Eighty-one cases were retrospectively reviewed from January 2005 to January 2013 with two different management of the LSA during TEVAR:selective coverage (SC) vs chimney (C).Technical success rates,operating time,endoleaks,and perioperative cerebrovascular accidents,spinal cord ischemia (SCI),left arm ischemic symptoms and mortality were analyzed.The survival rate was also evaluated.Statistical analysis was performed using the x2 test,t-test and Kaplan-Meier survival curve.Results There were 37 patients in group SC and 34 in group C.Operating time was (61 ± 22) min for SC,and (101 ± 20) min for C (P =0.000) ; left arm ischemic symptoms occurred in 23.4％ in group SC,and 2.9％ in group C (P =0.011).Technical success rates were 100％ and SCI were 0 for both SC and C.Endoleaks,perioperative cerebrovascular accidents,and mortality were similar between the two groups.Conclusions During TEVAR,selective coverage of the left subclavian artery is safe,effective; meanwhile,chimney technology is safe,effective for patients whose left subclavian arteries need revascularization. Key words: Aortic diseases; Blood vessel prosthesis; Aorta, thoracic; Left subclavian artery

Intentional covering of the left subclavian artery (LSA) as part of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can cause (posterior) strokes or left arm malperfusion. LSA revascularization can be done as prophylaxis against, or as treatment of, these complications. We report our experience with the surgical technique, indications and the results of LSA revascularization. Between 2000 and 2013, 51 patients of 444 patients who were treated by TEVAR, had LSA revascularization. All elective patients had a preoperative work-up with magnetic resonance angiography to evaluate the circle of Willis. In all, surgical access was through a left supraclavicular incision only. The majority (90%) had prophylactic LSA revascularization because of incomplete circle of Willis and or dominant left vertebral artery (LVA) (n=29), patent left internal mammary artery (n=1), prevention spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) (n=2), prevention left arm ischaemia due to small LVA (n=2) and LVA origin in arch (n=1). Fourteen percent had secondary revascularization, either immediate because of malperfusion of the left arm (n=2) or late after TEVAR because of persisting left arm claudication (n=5). In 12 patients, the following early complications were observed: re-exploration for bleeding, n=1; left recurrent nerve paralysis, n=2; left phrenic nerve paralysis, n=1; left sympathetic chain neuropraxia, resulting in Horner's syndrome, n=3; Chyle duct lesions, resulting in persistent Chyle leakage, n=3. Neither strokes nor SCI was observed. One patient experienced occlusion of the bypass at 6 months. The present study shows that the procedure of LSA revascularization as part of TEVAR is safe with low morbidity consisting of mainly (transient) nerve palsy.

BackgroundThe management of the left subclavian artery when coverage is necessary during thoracic aorta endografting remains a matter of debate.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of a single-centre experience with thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) was performed. Between April 2004 and October 2012, 125 cases of TEVAR were performed. The analysis focused on patients who required coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA). We analysed mortality and morbidity with special attention to the rates of cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) in the early and midterm.ResultsOf the 125 patients, 53 (42 %, group A) required an intentional coverage of the LSA to obtain an adequate proximal seal for the endograft; the remaining patients constituted group B. None of the patients in group A had protective LSA revascularisation prior to TEVAR. The primary technical success rate was 79.2 vs. 90.3 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.08), and the primary clinical success rate was 77.4 vs. 82 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.53). The 30-day mortality rate was 11.3 vs. 11.1 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.97). The 30-day morbidity was 7.5 vs. 13.9 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.4). CVA occurred in 1.9 % of group A patients, compared to 1.4 % of patients from group B (p = 0.82). The SCI incidence rate was 0 vs. 1.4 % (p = 0.39). The mean follow-up of group A was 24.1 months (range 2–64.6 months, SD = 19). Additionally, the 1-year estimated survival was 85.5 %, and the 3-year estimated survival was 78 %. There were no midterm CVAs; one event of SCI occurred in the seventh post-operative month in group A.ConclusionOur analysis, although retrospective and based on one institution experience, shows a realistic population of TEVAR patients. We prove that TEVAR with coverage of LSA origin can be accomplished with minimal neurological morbidity in this patient population. The study shows that LSA revascularisation is not mandatory before endograft deployment, especially in emergency settings. We also prove that although zone 2 TEVAR extends the proximal landing zone, it does not prevent type IA endoleaks from appearing. A multicentre randomised control trial with higher number of patients is necessary for proper, robust conclusion to be established.

Results of Adjunctive Spinal Drainage and/or Left Subclavian Artery Bypass in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Background: Stroke is a severe complication of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Our aim is to identify predictors of stroke after TEVAR.Methods: From February 2016 to February 2019, 445 patients with TBAD who underwent TEVAR were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of stroke after TEVAR.Results: The total incidence of stroke was 11.5%, with transient neurological dysfunction (TND) of 10.6% and permanent neurological dysfunction (PND) of 0.9%. The average age of the patients was 53.0 ± 3.2 years, and the male/female ratio was 1.17. Univariate analysis suggested that age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the urgency of repair, type of anesthesia, and left subclavian artery (LSCA) processing were potential risks factors of stroke after TEVAR. Multiple logistic regression identified that LSCA coverage (OR = 5.920, 95% CI: 2.077–16.878), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.036, 95% CI: 1.025–8.995), and general anesthesia (OR = 2.498, 95% CI: 1.002–6.229) were independent predictors of stroke after TEVAR.Conclusions: Left subclavian artery (LSCA) coverage, diabetes mellitus, and general anesthesia were independent risk factors of stroke after TEVAR for TBAD.

Neurological complications after left subclavian artery coverage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Stent Graft-Induced Aortic Wall Injury—Anesthesia Pitfalls and Pearls for the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Procedure

Factors Associated With Spinal Cord Ischemia After Thoracic, Abdominal, and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repairs

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a recognized grave complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The present study aimed to evaluate the incidence and investigate risk of SCI after TEVAR based on current prophylactic strategies designed against established risk factors. The study retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database to investigate patients who underwent TEVAR successfully between January 2009 and December 2012 in a single cardiovascular center. Detailed assessment of SCI risk was routinely performed for all patients before TEVAR was carried out. Prophylactic measures, including left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization, blood pressure augmentation and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure control after TEVAR, were employed in high-risk patients and physical neurological examinations were regularly done to evaluate SCI after TEVAR. Patients were further divided into SCI group and non-SCI group. A total of 650 patients were enrolled in the study. Eleven patients (1.69%) developed SCI after TEVAR. Baseline level of hemoglobin was significantly lower in the SCI group (113.00 vs. 128.50, P=0.023). More patients in the SCI patients in the SCI group underwent TEVAR under general anesthesia (45.5% vs. 17.7%, P=0.033). A significantly higher incidence of post TEVAR hypotension was found in the SCI group (2.7% vs. 27.3%, P=0.004). Logistic regression analysis revealed that post-TEVAR hypotension (OR, 8.379; 95% CI, 1.833-38.304; P=0.006) was strongly associated with development of SCI and high normal baseline hemoglobin was a protective factor (OR, 0.969; CI, 0.942-0.998; P=0.037). The mortality in hospital and mortality at 1 year were not significant different between the SCI and the non-SCI group (0% vs. 1.6% P=1.000; 9.1% vs. 3.0%, P=0.294, respectively). While length of post-TEVAR stay (13.00 vs. 7.00 days, P=0.000) and length of hospital stay (20.00 vs. 13.00 days, P=0.001) were significantly greater in the SCI group. Our study revealed that, based on current prophylactic measures to curtail SCI, including LSA revascularization, blood pressure augmentation and CSF pressure control after TEVAR, post-TEVAR hypotension remains a major and independent risk factor for SCI and high normal baseline hemoglobin level is protective. SCI results in longer post-TEVAR stay and hospital stay, but not associated with increased mortality. Robust precautions should be taken against underlying causes for post-TEVAR hypotension and low level of hemoglobin should be avoided.