Aortic Reintervention Research Articles

Sternotomy or thoracotomy for neonatal repair of coarctation of the aorta with aortic arch hypoplasia

ObjectiveFor neonatal repair of coarctation of the aorta, patients may either undergo thoracotomy with extended end-to-end anastomosis or sternotomy for aortic arch reconstruction with cardiopulmonary bypass. The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the 2 approaches in patients with arch hypoplasia. MethodsThis is a single-center retrospective cohort study from July 2005 through May 2022 of patients who underwent neonatal repair for isolated coarctation of the aorta with additional arch hypoplasia. Inverse probability of treatment weighting is a statistical method for creating comparable pseudopopulations and was used to account for baseline differences in population. The primary outcome was aortic reintervention, and secondary outcomes were vocal cord dysfunction, length of stay, chylothorax, and phrenic nerve palsy. ResultsThere were 130 patients who met inclusion criteria. After weighting, the interaction between distal transverse arch size and operative approach (sternotomy vs thoracotomy) was statistically significant, P < .05 for interaction. Among patients with a distal arch z score <−3.5, patients undergoing thoracotomy with extended end-to-end anastomosis had an increased hazard for reintervention. Sternotomy was associated with an increased length of stay in the intensive care unit by 4.7 days, P < .001, and odds of vocal cord dysfunction were also greater, odds ratio 7.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 41.26; P = .01). ConclusionsAmong patients with a distal arch z score smaller than −3.5, the hazard of reintervention was increased for patients undergoing thoracotomy with extended end-to-end anastomosis. However, length of stay and risk of vocal cord paresis was reduced in patients undergoing thoracotomy.

Long-term outcomes of frozen elephant trunk for aortic dissection: a single-center experience

BackgroundTo date a number of papers analysing outcomes of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) in acute aortic dissection has been published. However, there are limited comparative studies on long-term outcomes of FET in acute and chronic aortic dissection. The objective of the study was to analyze the long-term outcomes after FET procedure for aortic dissection (AD).MethodsBetween March 2012 and December 2022, a total of 123 FET had been performed for thoracic aortic disease. Patients with aortic dissection (n = 97) were divided into 2 groups: acute (n = 32, 33%) and chronic aortic dissection (n = 65, 67%). Pre-, intra- and postoperative data were retrospectively collected from electronic patient’s records, including follow-up data of the analyzed patients.ResultsThe incidence of stroke was 3.1%. The delirium rate was up to 9.3% in both groups with a prevalence in chronic aortic dissection (CAD) group without significant differences (P = 0.494). Paraplegia was diagnosed only in CAD patients (n = 2). Respiratory failure and the rate of renal replacement therapy were similar in the studied groups. Re-sternotomy was required in one (3.1%) patient with acute AD and 5 (7.7%) patients with chronic AD (P = 0.416). Overall 30-day mortality in the entire cohort, acute and chronic AD was 13 (13.4%), 7 (21.9%) and 6 (9.2%), respectively (P = 0.097). The overall survival rate at 60 months for the entire cohort, acute and chronic AD was 64.1 ± 5.9%, 62.3 ± 9.1%, 66.5 ± 7%, respectively (P = 0.265). Freedom from unintended distal aortic re-intervention at 60 months for the entire cohort of patients, acute and chronic AD was 74.2 ± 1.5%, 100%, 65.3 ± 2%, respectively (P = 0.355).ConclusionsOur experience showed acceptable long-term outcomes after the FET procedure including mortality and re-intervention rate in patients with aortic dissection regardless of acuity of the dissection.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12618001329257) on August 7, 2018.

Surgical management of giant cell arteritis of the proximal aorta

ObjectiveGiant cell arteritis (GCA) may present as proximal aortic pathology requiring surgical intervention. We present our experience with surgical management of GCA in patients presenting with proximal aortic disease. MethodsFrom January 1993 to May 2020, 184 adult patients were diagnosed with GCA on histopathology after undergoing cardiac surgery. Survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method. Reoperation rates were estimated with cumulative incidence accounting for competing risks of death. ResultsThe most common indication for surgery was ascending aortic aneurysm (n = 179, 97.3%). Stroke occurred in 6 (3.3%), pneumonia in 8 (4.4%), and dialysis in 3 (1.6%) patients. Multivariable analysis found advanced age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.054; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.026-1.082, P < .001), recent heart failure (HR, 1.890; 95% CI, 1.016-3.516, P = .04), peripheral vascular disease (HR, 2.229; 95% CI, 1.458-3.624, P < .001), and cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.762; 95% CI, 1.035-3.000, P = .03) as predictors of late mortality. Median follow-up was 13.7 years, and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Nineteen patients underwent 24 aortic reinterventions including aortic arch reconstruction (n = 4), descending thoracic aorta aneurysm repair (n = 8), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n = 11), and pseudoaneurysm repair (n = 1). Rate of reintervention on the aorta was 3.9% (95% CI, 1.9%-8.1%), 7.1% (95% CI, 4.1%-12.3%), 12.8% (95% CI, 8.3%-19.6%), and 12.8% (95% CI, 8.3%-19.6%) at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. ConclusionsSurgery in patients with GCA can be performed with acceptable early and late outcomes. Advancing age, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebrovascular disease are risk factors for worse survival. Postoperative surveillance is important as need for aortic reintervention is not uncommon.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-To-Event Data of Frozen Elephant Trunk and Conventional Aortic Repair.

Frozen elephant trunk (FET) has gained popularity since its inception. Nevertheless, the optimal approach for managing aortic arch pathologies remains subject of debate. This meta-analysis compared outcomes between patients undergoing FET and those undergoing conventional aortic repair. Systematic searches were conducted up to February 2024. Pooled results of short and long-term outcomes were computed. A systematic review identified 21 non-randomized studies encompassing 3240 patients. Short-term mortality was lower in FET recipients than in those undergoing conventional repair (OR [95% CI] = 0.58 [0.44-0.78], P < .01). Postoperative paraplegia incidence was higher in the FET cohort (OR = 1.85 [1.02-3.34], P = .04), while subgroup analysis showed no difference between the two groups in patients with acute aortic dissection. Long-term all-cause mortality was lower among FET recipients. Subgroup analysis showed FET was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (HR = 0.55 [0.39-0.79], P < .01) and aortic re-intervention (HR = 0.62 [0.39-0.99], P = .05) in acute aortic dissection patients. This meta-analysis underscores the favorable association between the utilization of FET and improved short and long-term outcomes compared with conventional repair, while paraplegia incidence was higher in the FET group. FET appears to offer superior benefits, particularly evident in patients with acute aortic dissection.

Six-Year Outcomes of Total Arch Replacement vs Debranching With TEVAR for Aortic Arch Pathologies: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data From Propensity Score-Matched Studies.

Total arch replacement (TAR) and debranching plus thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) serve as significant therapeutic options for aortic arch pathologies. It remains unclear whether one of these approaches should be considered preferable. Our study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of these 2 approaches. We carried out a pooled meta-analysis of time-to-event data extracted from studies published by December 2023. Eligibility criteria included populations with any aortic arch pathology who underwent debranching plus TEVAR or TAR, propensity score-matched (PSM) studies (prospective/retrospective; single-center/multicentric), and the outcomes included follow-up for overall survival/mortality and/or reinterventions. Eleven PSM studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 1142 patients (571 matched pairs). We did not observe any statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause death between the groups (hazard ratio [HR]=1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.56, p=0.202), but patients who underwent TAR had a significantly lower risk of late aortic reinterventions compared with patients who underwent debranching plus TEVAR (HR=0.38, 95% CI=0.23-0.64, p<0.001). Our meta-regression analyses for all-cause mortality identified statistically significant coefficients for age (coefficient=-0.047; p=0.012) and type A aortic dissections (coefficient=0.012; p=0.010). Debranching plus TEVAR and TAR demonstrate no statistically significant differences in terms of survival in patients with aortic arch pathologies, but TAR is associated with lower risk of late aortic reinterventions over time. Although older patients may benefit more from debranching plus TEVAR rather than from TAR, patients with dissections may benefit more from TAR. Although the 2 strategies seem to be equally valuable in terms of survival, total aortic arch replacement (when compared with debranching plus TEVAR to treat patients with aortic arch pathologies) is associated with reduction of late aortic reinterventions over time in patients with and without aortic dissections. However, we should consider debranching plus TEVAR in older patients as it is associated with lower risk of death in this population. The novelty of our study lies in the fact that, instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed the outcomes with reconstructed time-to-event data. This offered us the opportunity of performing our analyses with a mathematically appropriate model which consider events and time; however, these findings might be under the influence of treatment allocation bias.

Urgent Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type-B0,D Acute Aortic Dissection

The objective of the present study is to clarify safety and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), excluding the primary entry in the descending aorta, for type-B0,D acute aortic dissection (TB0,DAAD) (so-called retrograde type-A acute aortic dissection). Forty-six patients with hyperacute-phase (within 2days after the onset) type-A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and TB0,DAAD underwent urgent (on the admission or next day) intervention (TEVAR or conventional surgical aortic repair [CSAR]) for 2years. Results of TEVAR for TB0,DAAD were compared with those of CSAR for TAAAD. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, aortic reintervention, and major complications (stroke and paraplegia/paraparesis). Details of TEVAR were also analyzed. Seven patients with TB0,DAAD and 39 patients with TAAAD underwent respectively urgent TEVAR and CSAR. Aortic reintervention was significantly more frequent in the TEVAR than CSAR group (28.6% vs. 0%, P<0.01). There was no difference in incidence of death and stroke between the TEVAR and CSAR group. All the 7 patients survived and 5 of the 7 (71.4%) patients were relieved of aortic reintervention for 30days following TEVAR. One patient, however, underwent aortic arch replacement on postoperative day (POD) 1 owing to the patent and nonshrinking ascending false lumen (FL). The entry existed in the aortic arch. Another patient underwent ascending and transverse aortic replacement with frozen elephant trunk on POD13 due to proximal stent graft-induced new entry irrespective of the thrombosed and shrinking ascending FL. Because of the patent and nonshrinking ascending FL, 1 patient underwent additional TEVAR for the residual entry in the distal descending thoracic aorta on POD33 and subsequently ascending aortic replacement 4months later. No entry was detected in the ascending or transverse aorta. The ascending FL in the other 4 patients was thrombosed early, shrinking gradually, and disappeared at last following TEVAR. Urgent TEVAR for TB0,DAAD may be alternative to CSAR in selected cases. Accurate diagnosis of the primary entry location on preinterventional computed tomography scans for exclusion of the entry and cautious selection and delivery of a stent graft to prevent stent graft-induced new entry or endoleak are requisite for success of the procedure, remodeling of the FL, and satisfactory prognosis.

Transcatheter electrosurgical aortic septostomy optimizes distal landing zone in chronic dissection

ObjectiveEfficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic type B aortic dissection (CTBAD) is dependent on eliminating retrograde false lumen perfusion and remodeling the aorta. We describe the efficacy of a novel transcatheter electrosurgical technique to fenestrate the dissection flap and create a distal seal zone for TEVAR in CTBAD. MethodsA retrospective review of the Emory Aortic Database from 2016 to 2023 identified 33 patients who underwent TEVAR with intentional endovascular rupture of the dissection flap (Knickerbocker; KNICK) for CTBAD. In 11 patients, we performed transcatheter electrosurgical aortic septostomy (TECSAS) before KNICK. The technical aspects of TECSAS + KNICK are described and results compared with TEVAR + KNICK alone. ResultsDissection chronicity, aortic size, and preoperative demographics were similar between groups. Technical success was 100%, with zero stroke or paraplegia in both groups. Thirty-day mortality for TECSAS versus KNICK was 0% versus 13.6% (P = .199). Median follow-up was shorter after TECSAS versus KNICK, although not statistically significant (14.6 months vs 21.9 months; P = .065). Elimination of retrograde false lumen perfusion (TECSAS 100% vs KNICK 68.2%; P = .035) and complete false lumen thrombosis or obliteration (TECSAS 91.9% vs KNICK 54.6%; P = .037) were more frequent after the TECSAS procedure. Aortic reinterventions were less frequent after TECSAS versus KNICK (0% vs 13.6%, P = .199), although not statistically significant. ConclusionsThe addition of TECSAS to intentional endovascular rupture of the dissection flap in CTBAD improves distal seal, eliminating retrograde false lumen perfusion. This technique is a safe and precise method to fenestrate a dissection flap and optimize TEVAR in CTBAD.

Long-term Outcome After Repair of Transposition of the Great Arteries With Aortic Arch Obstruction

BackgroundThis study compares the long-term outcomes of patients after repair of transposition of the great arteries (TGA) with and without aortic arch obstruction (AAO). MethodsThis is a single-institution, retrospective study between October 2004 and February 2023. Patients who underwent arterial switch operation and aortic arch repair (ASO-AAR group) with patch augmentation were compared with those without AAO (ASO group). The primary end point was survival; freedom from reintervention was a secondary end point. ResultsWe identified 176 patients, 31 in the ASO-AAR group and 145 in the ASO group. The median follow-up period was 10.3 years. There were no differences between the ASO-AAR group and the ASO group in early deaths (3.2% vs 0.7%) and late deaths (3.2% vs 2.8%), or 15-year survival rates (92.6% vs 96.2%). Surgical and catheter-based reinterventions were higher in the ASO-AAR group, involving the pulmonary arteries (41.9% vs 4.8%, P < .001), aortic arch (16.1% vs 0.7%, P < .001), and residual ventricular septal defects (11.4% vs 0%, P = .05). The ASO-AAR group showed a higher prevalence of double-outlet right ventricle TGA-type (61.3% vs 4.1%, P < .001) and a lower aortopulmonary index (0.67 vs 1.01, P < .001). ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgical repair of TGA and AAO achieved excellent survival rates, comparable to patients with simple transposition. A higher rate of surgical and catheter-based reinterventions was observed in patients with arch obstruction and/or a low aortopulmonary index. AAR with patch augmentation proved to be an effective surgical technique with a low incidence of aortic reinterventions.

Reoperative aortic root surgery: single-center long-term outcomes and literature review.

Reoperative aortic root surgery has become more and more common over the years and is considered high-risk, with significantly worse outcomes compared to first-procedure root surgery. At our institution, this kind of surgery is frequently performed. The aim of the present review is to describe currently available literature on reoperative surgery on the aortic root in terms of patients' population, indications for surgery and outcomes and to present our center's experience on the matter. A literature review was performed in order to identify pertinent studies. They were then compared and described. We also described preoperative characteristics, operative strategies and outcomes of all the patients who underwent redo aortic root surgery from January 1986 to December 2022 at our center. Our literature review identified 12 pertinent studies, with a total of 16,627 considered patients. The most frequent indications for redo surgery were endocarditis (35.5%), aneurysm, dissection and pseudoaneurysm. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were 218 and 152 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 12%. When analyzing our center's data, 344 procedures were identified. Aortic root dilation was the most frequent indication (36.9%). Mean CPB and cross-clamp times were 218.0±78.8 and 158.2±49.7 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 9.6%. Survival at 5 and 15 years was 76.1% and 51.4% respectively. Freedom from further aortic reintervention was 88.1% after 5 years and 64.9% after 15 years. Reoperative aortic root surgery is a difficult cardiac procedure which is linked to significantly higher mortality than first-time root replacement. If it is performed by experienced surgeons with a careful preoperative planning its result can still be satisfactory. Our results showed acceptable rates of mortality and reinterventions at follow-up. Endocarditis, however, was linked to worse outcomes.

Long-term results of the frozen elephant trunk technique in primary chronic type B aortic dissection.

The aim of this study is to analyze long-term results of the total aortic arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique for primary chronic type B aortic dissection. Among 322 patients who had the frozen elephant trunk technique, 43 (13.4%) patients (median age, 64.0years) with primary chronic type B aortic dissection were analyzed. The patients underwent surgery at a median of 27.0months after the onset of aortic dissection. The false lumen was patent in 30 (69.8%) patients preoperatively. Two patients suffered paraplegia and another died of cerebral infarction. Complete thrombosis of the peri-stent false lumen was achieved in 36 (83.7%) patients. Overall survival, freedom from aortic events, and freedom from aortic reintervention were 83.5%, 37.2%, and 42.2% at 5years, respectively. Survival rates of the patients with or without aortic events were 75.0% and 95.8% at 5years (Log-rank, p = 0.22). Late aortic events occurred in 19 (44.2%) patients including distal stent graft-induced new entry, type Ib endoleak, and false lumen dilation. The ratio of the stent graft diameter to the preoperative short axis diameter of the true lumen (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.59), and the maximal diameter of a postdissection aneurysm (1.07; 1.01-1.12) were the significant multivariate risk predictors of late aortic events. Late aortic events occurr fairly frequently, and new strategies need to be explored to enhance the effectiveness of this procedure in the future.

The Value of Aortic Volume and Intraluminal Thrombus Quantification for Predicting Aortic Events after Endovascular Thoracic Aneurysm Repair.

Objectives: To assess the ability of the aortic aneurysm volume (AAV), aneurysmal lumen volume (ALV), and aneurysmal thrombus volume (ATV) to predict the need for aortic reintervention when using the maximal aortic diameter as a reference. Methods: This monocentric retrospective study included 31 consecutive patients who underwent successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to treat an atheromatous thoracic aortic aneurysm. All patients underwent clinical and computed tomography angiography (CTA) for 3 years after TEVAR. The patients were categorized into group 0 if no aortic reintervention was required during the follow-up period and categorized into group 1 if they experienced a type I or III endoleak or aneurysm diameter increase requiring intervention. The maximum aneurysm sac diameter and the AAV, ALV, and ATV were calculated using CTA images obtained preoperatively (T0) and at 6-12 months (T1), 24 months (T2), and 36 months (T3) postoperatively, and their changes over time were analyzed. Correlations between diameter and changes in AAV, ALV, and ATV were assessed, and the association between diameter and volume changes and reintervetion was examined. The cutoff values for predicting the need for reintervention was determined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The accuracy of volume change versus diameter change for predicting the need for reintervention was analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of the mean aneurysm diameter or AAV, ALV or ATV between the groups at preoperative CTA or after one year of follow-up imaging. The mean ATV was higher in group 1 than in group 0 at 2 years (187.6 ± 86.3 mL vs. 114.7 ± 64.7 mL; p = 0.057) and after 3 years (195.0 ± 86.7 mL vs. 82.1 ± 39.9 mL; p = 0.013). The maximal diameter was greater in group 1 than in group 0 at 3 years (67.3 ± 9.5 mm vs. 55.3 ± 12.6 mm; p = 0.044). The rate of AAV change between T0 and T1 was significantly higher in group 1 (7 ± 4.5%) than in group 0 (-6 ± 6.8%; p < 0.001). The rate of ATV change between T1-T3 was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 0 (34 ± 40.9% vs. -13 ± 14.4% (p = 0.041)); similar results were observed for the rate of ATV change between T2 and T3 (27 ± 50.1% for group 1 vs. -8 ± 49.5% in group 0 (p < 0.001)). According to our multivariate analysis, the annual growth rate for AAV between T0 and T1 was the only independent factor that was significantly associated with aortic reintervention (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.84, OR = 1.57, p = 0.025; optimal cutoff +0.4%). An increase in the annual growth rate of the ATV between T0 and T3 was independently associated with the need for aortic reintervention (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.90, OR = 1.11, p = 0.0347; optimal cutoff +10.1%). Conclusions: Aortic volume analysis can predict the need for aortic reintervention more accurately and earlier than maximal aortic diameter.

Extended thoracic endovascular aortic repair is optimal therapy in acute complicated type B dissection

BackgroundThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents optimal therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). Persistent knowledge gaps remain, including the optimal length of aortic coverage, impact on distal aortic remodeling, and fate of the dissected abdominal aorta. MethodsReview of the Emory Aortic Database identified 92 patients who underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD from 2012 to 2018. Standard TEVAR covered aortic zones 3 and 4 (from the left subclavian to the mid-descending thoracic aorta). Extended TEVAR fully covered aortic zones 3 though 5 (from the left subclavian to the celiac artery). Long-term imaging, clinical follow-up, and overall and aortic-specific mortality were reviewed. ResultsExtended TEVAR (n = 52) required a greater length of coverage vs standard TEVAR (n = 40) (240 ± 32 mm vs 183 ± 23 mm; P < .01). In-hospital mortality occurred in 5.4% of patients (7.7% vs 2.5%; P = .27) owing to mesenteric malperfusion (n = 3) or rupture (n = 2). The overall incidences of postoperative stroke, transient paraparesis, paraplegia, and dialysis were 5.4% (3.9% vs 7.5%; P = .38), 3.2% (5.8% vs 0%; P = .18), 0%, and 0% respectively, equivalent between groups. Follow-up was 96.6% complete to a mean of 6.1 years (interquartile range, 3.5-8.6 years). There were significantly higher rates of complete thrombosis or obliteration of the entire thoracic false lumen after Extended TEVAR (82.2% vs 51.5%; P = .04). Distal aortic reinterventions were less frequent after extended TEVAR (5.8% vs 20%; P = .04). Late aorta-specific survival was 98.1% after extended TEVAR vs 92.3% for standard TEVAR (P = .32). ConclusionsExtended TEVAR for complicated aTBAD is safe, results in a high rate of total thoracic false lumen thrombosis/obliteration, and reduces distal reinterventions. Longer-term follow-up will be needed to demonstrate a survival benefit compared to limited aortic coverage.

The Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent: A One-Fits-All Strategy for the Treatment of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection?

The treatment of DeBakey type I aortic dissection remains a major challenge in the field of aortic surgery. To upgrade the standard of care hemiarch replacement, a novel device called an "Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent" (AMDS) is now available. This hybrid device composed of a proximal polytetrafluoroethylene cuff and a distal non-covered nitinol stent is inserted into the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta during hypothermic circulatory arrest in addition to hemiarch replacement. Due to its specific design, it may result in a reduced risk for distal anastomotic new entries, the effective restoration of branch vessel malperfusion and positive aortic remodeling. In this narrative review, we provide an overview about the indications and the technical use of the AMDS. Additionally, we summarize the current available literature and discuss potential pitfalls in the application of the AMDS regarding device failure and aortic re-intervention.

Optimal Timing of Pre-emptive Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Network Meta-Analysis.

This network meta-analysis compares outcomes of optimal medical therapy (OMT) and pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection at different phases of chronicity. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2023. Pooled short-term outcomes (short-term mortality, perioperative complications) and long-term outcomes (all-cause mortality, aortic-related mortality, aortic re-intervention rates) were calculated. Systematic review identified 17 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 3 propensity score matching, and 2 inverse probability weighting). Subacute-phase intervention had lower short-term mortality than the acute-phase (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]=0.60 [0.38-0.94], p=0.027). No significant differences were observed in aortic rupture and paraplegia. Acute-phase TEVAR had a higher stroke incidence than subacute-phase intervention (HR [95% CI]=2.63 [1.36-5.09], p=0.042), chronic (HR [95% CI]=2.5 [1.03-6.2], p=0.043), and OMT (HR [95% CI]=1.57 [1.12-2.18], p=0.008). Acute-phase TEVAR had higher long-term all-cause mortality than subacute-phase intervention (HR [95% CI]=1.34 [1.03-1.74], p=0.03). Optimal medical therapy had elevated long-term all-cause mortality compared with subacute-phase TEVAR (HR [95% CI]=1.67 [1.25-2.33], p<0.001) and increased long-term aortic-related mortality vs acute-phase (HR [95% CI]=2.08 [1.31-3.31], p=0.002) and subacute-phase (HR [95% CI]=2.6 [1.62-4.18], p<0.01) interventions. No significant differences were observed in aortic re-intervention rates. Pre-emptive TEVAR may offer lower all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality than OMT. Considering lower short-term mortality, perioperative stroke rate, and long-term mortality, our findings support pre-emptive TEVAR during the subacute phase. The optimal timing of pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection remains uncertain. This network meta-analysis suggests that the subacute phase (14-90 days from symptom onset) emerges as the optimal timing for pre-emptive TEVAR. This window is associated with lower rates of short-term complications and higher long-term survival rates compared with alternative strategies.

Mid-term Results of Endovascular Reconstruction of Aortic Bifurcation Using COVERA Stent Graft.

This article aims to evaluate the short-term and mid-term performance of a self-expanding covered stent (COVERA Plus, Bard Tempe, Arizona) during the treatment of Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C/D aortoiliac obstructive lesions involving the aortic bifurcation. A single-center retrospective review of all patients who underwent endovascular reconstruction of the aortoiliac bifurcation for obstructive disease, with the use of Covera, from January 2018 to March 2023. All patients received a postoperative CTA (computed tomography angiography) scan within 1 month from the intervention. Precision of deployment, stent conformation, and stent symmetry were evaluated at the arterial phase of the CTA. Early outcomes were technical success and freedom from open aortic reintervention and/or mortality. Late outcomes were primary and assisted primary patency rates and freedom from reintervention. During the study period, 35 patients underwent primary endovascular treatment of obstructive lesions involving the aortic bifurcation with parallel COVERA stents. Aortoiliac lesions were classified as TASC-IIC in 23 (65.7%) patients and TASC D in 12 (34.2%). Median follow-up was 49 months (interquartile [IQR]: 18-60). Overall survival was 97.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=91-100) at 60 months. During follow-up, there were one early stent stenosis, treated with an angioplasty and stent relining with an estimated primary patency at 60 months of 97.1% (95% CI=94-100) and a primary-assisted patency of 100%. Estimated freedom from all types of reinterventions at 60 months was 94.3% (95% CI=89-99.3). The new self-expanding covered Bard COVERA Plus stent used for endovascular treatment of TASC C/D aorto iliac disease proved to be safe and feasible with high technical procedural success rates. Comparison with other types of stents is necessary to further assess the role of the COVERA Plus stent in aortic bifurcation repair. This study investigates the safety and feasibility of the new self-expanding covered Bard Covera Plus stent used for endovascular treatment of TASC C/D aorto iliac disease. The retrospective analysis of 35 patients highlights high technical success and primary patency rate at 60 months. The geometric analysis also helped to underline how this stent can be used precisely in particular conditions. These findings suggest the need for further research to compare COVERA with other types of stents in aortic bifurcation repair.

Volumetric analysis in primary and residual type B aortic dissection treated with stented-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination technique can predict aortic reintervention

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term results of stented-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) in patients with aortic dissection with the implementation of volumetric analysis. MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. From May 2017 to September 2022, 42 patients underwent STABILISE for acute complicated or subacute high-risk aortic dissection. STABILISE was completed with distal extended endovascular aortic repair in 24 patients. A computed tomography scan was performed at baseline, before hospital discharge, and at 1, 3, and 5 years. Perfused total aortic, true lumen, and false lumen volumes were assessed for thoracic, visceral, and aorto-iliac segment. The ratio between false lumen and total volume was named perfusion dissection index (PDI). Complete remodeling was defined as PDI = 0, and positive remodeling as PDI ≤0.1. ResultsTechnical success was 97.6%. No 30-day deaths, spinal cord injuries, or retrograde dissections were observed. Mean follow-up was 44 ± 19.4 months. Thoracic diameter was lower at last available computed tomography scan (36.7 vs 33.0 mm; P = .01). Aortic growth >5 mm was observed in 9.5% of the patients. Thoracic and visceral aortic complete remodeling were 92.8% and 83.3%, respectively, with no difference between acute and subacute group. Distal extended endovascular aortic repair significantly increased complete remodeling in the aorto-iliac segment, compared with STABILISE alone (69.6% vs 21.4%; P < .001). Freedom from vascular reinterventions at 3 years was 83.1% (95% confidence interval, 71.5%-96.6%). Total PDI ≤0.1 at first postoperative control was a predictor of vascular reinterventions (P < .0001). ConclusionsSTABILISE is a safe and feasible technique associated with high mid-term rates of complete remodeling in the thoracic and visceral aorta. Volumetric analysis allows the quantification of aortic remodeling and represents a predictor of aortic reinterventions.

A 12-year experience in the management of blunt thoracic aortic injury in Otautahi Christchurch.

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is associated with a high mortality and is the second most common cause of death from trauma. The approach to major trauma, imaging technology and advancement in endovascular therapy have revolutionised the management of BTAI. Endovascular therapy has now become the gold standard technique replacing surgery with its high mortality and morbidity in unstable patients. We aim to assess the outcomes following management of BTAI. This is a retrospective study of all patients with BTAI between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2022. Data were obtained from electronic health records. The grading of BTAI severity was done based on the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) Criteria. Fifty patients were included in the study analysis. The most common cause of BTAI was due to high-speed motor vehicle accidents (MVA) (36 patients, 72%). Grade 1 and grade 3 BTAI injuries were mostly encountered in 40% and 30% of the study cohort, respectively. Twenty-three patients (46%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). There was no secondary aortic re-intervention, conversion to open surgery or aortic-related deaths at 30days or at most recent follow-up. Management of BTAI in our centre compares well with currently published studies. Long-term studies are warranted to guide clinicians in areas of controversy in BTAI management.

Utility of structured follow-up imaging after aortic surgery

BackgroundAlthough postoperative follow-up after aortic surgery is recommended by guidelines, its clinical utility is not well documented. We hypothesized that structured follow-up imaging by an aortic program would improve outcomes. We then documented radiologic findings on asymptomatic postoperative imaging. MethodsAll patients who survived to discharge after open thoracic aortic surgery between January 2017 and July 2021 were included, excluding endocarditis. Patients who followed at our center and received scheduled imaging were compared with patients who did not. Survival was analyzed by the method of Kaplan–Meier, and reintervention was assessed using the Fine–Gray subhazard function. Routine imaging was reviewed for aortic growth, pseudoaneurysm, and perigraft density. ResultsAfter aortic surgery, the cumulative incidence of follow-up was 38.6% at 3 years postoperatively. Patients with follow-up were more likely to have a dissection and fewer comorbidities but were similar in regards to socioeconomic factors and distance to hospital. After matching and accounting for immortal time bias, patients with follow-up had a greater reintervention rate (26.0% vs 9.0%) with similar survival (98.7% vs 95.2%, P = .110) at 4 years. The cumulative incidence of pseudoaneurysm, significant perigraft density, and growth ≥3 mm/year on routine imaging was 49.7% at 3 years. ConclusionsImplementation of structured follow-up imaging by an aortic program resulted in low clinical compliance. Follow-up was associated with increased rates of aortic reintervention. Clinically relevant radiologic findings were common on asymptomatic imaging and increased throughout 5-year follow-up rather than plateauing in the early postoperative period.

Aortic Vascular Graft and Endograft Infection-Patient Outcome Cannot Be Determined Based on Pre-Operative Characteristics.

Vascular graft/endograft infection (VGEI) is a serious complication after aortic surgery. This study investigates VGEI and patient characteristics, PET/CT quantification before surgical or conservative management of VGEI and post-intervention outcomes in order to identify patients who might benefit from such a procedure. PET standard uptake values (SUV) were quantitatively assessed and compared to a non-VGEI cohort. The primary endpoints were in-hospital mortality and aortic reintervention-free survival at six months. Ninety-three patients (75% male, 65 ± 10 years, 82% operated) were included. The initial operation was mainly for aneurysm (67.7%: 31% EVAR, 12% TEVAR, 57% open aortic repair). Thirty-two patients presented with fistulae. PET SUVTLR (target-to-liver ratio) showed 94% sensitivity and 89% specificity. Replacement included silver-coated Dacron (21.3%), pericardium (61.3%) and femoral vein (17.3%), yet the material did not influence the overall survival (p = 0.745). In-hospital mortality did not differ between operative and conservative treatment (19.7% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.84). At six months, 50% of the operated cohort survived without aortic reintervention. Short- and midterm morbidity and mortality remained high after aortic graft removal. Neither preoperative characteristics nor the material used for reconstruction influenced the overall survival, and, with limitations, both the in-hospital and midterm survival were similar between the surgically and conservatively managed patients.

Timing of Intervention and Long-Term Outcomes of Type B Aortic Intramural Hematoma with Intimal Disruption at Admission

To compare the 30-day and long-term outcomes between patients with concomitant type B intramural hematoma and intimal disruption upon admission who underwent endovascular repair in the acute or subacute phases. Data were extracted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Logistic regression and Cox regression were performed to evaluate the impact of timing of intervention on 30-day and long-term outcomes, respectively. The study included 241 patients, among which 159 were in the acute group. No significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality (0.6% vs. 0%, P=1), 30-day complication rate (2.5% vs. 1.2%, P=0.664), long-term all-cause mortality (10.7% vs. 7.3%, P=0.540), and aortic reintervention rate (2.5% vs. 2.4%, P=1) between the acute and subacute group. In multivariable analysis, the timing of intervention was not associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR)=0, 95% confidence interval CI: 0-Inf, P=0.999), 30-day complication (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.02-3.77, P=0.348), long-term mortality (hazard ratio=0.56, 95% CI: 0.20-1.61, P=0.283), and aortic reintervention (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.15-6.08, P=0.970). For patients with concomitant type B intramural hematoma and intimal disruption upon admission, there is no significant difference in 30-day and long-term outcomes between those who undergo endovascular treatment in the acute or subacute phase.