Endovascular Aortic Repair In Patients Research Articles

968 Optimal Timing for Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract Aim The optimal timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI) remains a topic of debate. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare early versus delayed TEVAR in BTAI. Method We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central and Clinicaltrials.gov in up to October 2023 to include studies comparing TEVAR performed <24 hours versus >24 hours in BTAI. Safety outcomes were pooled as odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis was performed with propensity-score matching or multivariate-analysis studies. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4.1 and R software. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID:CRD42023427392). Results Nine studies with 4163 patients were included, of whom 30.2%(n=1257) underwent delayed TEVAR. Mortality was significantly lower in the delayed TEVAR group (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32–0.59; p<0.001; I²=0%), with consistent results when restricted to multivariate studies (p<0.001). Although delayed TEVAR resulted in significantly lower rates of sepsis (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18–0.78; p=0.009; I²=67%), it was also associated with increased durations of hospital stay (MD 3.28; 95% CI 1.58–4.98; p<0.001), ICU stay (MD 2.53; 95% CI 0.92–4.14; p=0.002), AKI (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.04–2.83; p=0.04), and ventilator use (MD 1.20; 95% CI 0.51-1.89; p<0.001). Conclusions Our findings show that delayed TEVAR is associated with lower mortality and sepsis, but also an increased risk of in-hospital complications. This may guide future prospective studies to investigate optimal timings according to grades of injury and associated complications.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access in Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients with Thoracoabdominal and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Traditionally, left-sided upper extremity (LUE) access has been preferred in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) to manage aortic aneurysms and decrease the risk of cerebrovascular adverse events. Recently, right-sided upper extremity access (RUE) has gained popularity owing to its greater maneuverability and ergonomics. However, synthesized data comparing the safety and efficacy of RUE and LUE accesses are limited. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on various databases from inception to September 2023 to retrieve all studies that compared RUE and LUE access in EVAR. Data on stroke, 30-day mortality, technical success, access-site complications, total time required for fluoroscopy, and contrast agent requirement were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were generated using a random-effects model on review manager by pooling the risk ratios (RRs) and standard mean differences (SMDs). Ten observational studies with a total of 3994 patients were included in our analysis with 1186 patients in the RUE and 2808 patients in the LUE access groups. EVAR using RUE access was associated with a significantly lower amount of contrast agent requirement than the LUE access group [SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.45 to -0.02; P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of the risk of stroke (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.81-3.22; P = 0.17), 30-day mortality (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.50-4.06; P = 0.51), rate of technical success (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01; P = 0.18), risk of access-site complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = 0.99), and total time required for fluoroscopy (SMD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.26; P = 0.69). The use of RUE access in EVAR appears to be comparable to LUE access in terms of the risk of stroke, access-related complications, all-cause mortality, technical success rate, and fluoroscopy duration. The RUE group required a lower volume of contrast agent.

Outcomes Of Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair In Patients With Genetically Triggered Aortic Diseases

Outcomes Of Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair In Patients With Genetically Triggered Aortic Diseases

Deep learning-based radiomics of computed tomography angiography to predict adverse events after initial endovascular repair for acute uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection

PurposeThis study aimed to construct a predictive model integrating deep learning-derived radiomic features from computed tomography angiography (CTA) and clinical biomarkers to forecast postoperative adverse events (AEs) in patients with acute uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) undergoing initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 369 patients treated with TEVAR for acute uTBAD from January 2015 to December 2022. A three-dimensional (3D) deep convolutional neural network (CNN) automated radiomic feature extraction from CTA images. Feature selection, using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms, refined a radiomic score (Rad-Score). This score, alongside clinical parameters, was modelled via Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) analysis. Model calibration was assessed by calibration curves. ResultsThe integration of the Rad-Score with clinical factors including albumin and C-reactive protein levels moderately enhanced predictive efficiency, exhibiting an area under the curve (AUC) of 1.000 (95%CI, 1.000–1.000) in the training cohort and 0.990 (95%CI, 0.966–1.000) in the internal validation cohort. In an independent validation cohort from another hospital, the combined model yielded an AUC of 0.985 (95%CI, 0.965–1.000), with an accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.92, 0.92, 0.94, and 0.91, respectively. ConclusionsThe synergistic application of deep learning-based radiomics from CTA and clinical indicators holds promise for anticipating AEs post-initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with acute uTBAD. The clinical utility of the constructed combined model, offering prognostic foresight during follow-up, has been substantiated.

Predicting adverse events after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for patients with type B aortic dissection

The potential of adverse events (AEs) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has been reported. To avoid the occurrence of AEs, it is important to recognize high-risk population for prevention in advance. The data of 261 patients with TBAD who received TEVAR between June 2017 and June 2021 at our medical center were retrospectively reviewed. After the implementation of exclusion criteria, 172 patients were finally included, and after 2.8 years (range from 1 day to 5.8 years) of follow up, they were divided into AEs (n = 41) and non-AEs (n = 131) groups. We identified the predictors of AEs, and a prediction model was constructed to calculate the specific risk of postoperative AEs at 1, 2, and 3 years, and to stratify patients into high-risk (n = 78) and low-risk (n = 94) group. The prediction model included seven predictors: Age > 75 years, Lower extremity malperfusion (LEM), NT-proBNP > 330 pg/ml, None distal tear, the ratio between the diameter of the ascending aorta and descending aorta (A/D ratio) > 1.2, the ratio of the area of the false lumen to the total aorta (FL ratio) > 64%, and acute TEVAR, which exhibited excellent predictive accuracy performance and discriminatory ability with C statistic of 82.3% (95% CI 77.3–89.2%). The prediction model was contributed to identify high-risk patients of postoperative AEs, which may serve to achievement of personalized treatment and follow-up plans for patients.

Endovascular aortic repair in patients with Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndrome is safe and durable when employed by a multi-disciplinary aortic team.

The aim of this study was to report on mid-term outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in patients with Marfan (MFS) or Loeys-Dietz (LDS) syndrome. We analysed data from 2 European centres of patients with MFS and LDS undergoing EVAR. Patients were analysed based on (i) timing of the procedure (planned versus emergency procedure) and (ii) the nature of the landing zone (safe versus non-safe). The primary end-point was freedom from reintervention. Secondary end-points were freedom from stroke, bleeding and death. A population of 419 patients with MFS (n = 352) or LDS (n = 67) was analysed for the purpose of this study. Thirty-nine patients (9%) underwent EVAR. Indications for thoracic endovascular aortic repair or EVAR were aortic dissection in 13 (33%) patients, aortic aneurysm in 22 (57%) patients and others (intercostal patch aneurysm, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, pseudoaneurysm, kinking of frozen elephant trunk (FET)) in 4 (10%) patients. Thoracic endovascular repair was performed in 34 patients, and abdominal endovascular aortic repair was performed in 5 patients. Mean age at 1st thoracic endovascular aortic repair/EVAR was 48.5 ± 15.4 years. Mean follow-up after 1st thoracic endovascular aortic repair/EVAR was 5.9 ± 4.4 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of reinterventions between patients with non-safe landing zone and the patients with safe proximal landing zone (P = 0.609). Furthermore, there was no increased probability for reintervention after planned endovascular intervention compared to emergency procedures (P = 0.916). Mean time to reintervention, either open surgical or endovascular, after planned endovascular intervention was in median 3.9 years (95% confidence interval 2.0-5.9 years) and 2.0 years (95% confidence interval -1.1 to 5.1 years) (P = 0.23) after emergency procedures. EVAR in patients with MFS and LDS and a safe landing zone is feasible and safe. Endovascular treatment is a viable option when employed by a multi-disciplinary aortic team even if the landing zone is in native tissue.

A single center study of the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide used for closure in thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with previous groin intervention.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide, a suture-mediated vascular closure device, regarding technical success and complications in patients who had undergone aortic intervention and had previous groin intervention (PGI). One hundred and thirty-five patients who underwent percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair via the femoral artery and were closed with the Pro-Glide device were analyzed retrospectively. PGI was defined as a history of open surgical access to the femoral artery or wide sheath (>18 F) placement due to endovascular or valvular intervention. The patients were divided into two groups 38 cases with PGI and 97 cases without PGI. The overall success rate of closure of the femoral artery with Pro-Glide was not statistically significant between the two groups (93.8% vs 92.1%, p = .711). Sheath sizes were compared between the groups and PGI (+) group had significantly higher sheath sizes compared to PGI (-) group (24.3 ± 1.1 F vs 23.8 ± 1.0 F, p = .011). Three patients in the PGI (+) group and six patients in the PGI (-) group experienced technical failure of the percutaneous femoral approach. Femoral complications were seen after the procedures in four patients in the PGI (+) group and four in the PGI (-) group. The PGI (+) group had a higher complication rate when compared to the PGI (-) group; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .181). The present study was conducted on a significantly larger sample compared to previous studies and the findings suggest that the Pro-Glide vascular closure device is a safe option for patients with a history of PGI and may not be considered as a contraindication.

High-Grade Infection after Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patient with Recent COVID-19 Hospitalization.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global healthcare landscape has undergone significant transformations, particularly impacting the management of complex medical conditions such as aortic aneurysms. This study focuses on a 76-year-old female patient with a history of extensive cardiovascular surgeries, including aortic valve replacement, Bentall operation, and Frozen Elephant Trunk procedure, who presented with a type II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm post-COVID-19 recovery. A comprehensive frailty assessment using the Modified Frailty Index and a two-phase endovascular approach for aneurysm treatment, considering the patient's frailty and complex medical history was performed. Upon successful aneurysm management, the patient's postoperative course was complicated by COVID-19 reinfection and Enterococcus faecalis superinfection, highlighting the increased risk of bacterial superinfections and the challenges posed by antimicrobial resistance in COVID-19 patients. The study underscores the necessity of vigilant postoperative surveillance and a multidisciplinary approach in managing such complex cases, highlighting the importance of personalized care strategies, integrating cardiovascular and infectious disease management, and adapting healthcare practices to the unique challenges of the pandemic. This case contributes to the evolution of knowledge on managing aortic aneurysms in the COVID-19 era, advocating for patient-centric treatment approaches and continuous research into long-term patient outcomes.

Predictors of Return to Work After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Type B Aortic Dissection.

Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening condition, and it takes heavy burden to family and society. Return to work (RTW) not only means patients' physical health but also demonstrates their mental well-being. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been successful in treatment of TBAD patients. However, less studies have addressed on the social functional recovery of TBAD after TEVAR, especially for RTW. From January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2021, TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR and completed a 12-month follow-up were retrospectively enrolled. Primary outcome was RTW. Patients' demographic, sociological, and clinical characteristics, and so on were recorded to analyze and demonstrate independent risk factors for RTW. Four hundred thirty-two TBAD patients (388 males) were enrolled with a mean age of 48.3±8.9 years (ranged from 19 to 60 years). The 12-month cumulative RTW rate was 62.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2%-67.8%). Age <50 years (odds ratio [OR]=3.675, 95% CI: 1.436-9.405) was identified as independent protective factors for RTW, while preoperative job as manual workers (OR=0.101, 95% CI: 0.029-0.353), average annual income, <30 000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) [<4400 US dollar], (OR=0.186, 95% CI: 0.054-0.637), complicated TBAD (malperfusion) (OR=0.246, 95% CI: 0.092-0.659), and distal stent graft-induced new entry (SINE) (OR=0.218, 95% CI: 0.083-0.575, p=0.002) were identified as independent risk factors. Approximately 64% of our patients were able to RTW in the 12 months post-TEVAR for TBAD. Younger patients, patients with less physically demanding jobs, and patients with less complex surgeries were more likely to RTW. Based on these results, more can be done to facilitate the patient's ability and willingness to RTW after TEVAR. Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening condition that poses significant burden on both individuals and society. The ability to return to work (RTW) not only reflects the patient's physical health but also indicates their mental well-being. Therefore, identifying risk factors for RTW and promoting the reintegration of TBAD patients into the workforce is crucial in clinical practice.To our knowledge, this study is the first to elucidate and predict the RTW outcomes of TBAD patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Contemporary Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders: A Multi-Centre National Study

Contemporary Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders: A Multi-Centre National Study

Anatomic feasibility of a modular Endo-Bentall stent graft system for type A aortic dissection

ObjectiveThe implementation of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type A aortic dissection has been strictly constrained due to the pulsatile movement and distensibility and the insufficient length of landing zones on ascending aorta. The most prevalent anatomical limitation is the insufficient length of proximal and distal landing zones. We propose a modularly designed Endo-Bentall stent graft system to broaden the scope of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the ascending aorta by covering intimal tears in the aortic root and ascending aorta and reconstructing coronary arteries. This study was conducted to assess the anatomical feasibility of a novel stent graft design. MethodsIn this study, we included 152 patients with type A aortic dissection for image measurement and analysis. All computed tomography angiography images were assessed on a 3mensio Workstation version 10.2 (3mensio Medical Imaging B.V.) utilizing the centerline method. We compared the diameters and lengths at various planes in relation to the proposed anatomical criteria for the modular Endo-Bentall stent graft system. ResultsThe patients were predominantly male (67.1%), with a median age of 56.5 years (interquartile range, 50.0-65.0 years). Among all aortic dissections, 91.5% extended proximally to the sinotubular junction, whereas only 8.6% were restricted to the tubular ascending aorta. The median perimeter-derived diameter of the aortic annulus was 24.1 mm. The median maximum aortic diameter at the sinotubular junction and brachiocephalic trunk were 44.6 mm and 43.5 mm, respectively. The median height of the left coronary artery, right coronary artery, and sinus of Valsalva were 12.7 mm, 16.7 mm, and 28.4 mm, respectively. After applying exclusion criteria, 66.4% of all patients were anatomically eligible for the modular Endo-Bentall stent graft system. A total of 85.1% of patients were suitable for stent grafts with lengths of 70 mm, 80 mm, or 90 mm. Both antegradely and retrogradely tapered stent grafts were required, according to the diameter differences between the STJ and brachiocephalic trunk. ConclusionsUtilizing the modular Endo-Bentall stent-graft design, approximately two-thirds of patients with type A aortic dissection are anatomically eligible for endovascular repair. Further animal studies are required to optimize the device design.

Short-Term Outcome of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Thoracic Aortic Diseases

Short-Term Outcome of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients With Thoracic Aortic Diseases

Outcomes After Endovascular Aortic Intervention in Patients With Connective Tissue Disease

Endovascular treatment is not recommended for aortic pathologies in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) other than in redo operations and as bridging procedures in emergencies. However, recent developments in endovascular technology may challenge this dogma. To assess the midterm outcomes of endovascular aortic repair in patients with CTD. For this descriptive retrospective study, data on demographics, interventions, and short-term and midterm outcomes were collected from 18 aortic centers in Europe, Asia, North America, and New Zealand. Patients with CTD who had undergone endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020 were included. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to November 2022. All principal endovascular aortic repairs, including redo surgery and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta. Short-term and midterm survival, rates of secondary procedures, and conversion to open repair. In total, 171 patients were included: 142 with Marfan syndrome, 17 with Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 12 with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS). Median (IQR) age was 49.9 years (37.9-59.0), and 107 patients (62.6%) were male. One hundred fifty-two (88.9%) were treated for aortic dissections and 19 (11.1%) for degenerative aneurysms. One hundred thirty-six patients (79.5%) had undergone open aortic surgery before the index endovascular repair. In 74 patients (43.3%), arch and/or visceral branches were included in the repair. Primary technical success was achieved in 168 patients (98.2%), and 30-day mortality was 2.9% (5 patients). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 96.2% and 80.6% for Marfan syndrome, 93.8% and 85.2% for Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 75.0% and 43.8% for vEDS, respectively. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 4.7 years (1.9-9.2), 91 patients (53.2%) had undergone secondary procedures, of which 14 (8.2%) were open conversions. This study found that endovascular aortic interventions, including redo procedures and complex repairs of the aortic arch and visceral aorta, in patients with CTD had a high rate of early technical success, low perioperative mortality, and a midterm survival rate comparable with reports of open aortic surgery in patients with CTD. The rate of secondary procedures was high, but few patients required conversion to open repair. Improvements in devices and techniques, as well as ongoing follow-up, may result in endovascular treatment for patients with CTD being included in guideline recommendations.

Long-term outcomes following exclusive use of endovascular aortic repair for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Long-term outcomes following exclusive use of endovascular aortic repair for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Family History of Aortic Disease Has No Effect on Outcomes of Fenestrated-branched Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Prior reports have indicated an increased risk of aneurysm-related complications after endovascular repair in patients with familial aortic aneurysms. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for the treatment of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with familial history of aortic aneurysms or dissections (FAA). The clinical data of 506 consecutive patients (69% male; 74 ± 8 years old) enrolled in a prospective non-randomized study to investigate outcomes of F-BEVAR for the treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs between 2013 and 2022 was reviewed. Outcomes were analyzed in patients with FAA affecting a first or second-degree relative and compared with patients with sporadic aortic aneurysms (SAAs). Endpoints included differences in the distribution of aortic disease, procedural metrics, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival, and mid-term stent-graft-related outcomes. There were 68 patients (13%) with FAAs and 438 (87%) with SAAs. Both groups had similar cardiovascular risk factors, history of aortic dissection, and aneurysm extent. FAA patients had significantly (P < .05) longer fluoroscopy time (82 vs 71 minutes) and higher radiation dose (1782 vs 1210 mGy). Technical success was achieved in 94.1% of the FAA group and in 96.6% of SAA group (P = .51). Median follow-up was 19 months. There was no difference in 30-day mortality and MAEs, and long-term patient survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality, and freedom from secondary interventions. Patients with FAA had higher sac shrinkage >5mm as compared with patients with SAAs (P = .006). FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and low incidence of MAEs regardless of the presence of FAAs. There was no difference in the distribution of aortic disease nor in stent graft-related outcomes.TableVariablesFAA (n = 68)SAA (n = 438)P valueAneurysm type (Crawford class)0.862 Extent I4 (8.0)23 (7.4) Extent II22 (44.0)103 (33.1) Extent III8 (16.0)47 (15.1) Infrarenal short neck0 (0.0)1 (0.2) Pararenal18 (26.5)125 (28.6)30-day mortality1 (1.5)4 (0.9)1.00030-day MAESpinal cord injury0.588 No62 (91.2)411 (94.3) Motor (able to ambulate)2 (2.9)7 (1.6) Non-ambulatory4 (5.9)18 (4.1)Myocardial infarction2 (2.9)10 (2.3)1.000Major stroke0 (0.0)3 (0.7)1.000Respiratory failure5 (7.4)12 (2.8)0.111Acute kidney injury0.016 No61 (89.7)396 (90.8) Creatinine >2 but no dialysis3 (4.4)34 (7.8) Temporary dialysis3 (4.4)2 (0.5) Permanent dialysis1 (1.5)4 (0.9)Long-term secondary intervention17 (25.4)96 (22.5)0.721Aneurysm sac behavior Stable17 (25.4)199 (47.2)0.001 Enlarged >5 mm3 (4.5)33 (7.8)0.471 Shrunk >5 mm47 (70.1)189 (44.8)<0.001Final sac diameter53.8 (14.9)59.3 (15.1)0.006FAA, Familial history of aortic aneurysms or dissections; MAE, major adverse event; SAA, sporadic aortic aneurysms.Data are presented as number (%) or mean (standard deviation).Boldface P values indicate statistical significance. Open table in a new tab

Lower-profile stent graft reduces the risk of embolism during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in shaggy aorta.

This study aimed to reveal the association between lower-profile stent graft and embolism during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for non-dissecting distal arch and descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. This study reviewed data of 35 patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with lower-profile stent graft (27 males; age: 77 ± 9.2 years) and 312 who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with conventional-sized stent graft (247 males; age: 77 ± 7.4 years) from 2009 to 2021. The rate of total embolic events was significantly lower in lower-profile stent graft group (0/35 [0%]) than the conventional-sized stent graft group (34/312 [11.2%]) (p = 0.035). Shaggy aorta (odds ratio: 5.220; p < 0.001) were identified as positive embolic event predictors. The rate of total embolic events in 68 patients with shaggy aorta (12 in lower-profile stent graft/56 in conventional-sized stent graft) was significantly lower in the lower-profile stent graft group (0/12 [0%]) than the conventional-sized stent graft group (19/56 [34%]) (p = 0.015). The rate of total embolic events in 279 patients with the non-shaggy aorta (23 in lower-profile stent graft/256 in conventional-sized stent graft) reveals no difference between the two groups (0 [0%]/16 [6.3%]) (p = 0.377). Lower-profile stent graft usage could reduce embolism in thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and the difference was more pronounced in patients with the shaggy aorta. Lower-profile stent graft might be beneficial in preventing embolism in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for patients with a shaggy aorta.

Outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair in patients with or without prior history of abdominal endovascular or open surgical repair

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) in patients with or without prior history of abdominal open surgical (OSR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). MethodsThe clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR for treatment of CAAAs and TAAAs was reviewed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed in patients with no previous aortic repair (Controls), prior EVAR (Group 1), and prior abdominal OSR (Group 2), including 30-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), secondary interventions, any type II endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm), and new-onset permanent dialysis. ResultsThere were 506 patients (69% male; mean age, 72 ± 9 years) treated by FB-EVAR, including 380 controls, 54 patients in Group 1 (EVAR), and 72 patients in Group 2 (abdominal OSR). FB-EVAR was performed on average 7 ± 4 and 12 ± 6 years after the index EVAR and abdominal OSR, respectively (P < .001). All three groups had similar clinical characteristics, except for less coronary artery disease in controls and more TAAAs and branch stent graft designs in Group 2 (P < .05). Aneurysm extent was CAAA in 144 patients (28%) and TAAA in 362 patients (72%). Overall technical success, mortality, and MAE rate were 96%, 1%, and 14%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Mean follow up was 30 ± 21 months. Patient survival was significantly lower in Group 2 (P = .03), but there was no difference in freedom from ARM and secondary interventions at 5 years between groups. Group 1 patients had lower freedom from any type II endoleak (P = .02) and sac enlargement (P < .001), whereas Group 2 patients had lower freedom from new-onset permanent dialysis (P = .03). ConclusionsFB-EVAR was performed with high technical success, low mortality, and similar risk of MAEs, regardless of prior history of abdominal aortic repair. Patient survival was significantly lower in patients who had previous abdominal OSR, but freedom from ARM and secondary interventions were similar among groups. Patients with prior EVAR had lower freedom from type II endoleak and sac enlargement. Patients with prior OSR had lower freedom from new-onset dialysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection.

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with low incidence but high mortality. The objective of this study is to report the incidence, mortality, potential risk factors, clinical manifestation and diagnostic modalities, and medical and surgical treatments. A systematic review and single-arm and two-arm meta-analyses evaluated all published reports of RTAD post-TEVAR through January 2021. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. Outcomes of interest were procedural data (implanted stent-grafts type, and proximal stent-graft oversizing), the incidence of RTAD, associated mortality rate, clinical manifestations, diagnostic workouts and therapeutic management. RTAD occurred in 285 out of 10,600 patients: an estimated RTAD incidence of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.9-2.8); incidence of early RTAD was approximately 1.8 times higher than late. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing showed that the proportion of RTAD patients with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) was significantly higher than those with chronic TBAD (P = .008). Pooled meta-analysis showed that the incidence of RTAD with proximal bare stent TEVAR was 2.1-fold higher than with non-bare stents: risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.87-2.75; P = .13). Single arm meta-analysis estimated a mortality rate of 42.2% (95% CI: 32.5-51.8), with an I2 heterogeneity of 70.11% (P < .001). RTAD is rare after TEVAR but with high mortality, especially in the first month post-TEVAR with acute TBAD patients at greater risk as well as those treated with proximal bare stent endografts.

Efficacy of left subclavian artery revascularization strategies during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B dissection: A single-center experience of 105 patients.

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is necessary to reduce postoperative complications in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection and an insufficient proximal anchoring area. However, the efficacy and safety of different LSA revascularization strategies remain unclear. Here, we compared these strategies to provide a clinical basis for selecting an appropriate LSA revascularization method. In this study, we included 105 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated using TEVAR combined with LSA reconstruction in the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from March 2013 to 2020. They were divided into four groups according to the method used for LSA reconstruction, namely, carotid subclavian bypass (CSB; n = 41), chimney graft (CG; n = 29), single-branched stent graft (SBSG; n = 21), and physician-made fenestration (PMF; n = 14) groups. Finally, we collected and analyzed the baseline, perioperative, operative, postoperative, and follow-up data of the patients. The treatment success rate was 100% in all the groups, and CSB + TEVAR was the most commonly used procedure in emergency settings compared with the other three procedures (P < 0.05). The estimated blood loss, contrast agent volume, fluoroscopic time, operation time, and limb ischemia symptoms during the follow-up were significantly different in the four groups (P < 0.05). Pairwise comparison among groups indicated that the estimated blood loss and operation time in the CSB group were the highest (adjusted P < 0.0083; P < 0.05). The contrast agent volume and fluoroscopy duration were the highest in the SBSG groups, followed by PMF, CG, and CSB groups. The incidence of limb ischemia symptoms was the highest in the PMF group (28.6%) during the follow-up. The incidence of complications (except limb ischemia symptoms) during the perioperative and follow-up periods was similar among the four groups (P > 0.05) The median follow-up time of CSB, CG, SBSG, and PMF groups was significantly different (P < 0.05), and the CSB group had the longest follow-up. Our single-center experience suggested that the PMF technique increased the risk of limb ischemia symptoms. The other three strategies effectively and safely restored LSA perfusion in patients with type B aortic dissection and had comparable complications. Overall, different LSA revascularization techniques have their advantages and disadvantages.

Favorable Remodeling After TEVAR in Uncomplicated Acute and Subacute Type B Aortic Dissection in Comparison to Conservative Treatment: A Midterm Analysis

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the midterm and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedure to treat an uncomplicated acute and subacute type B aortic dissection (uATBAD) with high risk for subsequent aortic complications compared with the group of patients who received a conservative treatment protocol during the same period. Materials and Methods: Between 2008 and 2019, 35 patients who had TEVAR due to uATBAD and those with conservative procedure (n=18) were included in a retrospective analysis and follow-up study. The primary endpoints were false lumen thrombosis/perfusion, true lumen diameter, and aortic dilatation. The aortic-related mortality, reintervention, and long-term survival were the secondary endpoints. Results: In the study period, 53 patients (22 females) with a mean age of 61.1±13 years were included. No 30-day and in-hospital mortality was recorded. Permanent neurological deficits occurred in 2 patients (5.7%). In the TEVAR group (n=35) and in a median follow-up period of 34 months, a significant reduction of maximum aortic and false lumen diameter as well as a significant increase of true lumen diameter were detected (p<0.001 each). Complete false lumen thrombosis increased from 6% preoperatively to 60% at follow-up. The median difference in aortic, false lumen, and true lumen diameter was −5 mm (interquartile range [IQR]=−28 to 8 mm), –11 mm (IQR=−53 to 10 mm), and 7 mm (IQR=−13 to 17 mm), respectively. In 3 patients (8.6%), a reintervention was needed. Two patients (1 aortic-related) died during follow-up. The estimated survival according to Kaplan-Meyer analysis was 94.1% after 3 years and 87.5% after 5 years. Similar to the TEVAR group, no 30-day or in-hospital mortality was recorded in the conservative group. During follow-up, 2 patients died and 5 patients underwent conversion-TEVAR (28%). In a median follow-up period of 26 months (range=150), a significant increase of maximum aortic diameter (p=0.006) and a tendency to augmentation of the false lumen (p=0.06) were noted. No significant reduction of the true lumen was seen. Conclusions: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients at high risk of subsequent aortic complications in uncomplicated acute and subacute type B aortic dissection is safe and is associated with favorable midterm outcomes regarding aortic remodeling. Clinical Impact In a retrospective, single center analysis of prospectively collected data with follow-up, we compared 35 patients with high-risk features who recieved TEVAR in acute and sub-acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection to a control-group (n=18). The TEVAR group showed a significant positive remoduling (reduction of max. aortic and false lumen diameter and increase of true lumen diameter (p<0.001 each)) during follow-up with an estimated survival of 94.1% after 3 years and 87.5% after 5 years.