Left Subclavian Artery Coverage Research Articles

16-year outcomes of blunt thoracic aortic injury treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A single-institution experience.

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is associated with considerable mortality and morbidity. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has essentially replaced open aortic repair (OAR) with superior outcome. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early and intermediate-term outcomes in patients sustaining BTAI treated with TEVAR, and to evaluate the prevalence and impact of left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage. This retrospective analysis includes patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between February 2006 and December 2022 at the Helsinki University Hospital, Finland. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 2-year mortality, technical success of stent-graft system deployment, and procedural and device-related complications. The secondary endpoints pertained to reintervention events: conversion to OAR, re-TEVAR, any endovascular/surgical reinterventions for optimal stent-graft function, or any reinterventions during follow-up. A total of 38 consecutive BTAI patients treated with TEVAR were included in the analyses. Median patient age was 45.5 years (range, 15-79) and 66% were male. The median follow-up period was 39 months. Technical success was 100%, 30-day mortality was 0%, and 2-year mortality was 11% in the study cohort. Coverage of LSA without revascularization (13/18) resulted in one postoperative nondisabling stroke (1/13), no paraplegia, and one had ischemic left arm findings (1/13). Only one patient required reintervention (LSA embolization; 1/38). In this institutional series, we provide further evidence in favor of TEVAR for BTAI treatment. We demonstrated that TEVAR is linked to highly favorable outcomes in the short and intermediate term, and coverage of LSA without revascularization was quite well tolerated.

Outcomes of Endovascular vs Surgical Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Requiring Left Subclavian Artery Coverage

Outcomes of Endovascular vs Surgical Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Requiring Left Subclavian Artery Coverage

Initial Outcomes of the Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for Endovascular Repair of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury

Endovascular repair of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) has dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality of intervention. Injuries requiring zone 2 coverage of the aorta traditionally require left subclavian artery (LSA) sacrifice or open revascularization. Furthermore, these injuries are associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and long-term morbidity. Here we report 1-year outcomes of total endovascular repair of BTAI with the GORE® TAG® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for LSA preservation. Across 34 investigative sites, 9 patients with BTAI requiring LSA coverage were enrolled in a nonrandomized, prospective study of a single-branched aortic endograft. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis device allows for graft placement proximal to the LSA and incorporates a single side branch for LSA perfusion. This initial cohort included 8 male and 1 female patient with a median age of 43 (22,76) and 12months of follow-up. Five total years of follow-up are planned. All participants had grade 3 BTAI. All procedures took place between 2018 and 2019. The median injury severity score was 2 (0, 66). The median procedure time was 109min (78, 162). All aortic injuries were repaired under general anesthesia and with heparinization. A spinal drain was used in one patient. Post-deployment balloon angioplasty was conducted in one case at the distal landing zone. There was one asymptomatic LSA branch occlusion 6months after repair. It was attributed to the purposeful proximal deployment of the branch stent to accommodate an early vertebral takeoff. The occlusion did not require revascularization. There were no strokes, mortalities, or aortic adverse events (migration, endoleak, native aortic expansion, dissection, or thrombosis) through 12months of follow-up. Initial cohort outcomes suggest that endovascular repair of zone 2 BTAI is feasible and has favorable outcomes using the thoracic branch device with LSA preservation. Additional cases and longer-term follow-up are required for a definitive assessment of the device'ssafety and durability in traumatic aortic injuries.

TEVAR Extension and Intentional Coverage of Left Subclavian Artery for Rescue of Aortic Coarctation

TEVAR Extension and Intentional Coverage of Left Subclavian Artery for Rescue of Aortic Coarctation

Type B aortic dissection management: A narrative review of guidelines and systematic reviews: Type B aortic dissection management

Background: Surgical or medical treatment for type B or descending aortic dissections with difficult presentation or stable hemodynamics is debatable. This study aimed to review the type B aortic dissection therapy to assess safety and effectiveness. Materials and Methods: Online databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for relevant systematic reviews, guidelines, and meta-analysis studies on the management of type B aortic dissection, up to July 2023. The conclusions were qualitatively synthesized. Results: Best medical therapy (BMT], thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR), and open surgeries (OS) were management approaches. Hemodynamics classify type B aortic dissection as complex or simple. Both examples reveal decreased in-hospital all-cause mortality with TAVR than OS. Guidelines recommend TEVAR for difficult situations and OS if it fails. Complication analyses favour TEVAR, however left subclavian artery coverage without revascularization increases stroke risk. Studies show Type B aortic dissection is simpler than TEVAR and BMT. Acute or subacute presentation did not affect reintervention rates between treatments. TEVAR had a greater early stroke risk than BMT but a decreased long-term aortic-related and all-cause mortality. The best data showed no differences in in-hospital mortality or early re-intervention between regimens. BMT reduced early stroke but increased late all-cause death. Conclusion: In conclusion, addressing Type B aortic dissection is complicated, depending on presentation and hemodynamics. TEVAR is best for difficult patients, however BMT and OS also work. TEVAR may reduce in-hospital mortality but increase early stroke risk.

Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated Stent-grafts for Zone 2 Endovascular Repair of Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury: Early and Midterm Results.

Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a highly fatal surgical emergency and is treated with endovascular procedures. We aimed to analyze and report the early and midterm outcomes of surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts (SMFSG) compared with other conventional endovascular methods in patients with BTAI repaired with zone 2 endovascular surgery. Before and after the study was performed, from January 2015 to January 2020 for a period in which conventional endovascular treatments were used and from January 2020 to January 2023 for the second period in which the SMFSG technique was used. A total of 25 patients who underwent zone 2 endovascular repair for BTAI were included. The patients treated with conventional endovascular methods in the first period, chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) (n=3 patients); Left subclavian artery (LSA)-covered (intentionally total) (n=12 patients) LSA-covered (LSAC) TEVAR; carotid-subclavian bypass TEVAR (n=2 patients) was defined as group 1, and the group of patients treated with SMFSG in the second period was defined as group 2. The primary endpoints of the study were technical success, defined as complete closure of BTAI, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were aortic pathology-related morbidity, mortality, and re-interventions during the follow-up period. The mean age was 42.6±14.3 years, and 21 (84%) of the patients were male. The patients were compared with respect to the proximal landing zone, fluoroscopy time, duration of the procedure, length of intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay, no statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p>0.05). The mean follow-up time of patients in group I was 46±9 months, while in group II, it was 14±6 months (p<0.001). While no TEVAR-related complications were detected in group II throughout follow-up, they occurred in 4 patients (28.6%) in group I. TEVAR is the most appropriate treatment for BTAI in the modern era, especially for polytrauma patients with successful outcomes. Intentional coverage of the LSA can be performed, but SMFSG is an effective, economical, rapid, and available technique for endovascular revascularization of the LSA. Altough intentional left subclavian artery coverage is preferred routinely in patients with blunt traumatic aortic injury (in Zone 2) which is a highly fatal surgical emergency, surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts is also effective, economical, rapid and available technique.

Left subclavian artery revascularization is associated with less neurologic injury after endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze patients with acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) requiring thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage to determine whether LSA revascularization decreased the risk of neurologic complications. MethodsThe national Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for all procedures performed between 2014 and 2021. Patients presenting with aortic aneurysms or aortic ruptures were excluded from the analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether their LSA was revascularized (prior to or during TEVAR) or not. Univariate followed by multivariate analysis was used to account for possible confounders and evaluate the association of LSA revascularization with the primary outcome of neurologic injury (stroke or spinal cord ischemia). ResultsAmong patients who had TEVAR for aTBAD, 501 patients had the LSA covered. The LSA was revascularized prior to or concomitant with TEVAR in 28% of these patients (n = 139). Average age was 57 years, and 73% (n = 366) were male. Neurologic injury developed in 88 patients (18%). On univariate analysis, patients who had their LSA revascularized were significantly less likely to develop neurologic injury (10% vs 20%; P < .01). This association persisted after accounting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .02). No significant difference was seen when comparing 30-day or 1-year mortality between patients who had LSA revascularization and those who did not. Follow-up averaged 1.9 years (range, 0-8.1 years). Long-term survival did not differ between the two groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis. ConclusionsIn this study of patients with aTBAD who underwent LSA coverage during TEVAR, the addition of a LSA revascularization procedure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of neurological injury including spinal cord ischemia and/or stroke.

Open Versus Endovascular Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization Outcomes in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A National Study

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization is recommended in patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with LSA coverage. However, the outcomes of open vs endovascular techniques for LSA revascularization remain poorly studied due to lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this study is to use a large national database to compare the effects of open vs endovascular LSA revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR on the perioperative outcomes of stroke, arm ischemia (AI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, and reintervention. Patients who had undergone LSA revascularization for LSA coverage in the Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR database between 2011 and 2022 were identified. Patients with no coverage of the LSA, no LSA revascularization after LSA coverage, conversion to open repair, proximal disease > zone 5, distal zone disease < zone 3, and genetic history of connective tissue disease were excluded. We divided our cohort into two groups: open and endovascular revascularization of LSA. Open LSA revascularization was defined as treatment with surgical bypass. Endovascular LSA revascularization was defined as treatment with stent, stent graft, chimney, scallop, stented scallop, fenestration, stented fenestration, fenestrated branch, side-arm branch, and iliac device. Outcomes were perioperative stroke, AI, SCI, 30-day mortality, and reintervention. A total of 3052 patients met our inclusion criteria. There were 2396 (78.5%) patients in the open LSA revascularization group and 656 (21.5%) patients in the endovascular LSA revascularization group. The results are summarized in the Table. When compared with open LSA revascularization, endovascular LSA revascularization showed no significant difference in the risk of stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.5; P = .498), AI (aOR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.7-3.1; P = .273), SCI (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5; P = .337), and 30-day mortality (aOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8-2.0; P = .254). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the risk of reintervention (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1.2; P = .166). In this analysis of Vascular Quality Initiative data, both open and endovascular LSA revascularization for LSA coverage during TEVAR were equally effective and durable with no significant difference in outcomes of stroke, AI, SCI, 30-day mortality, and reintervention. Thus, endovascular LSA revascularization is a viable alternative to open LSA revascularization that could reduce the need for staged carotid-subclavian bypass or transposition procedures. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcomes of open vs endovascular LSA revascularization, in addition to comparing the outcomes of specific endovascular techniques to each other.TableMultivariate logistic regression of stroke, arm ischemia (AI), spinal cord ischemia (SCI), 30-day mortality, and reintervention outcomesOutcomeEndovascular LSA revascularization vs open LSA revascularizationaOR (95% CI) (reference = open LSA revascularization)P valueStroke1.1 (0.8-1.5).498AI1.5 (0.7-3.1).273SCI0.7 (0.3-1.5).33730-day mortality1.3 (0.8-2.0).254Reintervention0.7 (0.4-1.2).166aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LSA, left subclavian artery. Open table in a new tab

Perioperative Outcomes of Left Subclavian Artery Coverage and Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Perioperative Outcomes of Left Subclavian Artery Coverage and Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Early and midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with Lifetech Ankura™ thoracic endograft: A single tertiary center experience

Aim: Thoracic aortic pathologies describe a wide spectrum of potentially life-threatening diseases almost always in a comorbid aged patient cohort. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a less invasive treatment choice, offering reduced mortality and morbidity compared to open surgery. We decided to reveal our experience over safety and efficacy data with Lifetech Ankura™ Thoracic endografts with early and midterm outcomes, retrospectivelytiology. Material and Methods: Between January 2018 and January 2023, for a 5-year period, 203 patients who experienced TEVAR procedure with Lifetech Ankura™ Thoracic endograft were retrospectively evaluated. For the patients who required revascularization of the vessel branches originating from the aortic segments, all types of assistive techniques were performed. Intentional coverage of Left subclavian artery was also performed mostly in urgent patients. Results: 251 endografts were implanted in 203 patients. The most frequent aortic pathologies were the thoracic aortic fusiform aneurysm (56.6%) and type B aortic dissection (25.6%), respectively. Early (30-day/in-hospital) mortality occurred in 9 patients in total (4.4%). Technical success rate was 100%, and there was no conversion to open surgery. No other major adverse event, including cerebral, cardiac, or renal complication requiring dialysis, was observed. The average intensive care unit time was 16.9±11 hours (2-160), length of stay was 5.1±3.2 days. CSF drainage was performed in 51 patients inserted before the procedure prophylactically (25.1%). All patients who survived the operation were followed for 18.6±9.3 months. In the follow up period, four patients needed extension for endoleaks and two additive petticoat procedures were performed. One patient who had TEVAR due to a malperfused type B aortic dissection in the acute phase experienced RTAD 2 weeks after the initial procedure. Conclusion: TEVAR with LifeTech Ankura™ Thoracic Stent Graft system provides a safe, effective, and durable treatment with successful early outcomes and technical success. Wide spectrum in length and non-identical radiopaque proximal markers seem to facilitate some advanced endovascular skills. Long-term durability of the endograft should be tested.

Safety of Left Subclavian Artery Selective Coverage without Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissections.

Whether to proceed left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in patients with LSA coverage due to insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains controversial. A total of 903 patients who received TEVAR were retrospectively analyzed. LSA could be covered if the PLZ was less than 15 mm accompanied with 1) a dominant or balanced right vertebral artery, 2) a complete circle of Willis, and 3) a left vertebral artery with a diameter ≥3 mm and without severe stenosis. LSA selective coverage was necessary for 35.0% (316/903) of the patients to extend the PLZ. Patients presented with weakness, pain, cooling and discoloration of the left upper extremity (LUE), and pulselessness of the left brachial artery were more in the LSA-covered group. The ischemia of LUE occurred more often in patients with LSA covered completely than in those with LSA covered partially. Functional arm status showed no significant difference in the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire scores at 12 months postoperative between the LSA-covered group and LSA-uncovered group, or between the LSA-covered completely group and LSA-covered partially group. It was safe to cover the LSA origin without revascularization if the PLZ was less than 15 mm accompanied with careful evaluation (description in method).

Physician-Modified Stent Graft for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries: Do the Benefits Worth the Trouble?

Obtaining a suitable proximal landing zone in blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI) often necessitates coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA). This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) in this indication. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry including all patients who had undergone a thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for BTAI from October 2008 to October 2020. Starting in 2015, patients requiring coverage of the LSA were either treated using a physician-modified proximal scalloped or single-fenestrated stent graft. After an early postoperative computed tomography scan, follow-up was performed at 3 months, 6-months, and yearly. Among 58 patients treated with TEVAR for BTAI, 23 (39.6%) patients required a zone 2 landing zone of which 10 (17.2%) patients were treated with PMEGs. The median age was 48 [31-64.5] years, and 78.2% (n=18) patients were male. The median Injury Severity Score was 38 [27-55.5]. Coverage of the LSA was performed in 25.8% (n=15) of the total population in which 5 patients had an LSA transposition. The median modification time was 18 [14-27] minutes. Technical success of PMEGs was 90.0% overall and 100% for fenestrated stent grafts. No stroke, paraplegia, or retrograde dissection was observed. The primary patency of the LSA in the PMEGs group was 90 % at 1year and 28.8 % in the LSA coverage group (P<0.01). The use of PMEGs is feasible and effective in the management of BTAI with a short proximal landing zone. Further evaluation of long-term outcomes and durability are awaited.

Outcome comparison between LSA complete reconstruction and partial coverage with endovascular technique for patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection

Objectives: To compare the short-term outcomes of branched stentgrafts for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization or partial LSA coverage without reconstruction in the treatment of type B aortic dissection with proximal tear close to LSA. Methods: A total of 125 type B aortic dissection patients were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in Xinqiao Hospital of the Army Medical University from January 2019 to March 2021. Their medical records were reviewed and the outcomes were followed up. According to the different treatment methodologies, the patients were divided into complete LSA coverage with reconstruction group (n=25) and partial LSA coverage without reconstruction group (n=100). The data of baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and incidence of postoperative in-hospital adverse events were collected and compared between the two groups. The adverse events during one-year follow-up were also compared between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to compare the cumulative survival rates between groups. Results: Compared with partial LSA coverage group, distance of proximal tear to LSA((8.69±2.32)mm vs. (13.77±1.71) mm) was shorter, in-hospital expenses[175 400(166 000-189 900) yuan vs. 143 700 (138 100-151 800) yuan] was higher, average length of stent [200.00 mm vs. 150.00 (150.00-150.00) mm] and operation time [155.00 (140.00-170.00) min vs. 95.00 (80.00-100.00) min] were longer, and volumes of contrast agent [300.00 (200.00-300.00) ml vs. 200.00 (200.00-300.00) ml] (P<0.05) were higher for patients in the complete LSA coverage with reconstruction group. The incidence of post-operative fever was significantly higher in complete LSA coverage with revascularization group than that in partial LSA partial coverage with reconstruction group (56% vs. 25%, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidences of all-cause death, stroke, endoleak, paraplegia, and LSA branch vessel occlusion between the two groups during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the cumulative survival rates between the two groups (log-rank test: P=0.572 5). Conclusion: The TEVAR with complete LSA revascularization or partial LSA coverage without reconstruction for type B aortic dissection close to LSA are safe and effective with high success rates. There is no significant difference between these two techniques in short-term outcomes.

Left subclavian artery coverage during endovascular repair of thoracic aorta injury in trauma and non-trauma patients.

In thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), the left subclavian artery (LSA) is often occluded. Although most patients tolerate this, some develop ischemic symptoms to the brain or left upper extremity (LUE). A revascularization procedure may be associated with significant complications. The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence of LSA occlusion, resulting ischemic symptoms, and complications related to revascularization operations in trauma patients compared to non-trauma patients. Studies from 2010 to 2020 were fully reviewed if they discussed incidence of LSA coverage, LUE ischemia, carotid-subclavian bypass, or complications associated with carotid-subclavian bypass. Seventeen articles were included in this analysis. A total of 167 patients were identified as trauma cases. Incidence of LSA occlusion in trauma was 91/167 (54%) compared to 281/1446 (19%) in the population exclusive of trauma (p < 0.001). Following LSA occlusion, the rate of LUE claudication/ischemia was 21/56 (38%) for trauma, compared to 12/193 (6%) in non-trauma cases (p < 0.001). The overall complication rate after carotid-subclavian rescue bypass was 29.2% (33/112), with phrenic nerve palsy (24%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (5%), and pseudoaneurysm (1.7%) being the most common. LSA coverage following TEVAR is common and associated with significant complications, often requiring operative management. The incidence of ischemic complications after occlusion of the LSA is significantly higher in the trauma population. Revascularization procedures to correct the occlusion have a high rate of complications.

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

To analyze whether left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is associated with decreased spinal cord ischemia (SCI). The national Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for all procedures performed between 2014 and 2021. Patients presenting with acute aortic dissections or aortic ruptures were excluded from the analysis. Only patients undergoing elective TEVAR for TAA and had their LSA covered during the procedure were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to their LSA revascularization (before or during TEVAR). A descriptive analysis was done to evaluate the change in frequency of LSA revascularization over the study interval. Univariate analysis was done to compare preoperative and intraoperative variables, and primary outcomes of SCI and cerebral stroke between the two groups. Among patients who had elective TEVAR for TAA, 669 patients had the LSA covered. The LSA was revascularized in 67% of these patients (n = 446). The incidence of LSA revascularization increased over the study period (Fig 1) (P < .001). Average age was 69 years, and 65% (n = 433) were male. Demographics and past medical history are summarized in Table I. Spinal cord ischemia developed in 20 patients (3%), and cerebral stroke in 29 patients (4%). No significant difference was seen when comparing postoperative SCI, cerebral stroke, 30-day or 1-year mortality between patients who had LSA revascularization and those who did not (Table II). Long-term survival did not differ between the two groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis (Fig 2). In patients with TAA undergoing elective TEVAR with LSA coverage, an increasing percentage of patients underwent preoperative or concomitant LSA revascularization over the course of the study—81% in 2021. In this study, LSA revascularization, however, did not aff5ct the incidence of postoperative SCI, cerebral stroke, or short or long-term mortality. In conclusion, LSA revascularization did not protect against SCI and may carry its own morbidity in elective TAAs requiring LSA coverage. More detailed studies are needed to help define the role of LSA revascularization in this setting.TableComparison of baseline characteristics, comorbidities, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes between patients who had left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and those who did notOverall (n = 669)LSA nonrevascularized (n = 223)LSA revascularized (n = 446)P valueBaseline characteristics Age, years, mean (SD)69 (11)70 (11)69 (11).48 Gender, No. (%).69Male433 (65)142 (64)291 (65)Female236 (35)81 (36)155 (35) Race, No. (%).41African American115 (17)39 (18)76 (17)White474 (71)164 (74)310 (70)Others80 (12)20 (9)60 (14) BMI, mean (SD)28.4 (6.7)28.1 (6.8)28.5 (6.7).45 Smoking status, No. (%).94Never171 (26)59 (27)112 (25)Prior343 (51)113 (51)230 (52)Current154 (23)51 (23)103 (23)Medical History CVD, No. (%)81 (12)31 (14)50 (11).31 CAD, No. (%)111 (17)43 (19)68 (15).19 Congestive heart failure, No. (%)93 (14)33 (15)60 (13).63 COPD, No. (%)193 (29)73 (33)120 (27).12 Hypertension, No. (%)608 (91)199 (89)409 (92).22 Diabetes, No. (%)97 (14)38 (17)59 (13).19 Prior aortic surgery, No. (%)279 (42)103 (46)176 (40).10 Prior aneurysm repair, No. (%)226 (34)82 (36)145 (32).50Intraoperative variables Contrast volume, mL, mean (SD)118 (73)115 (72)120 (73).41 EBL, mL, mean (SD)243 (448)228 (399)251.2 (470).01 Fluoro time, minutes, mean (SD)23.2 (20.3)22.6 (23.0)23.5 (18.9).061 Procedure time, minutes, mean (SD)176 (100)158 (111)186 (94)<.01 Spinal drain placement, No. (%).38None343 (51.4%)111 (49.8%)232 (52.3%)Prophylactic311 (46.6%)106 (47.5%)205 (46.2%)Postoperative11 (1.6%)6 (2.7%)5 (1.1%)Outcomes Spinal cord ischemia, No. (%)20 (3)8 (4)12 (3).52 Cerebral stroke, No. (%)29 (4)9 (4)20 (5).79 30-Day mortality, No. (%)26 (4)5 (2)21 (5).12 1-Year mortality, No. (%)65 (10)21 (9)44 (10).85COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, cerebrovascular disease; EBL, estimated blood loss; PCI, percutaneous coronary interventions; SD, standard deviation. Open table in a new tab Fig 2Kaplan-Meier curves comparing long-term survival between patients who underwent left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and those who did not.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Left Subclavian Artery Coverage is Not Associated with Neurological Deficits in Trauma Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Repair

Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) outcomes have been studied with an interest in complications related to left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage in patients with atherosclerotic pathologies; however, specific data on the management of the LSA in a trauma population are lacking. The objective of this study is to evaluate outcomes following TEVAR for traumatic aortic injury based on LSA coverage. The Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair module (2010-2017) was analyzed. Patients were included if they had a traumatic aortic injury requiring TEVAR. Patients were placed in 2 groups based on coverage of the LSA. Patients were propensity score matched and the primary outcomes were cerebrovascular symptoms and spinal cord ischemia. Additional clinical and resource utilization outcomes were analyzed. Four hundred and fifty one patients were included in the analysis. There were 268 patients in the LSA not-covered group and 183 patients in the LSA covered group. The mean aortic injury grade was 2.88±0.056 vs. 2.88±0.049 in the covered versus not-covered group (P=0.957). Glasgow coma scale and injury severity score were not different between the groups. There was no difference between groups for cerebrovascular symptoms or spinal cord ischemia, 1.4% vs. 2.8%, P=0.684 and 0% vs. 2.1%, P=0.247, after propensity score matching. Significant differences in access site complications and resource utilization were identified between groups. This is the largest series to evaluate complications based on LSA coverage following TEVAR in trauma patients. Our data demonstrate that coverage of the LSA during TEVAR following blunt trauma is associated with no difference in central nervous system outcomes. As such, LSA revascularization strategies, while possible, are not directly supported by these data and should be individualized based on each patient's specific clinical scenario.

Covering/Overstenting of the left subclavian artery (LSA) in thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) to treat various thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic lesions: is revascularization of the left arm a must?(A retrospective cohort study with 12 years of experience to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice and the literature review)

&lt;b&gt; Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; Pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta inwardly extended towards the aortic arch actually shorten the proximal landing zone for aortic prosthesis. This, in turn, worsens the accessibility of the aorta for endovascular therapeutic options of those pathologies. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt; &lt;b&gt; Aim:&lt;/b&gt; This work considers the blockage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) through endovascular treatment of the pathologies of the descending aorta as the main work question, based on the hypothesis that there is no necessity for primary standard revascularization of the LSA in TEVAR with LSA covering. The researchers have 12 years of experience in the treatment of different thoracic aortic lesions. Their experience will also be reviewed in this paper. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt; &lt;b&gt; Materials and methods:&lt;/b&gt; Retrospective unicenter cohort study in consecutive patients to describe the real-world situation of daily clinical practice. All patients who had undergone endovascular, hybrid, or open operative therapy of different pathologies of the descending aorta were included in this study. Various parameters were investigated, including therapeutic procedures such as 1) pure endovascular vs. hybrid; 2) year of therapy; 3) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic status of the patients; 4) different epidemiological factors (age, sex, risk factors, mortality, and follow-up); 5) overstenting/blocking of the LSA; 6) complications of applied therapies; 7) further operations/interventions to treat such complications; 8) radiological aortic measurements (such as lumen extensions, false lumen measurements, distance to the supra-aortic and visceral vessels); and 9) multiple other pathological features. Different statistical parameters were also examined. Survival was analysed with the Kaplan-Meier assessment in the group of whole patients vs. the group of over-stented patients. The analysis of variance was performed for independent parameters for the revascularized patients – not the revascularized patients – who had undergone LSA coverage. For statistical approval, the U-test was used. The P-value &lt; 0.05 was considered significantly different. The literature review was performed by means of a search in PubMed, Google scholar, Research Gate, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library, using the following terms: endovascular, TEVAR, revascularization, stroke, and left-subclavian-artery ischemia. The literature is classified accordingly in relation to the main topic. In fact, the literature underwent further analysis depending on the fact whether it went with or against our hypothesis. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt; &lt;b&gt; Results:&lt;/b&gt; Overall, 112 patients were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference comparing the non-revascularized vs.the revascularized group of patients, considering the consequences on cerebrovascular circulation (hemorrhagic, n = 1 case [4.8%] vs. 0 case [0%]; p = 0.32 and ischemic, n = 2 cases [9.6%] vs. 1 case [4.8%]; p = 0.56). There was no registered cases of spinal cord ischemia or left arm ischemia. As the main result, there was no case of left arm ischemia or death (mortality, 0). Survival was as follows for both groups: 22 [95% CI, 14.154–29.904] months vs. 43 [95% CI, 33.655–51.921] months, respectively, with no significant statistical difference (P &gt; 0.05). The only statistically significant risk factor found was renal insufficiency (P, 0.028) but this too was considered a trend by the urgency of revascularization. Postoperatively, pneumonia showed a trend of higher frequency (P = 0.058) in the revascularized cases (n = 0 in the non-revascularized vs. n = 3 [21.4%] in the revascularized cases). There was no significant difference in the occurance of postoperative neurovascular complications (such as cerebrovascular accidents, spinal cord ischemia, or left arm ischemia) by comparing the groups of non-revascularized and revascularized patients. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt; &lt;b&gt; Conclusions: &lt;/b&gt; The revascularization of the overstented LSA due to TEVAR should be limited to certain indications, including 1) inadequate intracerebral circle of Willis; 2) predominantly perfused left vertebral artery with inadequate blood perfusion via the right vertebral artery (e.g., by stenosis), 3) anatomic variance such as the left vertebral artery originating directly from the aortic arch (and must be blocked by TEVAR); 4) need of an adequate left internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); 5) need of a patent LSA for the dialysis shunt of the left arm. However, there is no appropriate evidence as yet based on sufficient study results achieved in trials with an advanced design (such as [double-]blind, multicenter randomized study) that appears to be urgently required.

Prognosis and Risk Factors of Stroke After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection.

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.

A more proximal landing zone is preferred for thoracic endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissections.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first-line therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). However, the strategy for optimal proximal landing zone remains to be determined. We compared early outcomes and late aortic-related adverse events in patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD with endograft deployment in proximal landing zone 2 vs3. We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within 6weeks of diagnosis from January 2008 to December 2018. We excluded patients with connective tissue disorders and prior type A repair. Patients were divided into landing zone 2 TEVAR (Z2T) and zone 3 TEVAR (Z3T) groups. Z2 patients were divided between left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization (Z2R) vs LSA coverage without revascularization (Z2C). Groups were compared for the need for aortic reintervention within 36months of initial admission and freedom from aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM), defined as the need for aortic reintervention, aortic-related death, or rupture. Eighty-three patients underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within a mean of 4.1± 7.8days; 89.5% of patients had less than 2cm of healthy proximal descending thoracic aorta. The landing zone was Z3T in 35 patients and 48 underwent Z2T: 10 Z2C and 38 Z2R. There were no differences between Z2T and Z3T in time from diagnosis to TEVAR, demographics, comorbidities, and diameter aortic measurements. The 30-day survival was 87.8%-89.5% for Z2R, 88.6% for Z3, and 80.0% for Z2C (P= .610). The postoperative spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7%-2.7% for Z2R, 0% for Z3T, and 20.0% for Z2C (P= .012). The postoperative thoracic aortic rupture was 2.2% in Z2 and 0 in Z3. The need for aortic reintervention at 36months after TEVAR was lower for Z2T (10.4%) vs Z3T (31.4%; P= .025). Freedom from AREM at 36months was higher in Z2T vs Z3T (87.5% vs 68.6%; P= .048). The freedom from proximal reintervention was higher in Z2T (95.8%) compared with Z3T (80.0%; P= .019). Z3T deployment was predictive for AREM (odd ratio, 3.648; 95% confidence interval, 1.161-11.465; P= .027) and need for proximal reintervention (odds ratio, 5.542; 95% confidence interval, 1.062-28.927; P= .042). Most patients with aTBAD have less than 2cm of proximal healthy descending thoracic aorta. In patients treated for complicated aTBAD, Z2T is associated with a lower need for aortic reintervention and aortic-related adverse events than Z3T. Patients may benefit from a more aggressive proximal landing zone with similar perioperative morbidity when Z2T is done with LSA revascularization.

Stroke, spinal cord ischemia and upper limb ischemia in patients undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the left subclavian artery: a case series study

BackgroundWe performed routine spinal fluid drainage for patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology together with left subclavian artery coverage, which was needed for achievement of a safe proximal sealing zone. We assessed the occurrence of spinal cord ischemia as well the rate of occurrence of other complications such as stroke, and upper limb ischemia.ResultsThis was a case series study done between July 2014 and April 2020, in them all the left subclavian artery was covered to ensure a proximal safe seal zone. Routine spinal fluid drainage was done, keeping the spinal fluid pressure < 10–15 mmHg with catheter in place for 48 h. Data was obtained from twenty-three patients who underwent TEVAR for thoracic aortic dissection (73.91%), thoracic aortic aneurysm (21.74%), or ulcer (4.35%). Planning was based upon multi-slice computed tomographic angiography and covering the left subclavian was mandatory to achieve a proximal sealing zone. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. 4.35% of patients had three endograft, 56.52% had two endografts, 39.13% had one endograft. All patients lost their radial pulsations immediately after implantation, 8.70% developed post implantation syndrome(fever) that was managed conservatively, 4.35% developed stroke related to the anterior circulation, 4.35% developed signs of spinal cord ischemia. During the follow up, one patient died within 6 h after the procedure due to extensive myocardial infarction (patient was scheduled for CABG after our procedure). 17.40% developed upper limb symptoms that were tolerable and were managed conservatively.ConclusionBy adopting routine spinal cord drainage and pressure monitoring, we can consider not to revascularize the left subclavian artery prior to TEVAR if it will be covered.