Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Procedures Research Articles

Complementary Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) after Frozen Elephant Trunk for Residual Type A Aortic Dissection: Perioperative and Mid-Term Outcomes.

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results of complementary TEVAR following the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for patients with residual type A aortic dissection (rTAAD) in terms of technical feasibility, safety and mid-term outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective single-centre analysis of patients who received TEVAR after FET for rTAAD from January 2012 up to December 2021. The primary endpoint was technical success. Safety parameters included 30-day/in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, mid-term clinical and morphological outcomes were evaluated. Results: Among 587 TEVAR procedures, 60 patients (11 with connective tissue disorders) who received TEVAR after FET for rTAAD were identified. The median interval between FET and TEVAR was 28.5 months. Indications for TEVAR after FET were true lumen collapse distal to FET prosthesis (n = 7), dSINE (n = 2), planned completion (n = 13) and aortic diameter progression (n = 38). In forty-seven patients, TEVAR was performed in an elective setting; eight and six patients were operated on in an urgent or emergency setting, respectively. All TEVAR procedures were successfully completed. The 30-day mortality and spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.7%. During a median follow-up of 37 months, two further patients died. Nine patients had to undergo a further aortic intervention: fenestrated stent-graft (n = 3) or open repair of the infrarenal abdominal aorta (n = 6). Conclusions: Complementary TEVAR following FET for rTAAD showed excellent technical success and low perioperative risk, supporting the feasibility and safety of this strategy. Despite the favourable mid-term survival, certain patients might require a further aortic procedure.

National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Standard Descending Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Optimisation Strategies

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has highlighted the large number of medical specialties that use fluoroscopy outside diagnostic imaging departments without radiation protection programmes for patients and staff. Vascular surgery is one of these specialties. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a complicated procedure requiring radiation protection guidance and optimisation. The recent EU Basic Safety Standards Directive requires the use and periodic updating of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional procedures. The aim of this study was to determine doses for patients undergoing TEVAR with mobile X-ray systems and hybrid rooms (fixed X-ray systems) to obtain national DRLs and to suggest optimisation actions. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. The Spanish Chapter of Endovascular Surgery conducted a national survey in 11 autonomous communities representing around 77.6% of the Spanish population (47.33 million inhabitants). A total of 266 TEVAR procedures from 17 Spanish centres were analysed, of which 50.2% were performed in hybrid operating rooms. National DRLs were obtained and defined as the third quartile of the median values from the different participating centres. The proposed national DRLs are: for kerma area product (KAP), 113.81 Gy·cm2 for mobile X-ray systems and 282.59 Gy·cm2 for hybrid rooms; and for cumulative air kerma (CAK) at the patient entry reference point, 228.38 mGy for mobile systems and 910.64 mGy for hybrid rooms. Based on the requirement to know radiation doses for standard endovascular procedures, this study of TEVARs demonstrated that there is an increased factor of 2.48 in DRLs for KAP when the procedure is performed in a hybrid room compared with mobile C-arm systems, and an increased factor of 3.98 in DRLs for CAK when the procedure is performed with hybrid equipment. These results will help to optimise strategies to reduce radiation doses during TEVAR procedures.

Long-term results of etiology-based thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a single-center experience.

The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has been increasing; however, in terms of etiology, the differences of long term after TEVAR outcomes remain unexplored. Thus, we investigated etiology-specific long-term results of TEVAR for TAA and TBAD. A total of 421 TEVAR procedures were performed at our institution from July 2007 to December 2021; 249 TAA cases and 172 TBAD cases were included. Traumatic aortic dissection and aortic injury cases were excluded. The mean observation duration was 5.7years. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 1.4% (n = 6), with 1.2% (n = 3) in the TAA group and 1.7% (n = 3) in the TBAD group. The overall incidence of postoperative stroke was 0.9% (n = 4), with 1.2% (n = 3) and 0.6% (n = 1) in the TAA and TBAD groups, respectively (p = 0.90). Paraplegia developed in 1.7% (n = 7) of patients, with 2.4% (n = 6) in the TAA group and 0.6% (n = 1) in the TBAD group. Freedom from aortic-related death was not significantly different between the two etiologies; however, thoracic reintervention was more common in the TBAD group (p = 0.003), with endoleak being the most common indication for reintervention. Additionally, retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four TBAD cases, while migration occurred in three TAA cases. The perioperative results of TEVAR for TAA and TBAD were satisfactory. The long-term results were unfavorable owing to the occurrence of etiology-specific and common complications. In terms of the high frequency of reintervention, the long-term complications associated with TEVAR are etiology specific.

Association between aortic pathology, surgeon experience, and regional variability on use of intravascular ultrasonography during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a useful adjunct to obtain precise intraluminal measurements during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), but IVUS examination is not routinely used by all surgeons or centers during TEVAR. We sought to identify patient- and system-related factors that influence the decision to use IVUS examination during TEVAR. MethodsA retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was performed to identify all patients undergoing TEVAR from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression modeling with three-fold repeated cross-validation was performed to identify predictors of IVUS use during TEVAR. Association of IVUS use with contrast volume and radiation exposure was also assessed. ResultsA total of 12,414 patients undergoing TEVAR met the inclusion criteria. Of these, IVUS examination was used in 41.3% of cases (n = 5121). IVUS use was more common in younger patients with fewer comorbidities; however, IVUS examination was also more commonly deployed in symptomatic patients and those with a higher preoperative American Society of Anesthesiology classification. IVUS examination was use in 80% (n = 3385/4213) TEVAR procedures performed for type B aortic dissection, which accounted for 50% of total IVUS use and only 11% of cases during which IVUS examination was not used (n = 822/7293) (P < .01). In multivariable analysis, the strongest independent predictor of IVUS use was aortic dissection (odds ratio, 13.7; 95% confidence interval, 11.7-16.3; P < .001, with aortic aneurysm as the reference). Surgeon years of independent practice experience was not associated with IVUS use, but when accounting for clustering on physicians and geographic regions, these variables explained 15% of the variance observed in the final risk-adjusted model. After adjustment for confounding factors, IVUS use was associated with a significant decrease in fluoroscopy time and contrast volume (both P < .001). ConclusionsThe decision to use IVUS examination during TEVAR is most heavily influenced by aortic pathology. Although surgeon experience was not associated with the decision to use IVUS examination, there was substantial variation in IVUS examination use among individual surgeons and VQI regions. IVUS use was associated with decreased contrast administration and fluoroscopy use but did not appear to have an impact on survival or re-intervention. Although aortic dissection was strongly associated with IVUS use, a significant number of TEVAR for dissection were performed without IVUS examination. Further research is warranted to identify the barriers to IVUS use as well as the risks and benefits of IVUS use during TEVAR so that quality benchmarks can be established and resource use is improved.

Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch

ObjectiveWe compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes. ResultsThe median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016). ConclusionsWe found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

Rapid artificial ventricular pacing for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Aim: Rapid artificial ventricular pacing (RAVP) is a reproducible method for rapid and reversible reduction of transvascular flow during endovascular procedures. This method has the potential to increase patient tolerance, reduce operation duration, infection risk, X-ray dose and facilitate early patient mobilisation. The aim of this study to compare the efficacy, safety and impact of RAVP and pharmacological-induced hypotension in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures for aortic dissection and aneurysm. Material and Methods: This retrospective, observational, case-control study was conducted between January 2014 and December 2022. The adult patients who underwent TEVAR procedures for aortic dissection and aneurysm were enrolled in this study. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, total operation duration, incidence of endoleak, duration of intensive care unit-hospitalization stay, and hospital mortality ratio were compared between nitroglycerin induced hypotension group and RAVP group. Results: A total of 279 patients who underwent TEVAR procedures were included in this study. The mean age of patients in this cohort was 65.6±5.7 years and 158 (56.6%) of the patients were male. Of these 279 patients, hypotension during stent-graft was achieved with nitroglycerin in 155 patients. There were no statistical differences between these two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities and drugs. The blood pressure lowering effect and the heart rate during the intervention was significantly higher in RAVP. Endoleak and hospital mortality rates were similar in each group. Conclusion: RAVP is a feasible and safe method because it paves the way for agile maneuvers to maintain optimal hemodynamic conditions. Besides this, more meticulous, accurate deployment of endograft can be established with RAVP.

Staging TEVAR after FET — an exception or the rule?

PurposeFrozen elephant trunk (FET) was born as an ideal one-step procedure to treat complex arch and descending thoracic aorta pathology. It was then proved that it frequently needs reintervention, which can often be performed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) extension since FET provides a safe proximal landing zone. We hereby describe our experience in TEVAR extension after FET, its main indications, technique, and outcomes.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2022, 371 patients underwent FET at our center. Of these, 119 needed TEVAR extension. Some required more than one TEVAR, with a total of 154 procedures. The preoperative characteristics, indications, and outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsOf 154 TEVAR procedures, 15 were performed in an urgent setting. Mean time from FET to TEVAR was 22,2 ± 28,73 months. Two patients died in the operating room; no others died during the hospital stay. Survival after 1, 2, 5, and 10 years was 96.2%, 93.9%, 90.1%, and 70.5% respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of TEVAR extension for patients in which a Thoraflex™ vs E-vita™ graft was used, nor for zone 2 vs zone 3 anastomosis and stent length.ConclusionThough TEVAR extension is often required after FET, it is a safe and effective procedure with excellent post-operative outcomes in the short-, mid-, and long-term and allows successful treatment of complex aortic pathologies. Rigorous and specialized follow-up after FET is central to identify the right moment to intervene.

Protecting the spinal cord during thoracic endovascular aortic repair-who should place the spinal drain?

A well-placed and functioning lumbar spinal drain, for spinal cord protection, is an important aspect of the perioperative care of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures. Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating complication of TEVAR procedures and is most often associated with Crawford type 2 repairs. Current evidence-based guidelines for the surgical management of patients with thoracic aortic disease include the role of lumbar spine catheter placement and drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) intraoperatively as part of a strategy to prevent spinal cord ischemia. More often than not, the procedure of lumbar spinal drain placement, using a standard blind technique, and subsequent drain management is the responsibility of the anesthesiologist. However, institutional protocols are inconsistent, and, failure to successfully place the lumbar spinal drain pre-operatively in the operating room, in clinical situations such as patients with poor anatomical landmarks or prior back surgery, presents a clinical dilemma and impacts spinal cord protection during TEVAR. Although a relatively safe procedure, potential complications of lumbar spine catheter placement range from a self-limiting headache to hemorrhage and permanent neurological injury. Spinal drain placement with image-guided fluoroscopy by interventional radiology should be considered in the preoperative assessment and planning and is an alternative to conventional, blind lumbar drain insertion.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE. We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE. Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process. Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

Comprehensive Learning Curve Analysis of a Long-Term Experience With Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

To analyze the learning curve for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in a single center over a period of 25 years. In total, 390 consecutive standard TEVAR procedures undertaken between 1996 and 2021 were included in a retrospective, observational, single-center study. Cumulative sum charts were elaborated for the entire center experience (primary outcome) as well as for the first and second implanting physicians. Data on procedural variables (contrast volume, operative and fluoroscopy time), 30-day major adverse events (MAEs) and clinical success, and endoleak and reintervention rates were secondary outcomes and subdivided into 4 quartiles of experience (Q1-Q4) or presented as first 2 versus latest 2 quartiles (Q1-Q2 vs Q3-Q4). The mean follow-up was 4.3±4.0 years. The center's learning curve was achieved after 75 procedures, and it was similar for the first implanting physician. The surgeon coming thereafter had a significantly shorter curve (10 TEVARs). Comparing Q1-Q2 with Q3-Q4, 30-day MAEs (16.1 vs 11.3%, p=0.164), 30-day mortality (11.4% vs 3.6%, p=0.003), and intraoperative additional maneuvers (21.5% vs 13.3%, p=0.033) were reduced along with an improvement in clinical success (85.9% vs 90.3%, p=0.190). From Q1 to Q4, operative time (139.8±65.5 to 76.7±43.7 min, p=0.001), fluoroscopy time (15.1±8.8 to 7.1±5.1 min, p<0.001), and contrast volume (244.0±112.1 to 104.3±46.1 mL, p<0.001) showed a considerable reduction. Late endoleak and aortic-related mortality declined significantly from Q1-Q2 to Q3-Q4 (24.1% to 15.5%, p=0.033 and 18.6% vs 8.2%, p=0.006, respectively). Operative time (p=0.021), contrast volume (p=0.016), and fluoroscopy time (p=0.004) were independent risk factors for endoleak, causing a 1.3-fold risk increase for both each 60 minutes of additional operative time (p=0.021) and every 100 mL of additional contrast medium (p=0.016). Each 10-minute increase in fluoroscopy time determined a 1.4-fold risk increment (p=0.004). The learning curve shortened significantly over time with non-negligible clinical outcome improvements, suggesting that specific endovascular training is mandatory to become an effective TEVAR performer. For the first time in literature, the standard TEVAR's learning curve has been evaluated at a single vascular surgery center over a period of 25 years. The learning curve for the center and the first physician historically undertaking TEVAR was achieved at the 75th treated patient. The learning curve of the surgeons coming thereafter was significantly shorter (10 cases). This quarter-century demonstrated that intraoperative learning-related variables were associated with long-term clinical outcomes and all have improved over time. Centers approaching TEVAR for the first time and training program providers could use these data to aim to offer better clinical outcomes.

Comparative Analysis of Endovascular Repair of Single-Branched Stent-Graft and Hybrid Procedure for Patients With Type B Acute Aortic Dissection Involving the Left Subclavian Artery.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization has been used in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD), with inadequate proximal landing zone (PLZ). The outcomes of comparisons between TEVAR and hybrid procedure on patients with TBAD, with inadequate PLZ, are rarely reported. This study sought to compare and clarify the early and midterm outcomes between TEVAR and hybrid procedure in patients with TBAD, with inadequate PLZ. Between January 2019 and December 2021, 93 patients with TBAD, with inadequate PLZ, who underwent TEVAR or hybrid procedure, were retrospectively evaluated in Beijing Anzhen hospital. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative imaging features, periprocedural details, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed. Survival was analyzed according to Kaplan-Meier method. TEVAR procedures were performed on 41 patients (TEVAR group) and hybrid procedures on 52 patients (hybrid group). Early events, 30 day mortality, and all-cause mortality, were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, patients receiving TEVAR had significantly shorter procedure time (p<0.001), hospital stay (p<0.001), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p=0.001) compared with those in the hybrid group. Patients receiving TEVAR had significantly lower midterm events (p=0.014) and re-intervention (p=0.015) compared with those in the hybrid group. The study indicated that TEVAR with LSA revascularization for TBAD with inadequate PLZ is associated with a trend toward lower rates of midterm events, while the early and midterm mortalities were comparable with those in hybrid procedure. This study is novel as it compared the outcomes between thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and hybrid procedure in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD), with inadequate proximal landing zone, which has been rarely reported previously. We believe that our study makes a significant contribution to the literature because it is clinically relevant as it demonstrated that TEVAR with left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization for TBAD with inadequate proximal landing zone is associated with a trend toward lower rates of mid-term events, while the early and mid-term mortalities were comparable with those in the hybrid procedure.

Endovascular Technique for Ascending Aorta Repair Based on TEVAR and TAVI Procedures

Purpose: Ascending aorta (AAo) acute pathology still has an open-surgery indication with a high mortality rate associated to cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. In these cases, the endovascular aortic approach could be an excellent option. The aim of the present study is to detail an optimized technique for the endovascular treatment of AAo diseases, based on thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures. Technique: The procedure implies the usual preparation for TEVAR and TAVI implants. A transient pacemaker lead is necessary to deliver the prosthesis under “rapid pacing.” As in the TAVI technique, a final high-support guidewire is placed at the left ventricle. The proximal landing zone is the sinotubular junction (zone 0B). Transesophageal echocardiography is essential to ensure aortic valve function and patency in coronary arteries during the delivery. To assess a potential occlusion of the brachiocephalic artery, a guidewire is positioned in the descending aorta from the axillary artery. Finally, a noncovered stent is implanted to stabilize the AAo prosthesis. Conclusion: The technique presented here can standardize a safe and reproducible procedure to endovascular repair of AAo diseases. However, new devices specifically designed for the AAo could facilitate the transcatheter approach. Clinical Impact Ascending aorta acute pathology still has an open-surgery indication with high mortality rate associated to cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Moreover, near 30% of patients are not considered suitable for surgery because of age, critical situation or the presence of severe comorbidities. The present study provides a detailed and optimized technique for the endovascular treatment of ascending aorta disease, based on TEVAR and TAVI procedures.

Bilateral Iliac Endobypass Solution in Iliac Artery Rupture during TEVAR Procedure: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Iliac artery rupture is a demanding complication that can occur during endovascular procedures, particularly when large-caliber introducers are required. We present the first case in the literature on the endobypass technique, a quick and effective reconstruction method for the iliofemoral axis. This clinical case highlights that thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedures require large-caliber introducers into the femoral and iliac arteries to allow passage of the delivery system. These arteries may be diseased, representing a high risk of rupture. In our case, placing a 20 Fr introducer, the iliac artery ruptured bilaterally. Therefore, we performed an endobypass deploying Viabahn stent-grafts into the common iliac artery and manually performed distal anastomosis on the femoral bifurcation.

Applicability assessment for in-silico patient-specific TEVAR procedures

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) is a minimally invasive technique to treat thoracic aorta pathologies and consists of placing a self-expandable stent-graft into the pathological region to restore the vessel lumen and recreate a more physiological condition. Exhaustive computational models, namely the finite element analysis, can be implemented to reproduce the clinical procedure. In this context, numerical models, if used for clinical applications, must be reliable and the simulation credibility should be proved to predict clinical procedure outcomes or to build in-silico clinical trials. This work aims first at applying a previously validated TEVAR methodology to a patient-specific case. Then, defining the TEVAR procedure performed on a patient population as the context of use, the overall applicability of the TEVAR modeling is assessed to demonstrate the reliability of the model itself following a step-by-step method based on the ASME V&V40 protocol. Validation evidence sources are identified for the specific context of use and adopted to demonstrate the applicability of the numerical procedure, thereby answering a question of interest that evaluates the deployed stent-graft configuration in the vessel.

Rescue therapy for symptomatic spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveSpinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can cause permanent neurologic deficits and poor long-term survival. Targeted treatment of new SCI symptoms after TEVAR (rescue therapy [RT]) might improve/resolve neurologic symptoms but few data characterize the association of specific interventions with SCI outcomes. We evaluated the effectiveness of post-TEVAR RT at our tertiary aortic center. MethodsOur institutional TEVAR database was reviewed for SCI incidence and details of RT. This included cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), medical therapy, and optimization of spinal cord oxygen delivery. SCI outcomes were categorized at discharge as paralysis/paraparesis and temporary/permanent. ResultsNine hundred forty-three TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Post-TEVAR SCI occurred in 7.8% (n = 74) with permanent paraplegia in 1.5%. Older patient age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous abdominal aortic surgery were predictive of SCI. Half (n = 37) of SCI episodes resulted in only temporary paralysis/paraparesis. Rescue postoperative cerebrospinal fluid drains were implanted in 3.7% (n = 35) of procedures and was predicted by higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, lower serum hemoglobin level, elevated international normalized ratio, bilateral iliac artery occlusion, nonelective procedures, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer/intramural hematoma indication. The most commonly used RTs were emergent placement of or increased drainage from an existing cerebrospinal fluid drain (87.8%), induced/permissive hypertension (77.0%), corticosteroid bolus (36.5%), and naloxone infusion (33.8%). Neurologic improvement occurred in 68.9% (n = 51/74). New/increased drainage was associated with improved SCI outcome. ConclusionsPermanent paraplegia from post-TEVAR SCI is rare (1.5%). Older patients with comorbidities carry greater post-TEVAR SCI risk. SCI symptoms improved/resolved with CSFD and multimodal RT in 68.9% of patients, but no intervention was independently associated with improvement. TEVAR centers should have robust protocols for timely and safe CSFD placement to augment RT strategies for SCI.

Sex-based differences in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute complicated type B dissection

Sex-based differences in outcomes for patients undergoing degenerative aortic aneurysm repair have been well described, with female patients having worse early and long-term outcomes compared with male patients. However, differences between men and women after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) have not been well characterized. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess the sex-based differences in clinical presentation, time to repair, morbidity, and mortality for patients undergoing TEVAR for TBAD. All TEVAR procedures performed for acute complicated TBAD from a single academic medical center from August 2005 to January 2020 were analyzed. The clinical presentation, time to repair, and outcomes were compared by sex. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications, reintervention, aorta-related death, and out of hospital survival. The predictors of mortality, including sex, were determined using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 159 patients (38 women [24%]) were included in the analysis. No sex-based differences were found in clinical presentation or comorbidity prevalence between the female and male patients. The female patients had had a longer overall time from initial symptom onset to TEVAR (female patients: median, 3.5days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-10days]; male patients: median, 1day [IQR, 1-3]; P= .007). However, no differences were found in the time to repair after admission to the academic medical center (female patients: median, 1day [IQR, 0-5days]; male patients: median, 1day [IQR, 0-3]; P= .176). No differences were found in the unadjusted aortic-related, in-hospital, or 30-day death between the female and male patients. Similarly, the risk-adjusted analysis revealed that sex was not associated with adverse outcomes. The 1- and 5-year freedom from aortic-related mortality were 82%± 4% and 87%± 6% and 79%± 4% and 80%± 8% for the men and women, respectively. We found no differences between the female and male patients with acute complicated TBAD who had undergone TEVAR in the clinical presentation or comorbidities. The female patients had undergone TEVAR after a longerduration of symptoms, but this was not associated with sex-based differences in early or late morbidity or mortality.

The effect of percutaneouS vs. cutdoWn accEss in patients after Endovascular aorTic repair (SWEET): Study protocol for a single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEndovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have become the first-line treatment for aortic diseases, but current evidence is uncertain regarding whether a percutaneous approach has better outcomes than cutdown access, especially for patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). This study is designed to compare these outcomes of percutaneous access vs. cutdown access after endovascular aortic repair.MethodThe SWEET study is a randomized, controlled, single-blind, single-center non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups in two cohorts respectively. After eligibility screening, subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will be divided into Cohort EVAR or Cohort TEVAR according to clinic interviews. And then participants in two cohorts will be randomly allocated to either intervention groups receiving percutaneous access endovascular repair or controlled groups receiving cutdown access endovascular repair separately. Primary clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) is access-related complication, and primary patient-centered outcome (PCO) is time back to normal life. Follow-up will be conducted at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months postoperatively.DiscussionThe choice of either percutaneous or cutdown access may not greatly affect the success of EVAR or TEVAR procedures, but can influence the quality of life and patient-centered experience. Given the very low evidence for ClinROs and few data for PCOs, comparison of the percutaneous vs. cutdown access EVAR and TEVAR is essential for both patient-centered care and clinical decision making in endovascular aortic repair.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053161 (registered on 13th November, 2021).

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair with Supra-Aortic Trunk Revascularization is Associated with Increased Risk of Periprocedural Ischemic Stroke

Ischemic stroke is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This risk may be higher in more proximal aneurysms that require arch manipulation. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe 30-day stroke and death rates in patients undergoing TEVAR, (2) compare stroke rates in patients undergoing TEVAR for arch versus descending aneurysm pathology, and (3) identify predictive factors associated with stroke after TEVAR. The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried (2015-2021) for TEVAR procedures performed for degenerative aneurysms. Our primary outcomes were any stroke or death at 30 days. Patient-, procedure-, and hospital-level predictors of stroke were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression. Among 3,072 patients with degenerative aneurysms (197 [6.4%] arch versus 2,875 [93.6%] descending) treated with elective TEVAR, the median age was 73 years (interquartile range 67-79) and 54.8% were male. Within the arch aneurysm group, there were 27.4% zone 0, 22.8% zone 1, and 49.8% zone 2 interventions. Overall 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% and 3.8%. The distribution of stroke events was bilateral (52.9%), left carotid (20.7%), left vertebrobasilar (11.5%), right carotid (9.2%), and right vertebrobasilar (5.7%). Although mortality was similar between groups, the rate of ischemic stroke was higher for patients undergoing TEVAR for arch aneurysm versus descending aneurysms (7.1% arch versus 2.9% descending, P=0.001). Factors that were associated with ischemic stroke after TEVAR included age (>79years, relative risk [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.98 vs. <79years), dependent functional status (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.78), procedural time (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), and endovascular intervention for supra-aortic trunk revascularization (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.06-6.70 versus no intervention). Ischemic stroke risk after TEVAR was increased for arch aneurysms compared to descending aneurysms. More proximal zone coverage and endovascular interventions on the supra-aortic trunks were associated with increasing risk for stroke. Adequate preparation for stroke prevention is necessary prior to TEVAR with supra-aortic trunk revascularization.

TEVAR Indications and Outcomes for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Studies have been inconclusive on the role of diabetes in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Some have even shown a paradoxical benefit of diabetes in postoperative complication rates. We analyzed the effect of type 2 diabetes on the indications and outcomes after TEVAR. A retrospective review was performed of a single-institution, prospectively maintained database of TEVAR patients ranging from August 2001 to January 2020. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus at TEVAR. The demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative information were compared between the two cohorts. The outcomes of in-hospital complications, endoleaks, reintervention, and 30-day mortality were compared via univariate and multivariate logistic regression (Table). Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis was used to compare reintervention-free survival. The Society for Vascular Surgery guideline classifications were used to define complications (Fig). Among the 376 patients, 66 had had diabetes and 310 had not. Those with diabetes were older at surgery (72.7 vs 67.6 years; P = .007). Those with diabetes also had higher rates of a known abdominal aortic aneurysm history (P = .003), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .020), and coronary artery disease (P = .002). Those with diabetes had a higher percutaneous access rate than did the patients without diabetes (P = .001). On adjusted multivariate analysis, no significant differences were found in the outcomes of in-hospital complications, endoleaks, death, rates of reintervention, or days to discharge (Table). Kaplan-Meier curve survival analysis for reinterventions yielded no difference in reintervention-free survival (0.49; Fig). Patients with diabetes undergoing TEVAR procedures were older and had a higher presence of a known abdominal aortic aneurysm history, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and coronary artery disease compared with the patients without diabetes. Despite the higher comorbidity burden for the patients with diabetes, no significant differences were found in complication or reintervention rates. The contrasting results of this study to others in the literature underscores the need for future research into the effects of diabetes and outcomes following endovascular surgery.TableType 2 diabetes and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) outcomesDiabetesUnivariate OR (95% CI)P valueMultivariate OR (95% CI)P valueUnplanned reoperation0.64 (0.30-1.24).2090.40 (0.09-1.33).171In-hospital severe complications2.04 (0.89-4.36).0770.71 (0.09-3.42).701Postoperative severe complications1.31 (0.47-3.20).5731.99 (0.45-7.97).335Endoleak1.14 (0.41-2.74).7791.35 (0.25-6.13).702 Open table in a new tab

Safety of cerebrospinal fluid drainage for spinal cord ischemia prevention in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

ObjectiveSpinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with permanent neurologic deficit and decreased survival. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage (CSFD) in TEVAR is controversial. We evaluated the usage of CSFD in TEVAR at our tertiary aortic center.MethodsOur institutional TEVAR database was reviewed to determine the frequency of CSFD usage/complications. Complications were categorized as mild (headache/CSF leak not requiring intervention, urinary retention), moderate (headache/CSF leak requiring intervention, drain malfunction requiring replacement), or severe (intrathecal hemorrhage, CSFD-attributable neurologic deficit). The relationships between CSFD complications and patient/procedural characteristics, CSFD placement timing, and survival were analyzed.ResultsNine hundred thirty-six TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Three hundred ninety CSFD drains were placed in 373 (41.7%) TEVAR patients. Most CSFD drains (89.5%) were pre-TEVAR. Most post-TEVAR drains were placed for new SCI symptoms (n = 21). Twenty-five patients (6.4%) suffered 32 CSFD complications. Most (n = 17) were mild in severity. Severe CSFD complications occurred in 5/432 (1.1% CSF drains) patients. No patient/procedural characteristics were predictive of CSFD complications. Post implant CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms conferred an increased risk of CSFD complication (odds ratio, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.42-19.6; P < .01). The long-term survival of the CSFD complication cohort did not differ from the overall population.ConclusionsPost-TEVAR CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms was associated with substantially greater risk of CSFD complications. Avoidance of post-implant therapeutic drain placement might be the key to prevention of CSFD complications, favoring a strategy of selective pre-implant drain placement in patients at higher risk for SCI.