Cognitive Effects of Body Temperature During Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest Trial (GOT ICE): A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Outcomes After Aortic Arch Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Deep hypothermia has been the standard for hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) during aortic arch surgery. However, centers worldwide have shifted toward lesser hypothermia with antegrade cerebral perfusion. This has been supported by retrospective data, but there has yet to be a multicenter, prospective randomized study comparing deep versus moderate hypothermia during HCA. METHODS: This was a randomized single-blind trial (GOT ICE [Cognitive Effects of Body Temperature During Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest]) of patients undergoing arch surgery with HCA plus antegrade cerebral perfusion at 4 US referral aortic centers (August 2016-December 2021). Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 hypothermia groups: DP, deep (≤20.0 °C); LM, low-moderate (20.1-24.0 °C); and HM, high-moderate (24.1-28.0 °C). The primary outcome was composite global cognitive change score between baseline and 4 weeks postoperatively. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle to evaluate if: (1) LM noninferior to DP on global cognitive change score; (2) DP superior to HM. The secondary outcomes were domain-specific cognitive change scores, neuroimaging findings, quality of life, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients consented; 282 met inclusion and were randomized. A total of 273 completed surgery, and 251 completed the 4-week follow-up (DP, 85 [34%]; LM, 80 [34%]; HM, 86 [34%]). Mean global cognitive change score from baseline to 4 weeks in the LM group was noninferior to the DP group; likewise, no significant difference was observed between DP and HM. Noninferiority of LM versus DP, and lack of difference between DP and HM, remained for domain-specific cognitive change scores, except structured verbal memory, with noninferiority of LM versus DP not established and structured verbal memory better preserved in DP versus HM (P = 0.036). There were no significant differences in structural or functional magnetic resonance imaging brain imaging between groups postoperatively. Regardless of temperature, patients who underwent HCA demonstrated significant reductions in cerebral gray matter volume, cortical thickness, and regional brain functional connectivity. Thirty-day in-hospital mortality, major morbidity, and quality of life were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized multicenter study evaluating arch surgery HCA temperature strategies found low-moderate hypothermia noninferior to traditional deep hypothermia on global cognitive change 4 weeks after surgery, although in secondary analysis, structured verbal memory was better preserved in the deep group. The verbal memory differences in the low- and high-moderate groups and structural and functional connectivity reductions from baseline merit further investigation and suggest opportunities to further optimize brain perfusion during HCA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02834065.

The AORTA Gene score for detection and risk stratification of ascending aortic dilation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study assessed whether a model incorporating clinical features and a polygenic score for ascending aortic diameter would improve diameter estimation and prediction of adverse thoracic aortic events over clinical features alone. METHODS: Aortic diameter estimation models were built with a 1.1 million-variant polygenic score (AORTA Gene) and without it. Models were validated internally in 4394 UK Biobank participants and externally in 5469 individuals from Mass General Brigham (MGB) Biobank, 1298 from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS), and 610 from All of Us. Model fit for adverse thoracic aortic events was compared in 401 453 UK Biobank and 164 789 All of Us participants. RESULTS: AORTA Gene explained more of the variance in thoracic aortic diameter compared to clinical factors alone: 39.5% (95% confidence interval 37.3%-41.8%) vs. 29.3% (27.0%-31.5%) in UK Biobank, 36.5% (34.4%-38.5%) vs. 32.5% (30.4%-34.5%) in MGB, 41.8% (37.7%-45.9%) vs. 33.0% (28.9%-37.2%) in FHS, and 34.9% (28.8%-41.0%) vs. 28.9% (22.9%-35.0%) in All of Us. AORTA Gene had a greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying diameter ≥ 4 cm: 0.836 vs. 0.776 (P < .0001) in UK Biobank, 0.808 vs. 0.767 in MGB (P < .0001), 0.856 vs. 0.818 in FHS (P < .0001), and 0.827 vs. 0.791 (P = .0078) in All of Us. AORTA Gene was more informative for adverse thoracic aortic events in UK Biobank (P = .0042) and All of Us (P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive model incorporating polygenic information and clinical risk factors explained 34.9%-41.8% of the variation in ascending aortic diameter, improving the identification of ascending aortic dilation and adverse thoracic aortic events compared to clinical risk factors.

Aortic Arch Plaques and the Long-Term Risk of Stroke and Cardiovascular Events in the Statin Era.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch plaques are associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke or prior embolic events. However, this relationship is unclear in the community. We investigated (1) the long-term risk of stroke and cardiovascular events associated with arch plaques and (2) whether statin therapy prescribed for any indication modified the association. METHODS: A total of 934 stroke-free participants (72±9 years; 37% men) from the CABL study (Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesion) were evaluated. Arch plaques were assessed by suprasternal transthoracic echocardiography; plaques ≥4 mm in thickness were classified as large plaques. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke; the secondary outcome was combined cardiovascular events (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death). The plaque-related risk of outcomes was also analyzed according to the presence of statin treatment. No plaque was used as a reference. RESULTS: Aortic arch plaques were present in 645 participants (69.1%), with large plaques in 114 (12.2%). During a mean follow-up of 11.3±3.6 years, 236 (25.3%) cardiovascular events occurred (76 ischemic strokes, 27 myocardial infarctions, and 133 cardiovascular deaths). Large arch plaques were independently associated with combined events (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.40-3.43]) but not stroke alone (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.50-2.38]). The association between large plaques and cardiovascular events was significant in participants receiving statins (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.52-4.37]) but not in others; however, participants on statin treatment also had a worse risk profile (higher body mass index, greater frequencies of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch plaques may be a marker of cardiovascular risk rather than a direct embolic stroke source in older adults without prior stroke. The efficacy of broader cardiovascular risk factors control, beyond cholesterol levels alone, for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals with aortic arch plaques may require further investigation.

Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Coarctation after Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury Mandates Emergent Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to elucidate clinical and imaging findings predictive for malperfusion syndrome after blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI). BACKGROUND: There is limited literature on malperfusion syndrome after BTAI, and the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with this condition has not been defined. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with BTAI treated between January 2021 and October 2023. Clinical and thoracic aortic (TA) imaging data, time to TEVAR, in-hospital death, and malperfusion/reperfusion sequelae (paraplegia, renal/visceral/limb ischemia, and compartment syndromes) were assessed. Correlations between clinical and imaging findings, time to TEVAR, and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 19,203 trauma patients evaluated, 13,717 (71%) had blunt injuries and 77 (0.6%) had BTAI. The majority (67.5%) were male, with a median age of 40 years (IQR: 33-55). TEVAR was performed in 42 (54.5%) patients. Seven (9.1%) patients presented with clinical and TA imaging criteria for traumatic thoracic aortic coarctation (TTAC), including diminished/absent femoral pulses and TA luminal narrowing of 50% to 99%. The median time to TEVAR was 9 (IQR: 5-32), 11, and 4 hours for all non-TTAC and TTAC BTAI patients, respectively ( P =0.037). Only TTAC patients presented/developed malperfusion/reperfusion sequelae. In-hospital mortality rates were 7.8%, 5.8%, and 29% for all non-TTAC and TTAC BTAI patients, respectively ( P =0.09). Aortic-related mortality occurred in only 2 (2.6%) TTAC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical and TA imaging manifestations of TTAC are predisposed to malperfusion/reperfusion sequelae if TEVAR is delayed. We recommend the emergent repair of all BTAIs with TTAC.

Age- and sex-specific biomechanics and extracellular matrix remodeling of the ascending aorta in a mouse model of severe Marfan syndrome.

Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is associated with Marfan syndrome (MFS), a connective tissue disorder caused by mutations in fibrillin-1. Sexual dimorphism has been recorded for TAA outcomes in MFS, but detailed studies on the differences in TAA progression in males and females and their relationships to outcomes have not been performed. The aims of this study were to determine sex differences in the diameter dilatation, mechanical properties, and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling over time in a severe mouse model (Fbn1mgR/mgR = MU) of MFS-associated TAA that has a shortened life span. Male and female MU and wildtype (WT) mice were used at 1-4 mo of age. Blood pressure and in vivo diameters of the ascending thoracic aorta were recorded using a tail-cuff system and ultrasound imaging, respectively. Ex vivo mechanics and ECM remodeling of the aorta were characterized using a biaxial test system and multiphoton imaging, respectively. We showed that mechanical properties, such as structural and material stiffness, and ECM remodeling, such as elastic and collagen fiber content, correlated with diameter dilatation during TAA progression. Male MU mice had accelerated rates of diameter dilatation, stiffening, and ECM remodeling compared with female MU mice which may have contributed to their decreased life span. The correlation of mechanical properties and ECM remodeling with diameter dilatation suggests that they may be useful biomarkers for TAA progression. The differences in diameter dilatation and life spans in male and female MU mice indicate that sex is an important consideration for managing thoracic aortic aneurysm in MFS. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Using a mouse model (Fbn1mgR/mgR = MU) of severe thoracic aortic aneurysm in Marfan syndrome (MFS), we found that male MU aorta had an accelerated time line and increased amounts of dilatation, stiffening, and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling compared with female MU aorta that may have contributed to an increased risk of fatigue failure with cyclic loading over time and a reduced life span. We suggest that aortic stiffness may provide useful information for clinical management of aneurysms in MFS.

Anatomical suitability for branched endovascular aortic arch repair and balloon-expandable bridging stent grafts in a cohort of patients previously treated with a hybrid approach.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the suitability of two triple branch arch devices (aBranch) (Terumo aortic and Cook Medical) and a balloon-expandable covered stent (VBX, W. L. Gore & Associates, Johnson & Johnson) to incorporate the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) in a cohort previously treated with hybrid thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective, all-comers, preclinical suitability study. We conducted an analysis of preoperative computed tomography scans in surgical patients between 1999 and 2022 in a single vascular surgery unit. The primary outcome was the aortic suitability of aBranch devices and VBX as mating stent for BCT in previous hybrid TEVAR. Hybrid repair of the aortic arch included TEVAR, fenestrated or branched TEVAR associated with any surgical debranching of the supra-aortic trunks and chimney TEVAR with proximal landing in zones 0 to 2. Secondary outcomes included (i) suitability assessment when excluding minor instruction for use (IFU) criteria, (ii) a comparison of suitable and nonsuitable patients, (iii) risk factors analysis for nonsuitability, and (iv) a description of the exclusion causes. RESULTS: During the study period, 120 patients were treated. Among elective patients (n = 73), the suitability of any aBranch was 82.2% (60/73) and VBX was suitable in 64.4% of BCTs (47/73). The aBranch suitable patients had a significantly longer sinotubular-BCT length (P = .017) and smaller distal ascending aorta (P = .043) as compared with nonsuitable ones. The suitability of Terumo Aortic and Cook Medical devices was 52.1% (38/73) and 46.6% (34/73), respectively. When minor IFU criteria were ignored, suitability increased to 82.2% (60/73) and 63.0% (46/73), respectively. Left common carotid artery diameter and sinotubular-BCT length were significant nonsuitability risk factors for Terumo Aortic aBranch in multivariable analysis. No associations were found for Cook Medical device. The outcomes were tested in the entire cohort demonstrating a global suitability of 82.9%, increasing to 86.3% when ignoring minor IFUs. VBX was anatomically suitable to use in BCT in 73.2% of patient BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: aBranch devices are anatomically suitable in a vast majority of patients (86%) undergoing hybrid TEVAR. The innominate artery seems eligible for incorporation with VBX in almost two-thirds of patients. This mating stent may help to overcome some minor IFU restrictions.

Long-term outcomes for hybrid aortic arch repair.

OBJECTIVE: Since its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from novel approach to well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. Despite this nearly 20-year history of use, long-term results of HAR remain to be determined. As such, objectives of this study are to detail the long-term outcomes for HAR within an expanded classification scheme. METHODS: From August 2005 to August 2022, 163 consecutive patients underwent HAR at a single referral institution. Operative approach was selected according to an institutional algorithm and included zone 0/1 HAR in 25% (n = 40), type I HAR in 34% (n = 56), and type II/III HAR in 41% (n = 67). Specific zone 0/1 technique was zone 1 HAR in 31 (78%), zone 0 with innominate snorkel (zone 0S HAR) in 7 (18%), and zone 0 with single side-branch endograft (zone 0B HAR) in 2 (5%). The 30-day and long-term outcomes, including overall and aortic-specific survival, as well as freedom from reintervention, were assessed. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 ± 13 years and almost one-half of patients (47% [n = 77]) had prior sternotomy. Presenting pathology included degenerative aneurysm in 44% (n = 71), residual dissection after prior type A repair in 38% (n = 62), chronic type B dissection in 12% (n = 20), and other indications in 6% (n = 10). Operative outcomes included 9% mortality (n = 14) at 30 days, 5% mortality (n = 8) in hospital, 4% stroke (n = 7), 2% new dialysis (n = 3), and 2% permanent paraparesis/plegia (n = 3). The median follow-up was 44 month (interquartile range, 12-84 months). Overall survival was 59% and 47% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, whereas aorta-specific survival was 86% and 84% at the same time points. At 5 and 10 years, freedom from major reintervention was 92% and 91%, respectively. Institutional experience had a significant impact on both early and late outcomes: comparing the first (2005-2012) and second (2013-2022) halves of the series, 30-day mortality decreased from 14% to 1% (P = .01) and stroke from 6% to 3% (P = .62). Improved operative outcomes were accompanied by improved late survival, with 78% of patients in the later era vs 45% in the earlier era surviving to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: HAR is associated with excellent operative outcomes, as well as sustained protection from adverse aortic events as evidenced by high long-term aorta-specific survival and freedom from reintervention. However, surgeon and institutional experience appear to play a major role in achieving these superior outcomes, with a five-fold decrease in operative mortality and a two-fold decrease in stroke rate in the latter half of the series. These long-term results expand on prior midterm data and continue to support use of HAR for properly selected patients with arch disease.

Proximal sealing in the aortic arch for inner curve disease using the custom Relay scalloped and fenestrated stent graft.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc.) in 10 Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary end points were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events, deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (ELs) and retrograde aortic dissection. RESULTS: During the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The proximal landing zone was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) owing to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III EL were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, major adverse events, or retrograde dissection. Three minor strokes (6.1%) (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 ± 21.3 months the rate of types I to III ELs and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) from nonaortic causes. CONCLUSIONS: Our early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with physician-manufactured partial micropore stent grafts for aortic arch pathologies.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been used extensively in the management of thoracic aortic diseases. Numerous efforts have been made to enhance clinical outcomes through the use of stent grafts. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of physician-manufactured partial micropore stent grafts (PSMGs) in TEVAR. METHODS: Between December 2017 and June 2022, data were collected from 56 patients who underwent TEVAR using physician-manufactured PSMGs. The evaluation encompassed technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, stroke incidence, and branch artery patency. RESULTS: In this investigation, 56 patients received treatment with physician-manufactured PSMGs. Of these patients, 46 were male, with a mean age of 62.1 ± 11.2 years. Aortic pathologies comprised aortic dissection (n = 31 [55.4%]), aortic aneurysms (n = 10 [17.9%]), penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 8 [14.3%]), and intramural hematoma (n = 7 [12.5%]). During a median follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range, 13-25 months), the stroke rate, supra-aortic branch patency rate, and endoleak rate were 0%, 100%, and 7.1%, respectively. There were no occurrences of all-cause mortality, stroke, or the necessity for open conversion. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR with physician-manufactured PSMGs is a viable alternative for addressing aortic arch pathologies in proficient medical centers. The approach demonstrates favorable branch patency, a low complication rate, and minimal postoperative mortality.

Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts, at least 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for total aortic arch repair with at least 3 years of follow-up. METHODS: All consecutive patients with a pathological aortic arch who underwent aortic arch repair combined with a homemade double-fenestrated stent graft from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed. RESULTS: 74 patients were treated for pathological arch conditions with a double-fenestrated PMEG. Of these, 81% were male, the mean age was 69.9 years, and 59% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiology 3 or 4. Thirty-five percent were treated for a postdissection aneurysm, 36% for a degenerative aneurysm, and 14% for acute type B dissection. Fifteen percent had supra-aortic trunk dissection. Fenestration on the subclavian artery was performed in 96%; if not, a carotid-subclavian bypass was carried out. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone is consistently in zone 0. Early outcomes revealed a 3% occurrence of type 1 endoleak, which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. One retrograde dissection occurred, and one patient died from hemorrhage on an iliac conduit. A 5% stroke rate was reported. During long-term follow-up (mean time 40.7 months), one type 1 endoleak appeared and was successfully treated; no type 2 or type 3 endoleak requiring intervention occurred. No stent fractures or migrations were reported. Four percent of patients required reintervention, but no surgical conversion to open surgical repair was needed on the aortic arch. No patient died from a cause related to the main procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Total aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs is associated with acceptable early and midterm major morbidity and mortality. It is suitable for the main aortic pathologies. Moreover, it is easily available for emergency situations.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

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

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

Branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic arch repair in patients with native proximal aortic landing zone.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated and branched thoracic endovascular repair (f/bTEVAR) have been successfully applied in patients with diverse aortic arch pathologies. The aim of this study is to present the early and mid-term outcomes of patients with native proximal aortic landing (NPAL) managed with f/bTEVAR. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with NPAL, managed with f/bTEVAR, between September 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022, was conducted. All patients were treated with custom-made devices (Cook Medical) with landing within Ishimaru zones 0 to 2. Primary outcomes were technical success, mortality, stroke, and retrograde type A dissection at 30 days. Follow-up outcomes were considered secondary. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included (69.8% males; mean age, 70.8 ± 4.2 years; 18.3% urgent). The main indications (60.4%) for repair were aortic arch (29.4%) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (31.0%). Seventy-two patients (57.1%) were managed with fTEVAR. Proximal landing in zone 0 and 1 was chosen in 97.6%. Technical success was 94.4%, and 30-day mortality was 11.9%. Strokes were diagnosed in 13.5% of patients and major strokes were identified in 7.9% cases. Retrograde type A dissection rate was 3.9%. The multivariate analysis confirmed landing in Ishimaru zone 0 as an independently related factor for stroke (P = .005), whereas stroke (P < .001), pericardial effusion (P < .001), and acute kidney injury (P < .001) were independently related to 30-day mortality. Mean follow-up was 17.5 ± 9.3 months. The estimated survival rate and the freedom from reintervention rate were 72.6% (standard error, 4.4%) and 46.4% (standard error, 6.0%) at 24-month follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke rate after endovascular arch repair was alarming among patients with NPAL. Proximal landing to zone 0 was related to higher risk of stroke. Reinterventions were common within the 24-month follow-up.

The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Sex-based outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As it remains unclear whether there are sex-based differences in clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate differences in early outcomes and overall survival between female and male patients who underwent TEVAR. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for eligible studies published through June 10, 2023, that reported sex-based differences in clinical outcomes after TEVAR. The primary outcome was operative mortality; second outcomes included stroke, spinal cord ischemia, acute kidney injury, hospital length of stay, and overall survival. Patient characteristics, operative data, and early outcomes were aggregated using the random-effects model, presenting pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall survival was assessed by reconstructing individual patient data to generate sex-specific pooled Kaplan-Meier curves. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023426069). RESULTS: Of the 1785 studies retrieved, 14 studies met all eligibility criteria, encompassing a total of 17,374 patients, comprising 5026 female and 12,348 male patients. Female patients were older, had a smaller maximum aortic diameter, had lower rates of smoking and coronary artery disease, and had higher rates of anemia. Intraoperatively, female patients were more likely to use iliac conduits and require blood transfusions. There were no sex-based differences in operative mortality (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; P = .309), stroke (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95-1.38; P = .165), spinal cord ischemia (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.83-2.14; P = .234), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.52-1.17; P = .228), and hospital length of stay (standardized mean difference: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.20; P = .141). Pooled Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a worse overall survival in female patients compared with male patients (87.2% vs 89.8% at 2 years, log-rank P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated by TEVAR, female sex was not associated with increased risk of operative mortality or major morbidity. However, female patients exhibited a lower overall survival after TEVAR compared with male patients.

Early survival benefit of a low-profile endograft in blunt traumatic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a low-profile thoracic endograft (19-23 French) in subjects with blunt traumatic aortic injury. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study assessed the RelayPro thoracic endograft for the treatment of traumatic aortic injury. Fifty patients were enrolled at 16 centers in the United States between 2017 and 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The cohort was mostly male (74%), with a mean age of 42.4 ± 17.2 years, and treated for traumatic injuries (4% Grade 1, 8% Grade 2, 76% Grade 3, and 12% Grade 4) due to motor vehicle collision (80%). The proximal landing zone was proximal to the left subclavian artery in 42%, and access was primarily percutaneous (80%). Most (71%) were treated with a non-bare stent endograft. Technical success was 98% (one early type Ia endoleak). All-cause 30-day mortality was 2% (compared with an expected rate of 8%), with an exact two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.1%, 10.6% below the performance goal upper limit of 25%. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated freedom from all-cause mortality to be 98% at 30 days through 4 years (95% CI, 86.6%-99.7%). Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from major adverse events, all-cause mortality, paralysis, and stroke, was 98.0% at 30 days and 95.8% from 6 months to 4 years (95% CI, 84.3%-98.9%). There were no strokes and one case of paraplegia (2%) during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: RelayPro was safe and effective and may provide an early survival benefit in the treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injury.

Predicting the need for subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effectiveness of left subclavian artery revascularization compared with non-revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and to summarize the current evidence on its indications. METHODS: A computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for studies published up to November 2023. Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were independently conducted by two reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. RESULTS: In the 76 included studies, left subclavian artery revascularization was associated with reduced risks of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; n = 15,331), spinal cord ischemia (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99; n = 11,995), and arm ischemia (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; n = 8438). No significant reduction in paraplegia (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.21-1.47; n = 1802) or mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12; n = 11,831) was observed. Moreover, the risk of endoleak was comparable in both groups (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.55-2.84; P = .60; n = 793), whereas the risk of reintervention was significantly higher in the revascularization group (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.83; P = .04; n = 272). Both groups had similar risks of major (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.09; P = .08; n = 1113), minor (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-3.45; P = .27; n = 183), renal (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.12-3.06; P = .55; n = 310), and pulmonary (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.16-2.15; P = .42; n = 8083) complications. The most frequent indications for left subclavian artery revascularization were primary prevention of spinal cord ischemia, augmentation of the landing zone, and primary stroke prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair was associated with reduced neurological complications but was not found to impact mortality. The study highlights important indications for revascularization as well as significant predictors of complications, providing a basis for clinical decision-making and future research.

Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Early outcomes of endovascular repairs of the aortic arch using thoracic branch endoprosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The only commercially available thoracic branched endoprosthesis (TBE) for treatment of the aortic arch was released in 2022. Limited data outside of clinical trial results have been reported. This study describes the demographics, anatomic details, and outcomes for patients treated for zone 0 to 2 using TBEs outside of a clinical trial. METHODS: All patients treated using TBEs for zone 0 to 2 were included. Patients treated as part of the clinical trial for zone 0 to 1 (n = 6) were excluded. Patient demographics, comorbidities, anatomic and operative details, and outcomes were reported. Outcomes and survival were then compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 40 patients, six patients underwent repair of zone 0, three of zone 1, and 31 of zone 2. There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, or operative details by zone of treatment; however, the frequency of genetic aortopathy differed (zone 0: 0%; zone 1: 67%; and zone 2: 6.4%; P < .01). Seventy-three percent of patients were treated for dissection vs 27% with isolated aneurysms. Of the patients, 2.5% were treated for rupture, 22% were treated for symptomatic aneurysms, and 75% were treated electively. Forty-eight percent of repairs included a proximal cuff, and 83% received distal extension. Technical success was achieved in 100% of patients. Mean fluoroscopy time was 18 minutes, and median fluoroscopy dose was 416 mGy. Sixty percent of patients had prior aortic ascending/arch repair. TBE was planned as part of a complete thoracoabdominal repair in 45% of patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.5% overall, with a single death in a zone 0 patient that occurred at day 1 due to a myocardial infarction. There were no reinterventions within 30 days. All other outcomes were similar. The 30-day stroke rate was 5.0%. The strokes occurred at day 6 (zone 1) and day 15 (zone 2); however, both were due to occlusion of a prior proximal surgical bypass and unrelated to the TBE side branch or embolization. Specifically, both patients had occlusion of a branch of their prior zone 1 or zone 2 arch replacement. An endoleak occurred in 7.5% of patients at 30-day follow-up (type II: 5.0%; unknown: 2.5%). At a mean follow-up of 6.6 months, 100% of side branches were patent. CONCLUSIONS: Repair of the aortic arch including TBE can be performed electively and urgently with acceptable stroke and death rates. TBE provides a valuable tool for patients requiring complete repair of a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. Continued investigation is underway to assess long-term safety and efficacy outside of the clinical trial.

The outcomes of aortic arch repair between open surgical repair and debranching endovascular hybrid surgical repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: At present, open surgical aortic arch repair (OAR) and debranching hybrid surgical aortic arch repair (HAR) serve as significant therapeutic approaches for aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. It remains unclear which technique is preferable. Our study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two procedures. METHODS: To identify comparison studies of debranching HAR and OAR, a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 2002 to April 2022. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218080). RESULTS: Sixteen publications (1316 patients), including six propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis papers, were included in this study. Compared with the HAR group, the patients who underwent OAR were younger (OAR vs HAR: 67.53 ± 12.81 vs 71.29 ± 11.0; P < .00001), had less coronary artery disease (OAR vs HAR: 22.45% vs 32.6%; P = .007), less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OAR vs HAR: 16.16% vs 23.92%; P = .001), lower rates of previous stroke (OAR vs HAR: 12.46% vs 18.02%; P = .05), and a lower EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) score (OAR vs HAR: 6.27 ± 1.04 vs 6.9 ± 3.76; P < .00001). HAR was associated with less postoperative blood transfusion (OAR vs HAR: 12.23% vs 7.91%; P = .04), shorter length of intensive care unit stays (OAR vs HAR: 5.92 ± 7.58 days vs 4.02 ± 6.60 days; P < .00001) and hospital stays (OAR vs HAR: 21.59 ± 17.54 days vs 16.49 ± 18.45 days; P < .0001), lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding complications (OAR vs HAR: 8.07% vs 3.96%; P = .01), fewer postoperative pulmonary complication (OAR vs HAR: 14.75% vs 5.02%; P < .0001), and acute renal failure (OAR vs HAR: 7.54% vs 5.17%; P = .03). In the PSM subgroup, the rates of spinal cord ischemic (OAR vs HAR: 5.75% vs 11.49%; P = .02), stroke (OAR vs HAR: 5.1% vs 17.35%; P = .01), and permanent paraplegia (OAR vs HAR: 2.79% vs 6.08%; P = .006) were lower in the OAR group than that in the HAR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year survival rates (HAR vs OAR: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.54; P = .10), the 3-year and 5-year survivals were significantly higher in the OAR group than that in the HAR group (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.69; P = .01; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.68; P = .01). In the PSM subgroup, the OAR group was also significantly superior to the HAR group in terms of 3-year and 5-year survivals (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.73; P = .04; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.67; P = .04). The reintervention rate in the HAR group was significantly higher than that in the OAR group (OAR vs HAR: 8.24% vs 16.01%; P = .01). The most common reintervention was postoperative bleeding (8.07%) in the OAR group and endoleak (9.67%) in the HAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis revealed that debranching HAR was associated with fewer perioperative complications than the OAR group, except for postoperative permanent paraplegia, reintervention, and stroke events. The OAR group demonstrated better 3-year and 5-year survivals than the debranching HAR group. However, patients in the OAR group had fewer comorbid factors and were younger than those in the HAR group. High-quality studies and well-powered randomized trials are needed to further evaluate this evolving field.