Surgical debranching versus branched endografting in zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization has been recommended for patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a proximal zone 2 landing requiring coverage of the LSA. The clinical standard of care remains surgical LSA revascularization. However, recently, the feasibility of using branched endografts has been demonstrated. We compared the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of these approaches. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent TEVAR with a proximal zone 2 landing at a single center from 2014 to 2020. The patients were divided into cohorts for comparison: those who underwent surgical revascularization (SR-TEVAR group) and those who underwent thoracic branched endografting with an investigational device (TBE group). Those patients who did not undergo LSA revascularization were excluded. Perioperative outcomes, including procedural success, death, stroke, limb ischemia, and length of stay, were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. The cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (types I and III) and device-related reintervention, accounting for death as a competing hazard, were compared using the Fine-Gray test. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included: 31 (56%) in the SR-TEVAR group and 24 (44%) in the TBE group. The preoperative demographics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. Procedural success was 100% in both cohorts, with no periprocedural strokes or left upper extremity ischemic events. One operative or 30-day death (TBE, 4.2%; vs SR-TEVAR, 3.2%; P = .99) occurred in each cohort. The total operative time (TBE, 203 ± 79 minutes; vs SR-TEVAR, 250 ± 79 minutes; P = .03) and total length of stay (TBE, 5.2 ± 3.6 days; vs SR-TEVAR, 9.9 ± 7.2 minutes; P = .004) were both significantly shorter in the TBE group. No difference was found in mid-term survival (log-rank test, P = .50) nor the cumulative incidence of device-related endoleak (Fine-Gray test, P = .51) or reintervention (Fine-Gray test, P = .72). No occlusions of the TBE graft or surgical bypass or transpositions had occurred after a mean follow-up of 28 ± 16 and 34 ± 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TBE can be performed with procedural success rate and safety profile comparable to those of TEVAR with surgical revascularization, with a decreased total length of stay, for patients requiring proximal zone 2 coverage. The mid-term outcomes for each approach were also similar. Prospective, randomized comparisons of these techniques are warranted.

Intravascular lithotripsy during transcarotid arterial revascularization for highly calcified lesions in high-risk patients.

Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk surgical patients. TCAR has been shown to have similar complication rates for stroke and mortality compared with carotid endarterectomy and lower complication rates compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting. A relative contraindication for carotid stenting includes heavily calcified lesions. Intravascular lithotripsy has been approved for use in other vascular beds for endovascular treatment of heavily calcified lesions. In the present report, we have demonstrated the application of intravascular lithotripsy for heavily calcified carotid lesions, enabling treatment with TCAR for those who otherwise might be at high risk of transfemoral carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy.

Outcomes of Open Versus Percutaneous Access for Patients Enrolled in the GREAT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Arterial access and device delivery in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have evolved from open femoral or iliac artery exposure to selective percutaneous arterial access. Although regional application of percutaneous access for these 2 procedures varies widely, the use of this technique continues to increase. Currently, differences in the use of percutaneous access between EVAR and TEVAR have not been well explored. The Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) registry collected relevant data for evaluation of these issues and the comparative results between open and percutaneous approaches in regard to complication rates and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: This study was performed via a retrospective review of patients from the GREAT registry (Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01658787). The primary variable of this study was access site complications including postoperative hematoma, vessel dissection, and pseudoaneurysm. Patients were categorized by abdominal (EVAR) and thoracic (TEVAR) aortic procedures using percutaneous-only, cutdown-only, and combined vascular access techniques for a total of 6 groups. Standard statistical methodology was used to perform single-variable and multivariable analysis of a variety of covariates including LOS, geographical location of procedure, procedural success rate, and access sheath size. RESULTS: Of 4,781 patients from the GREAT registry, 3,837 (80.3%) underwent EVAR and 944 (19.7%) underwent TEVAR with percutaneous-only access techniques being used in 2,017 (42.2%) and cutdown-only in 2,446 (51.2%). There was variable application of percutaneous access by geographic region with Australia and New Zealand using this technique more frequently and Brazil using percutaneous access the least. No significant difference in the rate of access site complications was detected between the 6 groups of patients in the study; however, significantly lower rates of access site complications were associated with percutaneous-only compared with both cutdown-only and combined techniques (P = 0.03). In addition, associated with significantly higher rates of access site complications was longer LOS (P < 0.01). Average LOS was 5.2 days and was higher in the TEVAR group (10.1 days) than that in EVAR (4.0 days, P < 0.05). Increased sheath size does not appear to increase the risk of access site complication. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference found in the complication rate between percutaneous and cutdown access techniques. This analysis demonstrates that percutaneous-only access is safe, has low complication rates, and has lower LOS compared with open access or combined access techniques.