Factors associated with and outcomes of respiratory adverse events following thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory adverse events (RAEs) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain poorly characterized owing to the lack of comprehensive studies that identify individuals prone to these complications. This study aims to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and outcomes of RAEs after TEVAR. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing TEVAR isolated to zones 0 to 5 from 2010 to 2023 for nontraumatic pathologies. After determining the incidence of postoperative RAEs, we assessed baseline characteristics, pathology, procedural details, and postoperative complications stratified by respiratory complication status: none, pneumonia only, reintubation only, or both. We then examined preoperative and intraoperative variables independently associated with the development of postoperative RAEs using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine associations between postoperative RAEs and 5-year survival adjusting for preoperative variables and other nonrespiratory postoperative complications in a separate model. RESULTS: Of 10,708 patients, 8.3% had any RAE (pneumonia only, 2.1%; reintubation only, 4.8%; both, 1.4%). Patients with any RAE were more likely to present with aortic dissection (any respiratory complication, 46% vs no respiratory complication, 35%; P < .001), and be symptomatic (58% vs 48%; P < .001). Developing RAEs after TEVAR was associated with male sex (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.41; P = .037), obesity (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; P = .009), morbid obesity (aRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.32; P = .002), renal dysfunction (aRR, estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-45, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.15-1.82; P = .002; estimated glomerular filtration rate <30/hemodialysis, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.37-2.11; P < .001), anemia (aRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.58; P = .003), aortic diameter >65 mm (aRR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.25-1.89; P < .001), proximal disease in the aortic arch (aRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48; P = .025) or ascending aorta (aRR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.14; P = .002), acute aortic dissection (aRR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.72-2.63; P < .001), ruptured presentation (aRR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.43-3.87; P < .001), same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment (aRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.82; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen (aRR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.08-2.25; P = .014), limited self-care or bed-bound status (aRR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.45-3.03; P < .001), and intraoperative transfusion (aRR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.40; P < .001). Patients who developed postoperative RAEs had higher 30-day mortality (27% vs 4%; P < .001) and 5-year mortality than patients without respiratory complications (46% vs 20%; P < .001). After adjusting for preoperative and postoperative variables, the 5-year mortality was higher in patients who developed any postoperative RAE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6, 2.1; P < .001), postoperative pneumonia only (aHR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0, 1.8; P = .046), reintubation only (aHR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8, 2.6; P < .001) or both (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1, 2.0; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: RAEs after TEVAR are common, more likely to occur in male patients with obesity, renal dysfunction, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, acute aortic dissection, ruptured presentation, same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment, who received intraoperative transfusion, and are associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year mortality regardless of the development of other postoperative complications. Considering these factors in assessing the risks and benefits of TEVAR procedures, along with implementing customized postoperative care, can potentially improve clinical outcomes.

Retroperitoneal vs. Transperitoneal Approach for Non-Ruptured Open Conversion after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies comparing the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approach for AAA repair suggest that the RP approach may result in lower rates of perioperative mortality and morbidity. However, data comparing these approaches for open conversion are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the association between the type of approach and outcomes following open conversion after EVAR. METHODS: We included all patients who underwent open conversion after EVAR between 2010-2022 in Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Patients presenting with rupture were excluded. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and 5-year mortality. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to adjust for factors with statistical or clinical significance. Logistic regression was used to assess perioperative mortality and complications in the weighted cohort. 5-year mortality was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: We identified 660 patients (39% RP) who underwent open conversion after EVAR. Compared with TP, RP patients were older (75 [IQR, 70-79] years vs. 73.5 [IQR, 68-79] years, p<.001), and more frequently had prior myocardial infarction (33% vs. 22%, p=.002). Compared with the TP approach, the RP approach was less frequently used in case of associated iliac aneurysm (19% vs. 27%, p=.026), but more frequently with associated renal bypass (7.8% vs. 1.7%, p<.001) and by high volume physicians (highest quintile, >7 AAA annually: 41% vs. 17%, p<.001) and in high volume centers (highest quintile, >35 AAA annually: 36% vs. 20%, p<.001). RP patients, compared with TP patients, were less likely to have external iliac or femoral distal anastomosis (8.2% vs. 21%, p<.001), and an infrarenal clamp (25% vs. 36%, p<.001). Unadjusted perioperative mortality was not significantly different between approaches (RP vs. TP: 3.8% vs. 7.5%; p=.077). After risk adjustment, RP patients had similar odds of perioperative mortality (aOR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.22-1.10; p=.082), and lower odds of intestinal ischemia (aOR, 0.26; 95%CI, 0.08-0.86; p=.028) and in-hospital reintervention (aOR, 0.43; 95%CI, 0.22-0.85; p=.015). No significant differences were found in the other perioperative complications, and 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.47-1.32; p=.37). CONCLUSIONS: - Our findings suggest that the RP approach may be associated with lower adjusted odds of perioperative complications compared with the TP approach. The RP approach should be considered for open conversion after EVAR when feasible.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

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.

National registry insights on genetic aortopathies and thoracic endovascular aortic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions. RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.

Antegrade cerebral perfusion via the right subclavian artery during open distal arch or proximal descending aortic repair from left thoracotomy.

In the current endovascular era, open surgery through left posterolateral thoracotomy with moderate to deep hypothermic circulatory arrest remains an alternative for treating chronic distal arch or proximal descending aortic diseases, allowing cardiovascular surgeons to definitively repair the aorta in a single stage. When utilizing this approach, this report illustrates an alternative surgical technique for antegrade body perfusion during cooling, antegrade selective cerebral perfusion and rewarming, through a prosthetic graft on the right subclavian artery. This report shows the safety and feasibility of this technique during open distal arch and/or proximal descending aortic surgery through left posterolateral thoracotomy, after shifting the patient from a supine to the right lateral decubitus position.

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.

Type III aortic arch angulation increases aortic stiffness: Analysis from an ex vivo porcine model.

Objective: The relationship among increased aortic arch angulation, aortic flow dynamics, and vessel wall stiffness remains unclear. This experimental ex vivo study investigated how increased aortic arch angulation affects aortic stiffness and stent-graft induced aortic stiffening, assessed by pulse wave velocity (PWV). Methods: Porcine thoracic aortas were connected to a circulatory mock loop in a Type I and Type III aortic arch configuration. Baseline characteristics and blood pressures were measured. Proximal and distal flow curves were acquired to calculate PWV in both arch configurations. After that, a thoracic stent-graft (VAMF2626C100TU) was deployed in aortas with adequate proximal landing zone diameters to reach 10% t0 20% oversizing. Acquisitions were repeated for both arch configurations after stent-graft deployment. Results: Twenty-four aortas were harvested, surgically prepared, and mounted. Cardiac output was kept constant for both arch configurations (Type I: 4.74 ± 0.40 and Type III: 4.72 ± 0.38 L/minute; P = .703). Compared with a Type I arch, aortic PWV increased significantly in the Type III arch (3.53 ± 0.40 vs 3.83 ± 0.40 m/second; P < .001), as well as blood pressures. A stent-graft was deployed in 15 aortas. After deployment, Type I arch PWV increased (3.55 ± 0.39 vs 3.81 ± 0.44 m/second; P < .001) and Type III arch PWV increased although not significantly (3.86 ± 0.42 vs 4.03 ± 0.46 m/second; P = .094). Type III arch PWV resulted the highest and significantly higher compared with the Type I arch after stent-graft deployment (3.81 ± 0.44 vs 4.03 ± 0.46 m/second; P = .023). Conclusions: Increased aortic arch angulation-as in a Type III arch-is associated with higher aortic PWV and blood pressures and this may negatively influence cardiovascular health.

Patients' Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: To investigate associations between patient characteristics, intraprocedural complexity factors, and radiation exposure to patients during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Elective standard EVAR procedures between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics and intraprocedural data (i.e., type of device, endograft configuration, additional procedures, and contralateral gate cannulation time [CGCT]) were collected. Dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time were considered as measurements of radiation exposure. Furthermore, effective dose (ED) and doses to internal organs were calculated using PCXMC 2.0 software. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and multivariable linear regression were applied to investigate predictors of increased radiation exposure. RESULTS: The 99 patients were mostly male (90.9%) with a mean age of 74 ± 7 years. EVAR indications were most frequently abdominal aortic aneurysm (93.9%), penetrating aortic ulceration (2.0%), focal dissection (2.0%), or subacute rupture of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (2.0%). Median fluoroscopy time was 19.6 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 14.1-29.4) and median DAP was 86,311 mGy cm2 (IQR, 60,160-130,385). Median ED was 23.2 mSv (IQR, 17.0-34.8) for 93 patients (93.9%). DAP and ED were positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) and CGCT. Kidneys, small intestine, active bone marrow, colon, and stomach were the organs that received the highest equivalent doses during EVAR. Higher DAP and ED values were observed using the Excluder endograft, other bi- and tri-modular endografts, and EVAR with ≥2 additional procedures. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT were independent positive predictors of DAP and ED levels after accounting for endograft type. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related and procedure-related factors such as BMI, ≥2 additional procedures during EVAR, and CGCT resulted predictors of radiation exposure for patients undergoing EVAR, as quantified by higher DAP and ED levels. The main intraprocedural factor that increased radiation exposure was CGCT. These data can be of importance for better managing radiation exposure during EVAR.

Sex-related Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Repair for intact isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sex and outcomes following TEVAR for intact isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (iiDTAA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Data regarding sex-related long-term outcomes after TEVAR for iiDTAA are limited and conflicting results regarding perioperative outcomes have been reported. METHODS: We included all TEVAR for iiDTAA between 2014-2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims, allowing reliable assessment of long-term outcome data. Primary outcomes included 5-year mortality, reinterventions, and ruptures of the thoracic aorta. Secondarily we assessed perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 685 patients, of which 54% were females. Females had higher aortic size index (females vs. males: 3.31 [IQR, 2.81-3.85] cm/m2 vs. 2.93 [IQR, 2.42-3.36] cm/m2; P<.001), were more frequently symptomatic (31% vs. 20%; P=.001), had longer procedure time (111 [IQR, 72-165] min vs. 97 [IQR, 70-146] min) and more iliac procedures (16% vs. 7.6%; P=.001). Compared with males, females had similar rates of 5-year mortality (58% vs. 53%; HR, 0.93; 95%CI 0.71-1.22; P=.61), reinterventions (39% vs. 30%; HR, 1.12; 95%CI 0.73-1.73; P=.60) and late ruptures (0.6% vs. 1.2%; HR, 0.87; 95%CI 0.12-6.18; P=.89). After adjustment, these outcomes remained similar through 5-years. Furthermore, perioperative mortality was not significantly different between sexes (4.1% vs. 2.2%; P=.25), as were rates of any complication as a composite outcome (16% vs. 21%; P=.16), as well as of individual complications (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that females who undergo TEVAR for iiDTAA have similar 5-year and perioperative outcomes as compared with males.

Role of Preoperative Embolization in Surgical Management of Carotid Body Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of preoperative embolization on carotid body tumor resection. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were screened for studies published between 2010 and 2022. Primary outcomes investigated were intraoperative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications such as transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke, vascular injury, and cranial nerve injury (CNI). A random effects model was used in cases where study heterogeneity was high. Overall, 25 studies were included in the systematic review, involving 1649 patients: 23 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The incidence of vascular injury was significantly less in the preoperative embolization group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42-0.84; P = .003). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, incidence of TIA/stroke, and CNI. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate significant difference between Shamblin I, II, and III subgroups regarding operative time. This meta-analysis found preoperative embolization to be significantly beneficial in reducing incidence of vascular injury.

Sex-Specific Morphometric Analysis of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch for Planning Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: In many studies on aortic disease, women are underrepresented. The present study aims to assess sex-specific morphometric differences and gain more insight into endovascular treatment of the ascending aorta (AA) and arch. METHODS: Electrocardiogram-gated cardiac computed tomography scans of 116 consecutive patients who were evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were retrospectively reviewed. Measurements of the AA and aortic arch were made in multiplanar views, perpendicular to the semi-automatic centerline. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors affecting AA and aortic arch diameter in men and women. Propensity score matching was used to investigate whether sex influences aortic morphology. RESULTS: In both sexes, body surface area (BSA) was identified as a positive predictor and diabetes as a negative predictor for aortic diameters. In men, age was identified as a positive predictor and smoking as a negative predictor for aortic diameters. Propensity score matching identified 40 pairs. Systolic and diastolic mean diameters and AA length were significantly wider in men. On average, male aortas were 7.4% wider than female aortas, both in systole and diastole. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis demonstrates that, in women, increased BSA is associated with increased aortic arch diameters, while diabetes is associated with decreased AA and arch diameters. In men, increased BSA and age are associated with increased AA and arch diameters, while smoking and diabetes are associated with decreased AA and arch diameters. Men were confirmed to have 7.4% greater AA and arch diameters than women. CLINICAL IMPACT: Men had 7.4% greater ascending aorta and arch diameters than women in a retrospective cohort, gated computed tomography-based study of 116 patients. Sex-specific differences in ascending aortic and arch size should be considered by aortic endovascular device manufacturers and physicians when developing ascending and arch endografts and planning aortic interventions.

Utilizing numerical simulations to prevent stent graft kinking during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Numerical simulations of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may be implemented in the preoperative workflow if credible and reliable. We present the application of a TEVAR simulation methodology to an 82-year-old woman with a penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer in the left hemiarch, that underwent a left common carotid artery to left subclavian artery bypass and consequent TEVAR in zone 2. During the intervention, kinking of the distal thoracic stent graft occurred and the simulation was able to reproduce this event. This report highlights the potential and reliability of TEVAR simulations to predict perioperative adverse events and short-term postoperative technical results.

Vascular Access Challenges in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to comprehensively summarize access challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by describing vascular access routes, associated risks, outcomes, and complications. METHODS: A literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Qualitative and quantitative data from selected studies are extracted and discussed according to available standards for narrative reviews. RESULTS: In total, there were 109 eligible studies based on predefined inclusion- and exclusion criteria. There were 39 original articles or reviews and 57 case series or case reports. This article summarizes the evidence from these studies and discusses traditional retrograde access routes and techniques for TEVAR via a femoral or iliac route, with or without the use of conduits. Next, alternative antegrade access routes and techniques via a brachial, axillary, carotid, ascending aorta, transapical, transcaval, or another route are discussed. Vascular access complications are presented with specific attention to the importance of gender and alternative antegrade access routes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple access routes and techniques are currently available to overcome access challenges associated with TEVAR, based on low grade evidence from heterogeneous studies. Future research that compares different access routes and techniques might help in the development of a tailored access protocol for specific patients with challenging TEVAR access.

Twenty-five years of observations from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) and its impact on the cardiovascular scientific community.

OBJECTIVE: The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) celebrated its 25th anniversary in January 2021. This study evaluated IRAD's role in promoting the understanding and management of acute aortic dissection (AD) over these years. METHODS: IRAD studies were identified, analyzed, and ranked according to their citations per year (c/y) to determine the most-cited IRAD studies and topics. A systematic search of the literature identified cardiovascular guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute AD. Consequently, IRAD's presence and impact were quantified using these documents. RESULTS: Ninety-seven IRAD studies were identified, of which 82 obtained more than 10 cumulative citations. The median c/y index was 7.33 (25th-75th percentile, 4.01-16.65). Forty-two studies had a greater than median c/y index and were considered most impactful. Of these studies, most investigated both type A and type B AD (n = 17, 40.5%) and short-term outcomes (n = 26, 61.9%). Nineteen guideline documents were identified from 26 cardiovascular societies located in Northern America, Europe, and Japan. Sixty-nine IRAD studies were cited by these guidelines, including 38 of the 42 most-impactful IRAD studies. Among them, partial thrombosis of the false lumen as a predictor of postdischarge mortality and aortic diameters as a predictor of type A occurrence were determined as most-impactful specific IRAD topics by their c/y index. CONCLUSIONS: IRAD has had and continues to have an important role in providing observations, credible knowledge, and research questions to improve the outcomes of patients with acute AD.