LASER FENESTRATION FOR COMPLEX AORTIC REPAIR: VERSATILE OPTION IN DIFFICULT ANATOMY, EMERGENCIES AND BAILOUTS.

BACKGROUND: Branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (b/fEVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic disease as well as thoracic disease (b/fTEVAR) has been well described. Its utilization has also grown over time with the need for solutions having outpaced technologies available in the United States. As more practitioners utilize these and other complex aortic repairs there is a growing utilization of adjunctive modalities expanding the capabilities of current devices. In-situ fenestration (ISF) has arisen as one of those modalities for both vessel fenestration and endoleak repair. ISF has been described for its role in bailout of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) particularly in fenestration for the left subclavian artery, but has not been well described in b/fEVAR in respect to the visceral vessels with most data limited to case series. We sought to review our single institution experience with this technique. METHODS: Single institution retrospective review of ISF during initial b/fEVAR, TEVAR from 2020 to 2022. Laser fenestrations post original b/fEVAR or TEVAR for endoleak repair were also included. Perioperative outcomes were obtained as well as angiographic results and short -term results found on follow up CT scans per SVS guidelines. Detailed operative techniques are discussed. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients were identified with 17 laser fenestrations. 11 ISF were planned preoperatively and 2 were intra-op decisions. The indications for surgery were type B aortic dissection with malperfusion (3), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA): Non-ruptured (7), Ruptured (1), Type III endoleak post b/EVAR (1) and Type IA endoleak s/p fEVAR (1). Laser fenestration was used in conjunction of 3 TEVAR and 10 (b/fEVAR). The distribution of vessels fenestrated was: 5 left renal artery (LRA), 5 right renal artery (RRA), 4 left subclavian artery (LSCA), 1 superior mesenteric artery (SMA), 1 Celiac. Technical success was achieved in all 17 fenestrations with no 30-day mortalities, no post op dissection or spinal cord ischemia. There were 3 cases of endoleak at the completion of the operation, 1 type II and 1 type IIIc. CONCLUSION: ISF of aortic stent grafts in b/fEVAR and TEVAR is useful as a bailout in complex aortic repair with high likelihood of technical success and low morbidity.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for uncomplicated type B dissections based on chronicity.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) have been associated with improved aorta-specific survival and delayed disease progression compared with medical therapy alone. In 2020, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reported new reporting standards and classification for TBAD. We assessed the effectiveness of TEVAR in the treatment of uTBAD stratified by the updated classification using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who had undergone TEVAR for uTBAD from August 2014 to November 2020. We analyzed the outcomes stratified by the SVS/STS reporting standards. The cohort was then grouped and compared using the updated chronicity classification (hyperacute, <24 hours; acute, 1-14 days; subacute, 15-90 days; and chronic, >90 days) and univariable methods (χ2, analysis of variance), multivariable logistic regression, and survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression). RESULTS: Of 1476 TEVARs, 121 (8.2%) were for hyperacute, 833 (56.4%) for acute, 316 (21.4%) for subacute, and 206 (14.0%) for chronic uTBAD. The rates of in-hospital stroke for hyperacute and acute uTBAD were significantly higher than was the rate for chronic uTBAD. The rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) was significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD. After multivariable adjustment, no significant difference was found in the 30-day mortality between the four groups. However, the adjusted stroke risk was more than sixfold higher for hyperacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD (odds ratio [OR], 6.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-25.17; P = .004) and more than threefold higher for acute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.04-11.24; P = .043). The adjusted risk of SCI was also significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 19.17; 95% CI, 2.42-151.90; P = .005; and OR, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.21; P = .039, respectively) but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 0.93-51.88; P = .059). The risk of postoperative reintervention was threefold higher for hyperacute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69; P = .02). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates revealed that the 1-year survival rate for hyperacute, acute, subacute, and chronic uTBAD was 83.2%, 87.2%, 92.3%, and 92.9%, respectively (P = .010). However, no significant differences were found in the hazard of 1-year mortality after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Using the updated SVS/STS chronicity classification, we found an increased risk of perioperative stroke, SCI, and the need for reintervention after TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute periods compared with the chronic period. The updated classification should be incorporated into all future study designs for TEVAR trials. We would recommend avoiding TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute phase.

Open Repair Versus Endovascular Repair in the Treatment of Symptomatic Popliteal Artery Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular and open surgical modalities are currently used to treat popliteal artery aneurysms (PAA). However, there is limited data on the comparative durability of both repairs to guide physicians especially in the treatment of patients presenting symptomatic. We aimed to study the comparative effectiveness of endovascular PAA repair (EPAR) versus open PAA repair (OPAR). METHODS: The vascular quality initiative (VQI)-Medicare linked database was queried for patients with symptomatic PAA who underwent OPAR or EPAR from January 2010 to December 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression were employed to study the outcomes of amputation free survival (AFS), freedom from first reintervention, freedom from major amputation, and overall survival in 2 years following the index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 1,375 patients were studied, of which 23.7% (n = 326) were treated with EPAR. Patients treated with OPAR were younger, less likely to have coronary artery disease (CAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), but more likely to be smokers and to present with acute lower extremity ischemia. OPAR treated patients had better 2-year AFS (84.5% vs. 72.5%, P < 0.001) and overall survival (86.2% vs. 74.7%, P < 0.001). Freedom from major amputation at 2 years were comparable between EPAR and OPAR (95.5% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.164) in the overall cohort. Within the sub cohort of patients with acute limb ischemia, freedom from major amputation was significantly higher for OPAR compared to EPAR (97.4% vs. 90.6%, P = 0.021). After adjustment for confounders, OPAR was associated with decreased risk of amputation or death (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80; P < 0.001) and mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.81; P < 0.001) at 2 years. OPAR and EPAR had comparable adjusted risk of 2-year major amputation in the overall cohort. However, for patients presenting with acute limb ischemia OPAR was associated with 72% lower risk of 2-year major amputation compared to EPAR (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.83; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional observational study of symptomatic popliteal aneurysms, OPAR was associated with significantly better amputation free and overall survival compared to EPAR. For patients with acute limb ischemia, OPAR was associated with reduced risk of amputation. These findings suggest that OPAR may be superior to EPAR in the treatment of symptomatic PAA. A consideration of OPAR as first line definitive treatment for symptomatic PAA patients who are good surgical candidates is suggested.

Risk calculator predicts 30-day mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) is associated with high perioperative survival, although mortality is a possible outcome. However, no risk score has been developed to predict mortality after TEVAR for intact DTAA to aid in risk discussion and preoperative patient selection. Our objective was to use a multi-institutional database to develop a 30-day mortality risk calculator for TEVAR after DTAA repair. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients treated with TEVAR for intact DTAA between August 2014 and August 2020. Univariable and multivariable analyses aided in developing a 30-day mortality risk score. Internal validation was done with K-fold cross-validation and calibration curve analysis. RESULTS: Of 2141 patients included in the analysis, 90 (4.2%) died within 30 days after the procedure. Clinically relevant variables identified to be independently associated with 30-day mortality and therefore used to derive the predictive model included age 75 years or greater (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-3.44; P < .001), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .036), American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV/V (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.39-4.10; P = .002), urgent vs elective procedure (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.90-6.33; P < .001), emergent vs elective procedure (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 2.36-11.75; P < .001), prior carotid revascularization (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.64-6.39; P = .001), and proximal landing zone <3 (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.65-3.81; P < .001). The model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75. Internal validation demonstrated a bias-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.79) and a calibration slope of 1.00 with a corresponding intercept of 0.00. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a novel clinically relevant risk prediction model to estimate 30-day mortality risk after TEVAR for DTAA. The TEVAR Mortality Risk Calculator provides useful prognostic information to guide patient selection and facilitate preoperative discussions and shared decision making. An easily accessible online version of the TEVAR Mortality Risk Score is available to facilitate ease of use.

Hoarseness Caused by a Penetrating Proximal Descending Thoracic Aortic Ulcer and Pseudoaneurysm.

We present a case of an 87-year-old female with new-onset hoarseness of unclear etiology. Imaging demonstrated a penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) in the proximal descending thoracic aorta with an associated pseudoaneurysm that enlarged to a depth of 32 mm over 2 years. This patient was diagnosed with hoarseness being secondary to left recurrent laryngeal nerve (LRLN) palsy, a variant of Ortner syndrome. Patient was treated with endovascular stent-grafting successfully covering of the PAU and pseudoaneurysm with zone 3 proximal landing zone. The patient had moderate improvement in hoarseness after 1 year of follow-up. Endovascular repair is indicated for symptomatic patients with PAUs complicated by enlarging pseudoaneurysms or rupture. Endovascular treatment is effective with low procedural morbidity and mortality. In this case, the PAU and associated pseudoaneurysm at the level of the ligamentum arteriosum caused compression on the LRLN, resulting in a nerve palsy and hoarseness. This case highlights the importance of vascular imaging for patients presenting with unclear etiology of hoarseness or other signs of LRLN palsy. Therefore, aortic arch abnormalities, a variant of Ortner syndrome, even though rare, should be on the differential diagnosis of new onset hoarseness.