A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

INTRODUCTION: The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success. RESULTS: Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed. CONCLUSION: The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research. CLINICAL IMPACT: Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Optimization of factors for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord ischemia following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a devastating complication. This study seeks to demonstrate how a standardized protocol to prevent spinal cord ischemia affects incidence in patients undergoing TEVAR. METHODS: Using CPT codes 33880 and 33881, all TEVAR procedures performed at a single tertiary care center from January 2017 to December 2018 were examined. Patients who had concomitant ascending aortic repairs or a TEVAR for traumatic indications were excluded from analysis, leaving 130 TEVAR procedures. Comorbid conditions, procedural characteristics, extent of coverage, peri-procedural management strategies, and post-operative outcomes were collected and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients undergoing TEVAR were examined for four perioperative variables: postoperative hemoglobin greater than 10 g/dL, subclavian revascularization, preoperative spinal drain placement, and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring (SSEP). All conditions were met in 46.2% (60/130) of procedures; 37.8% (28/74) in emergent/urgent cases and 61.5% (32/52) in elective cases. Of patients who required subclavian coverage, 87.1% (54/62) underwent subclavian revascularization; 70.8% (92/130) of patients received spinal drains preoperatively; 68.5% (89/130) of patients had SSEP monitoring; 73.8% (93/130) of patients obtained a postoperative hemoglobin of >10 g/dL. Out of all patients, two (1.5%) developed spinal cord ischemia. CONCLUSION: Incidence of spinal cord ischemia in our cohort was low at 1.5% (2/130). Individual and bundled interventions for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia were unable to demonstrate a statistically significant effect given the low rate. Nonetheless, we advocate for a proactive approach for the prevention of spinal cord ischemia given our experience in this complex population.

Nutcracker Syndrome as an Unusual Cause of Postprandial Pain.

Nutcracker syndrome is a rare entity in which compression of the left renal vein (LRV), usually by the overlying superior mesenteric artery (SMA), results in renal venous congestion and reflux in the left ovarian vein (LOV). Patients may present with hematuria, left flank pain, dyspareunia, and vaginal or abdominal wall varicose veins. We report a patient with nutcracker syndrome who presented atypically with left flank pain that was exacerbated in the postprandial state. We hypothesize that the physiologic dilation of the SMA after oral intake caused increased LRV compression at that site and augmented lateral LRV distention. The patient had no evidence of SMA syndrome or chronic mesenteric insufficiency. Her symptoms resolved after we performed an LOV to inferior vena cava transposition.