The Initial Results of Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repairs of the Aortic Arch and Lessons Learned From the First 21 Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for the aortic arch provides a minimally invasive treatment option for patients who are too high-risk for open repair. Improvements in technique are gained with ongoing experience with these complex repairs. This study aims to describe outcomes of arch PM-FBEVAR and technical lessons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR with zone 0 proximal sealing at a single institution between January 2019 and July 2023 was performed. Cases completed using initial techniques (early technique) were compared with cases using the current techniques (current technique). Modification technique changed to include a self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific fenestrations or inner branches in the current group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success and 30 day stroke. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients underwent arch PM-FBEVAR, with 7 in the early group and 14 in the current group. Severe comorbidities were present in both groups including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (43% vs 36%), prior open ascending aortic repair (57% vs 43%), and prior stroke (86% vs 21%), respectively. Technical success was the same (86% vs 86%, p=1.0). Fluoroscopy time (56 vs 24 min, p=0.012) and in-hospital death (43% vs 0%, p=0.026) were significantly lower in the current group. A 30 day stroke rate (29% vs 7%, p=0.247) was non-significantly decreased in the current group. All-cause mortality was 100% vs 7% during median follow-up of 8 and 6 months (p<0.001). Three deaths in the early group were related to their aortic arch repair including aortic rupture during endograft advancement and 2 postoperative strokes. CONCLUSION: There is a significant learning curve associated with aortic arch PM-FBEVAR. This study suggests that gained experience, use of the spine trigger wire technique, and precise creation of fenestrations or inner branches can lead to a shorter procedure time and lower complications. CLINICAL IMPACT: Physician modified fenestrated branched endografting is feasible for the aortic arch. The high rate of stroke and perioperative mortality was reduced with incorporation of self-orienting spine trigger wire and anatomically specific inner branch creation.

Spinal cord ischemia and reinterventions following thoracic endovascular repair for acute type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: The technical aspects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), specifically the location of proximal seal zone (PSZ) (need to cover the left subclavian artery [LSA]), distal seal zone (DSZ) (length of aortic coverage), benefit of LSA revascularization, and prophylactic lumbar drainage are still debated. Each of these issues has potential benefits but also has known risks. This study aims to identify factors associated with reintervention and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following TEVAR for acute TBAD with a zone 3 entry tear. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute TBAD with zone 3 entry tear, zone 3 proximal zone of disease, treated with TEVAR extending between zone 2 and zone 5. The primary outcomes were SCI and related reintervention. Secondary outcomes were stroke, arm ischemia, and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). The exposure variables were PSZ 2 vs 3, DSZ 4 vs 5, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA revascularization. Univariate analyses were conducted with χ2 analysis, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 583 patients who met inclusion criteria, 266 had PSZ 2 and 317 had PSZ 3. On univariate analysis, PSZ 2 was associated with a higher rate of reintervention, but PSZ2 was not significant on multivariable analysis after accounting for age, sex, race, smoking, PSZ, DSZ, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA patency. PSZ 2 was not associated with SCI, arm ischemia, or RTAD. PSZ 2 was associated with a trend towards a higher rate of stroke. DSZ 4 and DSZ 5 were performed in 161 and 422 TEVARs, respectively, and DSZ 5 was associated with a higher rate of SCI on univariate (3 [1.9%] vs 39 [9.2%]; P = .01) and multivariable (odds ratio, 7.384; 95% confidence interval, 2.193-24.867; P = .001) analyses. Prophylactic lumbar drain placement was not statistically significantly associated with SCI, but lack of postoperative LSA patency was associated with SCI (odds ratio, 2.966; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-8.656; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that PSZ 2 was not associated with lower reinterventions or higher rates of SCI but trended towards a higher rate of stroke than PSZ 3. Additionally, DSZ 5 was strongly associated with SCI when compared with DSZ 4, highlighting the importance of limiting aortic coverage to coverage of the proximal entry tear when possible.

In situ laser fenestration of aortic septum to bridge false and true lumen during endovascular repair of aortic dissection.

Fenestration of the septum between the true and false lumen might be necessary after aortic dissection. We report the technical aspects of in situ laser fenestration of the aortic dissection septum. Two illustrative cases are provided: a 56-year-old man with false lumen deployment of a frozen elephant trunk graft, and a 67-year-old man who underwent fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with a target branch vessel off the false lumen. In both cases, the septum was crossed using in situ laser fenestration. This technique is a precise option to enable passage between true and false lumens during endovascular repair of an aortic dissection.

Use of Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis to Rescue Inadvertent False Lumen Deployment of the Innominate Branch Stent During Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Aortic Arch Repair.

A 70-year-old male with a history of 3 prior median sternotomies and on anticoagulation presented with acute chest and back pain associated with a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending and aortic arch in the setting of residual dissection involving the innominate, proximal right carotid, and subclavian arteries. A physician-modified triple vessel fenestrated-branched arch endograft was deployed. The innominate branch stent was deployed from the right carotid cut down, while the left carotid and left subclavian branch stents were placed from a femoral approach. Postoperatively, the innominate branch was found to be deployed in the false lumen of the dissected native innominate artery, leading to continued pressurization of the pseudoaneurysm. This was rescued by placing a Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) into the innominate branch through a temporary conduit sewn to the right carotid artery with a right subclavian branch placed via a brachial artery cut down into the internal iliac gate. The use of IBE allowed branch stent extension past the dissected native vessels. The patient had an uneventful recovery without neurologic complications. At 3-month follow-up, the patient remains well with an excluded pseudoaneurysm, and patent bifurcated innominate, bilateral carotid, and subclavian artery branches. A Gore IBE can be utilized in a dissected innominate artery to create an innominate branch device during fenestrated-branched endovascular arch repair.

Prospective assessment of dynamic changes in frailty and its impact on early clinical outcomes following physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty, a predictor of poor outcomes, has been widely studied as a screening tool in surgical decision-making. However, the impact of frailty on the outcomes after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repairs (FBEVARs) is less well established. In addition, the changes in frailty during recovery after FBEVAR are unknown. We aim to assess the impact of frailty on outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing physician-modified FBEVARs for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, as well as the changes in frailty during follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in a single-center prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption protocol (FDA# G200159) were evaluated. In addition to the baseline characteristics, frailty was assessed using the Hopkins Frailty Score (HFS) and frailty index (FI) measured by the Frailty Meter. Sarcopenia was measured by L3 total psoas muscle area (PMA). These measurements were repeated during follow-up. The follow-up HFS and FI were compared with baseline scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, whereas follow-up PMA measurements were compared with the baseline using the paired t test. The association between baseline frailty and morbidity was evaluated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Seventy patients were analyzed in a prospective Physician-Sponsored Investigational Device Exemption study from February 9, 2021, to June 2, 2023. At baseline, HFS identified 54% of patients as not frail, 43% as intermediately frail, and 3% as frail. Technical success of FBEVAR was 94% with one in-hospital mortality. Early major adverse events were seen in 10 (14.3%) patients. No difference in baseline FI was seen between patients with early morbidity and those without. Patients who were not frail per HFS were less likely to experience early morbidity (P = .033), and there was a significantly lower baseline PMA in patients who experienced early morbidity (P = .016). At 1 month, patients experienced a significant increase in HFS and HFS category (P = .001 and P = .01) and a significant decrease in sarcopenia (mean PMA: -96 mm2, P = .005). At 6 months, HFS and HFS category as well as PMA returned toward baseline (P = .42, P = .38, and mean PMA: +4 mm2, P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative frailty and sarcopenia were associated with early morbidity after physician-modified FBEVAR. During follow-up, patients became more frail and sarcopenic by 1 month. Recovery from this initial decline was seen by 6 months, suggesting that frailty and sarcopenia are reversible processes rather than a unidirectional phenomenon of continued decline.

Incorporation of internal iliac arteries as target vessels during physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair of pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant bilateral short common iliac artery aneurysms.

This report describes an alternative endovascular approach to iliac branch devices for treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant bilateral short common iliac aneurysms. The short distance between the renal arteries and internal iliac artery origins made the addition of distal iliac branch devices to the proximal fenestrated stent graft challenging. We elected to perform physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair, using four fenestrations for the visceral and renal arteries and an additional two directional branches for the bilateral internal iliac arteries. The patient recovered uneventfully, and the 24-month follow-up imaging shows successful aneurysm exclusion with patent internal iliac artery branches.

Techniques and Limitations of Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) for Type 1A Endoleak After Failed Endovascular Aortic Repairs.

PURPOSE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality over open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, a higher rate of reinterventions remains the Achilles heel of EVAR. Although type 1A endoleak from proximal seal zone failure of EVAR remains one of the leading causes for reintervention, fenestrated branched devices suitable for proximal extension of failed EVAR are not widely available in the United States. Gore Thoracoabdominal Multibranch Endoprosthesis (TAMBE) is an off-the-shelf investigational device that provides supraceliac seal by incorporating 4 visceral and renal arteries via preloaded inner branches. CASE REPORT: In this article, we describe 2 cases of type 1A endoleak from previous EVAR devices repaired using TAMBE. Both cases were performed under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compassionate use exemption. Considerations on the case planning and implantation techniques of TAMBE specific to previous EVAR devices are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Gore TAMBE can be utilized to repair a type 1A endoleak of a previous infrarenal EVAR device. Greater supraceliac coverage necessary for TAMBE relative to the minimal seal zone should be considered when applying this device for a type 1A endoleak. CLINICAL IMPACT: This report demonstrates the feasibility of applying off-the-shelf TAMBE device to treat one of the most common failure modes of EVAR, type1A endoleak.

Aortic rupture during STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique.

The STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique has shown promising results for treating type B aortic dissections, but the potential exists for fatal adverse effects. We present a case of infrarenal aortic rupture while using a compliant balloon to balloon mold the true lumen inside previously placed bare metal stents during the STABILISE technique. Caution is advised for providers who wish to perform the STABILISE technique, and we recommend using a semi-compliant balloon sized to the smallest total aortic diameter to mitigate the risk of rupture.

Sandwich thoracic branch endoprosthesis technique for endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm with aberrant right subclavian artery.

Subclavian artery coverage is frequently required to achieve an adequate proximal seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE; W.L. Gore & Associates) is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved branched device for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, designed for left subclavian artery incorporation. However, anatomic suitability of the TBE has been shown to be limited. In the present report, we describe a novel technique using the TBE in a sandwich periscope configuration to allow for emergent repair of a ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm with a highly angulated proximal seal zone and aberrant right subclavian artery.

Near-wall hemodynamic changes in subclavian artery perfusion induced by retrograde inner branched thoracic endograft implantation.

Objective: Left subclavian artery (LSA)-branched endografts with retrograde inner branch configuration (thoracic branch endoprosthesis [TBE]) offer a complete endovascular solution when LSA preservation is required during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair. However, the hemodynamic consequences of the TBE have not been well-investigated. We compared near-wall hemodynamic parameters before and after the TBE implantation using computational fluid dynamic simulations. Methods: Eleven patients who had undergone TBE implantation were included. Three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were constructed from the pre- and post-TBE implantation computed tomography images. The resulting 22 three-dimensional aortic arch geometries were then discretized into finite element meshes for computational fluid dynamic simulations. Inflow boundary conditions were prescribed using normal physiological pulsatile circulation. Outlet boundary conditions consisted of Windkessel models with previously published values. Blood flow, modeled as Newtonian fluid, simulations were performed with rigid wall assumptions using SimVascular's incompressible Navier-Stokes solver. We compared well-established hemodynamic descriptors: pressure, flow rate, time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), the oscillatory shear index (OSI), and percent area with an OSI of >0.2. Data were presented on the stented portion of the LSA. Results: TBE implantation was associated with a small decrease in peak LSA pressure (153 mm Hg; interquartile range [IQR], 151-154 mm Hg vs 159 mm Hg; IQR, 158-160 mm Hg; P = .005). No difference was observed in peak LSA flow rates before and after implantation: 40.4 cm3/ (IQR, 39.5-41.6 cm3/s) vs 41.3 cm3/s (IQR, 37.2-44.8 cm3/s; P = .59). There was a significant postimplantation increase in TAWSS (15.2 dynes/cm2 [IQR, 12.2-17.7 dynes/cm2] vs 6.2 dynes/cm2 [IQR, 5.7-10.3 dynes/cm2]; P = .003), leading to decreases in both the OSI (0.088 [IQR, 0.063 to -0.099] vs 0.1 [IQR, 0.096-0.16]; P = .03) and percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 (10.4 [IQR, 5.8-15.8] vs 15.7 [IQR, 10.7-31.9]; P = .13). Neither LSA side branch angulation (median, 81°, IQR, 77°-109°) nor moderate compression (16%-58%) seemed to have an impact on the pressure, flow rate, TAWSS, or percentage of area with an OSI of >0.2 in the stented LSA. Conclusions: The implantation of TBE produces modest hemodynamic disturbances that are unlikely to result in clinically relevant changes.

Dual-Lumen Stenting of Dissected Superior Mesenteric Artery During Fenestrated Branched Endovascular Repair of a Post-dissection Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

PURPOSE: Long-segment aortic branch dissections have been considered a relative contraindication for fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR). This case report describes a technique of dual-lumen stenting of a fully-dissected superior mesenteric artery (SMA) to preserve patency of the true and false lumens during FB-EVAR. CASE REPORT: A 67-year-old man presented with a 6.0 cm extent III chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. The patient had highly-complex anatomy including dissection of the entire SMA. The true and false lumens of the dissected SMA were noted to be supplying different branches, requiring preservation of both lumens. The patient underwent a staged physician-modified FB-EVAR. A modified endograft containing 5 fenestrations and 1 branch cuff was introduced and the celiac, true-lumen SMA, and 3 renal arteries were sequentially catheterized using staggered deployment of the modified endograft. The false lumen SMA stent was catheterized via the branch cuff. Molded parallel grafting ("eye-of-the-tiger") technique was used to achieve double D configuration between the true and false lumens of the SMA. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates feasibility of dual-lumen stenting to incorporate dissected target vessels during FB-EVAR while preserving flow to both the true and false lumens and the second-order branches they supply. CLINICAL IMPACT: We report a novel technique that allows incorporation of branch vessels affected by long segment dissection during fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repairs. This has potential advantage of preserving flow to all secondary branches of the dissected target vessels, while reducing the risk of type Ic endoleak.

Risk Factors for Cerebral Hyperperfusion Syndrome following Carotid Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) is a rare but known complication of carotid revascularization that can result in severe postoperative disability and death. CHS is a well-described sequela of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and, more recently, of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), but its incidence after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has not been delineated. The aims of this study were to determine the impact of procedure type (CEA versus TCAR versus TFCAS) on the development of CHS as well as to identify perioperative risk factors associated with CHS. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients aged ≥18 years who underwent CEA, TCAR, or TFCAS from 2015-2021. Emergent procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was postoperative development of CHS, defined as the presence of postoperative seizures, intracerebral hemorrhage due to hyperperfusion, or both. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with CHS. RESULTS: 156,003 procedures were included (72.7% CEA, 12.4% TCAR, and 14.9% TFCAS). The incidence of CHS after CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS were 0.15%, 0.18%, and 0.53%, respectively. There was no significant difference in risk of CHS after TFCAS compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.92; P = 0.416), nor was there a difference between TCAR and CEA (OR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.45; P = 0.691). Perioperative risk factors associated with an increased risk of CHS included previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (OR: 2.50; 95% CI 1.69-3.68; P < 0.0001), necessity for urgent intervention within 48 hr (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.43-2.89; P < 0.0001), treatment of a total occlusion (OR: 3.80; 95% CI 1.16-12.47; P = 0.028), and need for postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication (OR: 5.45; 95% CI 3.97-7.48; P < 0.0001). Age, preoperative hypertension, degree of ipsilateral stenosis less than or equal to 99%, and history of prior carotid procedures were not statistically associated with an increased risk of CHS. Discharging patients on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker was associated with a decreased risk of developing CHS (OR: 0.47; 95% CI 0.34-0.65; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CEA, TCAR and TFCAS were not statistically associated with an increased risk of postoperative CHS. Patients with a previous history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, who require urgent intervention or postoperative intravenous blood pressure medication, or who are treated for a total occlusion are at a higher risk of developing CHS. Using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker on discharge appears to be protective against CHS and should be considered for the highest risk patients.

Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of post-dissection and degenerative complex abdominal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. METHODS: A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention. RESULTS: Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.

Risk of Stroke with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of the Aortic Arch.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.

Use of retrograde left subclavian branch portal of Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis for physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

A 75-year-old man who had undergone zone 2 thoracic endovascular repair of a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer using a Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) device (W.L. Gore & Associates) 5 years before had presented with an enlarging extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. A physician-modified five-vessel fenestrated-branched endograft repair was performed using preloaded wires. The visceral renal vessels were sequentially catheterized from the left brachial access via the TBE portal, and the endograft was deployed in staggered fashion. At 1 year of follow-up, imaging studies demonstrated a stable aneurysm sac, patent visceral renal branches, and no endoleak. The retrograde portal of Gore TAG TBE can facilitate fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Readmission after early thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus medical management of acute type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has increased. Although the results from early studies were promising, larger randomized trials evaluating TEVAR are lacking. It is also unclear where sufficient equipoise exists for such trials. In the present study, we evaluated the number of readmissions and unplanned operations after TEVAR vs those after medical management as the initial treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD and the frequency of each treatment in this population. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of patients with acute TBAD from 2015 to 2020 with the 1-year outcomes available, excluding patients with prior aortic intervention or chronic, iatrogenic or traumatic etiologies. The primary exposure was TEVAR vs medical management at the index admission. The patient demographics, clinical presentation, and imaging findings were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression for the primary outcomes of unplanned readmission and/or operation after the initial admission. The secondary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure requiring dialysis, retrograde type A dissection, and length of stay. We hypothesized that the readmissions would be higher with medical management. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients with TBAD (47 with complicated and 169 with uncomplicated) from two large academic centers were identified. Of the 169 patients with uncomplicated TBAD, 83 (49%) had been treated medically and 86 (51%) had undergone TEVAR at the initial admission. No differences were found in the demographics or high-risk imaging features at presentation. The medically managed patients had had higher rates of unplanned readmission (34% vs 9%; P = .0001) and operation (28% vs 8%; P = .0007) but shorter lengths of stay (6.3 vs 13.1 days; P < .0001). No differences were found in mortality, although the rate of myocardial infarction was higher in the medically managed group (10.8% vs 2.3%; P = .02). Although 28% of the medically managed patients had later required operation, they had had morbidity and mortality similar to those of patients who had undergone initial TEVAR. Initial medical management was associated with unplanned readmission (odds ratio, 8.3; P = .02) and the need for operation (odds ratio, 4.56; P = .006). No differences were found in the outcomes according to the involved aortic zones. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, medical management of acute uncomplicated TBAD was associated with higher rates of readmission and the need for unplanned operation compared with TEVAR. However, no differences were found in the 1-year mortality for the patients for whom medical management had failed. Because one half of the patients had undergone medical management and one half had undergone early TEVAR, this finding suggests clinical equipoise for the treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD. Therefore, a larger randomized trial appears warranted to determine whether a clear benefit exists for early TEVAR.

A Novel Bypass Technique to Prevent Vexing Spinal Cord Ischemia in Endovascular Thoracoabdominal Aortic Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord ischemia remains a devastating complication when treating patients with complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. This approach is progressively deployed. However, to date, no strategy has been identified to reduce the feared risk of spinal cord ischemia. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a novel bypass technique using a customized composite graft to create a direct extra-anatomic revascularization before fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in patients with high-risk of spinal cord ischemia. METHODS: To demonstrate this novel concept, we present here a clinical case that reports the strategy of this novel concept in detail. An 83-year-old man with medical history of endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoracic aorta presented with a type IA endoleak, located along the posterior superior aspect of the aortic stent graft adjacent to the lumbar arteries. A multidisciplinary plan was developed, which included a novel bypass from the profunda femoris to the left L1 radicular artery before fenestrated endovascular aortic repair to prevent spinal cord ischemia. RESULTS: The patient successfully receives the novel extra-anatomic revascularization bypass before fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. During the first implementation of this strategy, no intraoperative difficulties and postoperative complications were observed. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates a novel surgical technique before fenestrated endovascular aortic repair for prevention of spinal cord ischemia. In addition, this concept provides a promising direction to not only complement the existing surgical techniques but also to generate more future innovations.

Techniques of antegrade in situ laser fenestration for endovascular aortic repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Antegrade in situ laser fenestration allows for incorporation of visceral and renal arteries during endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. This technique can be particularly useful for urgent and emergent cases and for centers without access to manufactured fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair devices. In the present report, we have described two techniques of antegrade in situ fenestration, the common pitfalls, and the anatomic considerations for each technique.

Contemporary indications, techniques, and outcomes of physician-modified endografts for the treatment of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

The article describes contemporary indications, techniques, and outcomes of physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms. Physician-modified endografting has been performed with high technical success rates and lower complication rates compared with traditional open surgery for complex aortic aneurysms. Various techniques have been reported for the design, modification, and implantation of PMEGs, using different off-the-shelf devices. Although PMEGs are used more commonly for urgent and emergent repair of symptomatic or ruptured complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in patients who do not have access to manufactured devices, some centers have reported utilization of PMEGs in elective cases under the aegis of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption protocols. Although the initial outcomes of PMEGs are promising, continued surveillance remains a crucial component to determine long-term durability. All treatment options for complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms should be considered carefully, with PMEGs reserved for those cases unsuitable for other repair alternatives, and at centers with the volume and expertise to execute the procedure with high technical success and low morbidity and mortality rates. With the continued evolution of endovascular technology, the role and indications for PMEGs are expected to change.