Systematic review and meta-analysis of cerebrospinal fluid drain-related mortality and morbidity after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD)-related complications specifically in patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR). This objective was chosen considering the limitations and uncertainties surrounding its efficacy in preventing spinal cord injury. METHODS: A systematic review following Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO; #CRD42022359223). Literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were performed until May 1, 2023, focusing on studies published after January 1, 2000. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies reporting on F/B-EVAR, CSFD, and drain-related complications. Data extraction and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were performed by multiple reviewers to ensure accuracy and reliability. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary and secondary outcomes were CSFD-related mortality and morbidity, respectively. RESULTS: Six retrospective, observational, single-center studies were included, totaling 1079 patients and 730 CSFD placements (all prophylactic except for one). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale showed a high to moderate risk of bias. The analysis revealed a CSFD-related mortality rate of 1.4% (95% CI: 0.0-4.8; I2 = 67.7%) and an overall morbidity rate of 25.6% (95% CI: 13.6-39.7; I2 = 83.2%). The overall major, moderate, and minor estimated complication rates were 6.1% (95% CI: 4.1-8.5; I2 = 0%), 4.6% (95% CI: 2.4-7.3; I2 = 33.5%), and 26.4% (95% CI: 16.5-37.7; I2 = 84.9%), respectively. Severe complications included intracranial hemorrhage (2.8%), spinal hematoma (1.4%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (1.4%), and CSFD-related neurological deficits (1.1%). A pooled estimate of 11.4% for nonfunctioning drainage was found. CONCLUSIONS: F/B-EVAR patients showed a notable incidence of CSFD-related death and substantial morbidity. This study highlights the limitations of the available data, the high prevalence of complications associated with CSFD, and the need for further research to better understand the risks and benefits of CSFD in F/B-EVAR. This calls for careful consideration regarding the routine use of prophylactic drainage due to the accumulating evidence of the risks associated with CSFD without proven benefit in this specific context.

Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

Anatomical feasibility of a 'semi-custom' unibody single-branch endograft in previous zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of a subclavian unibody single-branch endograft among patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in landing zone 2 (LZ2). METHODS: This is a pre-clinical, single-centre, real-world, all-comers, retrospective cohort study. Patients treated with TEVAR in LZ2 with an available preoperative computed tomography angiography were included. The primary outcome was the anatomical feasibility of the Castor endograft in patients receiving endovascular treatment in LZ2 between 1999 and 2022. Secondary outcomes were: a comparison of feasible and unfeasible patients; frequencies and description of exclusion causes; non-feasibility risk factor analysis; and analysis of the stent graft configurations necessary to treat 75% of the patients. A logistic regression model was used to find associations between baseline morphological data and non-feasibility. RESULTS: A total of 473 procedures were performed and 72 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. The mean distance between the left carotid artery and left subclavian artery (or between innominate artery and bovine trunk) was 12.4 ± 5.2 mm and its average diameter was 33.0 ± 10.6 mm. The pre-vertebral left subclavian artery's diameter and length were 11.3 ± 2.5 and 38.7 ± 10.8 mm. Forty-nine (68.1%) patients were suitable for Castor implantation. Twenty-one configurations were required to treat 75% of feasible patients and might be lowered to 12 configurations applying less strict criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The Castor endograft was anatomically feasible in several patients requiring TEVAR in LZ2. Three-quarters of feasible patients could be treated with a reasonable number of configurations, paving the path for future off-the-shelf applications.

Learning Curve and Long-Term Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Repair With the Relay Stent-Graft.

PURPOSE: To define the learning curve of a widely employed stent-graft for thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) by analyzing procedural variables and their impact on long-term outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard TEVARs for each major aortic thoracic disease were included excluding procedures using thoracoabdominal, arch fenestrated/branched devices and/or chimneys. The primary outcome was the learning curve analysis using the cumulative sum chart method. The secondary outcomes, presented as early (Q1-Q2) versus latest (Q3-Q4) quartiles of experience, were 30-day major adverse events (MAEs); procedural details (additional maneuvers, operative and fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume); 30-day clinical success; endoleak; aorta-related reintervention; and overall and aorta-related survival. RESULTS: Between November 2005 and September 2021, 220 consecutive TEVAR procedures involving the Relay endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) were performed and included in the present analysis. The mean follow-up was 4.5 ± 3.9 years. The learning curve was reached after 10 patients. Secondary outcomes improved significantly over experience. Thirty-day MAE occurrence was 14.5% versus 11.8% (p=0.550). Additional maneuvers (p=0.009), access-vessel additional maneuvers (p=0.010), operative time (p=0.004), Relay Plus (p=0.001), and implantation of multiple stent-grafts (p=0.034) were independent risk markers for MAEs. Operative time (125.9 ± 66.7 vs 86.7 ± 48.5 minutes, p<0.001), contrast volume (185.4 ± 112.8 vs 140.5 ± 88.2 mL, p=0.003), and fluoroscopy time (12.4 ± 12.7 vs 8.8 ± 7.5 minutes, p=0.017) decreased significantly. Late endoleak occurrence was 19.5% with a nonsignificant reduction (21.8% vs 17.3%, p=0.395). Fluoroscopy time (hazard ratio [HR]=1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.0-1.1; p=0.008), contrast volume (HR=1.0; 95% CI=1.0-1.1; p=0.018), and type III aortic arch (HR=3.3; 95% CI=1.7-6.4; p<0.001) were independent risk markers for endoleak. Fluoroscopy time (HR=1.0; 95% CI=1.0-1.1; p=0.032) and type III aortic arch (HR=3.6; 95% CI=1.7-7.4; p=0.001) confirmed their significant association in a multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: In a high-volume center with a consistent previous endovascular experience, the Relay graft presented satisfactory long-term results with a short learning curve supporting its reliability. CLINICAL IMPACT: The manuscript addresses the understanding of how many TEVAR procedures with a currently implanted device have been required to reach the learning curve for an endovascular skilled center. Our TEVAR experience with the Relay stent-graft (Terumo Aortic) demonstrated that ten implantations were required to achieve the device-related learning curve. The fifteen-year analyzed period showed that intraoperative learning-related variables were associated with long-term clinical outcomes and both improved over time. The Relay stent-graft presented satisfactory long-term results along with a short learning curve in a high-volume endovascular center supporting its ongoing implantation.