LONG-TERM SURVIVAL AND REINTERVENTION FOLLOWING THORACIC ENDOVASCULAR AORTIC REPAIR IN BLUNT TRAUMATIC THORACIC AORTIC INJURY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

INTRODUCTION: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents one of the most devastating scenarios of vascular trauma. Different management strategies are available with varying clinical outcomes. However, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the first-line option for most BTAI patients, mainly owing to its minimally invasive nature, yielding improved immediate results. This meta-analysis aims to investigate mortality, long-term survival, and reintervention following TEVAR in BTAI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review conducted a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases using strict search terms. Twenty-seven studies met the set inclusion/exclusion criteria. A proportional meta-analysis of extracted data was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software v.4. RESULTS: 1498 BTAI patients who underwent TEVAR were included. Using the SVS grading system, 2.6% of the population had Grade 1 injuries, 13.6% Grade 2, 62.2% Grade, 19.6% Grade 4, and 1.9% unspecific. All-cause mortality did not exceed 20% in all studies except one outlier with a 37% mortality rate. Using the random-effects model, the pooled estimate of overall mortality was 12% (95%CI 5.35-8.55%; I2 = 70.6%). This was 91% (95%CI, 88.6-93.2; I2 = 30.2%) at 6 months, 90.1% (95%CI, 86.7-92.3; I2 = 53.6%) at 1-year, 89.2% (95%CI, 85.2-91.8; I2= 62.3%) at 2 years, and 88.1% (95%CI, 83.3-90.9; I2 = 69.6%) at 5 years. Moreover, the pooled estimate of reintervention was 6.4% (95%CI, 0.1-0.49%; I2 = 81.7%). CONCLUSION: Despite the high morbidity and mortality associated with BTAI, TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective management strategy with favourable long-term survival and minimal need for reintervention. Nevertheless, diagnosis of BTAI requires a high index of suspicion with appropriate grading and prompt transfer to trauma centres with appropriate TEVAR facilities.

Endovascular Solutions for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Fenestrated, Branched and Custom-Made Devices.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a prevalence of 4.8%. AAA rupture is associated with significant mortality, thus surgical intervention is generally required once the aneurysm diameter exceeds 5.5 cm. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the predominant repair modality for AAA. However, in patients with complex aortic anatomy, fenestrated or branched EVAR is a superior repair option vs standard EVAR. Fenestrated and branched endoprostheses can be off-the-shelf or custom-made, which offers a more individualised approach. AIM: To summarise and evaluate the clinical outcomes achieved by fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and branched EVAR (BEVAR), and to explore the role of custom-made endoprostheses in contemporary AAA management. METHODS: A literature search using Ovid Medline and Google Scholar was conducted to identify literature pertaining to the use and outcomes of fenestrated, branched, fenestrated-branched and custom-made endoprostheses for AAA repair. RESULTS: FEVAR is an effective repair modality for patients with AAA that offers similar early survival, improved early morbidity but higher rates of reintervention in comparison to open surgical repair (OSR). Compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with similar in-hospital mortality yet higher rates of morbidity, especially regarding renal outcomes. BEVAR outcomes are rarely reported exclusively in the context of AAA repair. When reported, BEVAR is an acceptable alternative to EVAR in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and has similar reported complication issues to FEVAR. Custom-made grafts are a good alternative treatment option for complex aneurysms where hostile aneurysm anatomy precludes the use of conventional EVAR and sufficient time is available for the manufacturing of such devices. CONCLUSION: FEVAR offers a very effective treatment for patients with complex aortic anatomy and has been well-characterised over the past decade. RCTs and longer-term studies are desirable for unbiased comparison of non-standard EVAR modalities.

Population risk profile analysis of acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD) comprises the estimated majority of type B aortic dissection (TBAD), presenting without any of the complications associated with complicated TBAD (coTBAD). Although first-line treatment for coTBAD is thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and despite the fact that TEVAR has proven its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of unTBAD, unTBAD is still being predominantly managed conservatively with medical therapy, with a small proportion of patients being offered TEVAR. AIMS: The main scope of this review is to highlight the evidence in the literature of the demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients undergoing TEVAR in order to produce a risk stratification system to achieve favourable outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and EMBASE. RESULTS: Multiple demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients affecting TEVAR outcomes were identified, assessed, and investigated, including age, gender, race, genetics, medical conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and lifestyle factors such as smoking. Most factors were associated with increased risks of mortality and morbidity, while others, such as race, were identified as being protective against those when it comes to TEVAR. CONCLUSION: Despite the favourable results yielded by TEVAR in unTBAD, there remains a grey area concerning its management. Thus, it is important to incorporate the demographics and co-morbidities of unTBAD patients' when into clinical judgement when assessing indications for TEVAR intervention to ensure optimum results can be achieved.

Cost Analysis of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Type B Aortic Dissection: How Much Does Quality Cost?

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that affects an estimated 3-4 people per 100,000 annually, with 40% of cases classified as type B AD (TBAD). TBAD can be further classified as being complicated (co-TBAD) or uncomplicated (un-TBAD) based on the presence or absence of certain features such as malperfusion and rupture. TBAD can be managed conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT), or invasively with open surgical repair (OSR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), depending on several factors such as type of TBAD and its clinical acuity. The cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit profile, of these strategies must be given equal consideration. However, TBAD studies featuring cost analyses are limited within the literature. This narrative review aims to address the gap in the literature on cost-effectiveness of TBAD treatments by providing an overview of cost analyses comparing OMT with TEVAR in un-TBAD and TEVAR with OSR in co-TBAD. Another aim is to provide a market analysis of the commercially available TEVAR devices. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using several search engines including PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase to identify and extract relevant studies. RESULTS: Several TEVAR devices are available commercially on the global market costing $12,000-19,495. Nevertheless, the Terumo Aortic RELAY® stent graft seems to be the most cost-effective, yielding highly favourable clinical outcomes. Despite the higher initial cost of TEVAR, evidence in the literature strongly suggest that it is superior to OMT for un-TBAD on the long-term. In addition, TEVAR is well established in the literature as being gold-standard repair technique for co-TBAD, replacing OSR by offering a more optimal cost-benefit profile through lower costs and improved results. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of TEVAR has revolutionized the field of aortovascular surgery by offering a highly efficacious and long-term cost-effective treatment for TBAD.

The Fate of Conventional Elephant Trunk in the Frozen Elephant Trunk Era.

Conventional elephant trunk (cET) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) are two distinct approaches to the surgical treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. With the advent and growing uptake of endovascular technologies, FET is becoming increasingly popular for its potential to be performed as a single-stage operation with better aortic remodeling and less risk of graft kinking than the traditional two-stage cET procedure. However, FET has been associated with a higher risk of spinal cord ischemia and its use in patients with connective tissue disorder remains controversial. The current review aimed to reflect on recent evidence surrounding the application of cET and FET to different types of aortic pathology in both acute and elective settings. Another scope of this review was to compare the characteristics of the currently available FET commercial devices on the global market. Our findings highlight that when the pathology is confined to the proximal descending aorta, such as in Dsine, intervention is often single-staged and false lumen (FL) thrombosis is achieved with good effect. FET remains limited by spinal cord injury and applicability in patients with connective tissue disorder, although some groups have started to circumvent associated complications, likely due to growing surgical expertise. Many other aortic diseases do require second-stage intervention, and even in these cases, there appears to be lower in-hospital mortality when using FET over cET. This is possibly due to the higher rate of endovascular completion facilitated by the completed landing zones created during FET. FET is trending toward becoming the universal treatment modality for extending repair to the descending aorta.

Adverse complications of frozen elephant trunk, do we have enough quality data?

BACKGROUND: Frozen elephant trunk has in recent times become a mainstay for total arch replacement in aortovascular surgery and is indicated to treat a spectrum of complex aortic pathologies. However, despite associated excellent postoperative results it is incredibly important to recognize potential adverse complications such as negative aortic remodeling, endoleak, and distal stent-graft induced new entry so that outcomes can be further improved. AIM OF THE STUDY: Below we provide commentary on a recent article in the Journal of Cardiac Surgery discussing the topic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fascinating outcomes of this systematic review and meta-analysis the heterogeneity of the literature regarding these adverse outcomes remains an issue which can only be solved with large multicenter trials directly comparing graft types as well as indications for surgery.

Renal outcomes of suprarenal vs. infrarenal endograft fixation in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common pathology with a prevalence of 4.8%. AAA rupture is associated with significant mortality and so early diagnosis followed by regular monitoring is needed until treatment might be considered and plan intervention. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an established and effective alternative to open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of AAAs. Key parameters in defining conventional EVAR suitability include the infrarenal neck length and angulation for the fixation of the proximal graft component. Endograft fixation can be either suprarenal or infrarenal and much debate exists as to which approach is associated with optimum renal outcomes. This study aims to review the current literature with respect to the renal outcomes associated with conventional EVAR using suprarenal fixation (SRF) vs. infrarenal fixation (IRF). Methods: A search was conducted from major search indices (PubMed, Google Scholar and EMBASE) to identify relevant literature pertaining to renal outcomes in EVAR. Recent papers comparing SRF and IRF were evaluated and their findings discussed. Key Content and Findings: The mechanism of renal function decline (RFD) following EVAR is uncertain and likely multifactorial. Aortic morphology, endograft type and surgical technique may all contribute to RFD. There is a significant degree of heterogeneity within the literature regarding study design and definitions of RFD. Recent literature suggests that RFD is more acute for SRF than IRF in the first post-operative year, but the clinical significance of this decline in patients with normal kidney function is questionable. Studies indicate that SRF is associated with accelerated RFD at 5 years, and that the RFD is worse in patients who are female and who have pre-existing renal insufficiency. Conclusions: SRF is associated with a greater decline in renal function than IRF in both short- and long-terms. Although clinically insignificant in the short-term, the limited available long-term evidence suggests that SRF results in a relatively accelerated decline in renal function when compared to IRF, but it is possibly partially explained by the higher prevalence of advanced degenerative/atherosclerotic disease in SRF cohorts. These trends are noted particularly in female patients and in patients with baseline renal insufficiency.

Risk profile analysis of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Laboratory and radiographic predictors.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remain debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological, and radiological parameters, which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR. AIM: This review summarizes evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Scopus to collate all research evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients RESULTS: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter, and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in the future to optimize the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols. CONCLUSION: There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameters emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.

Endovascular reintervention after frozen elephant trunk: where is the evidence?

The introduction of the single-step hybrid frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for total arch replacement has revolutionized the field of aortovascular surgery. FET has proven to achieve excellent results in the repair of complex thoracic aorta pathologies. However, there remains a risk of reintervention post-FET for a variety of causes. This secondary intervention can either be performed endovascular, with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), or via open surgery. Multiple FET hybrid prosthesis are commercially available, each requiring different rates of endovascular reintervention. The current review will focus on providing an overview of the reintervention rates for main causes in relation to the FET grafts on the market. In addition, strategies to prevent reintervention will be highlighted. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and Embase to highlight the evidence in the literature on endovascular reintervention after FET. The main causes for secondary intervention are distal stent graft-induced new entry (dSINE), endoleak and negative aortic remodeling, and to a much lesser extent, graft kinking and aorto-esophageal fistulae. In addition, it is clear that the Thoraflex Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) is the superior FET device, showing excellent reintervention rates for all the above causes. Interestingly, the choice of FET device as well as its size and length can help prevent the need for reintervention. The FET procedure is indeed associated with excellent clinical outcomes, however, the need for reintervention may still arise. Importantly, the Thoraflex Hybrid prosthesis has shown excellent results when it comes to endovascular reintervention. Finally, several strategies exist that can prevent reintervention.

Mitral valve paravalvular leaks: Comprehensive review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Mitral paravalvular leaks (mPVL) are a recognized complication for patients with mitral valve prostheses. Although clinically insignificant for many patients, it may pose life-threatening haemolysis and regurgitation-induced heart failure, and so clinicians should have a high index of suspicion in the presence of new symptoms. AIMS: This review discusses the pathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis, imaging and treatment of mPVLs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and Ovid. Search terms used included "mitral valve paravalvular leak," "transthoracic echocardiography," "2D transoesophageal echocardiography," "3D transoesophageal echocardiography," "cardiac computed tomography," (CT) "cardiac magnetic resonance imaging," "intracardiac echocardiography," "cinefluoroscopy," "fluoroscopy," and "percutaneous closure." RESULTS: All patients with mPVLs should undergo regular full evaluation, including patient history, physical examination, laboratory work-up, imaging, and referral, if necessary. Echocardiography is fundamental to the diagnosis, and is augmented with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, cardiac computerized tomography and fluoroscopy for further characterization and procedural planning amongst the structural heart team. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of mPVL is expected to increase proportionally to the growing number of surgical and transcatheter valve replacements conducted in the ageing population. Multimodal imaging is instrumental in guiding diagnostic and therapeutic strategies when managing mPVLs. Advances in imaging and capabilities of transcather devices will prompt growing uptake of percutaneous treatment over conventional, higher-risk surgery for mPVL management.

Vocal cord palsy as a sequela of paediatric cardiac surgery - a review.

BACKGROUND: Vocal cord palsy is one of the recognised complications of complex cardiac surgery in the paediatric population. While there is an abundance of literature highlighting the presence of this complication, there is a scarcity of research focusing on the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment options available for children affected by vocal cord palsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using the search terms: "Vocal Cord Palsy," "VCP," "Vocal Cord Injury," "Paediatric Heart Surgery," "Congenital Heart Surgery," "Pediatric Heart Surgery," "Vocal Fold Movement Impairment," "VFMI," "Vocal Fold Palsy," "PDA Ligation." The inclusion criteria were any articles discussing the outcomes of vocal cord palsy following paediatric cardiac surgery. RESULTS: The two main populations affected by vocal cord palsy are children undergoing aortic arch surgery or those undergoing PDA ligation. There is paucity of prospective follow-up studies; it is therefore difficult to reliably assess the current approaches and the long-term implications of management options. CONCLUSION: Vocal cord palsy can be a devastating complication following cardiac surgery, which if left untreated, could potentially result in debilitation of quality of life and in severe circumstances could even lead to death. Currently, there is not enough high-quality evidence in the literature to aid recognition, diagnosis, and management leaving clinicians to extrapolate evidence from adult studies to make clinical judgements. Future research with a focus on the paediatric perspective is necessary in providing evidence for good standards of care.