Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for traumatic aortic injuries: insight from literature and practical recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) is nowadays the gold standard technique in adult patients, replacing gradually the use of open repair (OR). Although randomized controlled trials will never be performed comparing TEVAR to OR for BTAIs management, trauma and vascular societies guidelines today primarily recommend the former for BTAI patients with a suitable anatomy. The aim of this review was to describe past and recent data published in literature regarding pros and cons of TEVAR treatment in BTAI, and to analyze some debated issues and future perspectives. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) were used to obtain and describe selected articles on TEVAR in BTAI. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Young (<50 years) men were the most operated population. The use of TEVAR increased over the years, with a progressive reduction in mortality and overall postoperative complication rates when compared with OR. Lack of information remains about the percentage of urgent cases. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is considered nowadays the treatment of choice in BTAI patients. In case of aortic rupture (grade IV) the treatment is mandatory, while intimal tear (grade I) and intramural hematoma (grade II) can be safely managed with no operative management (NOM). Debate is still ongoing on grade III (pseudoaneurysms). Unfortunately, several aspects remain not yet clarified, including disease classification, type and grade to treat, timing (urgent versus elective), priority of vascular injuries in polytrauma patients, and TEVAR use in pediatrics and young patients.

The Italian Multicentre Registry of Fenestrated Anaconda™ Endografts for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe the outcomes of the Anaconda™ Fenestrated endograft Italian Registry for complex aortic aneurysms (AAAs), unsuitable for standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018 patients with a proximal neck unsuitable for standard EVAR, treated with the fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft, were prospectively enrolled in a dedicated database. Endpoints were peri-operative technical success (TS) and evaluation of type Ia/b or 3 endoleaks (T1/3 EL), target visceral vessel (TVV) occlusion, re-interventions, and AAA related mortality at 30 days, six months, and later follow up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty seven patients (74 ± 7 years, American Society Anesthesiology (ASA) II/III/IV: 12/85/30) were included in the study in 49 Italian Vascular Surgery Units (83 juxta/para-renal AAA, 13 type IV thoraco-abdominal AAA, 16 T1aEL post EVAR, and 15 short neck AAA). Configurations with one, two, three, and four fenestrations were used in 5, 56, 39, and 27 cases, respectively, for a total of 342 visceral vessels. One hundred and eight (85%) bifurcated and 19 (15%) tube endografts were implanted. In 35% (44/127) of cases the endograft was repositioned during the procedure, and 37% (128/342) of TVV were cannulated from brachial access. TS was 87% (111/127): five T1EL, six T3EL (between fenestration and vessel stent), and six loss of visceral vessels (one patient with a Type Ia EL had also a TVV loss) occurred. Thirty day mortality was 4% (5/127). Two of the five T1EL resolved spontaneously at 30 days. The overall median follow up was 21 ± 16 months; one T1EL (5%) occurred at six months and one T3EL (4%) at the three year follow up. Another two (3%) TVV occlusions occurred at six months and five (3%) at three years. The re-intervention rate at the 30 days, six months, and three year follow up was 5%, 7%, and 18 ± 5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The fenestrated Anaconda™ endograft is effective in the treatment of complex AAA. Some structure properties, such as the re-positionability and the possibility of cannulation from above, are specific characteristics helpful for the treatment of some complex anatomies.

Cardiovascular Remodeling after Endovascular Treatment for Thoracic Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) currently represents the gold standard of treatment for thoracic aortic injury (TAI). Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate surrounding its safety and subsequent cardiovascular effects. Our aim is to assess heart and vascular structure and function remodeling after TEVAR in TAI young patients. METHODS: We evaluated 20 patients (18 men, age 41 ± 14 years, 11 treated with Gore CTAG, 9 with Medtronic Valiant) with office and 24-hr blood pressure (BP) with specific vascular stiffness analysis (Mobil-O-Graph), aortic diameters (computed tomography scan) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI echocardiogram). Evaluation was done after a median time of 5.0 ± 3.5 years from the trauma. RESULTS: After TAI 12 patients (55%) developed hypertension. When patients were divided according to treating time, those treated for more than 3 years show higher LVMI, PWV, and ascending aorta dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that TEVAR for TAI is associated with heart and vascular remodeling. The presence of TEVAR modifies aortic functional properties and could induce an increase in BP that can promote aortic and cardiac damage, even in young patients.

Multiple Idiopathic Aneurysms in a 6-Year-Old Boy.

We report the rare case of a young boy affected by idiopathic multiple aneurysms at different arterial locations who was treated at our institution with different surgical and endovascular techniques.

Cephalic vein: detail of its anatomy in the deltopectoral triangle / Vena cefálica: detalle de su anatomía en el trígono deltopectoral

The cephalic vein shows a scarce description, especially in the deltopectoral triangle, and its ending in the axillary vein. Some established considerations such as "superficial vein, located in the deltopectoral groove, accompanied by braches of the thoraco-acromial artery, which ends in the deltopectoral triangle in the shape of fan arch" should be reevaluated. Procedures difficulties in the la catheterization deserve for a more accurate description. A descriptive, prospective study is performed. The goal is to determine the anatomy of the cephalic vein in the deltopectoral triangle, with a special focus on the characteristics concerning its path and type of termination. Findings show that the cephalic vein is deeply placed and has a different path than that of an arch (circumference segment on a level) with a retro pectoral path and an acceptable diameter, thus useful and safe in the catheterization processes.

La vena cefálica ha sido poco descrita en el triángulo deltopectoral y su terminación en la vena axilar. Algunas consideraciones la señalan como "la vena superficial, situada en el surco deltopectoral, acompañada de ramas de la arteria toraco-acromial, que termina en el trígono deltopectoral en forma de arco de ventilador" por lo que debe ser reevaluado. Debido a las dificultades en los procedimientos de cateterización la vena cefálica merece una descripción más exacta. Se realizó un estudio descriptivo prospectivo con el objetivo de determinar la anatomía de la vena cefálica en el trígono deltopectoral, dando especial atención a sus trayecto y tipo de terminación. Los resultados demostraron que la vena cefálica está localizada profundamente en el surco deltopectoral, presenta un trayecto distinto a un arco (segmento de la circunferencia de un nivel) siendo este trayecto retropectoral y un diámetro aceptable, por lo tanto, útil y seguro para los procesos de cateterización.