Incidence of endoleak type IA in patients undergoing chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR) vs. standard endovascular repair.

Objectives: Almost half of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures are performed in hostile anatomy, increasing the risk of procedure related complications such as type IA endoleaks, which may be prevented with the chimney technique in EVAR (ChEVAR). Our aim is to describe the differential characteristics between EVAR in favorable anatomy and ChEVAR in hostile necks. Materials and methods: A cohort of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) that were treated with EVAR or ChEVAR were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of type IA endoleak. Secondary outcomes were the rate of chimney occlusion, reintervention, migration, rupture, acute limb ischemia, sac growth, and aneurysm-related mortality during the follow-up period. Results: . With a median follow-up of 11.5 months, 79 patients were treated with EVAR and 21 with ChEVAR. The overall age was 76.49 ± 7.32 years old, and 82% were male. The ChEVAR cohort had a higher prevalence of tobacco use than the EVAR cohort (38.1% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.041), and a shorter neck (7.88 mm ± 5.73 vs 36.28 mm ± 13.73, p<0.001). There were no differences in type IA endoleak incidence between the groups (a single endoleak type IA in the EVAR group, p = 0.309). One patient experienced an asymptomatic chimney occlusion in the ChEVAR group, and another patient required a reintervention due to chimney occlusion. Sac regression and reinterventions were not different between groups. There were no migration, rupture, acute limb ischemia, or aneurysm-related mortality events. Conclusions: . In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, ChEVAR in hostile necks had similar event rates to EVAR in favorable necks.

Objetivos: Aproximadamente la mitad de las reparaciones endovasculares de aneurisma de aorta abdominal (AAA) son realizadas en anatomías hostiles, incrementando el riesgo de complicaciones como endoleaks tipo IA. La técnica con chimeneas (ChEVAR) es una alternativa para disminuir el riesgo de complicaciones en cuellos hostiles. Nuestro objetivo es comparar ambas técnicas (ChEVAR y reparación endovascular convencional [EVAR]) en nuestra medio. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un trabajo de cohorte retrospectivo en pacientes con AAA tratados con EVAR o ChEVAR. El punto final primario fue la incidencia de endoleak tipo IA. Los puntos finales secundarios fueron la incidencia de oclusión de chimeneas, reintervención, migración, ruptura del saco, isquemia aguda de miembros, crecimiento del saco o mortalidad asociada al aneurisma durante el seguimiento. Resultados: Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 11,5 meses, 79 pacientes fueron tratados con EVAR y 21 con chEVAR. La edad promedio fue de 76,49 ± 7,32 años y 82% fueron de sexo masculino. Los pacientes con chEVAR tuvieron mayor prevalencia de consumo tabáquico que los pacientes con EVAR (38,1% vs. 17,7%, p=0,041) y un cuello más corto (7,88 mm ± 5,73 vs. 36,28 mm ± 13,73, p<0,001). No hubo diferencia de endoleak tipo IA entre los grupos. Dos pacientes presentaron la oclusión total de la chimenea, uno de los cuales requirió reintervención. No hubo diferencias en la regresión del tamaño del saco, así como tampoco hubo eventos de migración, ruptura, isquemia del miembro o mortalidad asociada al aneurisma. Conclusiones: En pacientes con AAA, la técnica ChEVAR en cuellos hostiles tuvo eventos similares que EVAR en cuellos favorables.

Outcomes of octogenarians receiving aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is recommended for aneurysms greater than 5.5 cm in men and 5 cm in women. Because AAA is more common among the elderly, we sought to evaluate contemporary practices of elective AAA repair and 2-year postoperative outcomes in octogenarians. METHODS: We identified octogenarians undergoing elective AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2012 to 2019. We included patients undergoing endovascular (EVAR) and open (OAR) aortic repair. Demographics and comorbid conditions were compared between patient groups. Frailty was calculated using previously published methods. Patients with frailty scores above the 75th percentile of the operative cohort were considered high frailty. The primary outcome was 1- and 2-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Standard statistical methods were utilized. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors that affect mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of AAA repair in octogenarians has remained stable. Of all aortic operations, 21.4% were performed on octogenarians; 9735 (23.3% of 41,712) EVAR and 755 (10.3% of 7325) OARs. Among octogenarian patients, 42.0% of EVARs were under size thresholds: 48.3% males ≤5.5 cm diameter and 21.5% females ≤5.0 cm diameter compared with 18.8% OARs: 23.4% males and 10.7% females. Additionally, 25.6% had high frailty scores. Among octogenarians, 1- and 2-year mortality was 9.3% ± 0.3% and 14.8% ± 0.4% for EVAR and 15.2% ± 1.3% and 18.9% ± 1.5% for OAR patients, respectively (P < .01). In-hospital mortality rate was higher after OAR (0.87% EVAR vs 7.55% OAR; P < .01) and differed with frailty (EVAR, low frailty 0.2% vs high frailty 1.7%; OAR, low frailty 2.3% vs high frailty 15.6%). For EVAR, patient factors associated with mortality included heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25; P = .001) and dialysis (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.59; P = .012). For OAR, coronary artery disease (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.98-2.44; P = .062) was associated with mortality. Statin use was protective of mortality for all patients (EVAR: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .01): OAR: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P = .020). Among octogenarians, high frailty was independently associated with 2-year mortality (EVAR: HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.62-4.31; P < .01 and OAR: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.09-5.10; P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, a large portion of elective AAA repair in octogenarians is performed below recommended size thresholds, one-quarter of whom are frail with poor long-term 2-year mortality rates. High 2-year mortality following AAA repair in this age group exceeds the published risk of rupture for 5- to 5.5-cm AAA, suggesting that increase in the size threshold of elective repair among octogenarians should be explored.

Long-term outcomes after endovascular aortic treatment in patients with thoracic aortic diseases.

Background: Endovascular treatments for thoracic aortic diseases have been adopted rapidly, and long-term studies are relevant for durability evaluation. Objective: To evaluate the long-term results of a prospective observational study of endovascular treatment in patients with thoracic aortic diseases who underwent percutaneous implantation of self-expandable endoprostheses. Methods: Procedural success was defined as the absence of endoleak into the aneurysm or dissection-induced false lumen, no migration, and no conversion to open surgery. Intraoperative, postoperative, and late postoperative outcomes were evaluated in terms of complications, mortality, and evolution of the endoprosthesis over a follow-up of up to 179 months (median: 46 months). Results: A total of 150 endoprostheses were implanted in 112 patients. Primary success was observed in 100 (82.14%) patients. Immediate mortality occurred in 7 patients (6.25%). Late mortality occurred in 31 patients (27.68%), 10 (8.93%) of whom died from cardiovascular causes, 12 (10.71%) from non-cardiovascular causes, and 2 (1.78%) from natural causes, while 7 (6.25%) had no diagnosis for cause of death. Types I, II, and IV endoleaks occurred during hospitalization in 4 (3.57%), 5 (4.46%), and 3 (2.68%) patients, respectively. Late types I and IV endoleaks occurred in 5 (4.46%) and 3 (2.68%) patients respectively. Twenty-two patients (19.64%) had clinical complications in the immediate postoperative period. Actuarial survival free from death from cardiovascular causes was 79.3% (95% confidence interval, 67.0-91.7%) at 132 months. Conclusions: The low levels of intraoperative and postoperative complications demonstrate that endovascular treatment is safe and effective. The high rate of late survival for these critically ill patients indicates that the endovascular technique is beneficial for treatment of thoracic aortic diseases in terms of long-term outcomes.

Contexto: Os tratamentos endovasculares para doenças da aorta torácica têm sido adotados rapidamente e estudos de longo prazo são relevantes para avaliação de durabilidade. Objetivo: Avaliar através de estudo observacional e prospectivo, os resultados a longo prazo do tratamento endovascular em pacientes com doenças da aorta torácica submetidos a implante percutâneo de endoprótese autoexpansível. Métodos: O sucesso do procedimento foi definido como ausência de vazamento interno para o aneurisma ou falso lúmen induzido por dissecção, ausência de migração e sem necessidade de conversão para cirurgia aberta. Os resultados intraoperatórios, pós-operatórios e tardios foram avaliados quanto a complicações, mortalidade e evolução da endoprótese em um seguimento de até 179 meses (mediana de 46 meses). Resultados: Um total de 150 endopróteses foram implantadas em 112 pacientes. Sucesso primário foi observado em 100 (82,14%) pacientes. Mortalidade imediata ocorreu em sete pacientes (6,25%). A mortalidade tardia ocorreu em 31 pacientes (27,68%), dos quais 10 (8,93%) morreram por causas cardiovasculares; 12 (10,71%), por causas não cardiovasculares; dois (1,78%), por causas naturais e sete (6,25%) não tiveram a causa da morte diagnosticada. Vazamentos tipo I, II e IV ocorreram durante a internação em quatro (3,57%), cinco (4,46%) e três (2,68%) pacientes, respectivamente. Vazamentos tardios tipo I e IV ocorreram em cinco (4,46%) e três (2,68%) pacientes, respectivamente. Complicações clínicas no pós-operatório imediato foram observadas em 19,64% dos pacientes. A sobrevida atuarial por causas cardiovasculares foi de 79,3% em 132 meses. Conclusões: Os baixos índices de complicações intra e pós-operatórias demonstram que o tratamento endovascular é seguro e eficaz. A alta taxa de sobrevida em 132 meses em pacientes críticos indica que a técnica é benéfica para o tratamento de doenças da aorta torácica em resultados a longo prazo.

Lower-extremity malperfusion syndrome in patients undergoing proximal aortic surgery for acute type A aortic dissection.

Objective: Data regarding management of lower-extremity malperfusion in the setting of type A aortic dissection are limited. This study aimed to compare acute type A aortic dissection with lower-extremity malperfusion outcomes in patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization with no revascularization. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection surgery were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Perioperative variables were compared between patients with and without lower-extremity malperfusion. Factors associated with lower-extremity malperfusion, revascularization, and mortality were determined using univariable Cox regression and Firth's penalized likelihood modeling. Results: From January 2007 to December 2021, 601 patients underwent proximal aortic repair for acute type A aortic dissection at a quaternary care center. Of these, 85 of 601 patients (14%) presented with lower-extremity malperfusion and were more often male (P = .02), had concomitant moderate or greater aortic insufficiency (P = .05), had lower ejection fraction (P = .004), had preoperative dialysis dependence (P = .01), and had additional cerebral, visceral, and renal malperfusion syndromes (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier estimated survival fared worse with lower-extremity malperfusion compared with no lower-extremity malperfusion at 1, 5, and 10 years (84% vs 77%, 74% vs 71%, 65% vs 52%, respectively, P = .03). In the lower-extremity malperfusion group, 15 of 85 patients (18%) underwent lower-extremity revascularization without significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with patients not undergoing revascularization. Need for peripheral revascularization was associated with peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 3.7 [1.0-14.0], P = .05) and pulse deficit (hazard ratio, 5.6 [1.3-24.0], P = .02) at presentation. Conclusions: Patients presenting with type A aortic dissection and lower-extremity malperfusion have worse overall survival compared with those without lower-extremity malperfusion. However, not all patients with type A aortic dissection and lower-extremity malperfusion require revascularization.

Surgical repair of severe dysphagia lusoria.

This case report describes a case of severe dysphagia lusoria secondary to an aberrant right subclavian artery causing compression of the esophagus. Our 62-year-old female patient presented with severe dysphagia and underwent right carotid-subclavian bypass with uncovered thoracic endovascular aortic repair and coil embolization of the aberrant right subclavian artery. This case is unique in that an uncovered dissection stent graft was used to avoid occluding the anatomic left subclavian artery and, therefore, avoid a left carotid-subclavian bypass. This case highlights a unique anatomic variant, its surgical repair, and the long-term improvement in the patient's quality of life.

Results of the in situ fenestration technique for preservation of the Left subclavian artery in the endovascular repair of acute aortic syndromes in a reference center.

INTRODUCTION: The in situ fenestration (ISF) technique consists of maintaining the patency of the aortic branch after the endoprosthesis is already in place as a viable, effective, and fast-performing alternative to revascularize the aortic arch arteries. OBJECTIVE: To report the experience with a series of cases of endovascular treatment of Acute Aortic Syndromes involving the aortic arch, using the ISF technique in a specialized center. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from patients treated with ISF during TEVAR for Acute Aortic Syndromes involving the aortic arch from June 2020 to January 2022, assessing perioperative outcomes, including immediate and late success rates, complications, morbidity and mortality, and short and medium term aortic branch patency. RESULTS: Of the 11 patients eligible for the ISF procedure, 9 were successful, with a technical success rate of 81%. No patient had a type 1A endoleak related to fenestration. There was complete thrombosis of the false lumen in the thoracic aorta in 77% cases. No death was related to the fenestration technique. CONCLUSION: ISF as feasible and with a high rate of technical success and good results in the short and medium term. Prospective studies with long-term clinical follow-up are still needed to fully assess the durability of these unreinforced fenestrations.

Long-term outcomes after endovascular aortic treatment in patients with thoracic aortic diseases / Resultados a longo prazo após tratamento endovascular da aorta em pacientes com doenças da aorta torácica

Abstract Background Endovascular treatments for thoracic aortic diseases have been adopted rapidly, and long-term studies are relevant for durability evaluation. Objective To evaluate the long-term results of a prospective observational study of endovascular treatment in patients with thoracic aortic diseases who underwent percutaneous implantation of self-expandable endoprostheses. Methods Procedural success was defined as the absence of endoleak into the aneurysm or dissection-induced false lumen, no migration, and no conversion to open surgery. Intraoperative, postoperative, and late postoperative outcomes were evaluated in terms of complications, mortality, and evolution of the endoprosthesis over a follow-up of up to 179 months (median: 46 months). Results A total of 150 endoprostheses were implanted in 112 patients. Primary success was observed in 100 (82.14%) patients. Immediate mortality occurred in 7 patients (6.25%). Late mortality occurred in 31 patients (27.68%), 10 (8.93%) of whom died from cardiovascular causes, 12 (10.71%) from non-cardiovascular causes, and 2 (1.78%) from natural causes, while 7 (6.25%) had no diagnosis for cause of death. Types I, II, and IV endoleaks occurred during hospitalization in 4 (3.57%), 5 (4.46%), and 3 (2.68%) patients, respectively. Late types I and IV endoleaks occurred in 5 (4.46%) and 3 (2.68%) patients respectively. Twenty-two patients (19.64%) had clinical complications in the immediate postoperative period. Actuarial survival free from death from cardiovascular causes was 79.3% (95% confidence interval, 67.0-91.7%) at 132 months. Conclusions The low levels of intraoperative and postoperative complications demonstrate that endovascular treatment is safe and effective. The high rate of late survival for these critically ill patients indicates that the endovascular technique is beneficial for treatment of thoracic aortic diseases in terms of long-term outcomes.

Resumo Contexto Os tratamentos endovasculares para doenças da aorta torácica têm sido adotados rapidamente e estudos de longo prazo são relevantes para avaliação de durabilidade. Objetivo Avaliar através de estudo observacional e prospectivo, os resultados a longo prazo do tratamento endovascular em pacientes com doenças da aorta torácica submetidos a implante percutâneo de endoprótese autoexpansível. Métodos O sucesso do procedimento foi definido como ausência de vazamento interno para o aneurisma ou falso lúmen induzido por dissecção, ausência de migração e sem necessidade de conversão para cirurgia aberta. Os resultados intraoperatórios, pós-operatórios e tardios foram avaliados quanto a complicações, mortalidade e evolução da endoprótese em um seguimento de até 179 meses (mediana de 46 meses). Resultados Um total de 150 endopróteses foram implantadas em 112 pacientes. Sucesso primário foi observado em 100 (82,14%) pacientes. Mortalidade imediata ocorreu em sete pacientes (6,25%). A mortalidade tardia ocorreu em 31 pacientes (27,68%), dos quais 10 (8,93%) morreram por causas cardiovasculares; 12 (10,71%), por causas não cardiovasculares; dois (1,78%), por causas naturais e sete (6,25%) não tiveram a causa da morte diagnosticada. Vazamentos tipo I, II e IV ocorreram durante a internação em quatro (3,57%), cinco (4,46%) e três (2,68%) pacientes, respectivamente. Vazamentos tardios tipo I e IV ocorreram em cinco (4,46%) e três (2,68%) pacientes, respectivamente. Complicações clínicas no pós-operatório imediato foram observadas em 19,64% dos pacientes. A sobrevida atuarial por causas cardiovasculares foi de 79,3% em 132 meses. Conclusões Os baixos índices de complicações intra e pós-operatórias demonstram que o tratamento endovascular é seguro e eficaz. A alta taxa de sobrevida em 132 meses em pacientes críticos indica que a técnica é benéfica para o tratamento de doenças da aorta torácica em resultados a longo prazo.

Endovascular repair of aortobronchial fistula three decades after open repair of traumatic aortic transection: A case report and 3-year follow-up.

A rare and lethal vascular condition is the communication of the thoracic aorta and tracheobronchial tree. Typically, the development occurs after open or endovascular aortic repair that has been complicated by infection and usually presents with hemoptysis as the heralding event, which can lead to massive hemorrhage. Computed tomography angiography remains the diagnostic imaging modality of choice. Medical management will be futile, with the need for expedited operative intervention via open, endovascular, or hybrid open and endovascular repair.

A Catastrophic Complication of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Aortoesophageal Fistula.

A 62-year-old man was admitted to the hospital due to sepsis secondary to a hemodialysis catheter-related infection that, upon diagnostic evaluation, demonstrated to be caused by P. aeruginosa and was treated with meropenem. Eradication of the infectious episode was confirmed by blood workup, including cultures. One month after the initial episode, the patient was readmitted due to a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer, which was classified as a cardiovascular emergency. The patient underwent an aortic stent-graft placement. Four weeks later, he presented to the emergency department with a 2-hour onset of thoracic pain and massive hematemesis. The esophagus and aortic segment with aortic stent graft were resected en bloc after an aortoesophageal fistula was diagnosed.

Early and late results of open surgical and endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, selected according to surgical risk.

BACKGROUND: Open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surgery are alternative treatments for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IRAAA). OBJECTIVES: To compare OSR and EVAR for the treatment of IRAAA. METHODS: 119 patients with IRAAA were electively operated by the same surgeon between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, following selection for OSR or EVAR according to surgical risk. Complications, reinterventions, failures, and early and late mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: 63 OSR and 56 EVAR patients were analyzed. They were similar in terms of age (70 years), gender (92% men), and average diameter of IRAAA (6.5 cm), but with different comorbidities, surgical risk, and anatomy. EVAR was better than OSR regarding time in the operating theatre (177.5 vs. 233.3 minutes), need for transfusion (25 vs. 73%), and length of stay in ICU (1.3 vs. 3.3 days) and hospital (8.1 vs. 11.1 days). OSR allowed more associated procedures to be conducted simultaneously (19.0 vs. 1.8%). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to complications (25.4 vs. 25.1%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 5.2%), or early mortality (1.6 vs. 0%). During follow-up, OSR was associated with fewer revisions (3.13 vs. 4.21), angio-CTs (0.22 vs. 3.23), complications (6.4 vs. 37.5%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 23.2%), and failures (1.6 vs. 10.7%), and had better survival (78.2 vs. 63.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Correct selection of patients achieves excellent results because it avoids OSR in patients at high risk and avoids EVAR in patients with high anatomical complexity, achieving similar results in the perioperative period, but better results for OSR over the course of follow-up.

CONTEXTO: A cirurgia aberta (CA) e o reparo endovascular de aneurisma (REVA) são tratamentos alternativos para o aneurisma da aorta abdominal infrarrenal (AAAIR). OBJETIVOS: Comparar CA e REVA no tratamento do AAAIR. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 119 pacientes com AAAIR, operados eletivamente pelo mesmo cirurgião entre 1 de janeiro de 2006 e 31 de dezembro de 2015, após seleção para CA ou REVA de acordo com o risco cirúrgico. Complicações, reintervenções, falhas e mortalidade precoce e tardia foram analisadas. RESULTADOS: Foram analisados 63 pacientes de CA e 56 de REVA, com semelhanças de idade (70 anos), sexo (92% homens) e diâmetro médio do AAAIR (6,5 cm), mas com diferentes comorbidades, riscos cirúrgicos e anatomias. O REVA foi melhor que a CA em relação ao tempo na sala de cirurgia (177,5 vs. 233,3 minutos), necessidade de transfusão (25 vs. 73%) e tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva (1,3 vs. 3,3 dias) e no hospital (8,1 vs. 11,1 dias). A CA permitiu que mais procedimentos associados fossem realizados simultaneamente (19,0 vs. 1,8%). Não houve diferenças significativas entre os grupos em relação a complicações (25,4 vs. 25,1%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 5,2%) e mortalidade precoce (1,6 vs. 0%). Durante o acompanhamento, a CA apresentou menos revisões (3,13 vs. 4,21), angiotomografias (0,22 vs. 3,23), complicações (6,4 vs. 37,5%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 23,2%) e falhas (1,6 vs. 10,7%), além de ter melhor sobrevida (78,2 vs. 63,2%). CONCLUSÕES: A seleção correta dos pacientes proporciona excelentes resultados porque evita pacientes com alto risco para CA e com complexidade anatômica para REVA. Os resultados são semelhantes no período perioperatório, mas melhores para CA durante o acompanhamento.

Blunt aortic injury: Surgical treatment of the ascending and descending aorta.

Traumatic aortic injury is potentially fatal. Although uncommon, involvement of the aortic arch and the ascending aorta can occur. This case shows concomitant dissection of the ascending and descending sections of the aorta after blunt chest trauma where the open surgical approach was successfully performed to treat both aortic injuries.

Retroperitoneal iliac conduits as an alternative access site for endovascular aortic repair: a tertiary care center experience.

Background: Retroperitoneal open iliac conduits (ROIC) are used in patients with hostile iliac anatomy undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Objectives: We hereby report our experience of ROIC in patients subjected to EVAR. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of 8 patients out of a total of 75 patients (11%) who underwent EVAR in the last 10 years. Pre-procedure computed tomography angiography was used to assess the dimensions of iliac and femoral arteries. Patients who had small arterial dimensions (i.e. smaller than the recommended access size for the aortic endograft device) were subjected to ROIC. Results: The mean age of the 3 males and 5 females studied was 45.7 ± 15.2 years. The indication for ROIC was the small caliber ilio-femoral access site in 7 patients and atherosclerotic disease in 1 patient. All external grafts were anastomosed to the right common iliac artery except one which was anastomosed to the aortic bifurcation site because of a small common iliac artery. The procedural success rate was 100%. Local access site complications included infection (n=1), retroperitoneal hematoma (n=1), and need for blood transfusion (n=3). The median post-intervention hospital stay was 10 days. All patients had favorable long-term outcomes at a median follow-up of 18 months. Conclusions: Female patients require ROIC during EVAR more frequently. Adjunctive use of iliac conduit for EVAR was associated with favorable perioperative and short-term outcomes.

Contexto: Os condutos ilíacos abertos retroperitoneais são utilizados em pacientes submetidos a reparo endovascular de aneurisma (REVA) com anatomia ilíaca hostil. Objetivos: Relatamos a nossa experiência com os condutos ilíacos em pacientes submetidos a REVA. Métodos: Trata-se de uma avaliação retrospectiva de oito pacientes, de um total de 75 (11%), os quais foram submetidos a REVA nos últimos 10 anos. Foi realizada angiotomografia computadorizada antes do procedimento para avaliar as dimensões das artérias ilíaca e femoral. Os pacientes com dimensões arteriais menores, abaixo do tamanho de acesso recomendado para o dispositivo de endoprótese aórtica, foram submetidos a condutos ilíacos. Resultados: A média de idade dos participantes foi de 45,7±15,2 anos, sendo três do sexo masculino e cinco do sexo feminino. As indicações para condutos ilíacos foram local de acesso ilíaco femoral de pequeno calibre, para sete pacientes, e doença aterosclerótica, para um paciente. Todas as próteses externas foram anastomosadas na artéria ilíaca comum direita, com exceção de uma, que foi anastomosada no local da bifurcação aórtica por apresentar artéria ilíaca comum menor. A taxa de sucesso do procedimento foi de 100%. As complicações no local de acesso incluíram infecção (n = 1), hematoma retroperitoneal (n = 1) e necessidade de transfusão de sangue (n = 3). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar pós-intervenção foi de 10 dias. Todos os pacientes apresentaram desfechos de longo prazo favoráveis no seguimento mediano de 18 meses. Conclusões: As pacientes do sexo feminino necessitaram de condutos ilíacos durante REVA com maior frequência. O uso adjuvante de condutos ilíacos com REVA foi associado a desfechos perioperatórios e de curto prazo favoráveis.

The ascending aorta and arch in the sights of transcatheter therapy: A time for reappraisal.

The ascending aorta and arch have until recently been one of the last bastions of cardiovascular surgery, where life-threatening diseases impose the need for prompt correction and reversal of the impending adverse prognosis. Though a disease where dogmatic recommendations prevail, with upfront surgical intervention in the mind of every physician, type A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a subject still blurred with many uncertainties. Endovascular intervention for the treatment of type A AAD is rapidly progressing and utilization of transcatheter therapies in the ascending aorta for treating type A AAD has demonstrated technical success in small studies, low early mortality rates, and relatively acceptable aorta-related mortality rates in the long term. These findings strengthen the preponderant role of the endovascular heart surgeon in the management of these procedures, where a combination of wire skill training and surgical proficiency encompassing all technical options available makes it distinctive and resourceful, which provides complete resolution to each multicomponent of this disease in one setting, besides the promptness to repair the inherent complications that will accompany these interventions. Transcatheter procedures and open surgery will coexist side by side and be regarded as complementary rather than competing. Substantial more refinement and technological innovation will be necessary before endovascular repair of type A AAD comes to widespread use, the ideal timespan for cardiovascular surgeons to be involved, and prepared to take on the challenges of leading this new enterprise.

Retroperitoneal iliac conduits as an alternative access site for endovascular aortic repair: a tertiary care center experience / Condutos ilíacos retroperitoneais como local de acesso alternativo para reparo endovascular de aneurisma: experiência em centro de atenção terciária

Abstract Background Retroperitoneal open iliac conduits (ROIC) are used in patients with hostile iliac anatomy undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Objectives We hereby report our experience of ROIC in patients subjected to EVAR. Methods This was a retrospective evaluation of 8 patients out of a total of 75 patients (11%) who underwent EVAR in the last 10 years. Pre-procedure computed tomography angiography was used to assess the dimensions of iliac and femoral arteries. Patients who had small arterial dimensions (i.e. smaller than the recommended access size for the aortic endograft device) were subjected to ROIC. Results The mean age of the 3 males and 5 females studied was 45.7 ± 15.2 years. The indication for ROIC was the small caliber ilio-femoral access site in 7 patients and atherosclerotic disease in 1 patient. All external grafts were anastomosed to the right common iliac artery except one which was anastomosed to the aortic bifurcation site because of a small common iliac artery. The procedural success rate was 100%. Local access site complications included infection (n=1), retroperitoneal hematoma (n=1), and need for blood transfusion (n=3). The median post-intervention hospital stay was 10 days. All patients had favorable long-term outcomes at a median follow-up of 18 months. Conclusions Female patients require ROIC during EVAR more frequently. Adjunctive use of iliac conduit for EVAR was associated with favorable perioperative and short-term outcomes.

Resumo Contexto Os condutos ilíacos abertos retroperitoneais são utilizados em pacientes submetidos a reparo endovascular de aneurisma (REVA) com anatomia ilíaca hostil. Objetivos Relatamos a nossa experiência com os condutos ilíacos em pacientes submetidos a REVA. Métodos Trata-se de uma avaliação retrospectiva de oito pacientes, de um total de 75 (11%), os quais foram submetidos a REVA nos últimos 10 anos. Foi realizada angiotomografia computadorizada antes do procedimento para avaliar as dimensões das artérias ilíaca e femoral. Os pacientes com dimensões arteriais menores, abaixo do tamanho de acesso recomendado para o dispositivo de endoprótese aórtica, foram submetidos a condutos ilíacos. Resultados A média de idade dos participantes foi de 45,7±15,2 anos, sendo três do sexo masculino e cinco do sexo feminino. As indicações para condutos ilíacos foram local de acesso ilíaco femoral de pequeno calibre, para sete pacientes, e doença aterosclerótica, para um paciente. Todas as próteses externas foram anastomosadas na artéria ilíaca comum direita, com exceção de uma, que foi anastomosada no local da bifurcação aórtica por apresentar artéria ilíaca comum menor. A taxa de sucesso do procedimento foi de 100%. As complicações no local de acesso incluíram infecção (n = 1), hematoma retroperitoneal (n = 1) e necessidade de transfusão de sangue (n = 3). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar pós-intervenção foi de 10 dias. Todos os pacientes apresentaram desfechos de longo prazo favoráveis no seguimento mediano de 18 meses. Conclusões As pacientes do sexo feminino necessitaram de condutos ilíacos durante REVA com maior frequência. O uso adjuvante de condutos ilíacos com REVA foi associado a desfechos perioperatórios e de curto prazo favoráveis.

Early and late results of open surgical and endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, selected according to surgical risk / Resultados precoces e tardios dos tratamentos aberto e endovascular de aneurismas da aorta abdominal infrarrenal, selecionados de acordo com o risco cirúrgico

Abstract Background Open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surgery are alternative treatments for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IRAAA). Objectives To compare OSR and EVAR for the treatment of IRAAA. Methods 119 patients with IRAAA were electively operated by the same surgeon between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, following selection for OSR or EVAR according to surgical risk. Complications, reinterventions, failures, and early and late mortality were analyzed. Results 63 OSR and 56 EVAR patients were analyzed. They were similar in terms of age (70 years), gender (92% men), and average diameter of IRAAA (6.5 cm), but with different comorbidities, surgical risk, and anatomy. EVAR was better than OSR regarding time in the operating theatre (177.5 vs. 233.3 minutes), need for transfusion (25 vs. 73%), and length of stay in ICU (1.3 vs. 3.3 days) and hospital (8.1 vs. 11.1 days). OSR allowed more associated procedures to be conducted simultaneously (19.0 vs. 1.8%). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to complications (25.4 vs. 25.1%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 5.2%), or early mortality (1.6 vs. 0%). During follow-up, OSR was associated with fewer revisions (3.13 vs. 4.21), angio-CTs (0.22 vs. 3.23), complications (6.4 vs. 37.5%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 23.2%), and failures (1.6 vs. 10.7%), and had better survival (78.2 vs. 63.2%). Conclusions Correct selection of patients achieves excellent results because it avoids OSR in patients at high risk and avoids EVAR in patients with high anatomical complexity, achieving similar results in the perioperative period, but better results for OSR over the course of follow-up.

Resumo Contexto A cirurgia aberta (CA) e o reparo endovascular de aneurisma (REVA) são tratamentos alternativos para o aneurisma da aorta abdominal infrarrenal (AAAIR). Objetivos Comparar CA e REVA no tratamento do AAAIR. Métodos Foram incluídos 119 pacientes com AAAIR, operados eletivamente pelo mesmo cirurgião entre 1 de janeiro de 2006 e 31 de dezembro de 2015, após seleção para CA ou REVA de acordo com o risco cirúrgico. Complicações, reintervenções, falhas e mortalidade precoce e tardia foram analisadas. Resultados Foram analisados 63 pacientes de CA e 56 de REVA, com semelhanças de idade (70 anos), sexo (92% homens) e diâmetro médio do AAAIR (6,5 cm), mas com diferentes comorbidades, riscos cirúrgicos e anatomias. O REVA foi melhor que a CA em relação ao tempo na sala de cirurgia (177,5 vs. 233,3 minutos), necessidade de transfusão (25 vs. 73%) e tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva (1,3 vs. 3,3 dias) e no hospital (8,1 vs. 11,1 dias). A CA permitiu que mais procedimentos associados fossem realizados simultaneamente (19,0 vs. 1,8%). Não houve diferenças significativas entre os grupos em relação a complicações (25,4 vs. 25,1%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 5,2%) e mortalidade precoce (1,6 vs. 0%). Durante o acompanhamento, a CA apresentou menos revisões (3,13 vs. 4,21), angiotomografias (0,22 vs. 3,23), complicações (6,4 vs. 37,5%), reintervenções (3,2 vs. 23,2%) e falhas (1,6 vs. 10,7%), além de ter melhor sobrevida (78,2 vs. 63,2%). Conclusões A seleção correta dos pacientes proporciona excelentes resultados porque evita pacientes com alto risco para CA e com complexidade anatômica para REVA. Os resultados são semelhantes no período perioperatório, mas melhores para CA durante o acompanhamento.

Reinterventions in the modern era of thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Using a national data set, we sought to describe the population of patients and the nature and timing of reinterventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by aortic disease as well as their impact on survival. METHODS: We evaluated the national data set for TEVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2017. Student t-test and χ2 analysis were used to compare continuous and categorical variables in the reintervention and no reintervention groups, respectively. Freedom from reintervention and survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 7006 patients were evaluated: 51.2% thoracic aortic aneurysm, 33.5% type B dissection (TBD), 7.0% penetrating aortic ulcer, 6.7% trauma, and 1.6% intramural hematoma. Overall, 553 patients (7.9%) underwent at least one reintervention, with an in-hospital reintervention rate of 3.5%. Reinterventions were most commonly performed for TBD (11.5%), with reinterventions for other diseases occurring at lower rates: thoracic aortic aneurysm, 6.7%; intramural hematoma, 5.4%; penetrating aortic ulcer, 4.8%; and trauma, 1.8%. The most common cause of reintervention across all aortic diseases was type I endoleak. The most common long-term reinterventions were placement of endovascular stent graft (65%), other surgical treatments (15.9%), other endovascular treatment (13%), endovascular branch treatment (12.4%), surgical treatment with no device removal (11.0%), and surgical branch treatment (10.4%). Freedom from reintervention was decreased for TBD compared with other diseases (P < .001). There was no difference in survival comparing patients undergoing reinterventions and those without (P = .87). However, patients undergoing in-hospital reintervention trended toward increased mortality (P = .075). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas reinterventions were not rare after TEVAR, there was no difference in mortality between patients undergoing reintervention and those without. Patients undergoing TEVAR for TBD demonstrated the highest reintervention rate. This study highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to address disease-specific patterns of reintervention.

Midterm Follow-up of Fenestrated and Scalloped Physician-Modified Endovascular Grafts for Zone 2 TEVAR.

Purpose: To investigate the midterm outcomes of scalloped or fenestrated physician-modified endovascular grafts (PMEGs) for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: Between November 2013 and May 2019, 54 consecutive patients (mean age 63 years; 41 men) were treated with thoracic PMEGs modified with 7 scallops or 47 fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA). Indications for aortic repair were acute complicated type B aortic dissection (17, 31%), degenerative aneurysm (13, 24%), acute traumatic rupture of the aortic isthmus (9, 16%), post chronic dissection aneurysmal evolution (8, 15%), penetrating aortic ulcer (3, 6%), intramural hematoma (2, 4%), and floating thrombus (2, 4%). Results: Technical success was 94%; 3 (6%) LSAs were unintentionally covered. An intraoperative type Ia endoleak was treated during the index procedure. One (2%) patient suffered spinal cord ischemia, with irreversible bilateral paraplegia. Three (6%) patients experience postoperative minor strokes with full neurological recovery. Four (7%) patients died in the perioperative period; 2 (2%) were due to aneurysm rupture. Mean follow-up was 26±16 months; 15 (28%) patients had at least 3 years of follow-up. Two (4%) type II endoleaks were identified and successfully treated (4% reintervention rate); no other endoleaks were identified. All the LSAs remained clinically and radiologically patent. There were no conversions to open repair, ruptures, retrograde dissection, stent fracture, migrations, or other aortic complications. Conclusion: Scalloped or single-fenestrated PMEGs for the LSA appear to be durable and safe in the midterm. Combined with low periprocedural morbidity and mortality, these results suggest that this approach can be considered as an off-label alternative to extend proximal seal to zone 2 for TEVAR. Further studies with a larger number of patients and long-term outcomes are needed to fully validate this approach.

Acute Aortic Syndrome of Ascending Thoracic Aorta: Transcarotid Percutaneous Exclusion of a Ruptured Pseudoaneurysm.

Treatment of ascending aorta disease is surgical; however, some series have evaluated the effectiveness of endovascular treatment. We report the case of a patient with a ruptured pseudoaneurysm who underwent endovascular repair via the left common carotid artery. The clinical and neurological evolution was satisfactory during the in-hospital follow-up. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Comparison of type B dissection by open, endovascular, and medical treatments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address the shortcomings of previous clinical trials that were inadequate to prove the superiority of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in managing type B aortic dissection (TBAD) over open surgery (OS) or best medical treatment (BMT). The comparative effectiveness of these three treatments was analyzed using data of the National Inpatient Sample, a large U.S. database including patients from 4378 hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with a primary or secondary TBAD in the years 2005 to 2012 were included for analysis. Patients who had aortic aneurysm or received cardioplegia, valve repair, or operations on vessels of the heart were excluded. A three-category propensity score was created by using a multinomial logistic regression model, a three-way matching algorithm for 1:1:1 matching was applied, and a parallel outcome comparison between the three matched treatment groups was performed. RESULTS: Of a total of 54,971 patients included in the study, we matched 17,211 into three equal-size treatment groups (OS, 5755; TEVAR, 5695; BMT, 5761). No significant difference in the 22 baseline covariates was found in the matched cohort. We found TEVAR to have a much lower mortality rate than OS (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.79) or BMT (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83). Mortality rates between OS and BMT were similar (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.27). We also found TEVAR to have a lower complication rate, shorter hospitalization, and lower medical cost compared with OS. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is superior to BMT or OS for treatment of TBAD in terms of mortality, complications, and cost.

Thirty-day outcomes from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B dissection project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment. METHODS: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention. RESULTS: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients.