Venographic classification and long-term surgical treatment outcomes for axillary-subclavian vein thrombosis due to venous thoracic outlet syndrome (Paget-Schroetter syndrome).

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the clinical presentation, operative findings, and surgical treatment outcomes for axillary-subclavian vein (AxSCV) thrombosis due to venous thoracic outlet syndrome (VTOS). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center review of 266 patients who had undergone primary surgical treatment of VTOS between 2016 and 2022. The clinical outcomes were compared between the patients in four treatment groups determined by intraoperative venography. RESULTS: Of the 266 patients, 132 were male and 134 were female. All patients had a history of spontaneous arm swelling and idiopathic AxSCV thrombosis, including 25 (9%) with proven pulmonary embolism, at a mean age of 32.1 ± 0.8 years (range, 12-66 years). The timing of clinical presentation was acute (<15 days) for 132 patients (50%), subacute (15-90 days) for 71 (27%), and chronic (>90 days) for 63 patients (24%). Venography with catheter-directed thrombolysis or thrombectomy (CDT) and/or balloon angioplasty had been performed in 188 patients (71%). The median interval between symptom onset and surgery was 78 days. After paraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression and external venolysis, intraoperative venography showed a widely patent AxSCV in 150 patients (56%). However, 26 (10%) had a long chronic AxSCV occlusion with axillary vein inflow insufficient for bypass reconstruction. Patch angioplasty was performed for focal AxSCV stenosis in 55 patients (21%) and bypass graft reconstruction for segmental AxSCV occlusion in 35 (13%). The patients who underwent external venolysis alone (patent or occluded AxSCV; n = 176) had a shorter mean operative time, shorter postoperative length of stay and fewer reoperations and late reinterventions compared with those who underwent AxSCV reconstruction (patch or bypass; n = 90), with no differences in the incidence of overall complications or 30-day readmissions. At a median clinical follow-up of 38.7 months, 246 patients (93%) had no arm swelling, and only 17 (6%) were receiving anticoagulation treatment; 95% of those with a patent AxSCV at the end of surgery were free of arm swelling vs 69% of those with a long chronic AxSCV occlusion (P < .001). The patients who had undergone CDT at the initial diagnosis were 32% less likely to need AxSCV reconstruction at surgery (30% vs 44%; P = .034) and 60% less likely to have arm swelling at follow-up (5% vs 13%; P < .05) vs those who had not undergone CDT. CONCLUSIONS: Paraclavicular decompression, external venolysis, and selective AxSCV reconstruction determined by intraoperative venography findings can provide successful and durable treatment for >90% of all patients with VTOS. Further work is needed to achieve earlier recognition of AxSCV thrombosis, prompt usage of CDT, and even more effective surgical treatment.

Anatomic characteristics associated with superior mesenteric artery stent graft placement during fenestrated para/suprarenal aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: According to the instructions for use, fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with the Zenith fenestrated endograft (ZFEN; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) requires ≥4 mm of nonaneurysmal infrarenal neck length, and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenting is optional. In the present study, we evaluated the outcomes of FEVAR with SMA stent grafting relative to SMA scallops or unstented fenestrations and their anatomic differences. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone FEVAR with an SMA scallop or large fenestration with and without SMA stent grafting from June 2012 to May 2020 after institutional review board approval. RESULTS: Of the 203 aneurysms repaired with ZFENs, 127 were included in our analysis. Of these 127 aneurysms, 55 had stent grafted SMA fenestrations, 38 unstented SMA fenestrations, and 34 SMA scallops. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The operative times were longer (335.5 ± 16.4 minutes vs 265.0 ± 12.8 minutes vs 269.0 ± 12.7 minutes; P < .001) and the transfusion rates were higher (33% vs 8% vs 18%; P = .01) in the SMA stent graft group. However, the fluoroscopy time (65.4 ± 3.76 minutes vs 58.3 ± 3.94 minutes vs 51.4 ± 4.75 minutes; P = .05) and contrast volume (92.2 ± 5.17 mL vs 87.1 ± 6.73 mL vs 93.1 ± 5.89 mL; P = .84) were not significantly different. Anatomically, the patients who had undergone FEVAR with a ZFEN and SMA stent grafting had had shorter infrarenal neck (1.73 ± 1.18 mm vs 4.92 ± 1.16 mm vs 6.28 ± 1.42 mm; P = .03) and infra-SMA neck (10.3 ± 1.39 mm vs 23.9 ± 1.24 mm vs 26.8 ± 1.67 mm; P < .001) lengths. In the SMA stent graft group, one patient had developed small bowel necrosis after embolization of an intraoperatively perforated jejunal branch and two had developed colonic ischemia of unclear etiology with patent SMA stent grafts found on imaging. Endograft migration and SMA occlusion with bowel ischemia occurred in one patient in the SMA fenestration group. Overall mortality (24% vs 21% vs 18%; P = .82) and 30-day mortality (5% vs 3% vs 3%; P = .80) were comparable between the three groups. In addition, the incidence of type III endoleak (5% vs 3% vs 3%; P = .45) and the need for reintervention (20% vs 18% vs 12%; P = .60) were similar across all three groups. The mean follow-up duration was longer for the SMA scallop group, which can be attributed to 82% of these occurring in the first one half of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the added technical complexity, SMA stenting enabled FEVAR in patients with pararenal and suprarenal aneurysms with high rates of technical success and no increased risk of mortality, major adverse events, type III endoleaks, or reintervention.

CT of the Difficult Acute Aortic Syndrome.

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is classically attributed to three underlying pathologic conditions-aortic dissection (AD), intramural hematoma (IMH), and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU). In the majority of cases, the basics of image interpretation are not difficult and have been extensively reviewed in the literature. In this article, the authors extend existing imaging overviews of AAS by highlighting additional factors related to the diagnosis, classification, and characterization of difficult AAS cases. It has been well documented that AAS is caused not only by an AD but by a spectrum of lesions that often have overlap in imaging features and are not clearly distinguishable. Specifically, phase of contrast enhancement, flow artifacts, and flapless AD equivalents can complicate diagnosis and are discussed. While the A/B dichotomy of the Stanford system is still used, the authors subsequently emphasize the Society for Vascular Surgery's new guidelines for the description of acute aortic pathologic conditions given the expanded use of endovascular techniques used in aortic repair. In the final section, atypical aortic rupture and pitfalls are described. As examples of pericardial and shared sheath rupture become more prevalent in the literature, it is important to recognize contrast material third-spacing and mediastinal blood as potential mimics. By understanding these factors related to difficult cases of AAS, the diagnostic radiologist will be able to accurately refine CT interpretation and thus provide information that is best suited to directing management. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2021.

Imaging of Genetic Thoracic Aortopathy.

Aortopathy is a term most commonly used to describe a group of genetic diseases that predispose patients to an elevated risk of aortic events including aneurysm and acute aortic syndrome. Types of genetic aortopathy are classified as either heritable or congenital, with heritable thoracic aortic disease (HTAD) further subclassified into syndromic HTAD or nonsyndromic HTAD, the former of which is associated with specific phenotypic features. Radiologists may be the first physicians to encounter features of genetic aortopathy, either incidentally or at the time of an acute aortic event. Identifying patients with genetic aortopathy is of substantial importance to clinicians who manage thoracic aortic disease, because aortic diameter thresholds for surgical intervention are often lower than those for nongenetic aortopathy related to aging and hypertension. In addition, when reparative surgery is performed, the approach and extent of the repair may differ in patients with genetic aortopathy. The radiologist should also be familiar with competing diagnoses that can result in acute aortic events, mainly acquired inflammatory and noninflammatory thoracic aortic disease, because these conditions may be associated with increased risks of similar pathologic endpoints. Because many imaging and phenotypic features of various types of genetic aortopathy overlap, diagnosis and determination of appropriate follow-up recommendations can be challenging. A multidisciplinary approach with the use of imaging is often required and, once the diagnosis is made, imaging has additional importance because of the need for lifelong follow-up. ©RSNA, 2022.

Endovascular and Hybrid Repair in Patients with Heritable Thoracic Aortic Disease.

BACKGROUND: In individuals with heritable thoracic aortic disease (HTAD), endovascular repair for treatment of aortic aneurysm and dissection may be lifesaving, but is associated with increased risk of failure of endovascular repair and adverse outcomes. This study reports our experience with early and late outcomes of endovascular aortic and branch vessel repair in patients with HTAD. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed by chart review of individuals with HTAD followed at Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes-Jewish Hospital who underwent endovascular aortic and/or branch vessel repair. Clinical features, imaging characteristics, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with HTAD (20 male; mean age 45 ± 13 years) underwent 37 endovascular procedures between 2006 and 2020 with mean follow up of 54 ± 41 months. Seven patients underwent two or more separate endovascular procedures. Each procedure was considered separate for data collection and analysis. Underlying conditions included Marfan syndrome (n = 16 procedures), Loeys-Dietz syndrome (n = 14 procedures), vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (n = 3 procedures), and nonsyndromic HTAD (n = 4 procedures). Twenty patients (69%) had prior open surgical aortic repair. Indications for endovascular aortic repair (n = 31) included urgent repairs of acute complications of aortic dissection (n = 10) or aneurysm rupture (n = 3), and elective aortic repair (n = 18; 10 chronic dissections and eight chronic aneurysms). Six patients underwent elective endovascular repair of six branch vessel aneurysms or dissections. Six patients underwent hybrid open surgical and endovascular repair. Of the 37 procedures, 25 (68%) proximal landing zones were in the native aorta or branch vessel, 11 (30%) were in a surgical graft or elephant trunk and one was in a previously placed endograft. Thirty-six (97%) procedures were technically successful, and none required emergency surgical conversion. Two patients died: one from sepsis and one from presumed late pseudoaneurysm rupture, for a 5% per-procedure mortality rate. Two procedures were complicated by stroke and one patient developed paraparesis. Of the 31 aortic procedures, seven aortic endografts (23%) developed a stent-induced new entry (SINE) discovered with imaging at 20 ± 15 days post-procedure. Seven endografts (23%) developed a Type I endoleak and eight (26%) developed a Type II endoleak. No Type III endoleaks were seen. Within 30 days, two endografts (of 37, 5%) required reintervention. After 30 days, fifteen additional endografts (of 37, 41%) required reintervention. Two patients (of 6, 33%) who underwent hybrid repair required reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest single-center case series examining outcomes of HTAD patients following endovascular repair. Urgent and elective endovascular repairs in patients with HTAD can manage acute and chronic complications of aortic aneurysm and dissection with relatively low risk. However, risk of early and late endoleaks and SINE is high. Close post-procedural surveillance is required, and many individuals will require additional interventions. Hybrid repair shows promise and requires further investigation.

CT of Postoperative Repair of the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch.

While many of the classic open surgical repairs are still used to repair the ascending aorta, management of the aortic arch has become more complex via implementation of newer open surgical and endovascular techniques. Furthermore, techniques are often combined in novel repairs or to allow extended anatomic coverage. As such, a framework that rests on understanding the expected postoperative appearance is necessary for the diagnostic radiologist to best interpret CT studies in these patients. After reviewing the imaging appearances of the common components used in proximal aortic repair, the authors present a structured approach that focuses on the key relevant questions that diagnostic radiologists should consider when interpreting CT studies in these patients. For repair of the ascending aorta, this includes determining whether the aortic valve has been repaired, whether the sinuses of Valsalva have been repaired, and how the coronary arteries were managed, when necessary. In repairs that involve the aortic arch, the relevant considerations relate to management of the arch vessels and the distal extent of the repair. In focusing on these questions, the diagnostic radiologist will be able to identify and describe the vast majority of repairs. Understanding these questions will also facilitate improved understanding of novel repairs, which often use these basic building blocks. Finally, complications-which typically involve infection, noninfectious repair breakdown, hemorrhage, problems with endografts, or disease of the remaining adjacent aorta-will be identifiable as deviations from the expected postoperative appearance. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2021.

Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Continuous Perineural Local Anesthetic Infusion for Postoperative Pain Control After Supraclavicular Decompression for Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Matched Case-Control Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if single injection erector spinae plane blocks are associated with improved pain control, opioid use, numbness, length of stay, or patient satisfaction compared to intraoperatively placed continuous perineural infusion of local anesthetic after decompression of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary academic center of eighty patients that underwent supraclavicular decompression for thoracic outlet syndrome between May 2019 and January 2020. Forty consecutive patients treated with single-injection preoperative erector spinae plane blocks were retrospectively compared to 40 age- and gender-matched controls treated with continuous perineural infusion. RESULTS: The primary outcome of mean pain scores was not significantly different between the erector spinae and perineural infusion groups over the three-day study period (4.2-5.3 vs 3.0-5.1 P=0.08). On post-operative day 0, mean pain scores were significantly higher in the erector spinae group (4.2 vs 3.0, P=0.02). While statistically significant, the score was still lower in the erector spinae group on day 0 than on day 1,2, or 3 in either group. Opioid use, nausea, length of stay and patient satisfaction were also similar. Upper extremity numbness was significantly less severe in the erector spinae group (36% vs 73% moderate-extreme, P=0.03) at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-two-hour perineural local anesthetic infusion did not provide superior analgesia compared to preoperative single-injection erector spinae blocks. Furthermore, there was significantly less long-term postoperative numbness associated with erector spinae blocks compared to perineural local anesthetic infusion.

Evaluation and treatment of thoracic outlet syndrome during the global pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

The global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic has required a reduction in nonemergency treatment for a variety of disorders. This report summarizes conclusions of an international multidisciplinary consensus group assembled to address evaluation and treatment of patients with thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS), a group of conditions characterized by extrinsic compression of the neurovascular structures serving the upper extremity. The following recommendations were developed in relation to the three defined types of TOS (neurogenic, venous, and arterial) and three phases of pandemic response (preparatory, urgent with limited resources, and emergency with complete diversion of resources). • In-person evaluation and treatment for neurogenic TOS (interventional or surgical) are generally postponed during all pandemic phases, with telephone/telemedicine visits and at-home physical therapy exercises recommended when feasible. • Venous TOS presenting with acute upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (Paget-Schroetter syndrome) is managed primarily with anticoagulation, with percutaneous interventions for venous TOS (thrombolysis) considered in early phases (I and II) and surgical treatment delayed until pandemic conditions resolve. Catheter-based interventions may also be considered for selected patients with central subclavian vein obstruction and threatened hemodialysis access in all pandemic phases, with definitive surgical treatment postponed. • Evaluation and surgical treatment for arterial TOS should be reserved for limb-threatening situations, such as acute upper extremity ischemia or acute digital embolization, in all phases of pandemic response. In late pandemic phases, surgery should be restricted to thrombolysis or brachial artery thromboembolectomy, with more definitive treatment delayed until pandemic conditions resolve.

Management of Seat Belt-type Blunt Abdominal Aortic Trauma and Associated Injuries in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: "Seat belt-type" pediatric abdominal aortic trauma is uncommon but potentially lethal. During high speed motor vehicle collisions (MVCs), seat or lap belt restraints may concentrate forces in a band-like pattern across the abdomen, resulting in the triad of hollow viscus perforation, spine fracture, and aortoiliac injury. We report 4 cases of pediatric seat belt-type aortic trauma and review management strategies for the aortic disruption and the associated constellation of injuries. METHODS: -approved, retrospective review of all pediatric patients requiring surgical intervention for seat belt-type constellation of abdominal aortic/iliac and associated injuries over a 5-year period. Blunt thoracic aortic injuries were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 4 patients, ranging from 2 to 17 years of age, who required surgical correction of seat belt-type aortoiliac trauma and associated injuries: 3 abdominal aortas and 1 left common iliac artery. The majority (3/4 patients) were hemodynamically unstable at emergency room presentation, and all underwent computed tomography angiography of the chest/abdomen/pelvis during initial resuscitation. Injuries of the suprarenal and proximal infrarenal aorta were accompanied by unilateral renal artery avulsion requiring nephrectomy. Presumed or proven spinal instability mandated supine positioning and midline laparotomy, with medial visceral rotation utilized for proximal injuries. Aortoiliac injuries requiring repair were accompanied by significant distal intraluminal prolapse of dissected intima, with varying degrees of obstruction. Conduit selection was dictated by the presence of enteric contamination and the rapid availability of an autologous conduit. The sole neurologic deficit was irreparable at presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Seat belt aortoiliac injuries in pediatric patients require prompt multidisciplinary evaluation. Evidence of contained aortoiliac transection, major branch vessel avulsion, and bowel perforation mandates immediate exploration, which generally precedes spinal interventions. Lesser degrees of aortoiliac injuries have been managed with surveillance, but long-term follow-up is needed to fully validate this approach.