Long-Term Follow-Up After Endovascular Treatment of Acute Aortic Emergencies

A systematic review of therapies for aortobronchial fistulae

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to summarize epidemiologic data about aortobronchial fistulas and compare outcomes (mortality, recurrence, re-operation) of open, staged, and endovascular repair of aortobronchial fistula.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify eligible studies published between January of 1999 and December of 2019. The Cochrane Library, PubMed and Scopus databases were used as search engines. Eligible studies included articles reporting postoperative outcomes (death/follow-up). Literature review revealed only case reports and small case series and thus, only descriptive data with data heterogeneity was available. The corresponding authors were contacted to provide additional information or outcome updates (recurrence/reoperation/death).

RESULTS

Overall, 214 patients (90 studies) underwent 271 procedures (including re-do procedures and staged procedures). Most of the patients were treated by endovascular means (72.42%). Open surgical repair was performed in 21.96% and staged procedures in 5.6%. Aortobronchial fistulae located most often in the descending thoracic aorta (Zone 3,4) (64,6%) and in Zone 2 (23,8%). Fourteen percent of aortobronchial fistulae developed after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. Recurrence or infection occurred in 20% (43 patients). Recurrences were at some extend associated with the presence of endoleak. Long-term antibiotic administration (>1 month) was instituted in 63 patients (29.4%), whilst 90 patients (42%) did not receive antibiotics beyond hospitalization. From the remaining 61, 3 received life-long antibiotics and for 58 patients data were not available. Considering outcomes, mean follow-up was 25.1 months (0-188 months) and not significantly different among treatments.

LIMITATIONS

Literature review has revealed only case reports and small case series and thus, only descriptive data were available. Randomized controlled trials are not available due to the rarity of the disease which significantly decreases the power of the present study. Also, this study reflects significant data heterogeneity due to the nature of the analyzed manuscripts and would benefit from large patient cohort studies which till today have not been conducted.

CONCLUSION

Aortobronchial fistula is a complex disease. Endoleaks may be involved in the development and in recurrence process and they should not be disregarded. Considering major outcomes (length of follow-up), the available treating strategies are equal and thus, surgeons should feel confident to apply the treatment of their choice, taking in mind their experience, patient's age, and clinical condition.

Penetrating aortic ulcer post migration of thoracic aortic endoprosthesis: Case report

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the first treatment option for many thoracic aortic pathologies. Especially after aortic dissections, it is possible to have progression during follow-up with appearance of new lesions on arterial wall. Herein, we report a case of Penetrating Aortic Ulcer (PAU) post release of Thoracic endoprosthesis.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 67-years-old male with hypertension and diabetes mellitus was followed at our hospital after an emergency procedure for Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) complicated by symptomatic large infrarenal AAA and treated with a proximal TEVAR plus chimney for left subclavian artery and PETTICOAT with EVAR for abdominal aortic disease. Follow up at 15 months showed a deep PAU with partial crush of stent in Left Subclavian Artery. Thus, we performed a left carotid-subclavian bypass and subsequently a TEVAR procedure with release of Bolton Relay endoprosthesis (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Florida, United States).

DISCUSSION

In literature there are few studeis that focus on migration after TEVAR during follow-up. Elongation, changes of tortuosity on thoracic aorta after TEVAR, can help to determine a migration of prosthesis. In this case Bolton Relay endoprosthesis (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Florida, United States) has permitted to improve precision and quality of procedure.

CONCLUSION

In literature there are few studies reporting complications of TEVAR post prosthesis migration. In this case, Bolton Relay endoprosthesis was useful and safe.

Complicated Acute Aortic Syndromes Affecting the Descending Thoracic Aorta: Endovascular Treatment Compared With Open Repair

BACKGROUND

For patients with complicated acute thoracic aortic syndromes, endovascular treatment, when feasible, is preferred over open surgery. However, there are limited data on the long-term benefits of endovascular treatment in complicated acute aortic syndromes affecting the descending thoracic aorta.

HYPOTHESIS

The endovascular treatment is expected to have more favorable long-term mortality and fewer late reintervention in complicated acute thoracic aortic syndromes.

METHODS

Of 155 consecutive patients with acute aortic syndromes, 94 met the inclusion criteria of the study; 63 underwent endovascular repair (group 1) and 31 underwent open repair (group 2). Patients with a diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome localized in the descending thoracic aorta distal to the emergence of the left subclavian artery, complicated by rupture, malperfusion syndrome, and/or acute aortic expansion, were included. Indications for repair of the descending thoracic aorta included impending rupture in 70.2%, malperfusion syndrome in 29.8%, and persistence of pain with aortic expansion (aortic diameter >40 mm) in 2 patients.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period (63.0 ± 24.6 months), the cumulative survival free from cardiovascular death rates at 5 years was 92.0% and 51.4% in group 1 and 2, respectively (log rank P = 0.0001). Late mortality related to the aorta was 1.6% with thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 0% with surgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment in patients with complicated acute thoracic aortic syndromes localized at the descending thoracic aorta is feasible and safe, with a lower rate of early complications and similar long-term benefits when compared with surgical treatment.

[Management of the traumatic aortic blunt injury in 2014]

Diagnosis of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BAI) should be considered in any serious polytrauma. The diagnosis is mainly based on the CT scan at baseline. Life-threatening lesions are often associated with BAI. Hospital mortality is mainly due to associated lesions. Except the complete rupture of the aorta, treatment should be initiated after hemodynamic and respiratory stabilization of the patient and after the treatment of a lesion involving the immediate prognosis. Endovascular treatment of BAI became the treatment of choice, especially for patients with severe associated injuries and bleeding risk. Additional data on the long-term stents are necessary in these young patients. Conventional surgical treatment is always indicated for young subjects with stable hemodynamic, low risk of bleeding and when surgery may be delayed several hours.

Endovascular repair of thoracic and abdominal aortic ruptures: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

We aimed to present our preliminary single-center experience of the endovascular management of thoracic and abdominal aortic ruptures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2010 and May 2012, 11 consecutive patients (nine males, two females; age range, 26-80 years) with thoracic and abdominal aortic ruptures underwent endovascular repair in our unit. Thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT) angiography was performed for diagnosis and follow-up. Patients were selected for endovascular repair by a cardiovascular surgeon, anesthesiologist, and interventional radiologist. All repairs were performed using commercially available stent-grafts. The patients were followed up with CT angiography before discharge, at six months, and yearly thereafter.

RESULTS

Three patients died by day 30. One patient died due to an unsuccessful procedure and hemodynamic instability; two patients died because of comorbidities. The other eight patients were followed for six to 24 months after the procedure. No endoleaks or late ruptures were observed during the follow-up period. The patient with iatrogenic thoracic aortic rupture developed paraplegia after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Reduced mortality due to aortic rupture has been reported with the expanding use of endovascular repair. Reports of small centers are important because of the rarity of these pathologies, and because transferring patients with aortic rupture to a referral center is not usually possible.

[Stent graft of the thoracic aorta]

Considering the demographic changes in our society and the proliferation of imaging-based improved diagnostics, both acute and chronic aortic diseases attract increasing attention and require dedicated care. Cardiac as well as vascular surgery used to represent the gold standards for therapeutic management of pathologies of the ascending aorta and the arch; however, the technological evolution of endoluminal strategies has had a serious impact on the treatment of the descending aorta, the aortic arch in combination with vascular debranching or bypass, and in selected cases even on managing pathologies of the ascending aorta. Although several case series and meta-analyses of published observations hint towards superiority of endografting in comparison to open surgical repair, the affected usually multimorbid patients with highly complex aortic disease should be subjected to an individual evaluation by a team of cardiologists, cardiac and vascular surgeons as well as imaging specialists; a dedicated individualized treatment concept in highly experienced centers of excellence is likely to provide the best results for such challenging patients.

Restrictive bare stent for prevention of stent graft-induced distal redissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Stent graft-induced distal redissection (SIDR) is one of the major concerns in the durability of endovascular repair for complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection. The characteristics and means of prevention of this complication remain unknown.

METHODS

From April 1997 to March 2010, 674 patients with type B aortic dissections were treated primarily by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) at our center. Criteria for inclusion in this study were treatment primarily with TEVAR and an estimated mismatch rate (ratio of distal diameter of stent graft to long diameter of true lumen) greater than 120%. By this protocol, 465 patients were included in this study and were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 266 patients were treated in the acute phase, and 199 were treated in the chronic phase.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were treated with standard TEVAR and 154 patients with TEVAR + restrictive bare stent (RBS). The preoperative mismatch rate (measured as the preoperative long diameter of the true lumen at the level of the intended distal end of the stent graft) of the SIDR was significantly higher than that of the non-SIDR (192.7 ± 54.9% vs 131.9 ± 10.4%; P ＜ .05). The follow-up mismatch rate of the SIDR was significantly higher than that of the non-SIDR (145.4 ± 34.6 vs 120.3 ± 16.1; P ＜ .05). Compared with the standard TEVAR, TEVAR + RBS was associated with a lower incidence of SIDR (0% vs 2.9%; P = .033) and less secondary intervention (3.9% vs 9.3%; P = .040). Placement of the RBS significantly expanded the true lumen at the level of the descending aorta with the narrowest true lumen and at the level of the distal end of the stent graft.

CONCLUSIONS

The mismatch between the distal diameter of the stent graft and the diameter of the compressed true lumen seems to be the major factor in the occurrence of SIDR. Placement of an RBS, as an adjunctive technique to TEVAR, could reduce the incidence of SIDR. On the basis of early- to midterm observations, RBSs may improve morphological remodeling of the dissected aorta at certain levels.

Early experience of thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a local single hospital experience

Purpose

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the short- to mid-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in Wonkwang University School of Medicine & Hospital.

Methods

Between February 2009 and May 2011, 8 consecutive patients had undergone endovascular stent-grafting for thoracic aortic diseases. Five patients were treated for traumatic thoracic aortic injuries, two patients were treated for thoracic aneurysms and one patient was treated for a pseudoaneurysm due to penetrating aortic ulcers. Attempted stent-graft deployment was performed electively in 6 patients and emergently in 2. Follow-up was performed at 1-month, 6-month, 1-year, and annually thereafter.

Results

Technical success rates were achieved in 87.5% and the 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Mean hospital length of stay after TEVAR was 30 days in traumatic thoracic aortic injuries and 10 days in thoracic aneurismal diseases. Intra-operative Type I endoleak due to migration at deflation was visualized in 1 patient, which was treated by insertion of another stent-graft. During follow-up, a major complication was encountered in one patient who received carotid-subclavian bypass to relieve left arm ischemia. After 5 months he was treated with arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm with type I endoleak at proximal site after endovascular treatment. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. However, 1 case of mortality (12.5%) was observed during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The short and mid-term results of endovascular repair of thoracic aortic diseases are promising. TEVAR is an effective procedure in the management of thoracic aortic diseases.

Emergent repair of acute thoracic aortic catastrophes: a comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary institutional comparative analysis of expedient correction of acute catastrophes of the descending thoracic aorta (ACDTA) by traditional direct thoracic aortic repair (DTAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective review (April 2001-January 2010).

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENTS

One hundred patients with ACDTA treated with either TEVAR (n = 76) or DTAR (n = 24). Indications for repair included ruptured degenerative aneurysm (n = 41), traumatic transection (n = 27), complicated acute type B dissection (n = 20), penetrating ulcer (n = 4), intramural hematoma (n = 3), penetrating injury (n = 3), and embolizing lesion (n = 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics and 30-day and late outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis over a mean follow-up of 33.8 months.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients, mean (SD) age was 58.5 (17.3) years (range, 18-87 years). Demographics and comorbid conditions were similar between the 2 groups, except more patients in the DTAR group had prior aortic surgery (P = .02) and were older (P = .01). Overall 30-day mortality was significantly better among the TEVAR group (8% vs 29%; P = .007). Incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, stroke, and paraplegia/paresis was similar between the 2 treatment groups (TEVAR, 5%, 12%, 8%, and 8% vs DTAR, 13%, 13%, 9%, and 13%, respectively). Major respiratory complications were lower in the TEVAR group (16% vs 48%; P < .05). Mean length of hospital stay was also shorter after TEVAR (13.5 vs 16.3 days; P = .30). Independent predictors of patient mortality included age (P = .004) and DTAR (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting with ACDTA are best treated with TEVAR whenever feasible.

Complicated acute type B thoracic aortic dissections: endovascular treatment for visceral malperfusion and pseudoaneurysms

PURPOSE

Morbidity and mortality of acute type B thoracic aortic dissections remain alarmingly high. Endoluminal options are promising.

METHODS

A single-center 5-year review of 17 acute type B aortic dissections complicated by visceral malperfusion (11) or pseudoaneurysm formation (6) treated with endovascular intervention. Interventional techniques included endografting (15) and/or percutaneous fenestration (4). Median follow-up is 28 months (range 0-76 months).

RESULTS

Median age was 55 years; 30-day death, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 0%, 17.6%, and 5.9%. Success reversing visceral ischemia or sealing a pseudoaneurysm was 100%. Cross-sectional imaging demonstrated that the false lumen was thrombosed in 9 patients, partially thrombosed in 6 patients. Late events include 1 delayed proximal type I endoleak, 1 delayed rupture of the thoracic aorta requiring successful emergent open surgical repair, and 2 unrelated late deaths.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular approaches to type B dissections presenting with visceral malperfusion and/or pseudoaneurysm can achieve acceptable early results.

How to manage the left subclavian artery during endovascular stenting for thoracic aortic dissection? An assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Despite the publication of recent guidelines for management of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during endovascular stenting procedures of the thoracic aorta, specific management for those presenting with dissection remains unclear. This systematic review attempts to address this issue.

METHODS

Systematic assessment of the published data on thoracic aorta dissection was performed identifying 46 studies, which incorporated 1,275 patients. Primary outcomes included the prevalence of left arm ischemia, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, endoleak, stent migration, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without LSA coverage and revascularization incorporating factors such as the number of stents used, length of aorta covered, urgency of intervention, and type of dissection (acute or chronic). Statistical pooling techniques, χ(2) tests, and Fisher's exact testing were used for group comparisons.

RESULTS

As compared with other outcomes, LSA coverage without revascularization in the presence of aortic dissection is much more likely to be complicated by left arm ischemia (prevalence increased from 0.0% to 4.0% [p = 0.021]), stroke (prevalence increased from 1.4% to 9.0% [p = 0.009]), and endoleak (prevalence increased from 4.0% to 29.3% [p = 0.001]). However, revascularization was not shown to reverse these effects. Longer aortic coverage (≥ 150 mm) was associated with an increased prevalence of spinal cord ischemia (from 1.3% to 12.5% [p = 0.011]) and mortality (from 1.3% to 15.6% [p = 0.003]).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing endovascular stenting for thoracic aortic dissection, in cases where LSA coverage is necessary, revascularization should be considered before the procedure to avoid complications such as left arm ischemia, stroke, and endoleak, and where feasible, an appropriate preoperative assessment should be carried out.

Role of multidetector computed tomography in evaluating complications following endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm

Objective:

To study the role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in evaluating various complications following endovascular stenting of aortic aneurysms.

Materials and Methods:

Over a period of 2 years (June 2005 to June 2007), 50 patients with aortic aneurysm on computed tomography (CT) angiogram were prospectively studied. Images were acquired on a 64 slice multidetector row CT scanner (GE—LightSpeed VCT) after intravenous administration of nonionic iodinated contrast. Nineteen patients underwent endovascular stent-graft repair based on their medical and surgical risk factors. Stent-graft related complications were recorded by CT angiography and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results:

Most common complication related to the endovascular stent-graft placement was endoleak (44.4%), followed by puncture site hematoma (27.8%), thrombotic occlusion of a limb of the bifurcated stent graft, kinking of the stent-graft, and difficult catheterization with intimal tear in the common iliac artery were 5.6% each. Poststent diameter of the aneurysm was an important predictor of endoleaks. All the patients with either increase or no change in the aneurysm size had endoleaks.

Conclusion:

MDCT angiography is an important modality in identifying, describing, and following up the various complications following endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms, endoleaks being the most common complication. Decrease in the poststent diameter of the aneurysm suggested a good outcome.

Stent graft-induced new entry after endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Stent graft-induced new entry (SINE), defined as the new tear caused by the stent graft and excluding those arising from natural disease progression or iatrogenic injury from the endovascular manipulation, has been increasingly observed after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Stanford type B dissection in our center. SINE appears to be remarkably life threatening. We investigated the incidence, mortality, causes, and preventions of SINE after TEVAR for Stanford type B dissection.

METHODS

Data for 22 patients with SINE were retrospectively collected and analyzed from 650 patients undergoing TEVAR for type B dissection from August 2000 to June 2008. An additional patient was referred to our center 14 months after TEVAR was performed in another hospital. The potential associations of SINE with Marfan syndrome, location of SINE and endograft placement, and the oversizing rate were analyzed by Fisher exact probability test or t test.

RESULTS

We found 24 SINE tears in 23 patients, including SINE at the proximal end of the endograft in 15, at the distal end in 7, and at both ends in 1. Six patients died. SINE incidence and mortality reached 3.4% and 26.1%, respectively. Two SINE patients were diagnosed with Marfan syndrome, whereas there were only 6 Marfan patients among the 651 patients. The 16 proximal SINEs were evidenced at the greater curve of the arch and caused retrograde type A dissection. The eight distal SINEs occurred at the dissected flap, and five caused enlarging aneurysm whereas three remained stable. The endograft was placed across the distal aortic arch during the primary TEVAR in all 23 patients. The incidence of SINE was 33.33% among Marfan patients vs 3.26% among non-Marfan patients (P = .016). There was no significant difference in mortality between proximal and distal SINE (25% vs 28.6%, P > .99), incidence of SINE between endograft placement across the arch and at the straight portion of descending thoracic aorta (23 of 613 vs 0 of 38, P = .39), and the oversizing rate between SINE and non-SINE patients (13% ± 4.5% vs 16% ± 6.5%, P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

SINE appears not to be rare after TEVAR for type B dissection and is associated with substantial mortality. The stress yielded by the endograft seems to play a predominant role in its occurrence. It is important to take this stress-induced injury into account during both design and placement of the endograft.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortobronchial and aortoesophageal fistulas

PURPOSE

To identify in-hospital and follow-up outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortobronchial fistula (ABF) and aortoesophageal fistula (AEF).

METHODS

The authors reviewed all published cases of ABF and AEF undergoing TEVAR indexed in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases. After removal of duplicates, 850 articles were scrutinized for relevance and validity. Exclusion criteria included: (1) no clear description of the organs involved with the fistula, (2) no description of outcomes after TEVAR for ABF or AEF, or (3) no original data presented in the article. In this manner, 66 relevant articles were identified that included original data on 114 patients (76 men; mean age 63+/-1.5 years) with ABF (n = 71) or AEF (n = 43). Meta-analyses were performed to investigate outcomes of TEVAR for ABF and AEF.

RESULTS

Patients with AEF presented more frequently with hypovolemic shock (33% versus 13%, p = 0.012) and systemic infection (36% versus 9%, p<0.001) compared to patients with ABF. In-hospital mortality was 3% (n = 2) after TEVAR for ABF and 19% (n = 8) after TEVAR for AEF (p = 0.004). Additional thoracic surgery in the first 30 days after TEVAR was performed in 3% (n = 2) of ABF patients and in 37% (n = 16) of AEF patients (p<0.001); 12 AEF patients who had received esophageal surgery in the first month after TEVAR showed lower fistula-related mortality during 6 months of follow-up compared to patients who did not receive additional esophageal surgery (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

TEVAR is associated with superior outcomes in patients with ABF. Endovascular management of AEF is associated with poor results and should not be considered definitive treatment. TEVAR could serve as a bridge to surgery for emergency cases of AEF only, with definitive open surgical correction of the fistula undertaken as soon as possible.

Follow-up paradigms for stable aortic dissection

While limited data exist on which follow-up paradigms for chronic aortic dissections can be based, what information is present suggests that long-term follow-up is mandatory. In spite of the treatment modality, deaths from aortic disease continue to accrue and repeat interventions are often required over long-term follow-up. The only prospective trial data available indicate a roughly equal incidence of secondary interventions during the first and second year. Recent studies with longer follow-up suggest that the likelihood of a need for intervention ultimately diminishes. With increasing time after presentation, it may be possible to decrease the frequency of follow-up interrogations. Definitive recommendations in this regard, however, must await the availability of longer-term data.