Prior infrarenal aortic surgery is not associated with increased risk of spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and complex endovascular aortic repair

Covering the intercostal artery branching of the Adamkiewicz artery during endovascular aortic repair increases the risk of spinal cord ischemia

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the relationship between covering the intercostal artery branching of the Adamkiewicz artery (ICA-AKA) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

Patients who underwent TEVAR from 2008 to 2022 were enrolled. Stent grafts covered the ICA-AKA in 108 patients (covered AKA group) and stent grafts didn't cover the ICA-AKA in 114 patients (uncovered AKA group). The characteristics of 58 patients from each group were matched based on propensity scores.

Results

No significant differences in SCI rates were detected between the covered AKA (10%; 11/108) and uncovered AKA (3.5%; 4/114) groups (P = .061). Shaggy aorta (odds ratio [OR], 5.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74-15.3, P = .003), iliac artery access (OR, 6.81; 95% CI, 2.22-20.9, P = .001), and procedural time (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02, P = .003) were risk factors for SCI in the entire cohort. Although covering the ICA-AKA (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.86-7.88, P = .058) was not a significant risk factor, shaggy aorta (OR, 8.15; 95% CI, 2.07-32.1, P = .003), iliac artery access (OR, 9.09; 95% CI, 2.22-37.2, P = .002), and procedural time (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02, P = .008) were risk factors for SCI in the covered AKA group. No significant risk factors were detected in the uncovered AKA group.

Conclusions

Covering the ICA-AKA was not an independent risk for SCI in TEVAR. However, covering the ICA-AKA was indirectly associated with the risk of SCI in patients with shaggy aorta, iliac access, and procedural time.

Risk Factors for Spinal Cord Injury during Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm: Review of the Literature and Proposal of a Prognostic Score

Despite recent improvements, spinal cord ischemia remains the most feared and dramatic complication following extensive aortic repair. Although endovascular procedures are associated with a lower risk compared with open procedures, this risk is still significant and must be considered. A combined medical and surgical approach may help to optimize the tolerance of the spinal cord to ischemia. The aim of this review is to describe the underlying mechanism involved in spinal cord injury during extensive endovascular aortic repair, to describe the different techniques used to improve spinal cord tolerance to ischemia-including the prophylactic or curative use of spinal drainage-and to propose our algorithm for spinal cord protection and the rational use of spinal drainage.

Simultaneous Endovascular Repair Is Not Associated With Increased Risk for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Pathologies: Early and Midterm Outcomes

Coexisting multilevel aortic pathologies were caused by atherosclerosis and hypertension and presented in a small subgroup of patients. Endovascular repair is a safe and effective treatment for a variety of aortic pathologies. However, fewer small series and cases were reported using simultaneous thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for both aortic segments. To determine the outcomes of simultaneous and separately TEVAR and EVAR treating for multilevel aortic pathologies. Between 2010 and 2020, 31 patients and 22 patients were treated by one-staged and two-staged repair, respectively at a single center. All patients had the concomitant thoracic and abdominal aortic disease (aortic dissection, aneurysms, and penetrating aortic ulcers). Compared with the patients with two-staged aortic repair, the one-staged repair patients were older (mean age, 68 vs. 57 years; P < 0.001) and had a larger preoperative maximal aortic diameter (67.03 ± 10.65 vs. 57.45 ± 10.36 mm; p = 0.002). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes show that the procedure times and length of hospital stay (LOS) were longer in the two-staged group. There is no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. In the follow up, the freedom from re–intervention and the mean survival rate for the one-staged group were 100 vs. 100%, 92.4 vs. 95%, and 88 vs. 88% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, whereas the mean survival rate for the two-staged group was 86.4 vs. 90.5%, 87 vs. 90.5%, and 76 vs. 84% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, all with no statistical difference. Combined TEVAR and EVAR can be performed successfully with minimal morbidity and mortality. The one-staged repair was not associated with the increased risk for multilevel aortic pathologies treatment.