Aortic Arch Anatomy in Candidates for Aortic Arch Repair

Outcome of Revascularizing the Left Subclavian Artery via Carotid-Subclavian Bypass

BACKGROUND

 Endovascular thoracic aortic treatment frequently requires extending the proximal landing zone up into the aortic arch with consecutive covering of the left subclavian artery orifice. Our aim was to report on our outcome of left subclavian artery revascularization using carotid-subclavian bypass via lateral access to the subclavian artery.

METHODS

 Patients' charts in our aortic center were screened for all those who had undergone carotid-subclavian bypass during endovascular thoracic aortic repair procedures. We analyzed perioperative complications such as cervical plexus nerve or phrenic nerve injury, bleeding, and primary and follow-up graft patency.

RESULTS

 Between 2001 and 2020, 118 patients underwent carotid-subclavian bypass implantation. Postoperative complications included left-sided stroke in 3% and axillary, phrenic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in 3, 2, and 3%, respectively. Carotid-subclavian bypass-related death rate was 0%. Bypass patency was 92 ± 7% at 5 years. We documented nine (8%) bypass late occlusions with one left upper extremity ischemia and one late stroke due to an embolized thrombus formed at the bypass anastomosis. All others were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

 Carotid-subclavian bypass surgery is associated with very low risk of death, stroke, or any nerve palsy. Lateral access to the left subclavian artery reduces the risk of phrenic nerve injury.

Current knowledge and contemporary management of non-A non-B aortic dissections

Non-A non-B aortic dissection (AAD) is an infrequently documented condition, comprising of only a small proportion of all AADs. The unique anatomy of the aortic arch and the failure of the existing classifications to adequately define individuals with non-A non-B AAD, have led to an ongoing controversy around the topic. It seems that the clinical progression of acute non-A non-B AAD diverges from the typical type A and B dissections, frequently leading to serious complications and thus mandating early intervention. Currently, the available treatment methods in the surgical armamentarium are conventional open, endovascular techniques and combined hybrid methods. The optimum approach is tailored in every individual case and may be determined by the dissection’s location, extent, the aortic diameter, the associated complications and the patient’s status. The management of non-A non-B dissections still remains challenging and a unanimous consensus defining the gold standard treatment has yet to be reached. In an attempt to provide further insight into this perplexing entity, we performed a minireview of the literature, aiming to elucidate the epidemiology, clinical course and the optimal treatment modality.