Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

The thoracic aorta is a dynamic structure composed of the aortic root, ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta. It is subject to the pressure and volume of the cardiac cycle and susceptible to atherosclerotic and aneurysmal changes. With these changes, the risk for acute aortic syndromes increases, thus creating the impetus for earlier interventions. The previous standard of open surgical repair has undergone a transition in recent years toward endovascular repair being favored in the descending and abdominal aortas with ongoing investigation into approaches for the ascending and aortic arch. These therapies have been shown to improve early mortality and morbidity outcomes with the caveat of more interventions compared with open surgery. We undertook this review to analyze the current data available regarding long-term outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular repair for thoracic aortic disease. The data support long-term benefit of endovascular repair for thoracic aortic disease. The primary indications identified for reintervention are endoleak and further aneurysmal degeneration. As the devices available for endovascular repair evolve, ongoing review of these outcomes will be necessary. It will also be important to trend the results as further techniques become available for endovascular repair of the ascending aorta and aortic arch.

Early Results of the Newly-Designed Flowdynamics Dense Mesh Stent for Residual Dissection After Proximal Repair of Stanford Type A or Type B Aortic Dissection: A Preliminary Single-Center Report From a Multicenter, Prospective, and Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Negative remodeling of the distal aorta due to residual dissection significantly impacts the long-term outcomes of dissection patients after proximal repair of acute aortic dissection. Branched/fenestrated aortic stents are technically demanding, and studies of the first generation of multilayer flow modulators for tackling this clinical scenario are few and limited. The single-center results from a multicenter, prospective, and randomized controlled study aimed to verify the safety and effectiveness of a newly-designed flowdynamics dense mesh stent for treating residual dissection after proximal repair.

METHODS

Patients with nonchronic residual dissection involving visceral branches were prospectively enrolled in 3 centers (ChiCTR1900023638). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the flowdynamics dense mesh stent (FDMS) group and control group. Follow-up visits were arranged at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after recruitment. The primary endpoints were all-cause and aortic-related mortality. The secondary endpoints included visceral branch occlusion, reintervention, and severe adverse events. Morphological changes were analyzed to exhibit the therapeutic effect. Our center participated in the multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial, and the preliminary single-center experience was reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were enrolled in our center, and the baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. Thirty-four patients completed the 12 month follow-up. Freedom from all-cause and aortic-related death were 94.4% and 100%. All visceral branches remained patent in the FDMS group. Increased area of the true lumen (1.03±0.38 vs 0.48±0.63 cm2 at the plane below renal arteries, p=0.006; 1.27±0.80 vs 0.32±0.50 cm2 at the plane 5 cm below renal arteries, p<0.001) and decreased area of the false lumen at the plane below renal arteries (-1.03±0.84 vs -0.15±1.21 cm2, p=0.023) were observed in the FDMS group compared with those parameters in the control group. The FDMS group showed a significant increase in true lumen volume (p<0.001) and a significant decrease in false lumen volume (p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

This newly-designed FDMS for endovascular repair of residual dissection after the proximal repair is safe and effective at 12 months.

CLINICAL IMPACT

One-year results of the randomized controlled clinical trial indicated the short-term safety and promising effect of FDMS on treating non-chronic residual dissection after proximal repair. At the 12th-month follow-up, the true lumen expanded, the false lumen shrunk and all visceral arteries kept patent. As far as I'm concerned, this is the first randomized controlled study concerning utilizing multilayer flow mesh stent treating aortic dissection. Despite a preliminary single-center report, our results are supposed to provide high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice and fill the gap in the application of FDMS.

One-year results of the Flowdynamics Dense Mesh Stent for residual dissection after proximal repair of stanford type A or type B aortic dissection: a multicenter, prospective, and randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Negative remodeling of the distal aorta following proximal repair for acute aortic dissection has garnered growing attention. This clinical scenario has spurred the development of techniques and devices. A multicenter, prospective, and randomized controlled study was conducted with the aim of confirming the safety and effectiveness of a newly-designed flowdynamics dense mesh stent for the treatment of residual dissection after proximal repair.

METHODS

Patients with nonchronic residual dissection affecting visceral branches were prospectively enrolled at three centers and randomly allocated to either the FDMS group or the control group. Primary endpoints encompassed all-cause and aortic-related mortality, while the patency of branch arteries is indeed a key focal metric. Morphological changes (diameter, area, and volume) were analyzed to demonstrate the therapeutic effect.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were recruited in the clinical trial, and 103 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. The rate of freedom from all-cause and aortic-related death in the FDMS group was 94.64 and 100%, respectively. All visceral branches remained patent. The FDMS group exhibited a substantial expansion in TL and a notable shrinkage in FL at the planes below renal arteries (ΔArea TL : FDMS vs. Control, 0.74±0.46 vs. 0.34±0.66 cm 2 , P <0.001; ΔArea FL : FDMS vs. Control, -0.72±1.26 vs. -0.12±0.86 cm, P =0.01) and 5 cm below renal arteries (ΔArea TL : FDMS vs. Control, 1.06±0.75 vs. 0.16±0.63 cm 2 , P <0.001; ΔArea FL : FDMS vs. Control, -0.53±1.43 vs. -0.25±1.00 cm, P =0.27). Meanwhile, the FDMS group demonstrated an increase of 22.55±11.14 cm 3 in TL ( P <0.001) and a corresponding reduction of 21.94±11.77 cm 3 in FL ( P =0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

This newly-designed FDMS for endovascular repair of residual dissection following the proximal repair is demonstrated to be safe and effective at 12 months.

Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Secondary Aortic Intervention Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Dissection

BACKGROUND

Secondary aortic intervention (SAI) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is not uncommon. However, a satisfactory management system has not been established for these patients. We aimed to report our single-center experience with SAI after prior TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

From January 2010 to May 2017, 860 eligible patients with TBAD underwent TEVAR. One hundred seven (12.4%) patients required SAI, either endovascularly (n=76) or surgically (n=31). The main indications for SAI were entry flow (n=58 [54.2%]), aneurysm expansion of the proximal or remote aorta (n=26 [24.3%]), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=11 [10.3%]), distal stent-graft-induced new entry tear (n=6 [5.6%]), and stent migration (n=4 [3.7%]). The Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine the degree of freedom from SAI and the prognosis. Cox proportional hazards were used to screen for risk factors for SAI and poor prognosis.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality rate after SAI was 4.7% (n=5): endovascular (n=2 [2.6%]) vs open surgery (n=3 [9.7%]; p=0.145). The cumulative survival rates with or without SAI were 86.3%±3.6% vs 95.7%±0.8% at 3 years and 82.0%±4.2% vs 92.2%±1.1% at 5 years, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). Although no significant difference in survival was observed, the incidence of SAI was significantly greater in patients who underwent TEVAR during the chronic phase (acute [11.6%] vs subacute [9.6%] vs chronic [27.8]; p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that prior TEVAR in the chronic phase (hazard ratio [HR]=1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-2.90; p=0.039), maximum aortic diameter (HR=1.05, 95% CI=1.04-1.07; p<0.001), and arch involvement (HR=1.48, 95% CI=1.01-2.18; p=0.048) were predictors of the incidence of SAI. In addition, the maximum aortic diameter was demonstrated to be the only risk factor for prognosis after adjusting for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic TBAD patients should be reconsidered. Open surgery is preferable for those with proximal progression, whereas endovascular treatment is more suitable for distal lesions. Close surveillance and timely reintervention after TEVAR, whether via endovascular techniques or open surgery, are necessary to prevent devastating complications.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The management of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is challenging. We summarized our single-center experience regarding secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR for TBAD. We found that TEVAR for chronic TBAD patients should be carefully evaulated, and open surgery is recommended for those with proximal progession, while endovascular treatment is more preferable for distal lesions.

Reinterventions after TEVAR

Thoracic cardiovascular aortic repair is an alternative procedure to open surgery for degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysm and thoracic aortic dissection. The advancements in graft design and imaging techniques have expanded its utility. However, the long-term patency of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) graft is still a concern. This review delves into the literature on re-intervention following TEVAR, highlighting factors that influence the re-intervention rate.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with low incidence but high mortality. The objective of this study is to report the incidence, mortality, potential risk factors, clinical manifestation and diagnostic modalities, and medical and surgical treatments.

METHODS

A systematic review and single-arm and two-arm meta-analyses evaluated all published reports of RTAD post-TEVAR through January 2021. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. Outcomes of interest were procedural data (implanted stent-grafts type, and proximal stent-graft oversizing), the incidence of RTAD, associated mortality rate, clinical manifestations, diagnostic workouts and therapeutic management.

RESULTS

RTAD occurred in 285 out of 10,600 patients: an estimated RTAD incidence of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.9-2.8); incidence of early RTAD was approximately 1.8 times higher than late. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing showed that the proportion of RTAD patients with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) was significantly higher than those with chronic TBAD (P = .008). Pooled meta-analysis showed that the incidence of RTAD with proximal bare stent TEVAR was 2.1-fold higher than with non-bare stents: risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.87-2.75; P = .13). Single arm meta-analysis estimated a mortality rate of 42.2% (95% CI: 32.5-51.8), with an I2 heterogeneity of 70.11% (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

RTAD is rare after TEVAR but with high mortality, especially in the first month post-TEVAR with acute TBAD patients at greater risk as well as those treated with proximal bare stent endografts.

Reintervention after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Data are scarce regarding the incidence, reasons, potential risk factors, and long-term outcomes of reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2020, 238 patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical baseline data, aorta anatomy, dissection characteristics, and details of the TEVAR procedure were evaluated and compared. A competing-risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative incidences of reintervention. The multivariate Cox model was used to identify the independent risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 68.6 months. A total of 27 (11.3%) cases of reintervention were observed. The competing-risk analyses showed that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidences of reintervention were 5.07%, 7.08%, and 14.0%, respectively. Reasons for reintervention included endoleak (25.9%), aneurysmal dilation (22.2%), retrograde type A aortic dissection (18.5%), distal stent-graft-induced new entry and false lumen expansion (18.5%), and dissection progression and/or malperfusion (14.8%). Multivariable Cox analysis demonstrated that a larger initial maximal aortic diameter (Hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% Confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.69, p = 0.011) and increased proximal landing zone oversizing (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47, p = 0.033) were the significant risk factors for reintervention. Long-term survival rates were comparable between patients with or without reintervention (p = 0.915).

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention after TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD is not uncommon. A larger initial maximal aortic diameter and excessive proximal landing zone oversizing are associated with the second intervention. Reintervention does not significantly affect long-term survival.

Association Between Device Type and Type IIIb Endoleaks Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

Endoleaks following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can lead to the need for re-intervention and aortic rupture. Given the recent recall of a specific thoracic stent graft type due to concerns about type IIIb endoleak (T3bE), in which blood leaks through the stent graft fabric, the aim was to characterise patterns of T3bEs among available TEVAR devices.

METHODS

Reports related to thoracic stent grafts in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database between 2010 and 2020 were reviewed. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and chi squared tests were used to assess for the presence of a signal of association between device type and T3bE. A PRR > 2 and chi squared value > 4 with three or more reports overall constituted a signal of association. The institutional database of patients undergoing TEVAR for thoracic aneurysms since 2002 was also queried for T3bE.

RESULTS

There were 7 328 MAUDE reports available for analysis. When analysing T3bEs in the MAUDE database, the lowest PRR was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0 - 1.03 in Gore CTAG, nine T3bE among 1 328 reports) and the highest was 2.07 (95% CI 1.72 - 2.42 in Medtronic Valiant, 64 T3bE among 2 520 reports). The T3bE chi squared value for Medtronic Valiant was 17.3. The relationship between Medtronic Valiant and T3bE was ascertainable by MAUDE data as early as 2013. Among 542 TEVARs for an aneurysm indication at Duke University Hospital since 2002, there were eight T3bEs - all in devices with sutured on graft material.

CONCLUSION

The Medtronic Valiant device met criteria for association with type IIIb endoleaks in the FDA's MAUDE database and met those criteria as early as 2013. A possible relationship between woven graft fabric and T3bEs is supported by the observation that all types of T3bE that occurred among a large number of TEVARs at the institution followed placement of grafts with sutured on woven fabric.

Surgical Repair of Two Kinds of Type A Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Background

Retrograde dissection is now recognized as an important complication following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study is to describe two different situations of TAAD after TEVAR. We will introduce the surgical methods used to repair TAAD following TEVAR at our center, and evaluate its long-term prognosis.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2019, 50 patients who had previously received TEVAR treatment for TBAD were admitted to our center for repair of a type A aortic dissection. According to the patients’ CT angiographies and intra-operative findings, we identified two distinct groups: a retrograde group (stent-induced new aortic injury, with retrograde extension involving the ascending aorta) and an antegrade group (entry tear located in the aortic root, ascending aorta or the aortic arch, away from the edges of the stent grafts). The options for treatment of the proximal aorta were Bentall procedure (12/50, 24.0%) and ascending aorta replacement (38/50, 76.0%). All patients underwent total arch replacement (TAR) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation. Survival over the follow-up period was evaluated with the Kaplan–Meier survival curve and the log-rank test.

Results

The median interval time from prior TEVAR to reoperation was 187 days (IQR: 30.0, 1375.0 days). 18.0% of TAAD after TEVAR did not have any obvious symptoms at the time of diagnosis, most of which were found on routine follow-up imaging. The patients in the retrograde group were younger than those in the antegrade group (44.0 ± 9.4 vs. 51.4 ± 10.5 years, P = 0.012). No significant differences in the incidence of post-operative complications or mortality were noted between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was 3 years. No late death or complications occurred after one year following surgery upon follow-up. The asymptomatic survival rate one year after surgery was 90.0%.

Conclusion

The TAR and FET technique was feasible and effective for complicated TAAD after TEVAR. The surgical success rate and long-term prognosis of patients undergoing the timely operation are satisfactory.

Aortic-related Readmission after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection Patients: A Single-center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of and risk factors for aortic-related readmission after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Data from TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR from 2009-2018 at a Chinese tertiary center were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups according to whether aortic-related readmission occurred during follow-up, which was defined as hospitalization at least once after the initial procedure due to events that were related to or caused by aortic dissection or the initial procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 1 288 TBAD patients were enrolled, and 99 patients experienced aortic-related readmissions (7.7%), among whom chronic patients had the highest readmission rate (9.8%). The yearly proportion of readmission during the first year after initial procedure revealed a decreasing trend with a -9.7% annual percentage change. Seventy-one patients underwent reintervention (71.7%). Distal aneurysmal degeneration (43.7%) and distal stent graft-induced new entries (32.4%) were two major causes for reintervention. Fourteen patients in the reintervention subgroup underwent a second reintervention (19.7%). In-hospital mortality was 1.0% during the readmission and 14.3% during the second readmission. The overall survival was comparable between two groups (p=.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the importance of surveillance after initial procedure for TBAD patients with potential risk factors for aortic-related readmission, and the predisposition of patients with reintervention to multiple readmissions deserves attention.

Evaluation of Aortic Zone 2 Proximal Landing Accuracy During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Following Carotid-Subclavian Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Adequate seal for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) commonly requires landing in zone 2, but can prove to be challenging due to the tortuous and angulated anatomy of the region.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to determine the proximal landing accuracy of zone 2-targeted TEVARs following carotid-subclavian revascularization (CSR) and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients that underwent CSR for zone 2 endograft delivery at a tertiary institute between January 2008 and March 2018 was conducted. Technical outcomes were assessed by examining the incidence of intraoperative corrective maneuvers, 1a endoleaks and reinterventions. Distance to target and incidence of LSA stump filling were examined as radiographic markers of landing accuracy.

RESULTS

Zone 2-targeted TEVAR with CSR was performed in 53 patients for treatment of dissections (49%), aneurysms (30%) or trauma (21%). Nine (17%) cases required intraoperative corrective procedures: 5 (9%) proximal cuffs due to type 1a endoleak and 4 (8%) left common carotid artery (LCCA) stenting due to inadvertent coverage. Cases performed using higher resolution hybrid fluoroscopy machine compared to mobile C-arm were associated with increased proximal cuff use (OR 8.8; 95% CI 1.2-62.4). Average distance between the proximal edge of the covered graft to LCCA was 8 ± 1 mm and larger distances were not associated with higher rates of 1a endoleak. Twenty-eight (53%) cases of antegrade LSA stump filling were noted on follow-up imaging, but were not associated with higher rates of reinterventions (OR 0.8, 95% CI [0.2-4.6]). Three (6%) patients had a stroke within 30 days and 4 (8%) patients expired within 1 month. Intraoperative corrective maneuvers, post-operative 1a endoleak and reinterventions were not associated with higher rates of stroke or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Using current endografts and imaging modalities, zone 2-targeted TEVARs have suboptimal technical accuracy.

Secondary Open Arch Operation After Prior Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Many patients required secondary open arch operation due to new aortic pathologies or complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). In this study, we investigated the outcome of secondary open arch operation after prior TEVAR.

METHODS

Fifty-seven consecutive patients underwent secondary open arch operation after prior TEVAR. The major indications were retrograde type A aortic dissection (n = 24), proximal new aortic dissection (n = 8), and type Ⅰa endoleak (n = 16). An elective operation was performed in 35 patients and an emergent operation in 22. The survival and freedom from aortic events during the follow-up were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test. The survival was also analyzed with the Cox analysis.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality was 7.0% (4 of 57). The mean follow-up time was 32.2 ± 19.7 months. Five late deaths occurred. The overall survival at 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years was 89.5%, 84.6%, and 79.9%, respectively. Aortic events developed in 7 patients. Freedom from aortic events after the operation at 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years was 94.2%, 83.0%, and 77.8%, respectively. There were no differences in survival and freedom from aortic events between the elective group and the emergent group. The Cox analysis identified additional coronary artery bypass grafting and hypothermic circulatory arrest as independent factors predicting survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary open arch operation could be performed to treat the arch pathologies after TEVAR with acceptable early and midterm outcomes.

Total Aortic Arch Replacement after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Left Subclavian Arterial Perfusion

We present the case of an 86-year-old male with an aortic arch saccular aneurysm who underwent zone 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with debranching from the right subclavian artery to the left carotid and left subclavian arteries. The patient developed a type Ia endoleak 1 month later. Postoperative contrast computed tomography (CT) showed a hematoma around the aneurysm, concerning for impending rupture. He thus underwent emergency endograft removal and replacement with a one-branched graft using selective cerebral perfusion via the left subclavian artery perfusion. The left subclavian artery was used for systemic and cerebral perfusion without need for cannulation of the cervical arteries. The patient was successfully discharged 6 months after surgery.

Cocaine use is associated with worse outcomes in patients treated with thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the clinical and anatomical characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without known cocaine use who underwent thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissections.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and January 2017, 186 patients underwent thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection at our institution. Clinical data and anatomical characteristics were collected under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Survival, reintervention, complications, and characteristics of dissection were compared between patients with cocaine use (C+; n = 14) and those with no known cocaine use (C-; n = 172).

RESULTS

Cocaine users were more likely to be young African American males who smoked. They tended to present with more extensive dissections as evidenced by larger false lumen diameters. They also had higher rates of endoleaks and more reinterventions.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that special care should be taken to provide close follow-up for these patients.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival.

METHODS

All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors.

RESULTS

TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI.

CONCLUSIONS

SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Reflection of pioneers: redo thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair controversies in thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery

Reoperative thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is frequently necessary and brings with it a unique set of challenges. Typically, most reoperative repairs are necessitated by aortic disease progressing into previously healthy aortic tissue from a replaced section of the aorta (an extension of the previous repair) or, to a lesser degree, because of a late complication of prior distal aortic repair (an open or endovascular repair failure). Characterizing the reason for the reoperation as well as the location of prior repair is the first step towards anticipating major outcomes following such repair. Since the introduction of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysms, indications for open repair have become more specific and limited; many centers have justified using endovascular approaches in patients with prior open aortic repair by deeming these patients "high risk" because of their previous incision. Our analysis found that reoperative repairs were not typically subject to worse early outcomes than patients without prior distal aortic repair, except for the more complicated types of reoperation, which involve infection.

Explantation of a failed endovascular stent graft in a patient with a type B dissection

We report a patient who underwent insertion of an endovascular stent graft in the descending aorta for an aneurysmal type B dissection. The patient developed a proximal type I endoleak which required explantation of the graft and replacement of the descending aorta. Carotid artery cannulation was utilized for antegrade perfusion during the period of circulatory arrest.

Secondary Open Aortic Procedure Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Meta-Analytic State of the Art

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is characterized by a substantial need for reintervention. Secondary open aortic procedure becomes necessary when further endoluminal options are exhausted. This synopsis and quantitative analysis of available evidence aims to overcome the limitations of institutional cohort reports on secondary open aortic procedure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were searched from 1994 to the present date with a prospectively registered protocol. Pooled quantification of pre/intraoperative variables, and proportional meta-analysis with random effect model of early and midterm outcomes were performed. Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients who had early mortality. Fifteen studies were elected for final analysis, encompassing 330 patients. The following values are expressed as "pooled mean, 95% confidence interval." Type B dissection was the most common pathology at index thoracic endovascular aortic repair (51.2%, 44.4-57.9). The most frequent indication for secondary open aortic procedure was endoleak (39.7%, 34.6-45.1). More than half of patients had surgery on the descending aorta (51.2%, 45.8-56.6), and one fourth on the arch (25.2%, 20.8-30.1). Operative mortality was 10.6% (7.4-14.9). Neurological morbidity was substantial between stroke (5.1%, 2.8-9.1) and paraplegia (8.3%, 5.2-13.1). At 2-year follow-up, mortality (20.4%, 11.5-33.5) and aortic adverse event (aortic death 7.7%, 4.3-13.3, tertiary aortic open procedure 7.4%, 4.0-13.2) were not negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

In the secondary open aortic procedure population, type B dissection was both the most common pathology and the one associated with the lowest early mortality, whereas aortic infection and extra-anatomical bypass were associated with the most ominous prognosis.