Retrograde Ascending Aortic Dissection During or After Thoracic Aortic Stent Graft Placement

Anatomical Feasibility of the "Canaud Technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease

PURPOSE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), originally conceived for deployment distal to the left subclavian artery (LSA), has been recently extended to more proximal landing zones. Among total endovascular solutions, the "Canaud technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts (C-PMEGs) has gained acceptance with good early results. The aim of this study is to report the proportion of patients with zone 0, 1, and 2 aortic arch lesions that could theoretically be treated with a C-PMEG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Computed tomography angiography (CTA) of all consecutive patient candidates to open, hybrid, or endovascular arch repair from January 2009 to July 2023 at our Institution were analyzed. The assessment of feasibility of C-PEMG was conducted following previously extensively described anatomical criteria.

RESULTS

During the study period, 209 consecutive patients were candidates for an open, hybrid, or endovascular aortic arch repair. Of them, 164 patients had a preoperative CTA scan eligible for analysis. One hundred twenty-six patients were male (76.8 %), with a mean age of 67 ± 10.8 years. Ninety-four patients (57.3%) were affected by atherosclerotic aneurysms, 48 post-dissecting aneurysms (29.3%) and 22 penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) (13.4%). Twenty patients (12.2%) were suitable for double-fenestrated C-PMEG, and 34 patients (20.7%) for single-fenestrated C-PMEG, totaling 32.9% of the entire cohort. The combination of supra-aortic trunks (SAT) bypass or the use of covered stent in IA or left common carotid artery (LCCA) as adjunctive maneuvers, would extend the C-PMEGs feasibility to 69 patients (42.1%). The use of an iliac graft conduit in 3 (1.8%) patients with inadequate ileo-femoral accesses would increase the C-PMEG suitability to 72 patients (43.9%). The main reason for exclusion was excessive ascending aortic diameter in 78 patients (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of C-PMEG was shown to be theoretically feasible in a percentage of patients ranging from 32.9 to 43.9% affected by aortic arch aneurysms, dissections, and PAU. The main reason for exclusion was the dimension of the ascending aorta. The C-PMEG technique is a viable option in aortic arch lesions endovascular treatment. An off-the-shelf device with similar characteristics could also be used in emergency, avoiding the limitations of physician modifications (such as time for back-table procedure, sterility, off-label use).

CLINICAL IMPACT

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been extended to more proximal landing zones for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysm, dissections, penetrating aortic ulcers. Among total endovascular solutions, the "Canaud technique" for Physician-Modified Thoracic Endovascular Grafts (C-PMEGs) has gained acceptance with good early results. The anatomical feasibility in 164 consecutive patients was 69 patients (42.1%), with the combination of supra-aortic trunks (SAT) bypass or the use of covered stent in IA or left common carotid artery (LCCA) as adjunctive maneuvers, showing that the C-PMEG technique is a viable option in aortic arch lesions endovascular treatment.

Surgical Treatment for Type A Aortic Dissection after Endovascular Aortic Repair: A 12-year, Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the clinical manifestations, operative techniques, and outcomes of patients who undergo open repair after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

From January 2010 to June 2022, 113 consecutive type A aortic dissection (TAAD) patients underwent secondary open operation after TEVAR at our institution, and the median interval from primary intervention to open surgery was 12 (1.9-48.0) months. We divided the patients into two groups (RTAD (retrograde type A dissection) group, N = 56; PNAD (proximal new aortic dissection) group, N = 57) according to their anatomical features. Survival analysis during the follow-up was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve and a log-rank test.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 6.2% (7/113), the median follow-up period was 31.7 (IQR 14.7-65.6) months, and the overall survival at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was 88.5%, 88.5%, and 87.6%, respectively. Fourteen deaths occurred during the follow-up, but there were no late aorta-related deaths. Three patients underwent total thoracoabdominal aortic replacement 1 year after a second open operation. The RTAD group had a smaller ascending aorta size (42.5 ± 7.7 mm vs 48.4 ± 11.4 mm; P < .01) and a closer proximal landing zone (P < .01) compared to the PNAD group. However, there were no differences in survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TAAD can present as an early or a late complication after TEVAR due to stent-grafting-related issues or disease progression. Open operation can be performed to treat TAAD, and this has acceptable early and mid-term outcomes. Follow-up should become mandatory for patients after TEVAR because these patients are at increased risk for TAAD.

Neurological event rates and associated risk factors in acute type B aortic dissections treated by thoracic aortic endovascular repair

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the method of choice in patients with complicated type B acute aortic dissection. However, thoracic endovascular aortic repair carries a risk of periprocedural neurological events including stroke and spinal cord ischemia. We aimed to look at procedure-related neurological complications within a large cohort of patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 2021, the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection collected data on 3783 patients with type B acute aortic dissection. For this analysis, 648 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair were included (69.4% male, mean age 62.7 ± 13.4 years). Patients were excluded who presented with a preexisting neurologic deficit or received adjunctive procedures. Demographics, clinical symptoms, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary end point was the periprocedural incidence of neurological events (defined as stroke, spinal cord ischemia, transient neurological deficit, or coma). Predictors for perioperative neurological events and follow-up outcomes were considered as secondary end points.

RESULTS

Periprocedure neurological events were noted in 72 patients (11.1%) and included strokes (n = 29, 4.6%), spinal cord ischemias (n = 21, 3.3%), transient neurological deficits (n = 16, 2.6%), or coma (n = 6, 1.0%). The group with neurological events had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (20.8% vs 4.3%, P < .001). Patients with neurological events were more likely to be female (40.3% vs 29.3%, P = .077), and aortic rupture was more often cited as an indication for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (38.8% vs 16.5%, P < .001). In patients with neurological events, more stent grafts were used (2 vs 1 stent graft, P = .002). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that aortic rupture (odds ratio, 3.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.44-6.78, P = .004) and female sex (odds ratio, 1.984, 95% confidence interval, 1.031-3.817, P = .040) were significantly associated with perioperative neurological events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this highly selected group from dedicated aortic centers, more than 1 in 10 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair had neurological events, in particular women. Further research is needed to identify the causes and presentation of these events after thoracic endovascular aortic repair, especially among women.

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.

Prognosis and Remodeling after Endovascular Repair for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is already well introduced, but the best time point to perform TEVAR has not been defined. This study was to report mid- to long-term outcomes and aortic remodeling of TEVAR in patients with TBAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 318 TBAD patients from June 2001 to May 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on interval between dissection onset to TEVAR: acute (0-7 days), subacute (8-30 days), and chronic (>30 days). Clinical and morphological data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The follow-up aorta-related mortality rates in the 3 groups were 17.6%, 2.6%, 4.2%, and the proximal stent-induced new entry rates were 11.8%, 1.6%, 2.8%, respectively. Aortic remodeling was satisfied in both the acute and subacute group, but the false lumen diameter did not decrease (p>0.05) in the chronic group. Compared with the VIRTUE classification (acute, 0-14 days; subacute, 15-92 days; chronic, >92 days), mid- to long-term outcomes of patients within the first overlapped interval between the 2 classifications (8-14 days) were similar to that of subacute patients (15-30 days), while aortic remodeling of patients in the second overlapped interval (31-92 days) was similar to that of chronic patients (>92 days).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that TEVAR for subacute TBAD is associated with a low long-term rate of aorta-related death. Aortic remodeling of chronic dissections is not satisfactory. Additional results suggest that the subacute phase (8-30 days) may be the optimal time to perform TEVAR for uncomplicated TBAD.

Retrograde type A aortic dissection during or after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a single center 16-year experience

Objective

This article aims to investigate the incidence rate of retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) and the risk factors of RTAD in relation to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

Patients with thoracic aortic disease who underwent TEVAR at Henan Provincial People's Hospital from January 2004 to December 2019 were enrolled in the present research. The risk factors associated with RTAD following TEVAR using univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses.

Results

During the study period, A total of 1,688 TEVAR patients were included in this study, and of these, 1,592 cases were included in the type B aortic dissection (TBAD) group, and 96 cases were included in the non-TBAD group. There were 1,230 cases of aortic dissection and 362 cases of aortic intramural hematoma and/or penetrating ulcer in the TBAD group. The non-TBAD group included 68 cases of thoracic aortic aneurysm, 21 cases of thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm, and seven cases of congenital aortic coarctation. The overall incidence rate of RTAD was 1.1% (18/1,688) in patients, all of which occurred in the TBAD group. The cohort comprised 18 RTAD patients with an average age of 56.78, consisting of 13 males and 5 females. Among them, 13 individuals exhibited hypertension. Ten instances happened within the TEVAR perioperative period, including two cases during the surgery, six cases occurred within three months, two cases occurred after one year, and the longest interval was 72 months following TEVAR. TEVAR was successfully implemented in 17 patients, while the operation technique was temporarily altered in one case. The new entry position for RTAD was identified as the proximal region of the stent graft (SG) in 13 patients, while in five cases, the entry site was more than 2 cm away from the proximal region of the SG. 17 cases were at the greater curvature of the aorta, and one case was at the lesser curvature. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the SG oversizing ratio is a relevant risk factor for RTAD. However, ascending aortic diameter, aortic arch type, SG type, and anchored region were not directly related to the occurrence of RTAD.

Conclusion

RTAD is a rare yet catastrophic complication. It could occur both during the procedure, early and late postoperative periods. Maintaining an appropriate SG oversizing ratio is crucial to minimize the risk of RTAD.

Safety and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute Stanford type B aortic dissection with retrograde type A intramural hematoma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with retrograde type A intramural hematoma (TAIMH).

METHODS

Patients with acute TBAD with retrograde TAIMH treated with TEVAR between January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2022, were retrospectively reviewed. Aortic diameter and distance were measured using the 3D Slicer image computing platform. Patients' characteristics, procedural, in-hospital and follow-up data, and aortic remodeling were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients (average age, 52.6 years; 42 males [80.8%]) were included. The median interval from symptom onset to TEVAR was 11 days (interquartile range, 7.0-16.8 days). The maximal diameter of the ascending aorta (AA) was <50 mm, and the hematoma thickness in the AA was ≤10 mm in all patients. Both the in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 0%. The 30-day complication rate was 11.5%. The overall cumulative survival rates were 100% at 1 year, 97.1% at 3 years, and 92.6% at 5 years. Four of 52 patients (7.7%) developed retrograde type A aortic dissection at 10 days to 4 months postoperatively, and one of 52 patients (1.9%) developed an isolated AA dissection 4 months postoperatively; these five patients were treated and alive at late follow-up in March 2022. The rates of cumulative freedom from thoracic aortic re-intervention were 93.7% at 1 year and 90.7% at 5 years. Positive AA remodeling was observed in 92.3% (48/52) of patients during follow-up. The maximal diameter of AA (mean ± standard error of mean) at admission was 42.7 ± 0.8 mm, which decreased to 39.5 ± 0.9 mm at last follow-up. The maximal AA hematoma thickness at admission was 7.6 ± 0.3 mm, which reduced to 2.2 ± 0.9 mm at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

For selected patients of acute Stanford TBAD with retrograde TAIMH, endovascular repair may be a safe, effective, and durable alternative treatment, if the maximum diameter of the AA is <50 mm and the intramural hematoma thickness in the AA is ≤10 mm.

Efficacy of left subclavian artery revascularization strategies during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B dissection: A single-center experience of 105 patients

Background

Left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is necessary to reduce postoperative complications in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection and an insufficient proximal anchoring area. However, the efficacy and safety of different LSA revascularization strategies remain unclear. Here, we compared these strategies to provide a clinical basis for selecting an appropriate LSA revascularization method.

Methods

In this study, we included 105 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated using TEVAR combined with LSA reconstruction in the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from March 2013 to 2020. They were divided into four groups according to the method used for LSA reconstruction, namely, carotid subclavian bypass (CSB; n = 41), chimney graft (CG; n = 29), single-branched stent graft (SBSG; n = 21), and physician-made fenestration (PMF; n = 14) groups. Finally, we collected and analyzed the baseline, perioperative, operative, postoperative, and follow-up data of the patients.

Results

The treatment success rate was 100% in all the groups, and CSB + TEVAR was the most commonly used procedure in emergency settings compared with the other three procedures (P &lt; 0.05). The estimated blood loss, contrast agent volume, fluoroscopic time, operation time, and limb ischemia symptoms during the follow-up were significantly different in the four groups (P &lt; 0.05). Pairwise comparison among groups indicated that the estimated blood loss and operation time in the CSB group were the highest (adjusted P &lt; 0.0083; P &lt; 0.05). The contrast agent volume and fluoroscopy duration were the highest in the SBSG groups, followed by PMF, CG, and CSB groups. The incidence of limb ischemia symptoms was the highest in the PMF group (28.6%) during the follow-up. The incidence of complications (except limb ischemia symptoms) during the perioperative and follow-up periods was similar among the four groups (P &gt; 0.05) The median follow-up time of CSB, CG, SBSG, and PMF groups was significantly different (P &lt; 0.05), and the CSB group had the longest follow-up.

Conclusion

Our single-center experience suggested that the PMF technique increased the risk of limb ischemia symptoms. The other three strategies effectively and safely restored LSA perfusion in patients with type B aortic dissection and had comparable complications. Overall, different LSA revascularization techniques have their advantages and disadvantages.

Early Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Uncomplicated Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection: An Aorta Team Approach

BACKGROUND

 Although uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) is traditionally treated with optimal medical therapy (OMT) as per guidelines, recent studies, performed primarily in interventional radiology or surgical operating rooms, suggest superiority of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) over OMT due to recent advancements in endovascular technologies. We report a large, single-center, case control study of TEVAR versus OMT in this population, undertaken solely in a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) with a cardiologist and surgeon. We aimed to determine if TEVAR for uTBAD results in better outcomes compared with OMT.

METHODS

 This was a retrospective chart review of all patients with uTBAD during the last 13 years, with 46 cases (TEVAR group) and 56 controls (OMT group).

RESULTS

 In the TEVAR group, the procedure duration of 2.5 hours resulted in 100% procedural success for stent placement, with 63% undergoing protective left subclavian artery bypass, 0% mortality or stroke, and a lower readmission rate (1 vs. 2%; p = 0.04 in early TEVAR cases), but a longer length of stay (12.9 vs. 8.5 days: p = 0.006). The risk of all-cause long-term mortality was markedly reduced in the TEVAR group (RR = 0.38; p = 0.01), irrespective of early (<14 days) versus late intervention. On follow-up computed tomography imaging, the false lumen stabilized or decreased in 85% of cases, irrespective of intervention timing.

CONCLUSION

 TEVAR performed solely in the CCL is safe and effective, with lower all-cause mortality than OMT. These data, in collaboration with previous data on TEVAR in different settings, call for consideration of an update of practice guidelines.

How to select the optimal size of frozen elephant trunk in total arch replacement for type A acute aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Total arch replacement (TAR) with a frozen elephant trunk (FET) is a common technique for acute aortic dissection, but there is no consensus on the optimal size of the FET.

METHODS

Forty-four patients who underwent TAR with FET for acute aortic dissection at our hospital since 2014 were included. The aortic diameter obtained from FET was measured on postoperative computed tomography (CT) and the estimated oversizing ratio was calculated. We investigated the relationship between the estimated oversizing ratio and postoperative outcomes. We also measured the maximum true lumen diameter, circumference of the true lumen, and total aortic diameter at the same level as the FET end on preoperative CT and examined the correlation with the aortic diameter obtained from FET.

RESULTS

The average estimated oversizing ratio was 109%. Early postoperative CT showed complete thrombosis of the false lumen in 41 (93.2%) patients. No distal stent graft-induced new entry occurred during follow-up. The correlation coefficients between the three measurements and aortic diameter obtained from FET were 0.64 (maximum true lumen diameter), 0.76 (true lumen diameter calculated from circumference), and 0.72 (total aortic diameter), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The aortic diameter obtained from FET on postoperative CT was strongly correlated with the true lumen diameter calculated from the circumference and total aortic diameter on preoperative CT. It is reasonable to select a size of approximately 130% of the true lumen diameter calculated from the circumference or 80% to 85% of the total aortic diameter.

Comprehensive review of hybrid aortic arch repair with focus on zone 0 TEVAR and our institutional experience

Even with increasing operator experience and a better understanding of the disease and the operation, intervention for aortic arch pathologies continues to struggle with relatively higher mortality, reintervention, and neurologic complications. The hybrid aortic arch repair was introduced to simplify the procedure and improve the outcome. With recent industry-driven advances, hybrid repairs are not only offered to poor surgical candidates but have become mainstream. This review discusses the evolution of hybrid repair, terminology pertinent to this technique, and results. In addition, we aim to provide a pervasive review of hybrid aortic arch repairs with reference to relevant literature for a detailed understanding. We have also discussed our institutional experience with hybrid repairs.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Type II Hybrid Arch Repair for Complex Aortic Arch Pathology

Background

The hybrid arch repair (HAR) is an appealing surgical option in the management of aortic arch diseases. The aim is to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR involving replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and zone 0 stent graft deployment in diverse arch pathologies.

Methods

200 patients with various diffuse aortic pathologies involving the arch were enrolled between 2016 and 2019. Complex arch diseases included acute type A dissection (n = 129, 64.5%), acute type B dissection (n = 16, 8.0%), aortic arch aneurysm (n = 42, 21.0%) and penetrating arch ulcer (n = 13, 6.5%). Mortality, morbidity, survival and re-intervention were analyzed.

Results

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 8.0% (16/200). Stroke was present in 3.5% (7/200) of the general cohort and spinal cord injury was occurred in 3.0% (6/200). Multivariable logistic analysis showed that cardiac malperfusion and CPB time were the risk factors associated with 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up duration was 25.9 months (range 1–57.2 months), and the 3-year survival rate was 83.1%. On Cox regression analysis, age, diabetes, cardiac malperfusion and CPB time predicted short and mid-term overall mortality. A total of 3 patients required reintervention during the follow-up due to the thrombosis of epiaortic artificial vessels (n = 1), anastomotic leak at the site of the proximal ascending aorta (n = 1) and the type I endoleak (n = 1).

Conclusions

Type II HAR was performed with satisfactory early and mid-term outcomes in complex aortic arch pathologies.

Retrograde ascending aortic dissection in the midterm period after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a case report and literature review

Retrograde ascending aortic dissection (rAAD) is a catastrophic complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). A 56 year-old male patient who had undergone TEVAR for Stanford type B aortic dissection 6-month ago was admitted to our clinic with uncontrolled hypertension for the last twelve hours and history of a syncopal attack three days ago. Retrograde ascending aortic dissection was detected in computed tomography angiography. Ascending aorta and hemiarch replacement with a Dacron graft was safely performed via hypothermic circulatory arrest and antegrade cerebral perfusion for the treatment of rAAD after TEVAR.

Mid-term Comparison of One-Piece Branched Stent-Graft and Chimney Technique Treating Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

We compared the mid-term outcomes of a one-piece branched stent-graft with the chimney technique in the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between August 2012 and December 2017, a retrospective analysis of 279 patients with thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) or aneurysm (TAA) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with b-TEVAR (n = 69, 58 TAD and 11 TAA) or c-TEVAR (n = 210, 151 TAD and 59 TAA) was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five double-chimney for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and left common carotid artery LCCA and 165 single-chimney for the LSA were performed in chimney-TEVAR (c-TEVAR) and 69 branched-TEVAR (b-TEVAR) with 36 single-branched stent-grafts and 33 branched stent-grafts combined with fenestration technique. The c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital complications than the b-TEVAR group (19.5 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.017), primarily because the c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital cerebral ischemia events (6.2 vs. 0%, p = 0.043) and intra-operative type I endoleaks (31.9 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01). There were significantly more follow-up type I endoleaks (21.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.002), cerebral ischemia events (11.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.042), and re-interventions (12.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.048) in the c-TEVAR group than in the b-TEVAR group. However, follow-up mortality was not significantly different between the c-TEVAR and b-TEVAR groups (5.2 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.638).

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic pathologies involving the arch branches, customized b-TEVAR may result in fewer cerebral ischemia events and endoleaks than c-TEVAR. However, c-TEVAR should be considered an off-the-shelf treatment option for patients in need of emergency treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

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.

A New Era of Diagnosis and Therapy in Acute Aortic Syndromes: The Mainz-Essen Experience (Part II)-Management and Outcomes

Over the years, the cardiovascular department of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz-West-German Heart Centre in Essen (Germany) designed and implemented the hybrid operating room (2003) along with advanced endovascular and surgical procedures, including the frozen elephant trunk technique. For the study purpose, the Mainz-Essen experience on acute aortic syndromes was summarized by considering original articles from single-center or multicenter studies performed at West German Heart Centre, Essen, Germany, or at the cardiovascular department of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. We present the 35-year-long Mainz-Essen research, education, and patient management journey in creating an integrated multidisciplinary "Aortic Center" in the heart of Europe.

A more proximal landing zone is preferred for thoracic endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissections

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first line therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). However, the strategy for optimal proximal landing zone remains to be determined. We compared early outcomes and late aortic-related adverse events in patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD with endograft deployment in proximal landing zone 2 versus 3.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within 6 weeks of diagnosis from 1/2008 to 12/2018. We excluded patients with connective tissue disorders and prior type A repair. Patients were divided into landing zone 2 TEVAR (Z2T) and zone 3 TEVAR (Z3T) groups. Z2 patients were divided between left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization (Z2R) versus LSA coverage without revascularization (Z2C). Groups were compared for need for aortic re-intervention within 36 months of initial admission and freedom from aortic related adverse events and mortality (AREM), defined as need for aortic re-intervention, aortic-related death or rupture.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within a mean of 4.1±7.8 days. 89.5% of patients had less than 2 cm of healthy proximal descending thoracic aorta. Landing zone was Z3T in 35 patients and 48 underwent Z2T: 10 Z2C and 38 Z2R. There were no differences between Z2T and Z3T in time from diagnosis to TEVAR, demographics, comorbidities and diameter aortic measurements. 30-day survival was 87.8%: 89.5% for Z2R, 88.6% for Z3 and 80.0 % for Z2C (p=0.610). Post-operative spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7%: 2.7 % for Z2R, 0% for Z3T and 20.0% for Z2C (p=0.012). Post-operative thoracic aortic rupture was 2.2% in Z2 and 0 in Z3. Need for aortic re-intervention at 36 months post-TEVAR was lower for Z2T (10.4%) vs. Z3T (31.4%), p=0.025. Freedom from AREM at 36 months was higher in Z2T vs. Z3T - 87.5% vs. 68.6%, p= 0.048. Freedom from proximal re-intervention was higher in Z2T (95.8%) compared to Z3T (80.0%), p=0.019. Z3T deployment was predictive for AREM (OR:3.648,95%CI:1.161-11.465,p=0.027) and need for proximal re-intervention (OR: 5.542,95%CI:1.062-28.927,p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with aTBAD have less than 2 cm of proximal healthy descending thoracic aorta. In patients treated for complicated aTBAD, zone 2 TEVAR is associated with a lower need for aortic re-intervention and aortic-related adverse events than zone 3 TEVAR. Patients may benefit from a more aggressive proximal landing zone with similar perioperative morbidity when zone 2 TEVAR is done with LSA revascularization.

RETRACTED: Anesthesic and surgical guideline for the treatment of the thoraco-abdominal aorta. Consensus Document of the Spanish Societies of Anesthesia and Cardiovascular Surgery

Este artículo ha sido retirado por indicación del Editor Jefe de la revista, después de constatar que parte de su contenido había sido plagiado, sin mencionar la fuente original: European Heart Journal (2014) 35, 2873 926.: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/35/41/2873/407693#89325738 El autor de correspondencia ha sido informado de la decisión y está de acuerdo con la retirada del artículo. El Comité Editorial lamenta las molestias que esta decisión pueda ocasionar. Puede consultar la política de Elsevier sobre la retirada de artículos en https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal

Genetic aortic disease epidemiology, management principles, and disparities in care

Patients with syndromic and nonsyndromic heritable aortopathies (also known as genetic aortic disease) are a heterogeneous group of patients who present at younger ages with more rapid growth of aortic aneurysms and/or increased frequency of dissections compared with patients with atherosclerotic aortopathies. In this review, we describe the etiology, epidemiology, and appropriate care delivery for these conditions at each stage of management. Within each section, we discuss sex, gender, and race differences and highlight disparities in care and knowledge. We then discuss the role of the vascular team throughout the cycle of care and the evolving inclusion of patient input in research. This understanding is essential to the creation of effective health care policies that support equitable, appropriate, and patient-centered clinical practices.

Type A aortic dissection after 'zone 0' thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type 1 hybrid aortic arch replacement of arch aneurysm

The recent rise in minimally invasive cardiovascular procedures is being accompanied by an increase in related complications. We report on an acute type A aortic dissection performed in an 82-year-old man 1 week after staged ‘zone 0’ hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Previously, the patient had undergone type I hybrid arch debranching and staged ‘zone 0’ TEVAR for an aortic arch aneurysm. ‘Zone 0’ TEVAR after type I hybrid debranching might increase the risk for aortic injury on the residual native aorta and should, therefore, be closely followed up to enable the early diagnosis of complications.

Laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts for endovascular treatment of retrograde type A dissection

OBJECTIVES

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a rare but life-threatening event following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and its total endovascular treatment is a huge challenge. This research aimed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, technical success, and medical outcomes of in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR of RTAD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 15 patients with RTAD who received in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR between Mar 2016 and Dec 2019. All patients were subjected to intraoperative extracorporeal brain perfusion. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative medical data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 15 patients was 64 ± 8 years, 8 of whom were male. The immediate overall technical success rates, including aortic stent deployment were 100% and primary fenestration success was achieved in 13 (86.7%) patients. The mean postoperative length of stay was 10 ± 4 days. Stroke occurred in 1 case. No in-hospital/30-day death nor permanent paraplegia/paresis was observed. The mean follow-up time was 13 ± 5 months. Two type Ia endoleaks were found, but no late occlusion and migration of the supra-aortic branch arteries stents during the follow-up were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The in situ laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts during TEVAR of RTAD is a potential total endovascular therapy of RTAD for patients unsuitable for direct surgical repair.

Characterization of syndromic, nonsyndromic familial, and sporadic type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is commonly thought of as a sporadic event. However, an increasing body of data has suggested that genetic factors can influence TBAD. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of heritable TBAD, defined as either syndromic TBAD or nonsyndromic familial TBAD and to detail the natural history and long-term clinical outcomes compared with patients with "sporadic" TBAD without an identified syndrome or family history.

METHODS

The clinical records of 389 patients with TBAD who had presented to a single health care system from 1995 to 2017 were reviewed. A family history was obtained by interview and/or medical record review. Syndromic TBAD was defined as TBAD in patients with Marfan, Loeys-Dietz, or vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Nonsyndromic familial TBAD was defined as a family history of aortic or arterial aneurysm or dissection and/or sudden death in a first- or second-degree relative in the absence of a known syndrome. Patients with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD were compared with patients with sporadic TBAD in terms of the comorbid conditions, aortic repair, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 389 patients (71.2% male) with TBAD, the etiology of TBAD was heritable in 27.9% (9.6% syndromic; 18.3% nonsyndromic familial TBAD) and 72.1% sporadic of the cases. Patients with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD had been more frequently referred in the chronic phase than were the patients with sporadic TBAD (35.5% vs 44.1% vs 25.8%; P = .014) and had presented at a younger age (40.6 ± 10.9 years vs 55.2 ± 11.3 years vs 62 ± 12.9 years; P < .001) and with lower blood pressure at acute TBAD (systolic, 159.2 ± 21 mm Hg vs 178.9 ± 39.3 mm Hg vs 186.1 ± 38.4, P = .01; diastolic, 84.3 ± 17.3 mm Hg vs 91.4 ± 24.1 mm Hg vs 101.6 ± 22.3 mm Hg, P = .001). Among patients with acute TBAD surviving to discharge from the initial hospitalization, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) had been performed in 115 patients, with no significant differences in TEVAR usage in the three groups. However, those with syndromic and nonsyndromic familial TBAD had had a greater incidence of retrograde aortic dissection after TEVAR (33.3% vs 15% vs 3%; P = .006). They had also required a greater number of arch repairs (30% vs 10.5% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and had died at a younger age (47.7 ± 13.1 years vs 65.7 ± 13.7 years vs 72.8 ± 12.7 years; P < .001). Aortic-related mortality was more common among patients with syndromic TBAD (36.7% vs 12.3% vs 17.6%; P = .016).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-institutional experience, heritable TBAD accounted for one in four patients with TBAD. Nonsyndromic familial TBAD was twice as common as syndromic TBAD and appeared to share many clinical features. Identifying these patients early in their disease course and personalizing their care might improve their survival.

A multicenter "real-world" study of the valiant NAVION stent graft

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate early results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using the Valiant Navion™ stent graft in a "real-world" scenario.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TEVAR with the Valiant Navion™ endograft between November 2018 and November 2019 were included in this retrospective multicenter study (six European centers). The primary endpoints were technical success, incidence of major adverse events (MAEs), access failure, deployment failure, deployment accuracy, and rate of intraoperative endoleaks (ELs).

RESULTS

One hundred-sixteen patients with varying thoracic aortic diseases were included. Eighteen patients (15.5%) were treated for an off-label condition. The technical success rate was 100%, without any access or deployment failures. The proximal and distal deployment accuracy rates were 99.1% and 97.4%, respectively. There were no intraoperative MAEs, including death. Two (1.7%) type Ib ELs were detected at the first postoperative CTA, all of which were in off-label procedures and related to the short length of the sealing neck. No type III ELs were detected. The median hospitalization time was 8 days (IQR 4-12), including a median intensive care unit stay of 1 day (IQR 1-2). The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.3%. At a median follow-up time of 98 days (IQR 39-187), there were no aortic-related mortalities or new onset of endoleaks.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience with the Valiant Navion™ endograft in a wide variety of aortic diseases showed safe early outcomes, especially for on-label procedures.

Endovascular treatment of chronic aortic dissection with fenestrated and branched stent grafts

OBJECTIVE

Chronic aortic dissection with aneurysm development that includes the aortic arch and/or thoracoabdominal aorta (TAAA) is traditionally treated with open or hybrid surgery. Total endovascular treatment with fenestrated and branched aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) has recently been introduced as a less invasive alternative. The aim was to report the short- and midterm outcomes from a single tertiary vascular center.

METHODS

All patients with chronic aortic dissection treated with F/B-EVAR from 2010 to 2019 at Uppsala University Hospital were identified. Perioperative and postoperative parameters were analyzed, with focus on short- (<30 days) and midterm survival, complication, and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

F/B-EVAR was performed on 26 patients (median age, 63 years; range, 33-87 years; 18 men; median aortic diameter, 70 mm; range, 50-98 mm); with a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 0.5-118.0 months). One patient underwent both arch and TAAA repair. Overall, 13 arch repairs (arch group) after type A (n = 8) and type B (n = 5) dissection (all elective) were performed, and 14 TAAA repairs (TAAA group) after type A (n = 5) and type B (n = 9) dissection (one rupture). A total of 72 aortic branches were targeted (22 arch, 50 TAAA). Short-term technical success was achieved in 24 of 27 procedures (89%). Failures were related to one intraoperative retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) requiring open conversion (arch group), one persistent type IC endoleak on completion angiography (arch group), and one persistent type III endoleak (TAAA group). Mortality was 4% (n = 1) at 30 days and related to a second RTAD that occurred after discharge and was found on autopsy. Both RTADs occurred in patients with chronic type B dissection undergoing fenestrated arch repair. Paraplegia occurred in three cases (two arch, one TAAA) (11%), none permanent, and stroke in three cases (one arch, one TAAA) (11%); one was permanent. In the midterm, endoleaks were detected in 12 patients (44%); persistent false lumen flow (n = 3), type IB (n = 1), type IC (n = 3), type II (n = 7), and type IIIC (n = 2). The 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier) of the arch repair was 75% and for the TAAA, 93%. Freedom from reintervention at 3 years were 100% for arch repairs and 48% for TAAA. In patients with a follow-up of more than 6 months (n = 23), all had stable or decreased aortic diameters and complete false lumen thrombosis at the level of stent graft was present in 65% (n = 15).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of postdissection aneurysms is feasible, with acceptable short-term and midterm outcomes. RTAD after fenestrated and branched endovascular arch repair warrants caution when performed on patients with native ascending aortas, and reinterventions are frequent in TAAA repair.

Current options and recommendations for the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in acute and chronic thoracic aortic disease: an expert consensus document of the European Society for Cardiology (ESC) Working Group of Cardiovascular Surgery, the ESC Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Since its clinical implementation in the late nineties, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the standard treatment of several acute and chronic diseases of the thoracic aorta. While TEVAR has been embraced by many, this disruptive technology has also stimulated the continuing evolution of open surgery, which became even more important as late TEVAR failures do need open surgical correction justifying the need to unite both treatment options under one umbrella. This fact shows the importance of—in analogy to the heart team—aortic centre formation and centralization of care, which stimulates continuing development and improves outcome . The next frontier to be explored is the most proximal component of the aorta—the aortic root, in particular in acute type A aortic dissection—which remains the main challenge for the years to come. The aim of this document is to provide the reader with a synopsis of current evidence regarding the use or non-use of TEVAR in acute and chronic thoracic aortic disease, to share latest recommendations for a modified terminology and for reporting standards and finally to provide a glimpse into future developments.

Role of Endoluminal Techniques in the Management of Acute Type B Aortic Dissection and Intramural Haematoma

Twenty-five years ago, optimal medical management was the mainstay of treatment in acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) and intramural haematoma (IMH), with surgery being reserved for cases with rupture or critical branch vessel ischaemia. Less invasive endoluminal management of TBAD and IMH has developed rapidly over the past two and a half decades, thus changing the treatment algorithm in these patients. Today the focus has shifted to primary management with a combination of endoluminal intervention and optimal medical treatment. The purpose of this article is to describe the various interventional techniques, discuss the indications for intervention, and present the results in the current literature regarding clinical (rupture, branch vessel ischaemia) as well as morphological response (aortic remodelling), complications, and morbidity/mortality associated with endoluminal intervention.

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.

One-Year Single-Center Results of the Multilayer Flow Modulator Stents for the Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection

Purpose

To report a single-center series of patients with type B aortic dissection treated with the Multilayer Flow Modulator (MFM).

Materials and Methods

Over a 36-month period, 23 patients (median age 53 years; 20 men) with complicated type B aortic dissections (2 acute, 5 subacute, and 16 chronic) were treated with the MFM. Primary endpoints of rupture or dissection-related death, overall mortality, and reintervention were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method; estimates for freedom from the endpoints are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included technical success, adverse events, and aortic remodeling. Clinical and imaging data were collected preoperatively, directly postoperatively, and annually to 36 months for analysis using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

Results

Initial technical success was 91.3%. The estimates of the endpoints at 12 months were 100% for freedom from rupture or aortic-related death, 95.7% for freedom from overall mortality, and 91.3% for freedom from reintervention. No device-related neurological or systemic complications occurred, and no additional reinterventions were needed during follow-up. A total of 144 branches overstented by the MFM remained patent. Morphologic analysis of the aortic dissection showed progressive true lumen volume increase (75.9%, p<0.001) with concomitant false lumen volume decrease (42.8%, p<0.001); the CFD analyses showed increased laminar flow.

Conclusion

In the current series, the MFM provided a safe and feasible treatment option for complicated acute, subacute, and chronic type B aortic dissections, with high technical success, low mortality, and active aortic remodeling. Further studies should elucidate the long-term safety of the MFM and its effectiveness in a larger patient cohort.

Outcomes of type A intramural hematoma: Influence of diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether uncomplicated type A intramural hematoma (IMHA) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent a "wait-and-watch strategy" and tight glycemic control had similar clinical outcomes as patients without DM who received the same treatment strategy.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2016, uncomplicated IMHA patients with and without diabetes mellitus were included and were propensity score-matched to improve the balance between the two groups. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to identify the specific factors associated with aorta-related mortality. The Fine-Gray model for the competing risk analysis was used to estimate the aorta-related and nonaorta-related mortality in different groups during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 109 IMHA patients were included in this study, and 66 patients were included after matching. Patients without DM experienced significantly more aorta-related adverse events (51.6% vs 13.3%; P = .001) and reinterventions than patients in the DM group (29.0% vs 6.7%; P = .023). Cox regression analysis revealed that a higher matrix metalloproteinase-9 level (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.09; P < .001) and larger maximum aortic diameter (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.80; P = .005) were associated with higher aorta-related mortality. The competing risk analysis revealed a significantly higher aorta-related mortality during the follow-up period in the no DM group than in the DM group (36.4%; 95% CI, 11.6%-82.3%; P = .0294).

CONCLUSIONS

Uncomplicated IMHA patients with DM (receiving the "wait-and-watch strategy" and tight glycemic control) may have lower aorta-related mortality and rates of aorta-related adverse events and reinterventions than the no DM group.

The surgical management of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to review the surgical treatment of retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in our centre.

METHODS

From January 2014 to April 2018, 22 patients with RTAD after TEVAR were operated on in our centre. The mean age at operation was 52.0 ± 8.0 years old. The median interval between the primary TEVAR procedure and RTAD was 4.6 months (range 0-120 months). The postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were calculated to evaluate the early and long-term results.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique and 2 patients received total arch replacement alone. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time and selective cerebral perfusion time were 172.4 ± 39.3, 100.1 ± 30.3 and 19.7 ± 10.5 min, respectively. The incidence of major adverse events was 18.6% (4/22), including stroke in 1 patient, myocardial dysfunction in 1 patient and renal failure necessitating dialysis in 3 patients. Death within 30 days was 13.6% (3/22 patients). The follow-up data were available for all 19 survivors. The mean follow-up period was 32.2 ± 16.2 months (range 10-62 months). No deaths or aortic-related events occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Total arch replacement with or without the frozen elephant trunk technique was suitable for the management of RTAD after TEVAR, with acceptable early and long-term results.

Aortic balloon occlusion technique in total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background

Total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) was challenging in patients with prior thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), for complicated arch pathology and anatomy. In this study, we aimed to present our experiences in TAR with FET after prior TEVAR, and compare the clinical outcomes between the aortic balloon occlusion technique and the conventional technique.

Methods

Between January 2016 and December 2019, 30 patients with prior TEVAR received TAR with FET in our hospital. The aortic balloon occlusion technique was applied in 9 patients, and the conventional technique in 21 patients. The median time interval from TEVAR to reoperation was 9 months (0–168 months). The indications for TAR with FET included retrograde type A aortic dissection, endoleak, arch false aneurysm and new ascending dissection.

Results

The patients with the balloon occlusion technique had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time than patients with the conventional technique (151.2±31.3 vs. 183.4±46.8 min, P=0.036). The aortic-clamp time was also shorter in the balloon occlusion group, but without significant difference. The hypothermia circulatory arrest duration was significantly decreased in the balloon occlusion group (5.7±4.1 vs. 21.6±7.5 min, P<0.001). The incidence of major adverse events was 13.3%, and the mortality was 6.7%. No significant differences in the incidence of major adverse events, and the mortality were noted between the two groups. Follow-up was available in 28 survivors. The mean follow-up time was 25.4±13.0 months. No late death, aortic reoperation and complications occurred during follow-up.

Conclusions

TAR with FET was a safe and effective procedure in patients with prior TEVAR, with satisfactory early and late outcomes. The aortic balloon occlusion technique could be applied in these patients, and may provide some protective effects.

Endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch

This article reviews endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch. Therapeutic strategies intended for this complex aortic condition are evolving rapidly to allow the treatment of various hostile aortic anatomy and frail patients. Principles, technical considerations, devices and outcomes of each technique are reviewed and summarized. Hybrid repair offer similar early mortality and stroke rates compared to open conventional surgery. Arch chimney and other parallel graft techniques present poor long term outcome, and should be limited to emergency situations where no other option is available. Fenestrated stent-grafting is subjected to many technical challenges in aortic arch due to difficulties in stent-graft orientation and fenestration positioning. In situ fenestration is an off-label technique that should only be used as an emergency bailout maneuver, considering that temporary coverage of supra aortic trunk vessel and its long-term durability raise concern. Finally, in experienced hands and appropriate anatomic conditions, arch branched graft technology has shown itself to be a safe and effective alternative to open conventional surgery. No randomized controlled trials have yet compared total endovascular aortic arch repair with hybrid techniques and open arch repair. The management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch is challenging, decision-making and interventions should continue to be performed in high-volume centers with a dedicated aortic team with an expertise in both open and endovascular repairs.

Survival and cause of death after aortic arch aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify differences in prognosis, causes of death, and outcomes between open and endovascular repair for aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the survival status and causes of death determined from the medical records of 124 consecutive elderly patients (age>70 years) with aortic arch aneurysms that were treated between 2010 and 2018 at our hospital. Forty patients (male, N.=30; mean age, 76 years) underwent open repair and 84 (male, N.=68; mean age, 78 years) underwent endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Early postoperative complications (10.0% vs. 6.3%; P=0.4) and rates of in-hospital death (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P=0.2) did not significantly differ between open and endovascular repair. Cumulative long-term and event free survival rates at eight years were similar in both groups (78.7% vs. 66.3%, P=0.1 and 66.6% vs. 58.4%; P=0.4, respectively). The causes of death at follow-up after endovascular repair comprised malignancies in 11 (52.4%) patients and cardiopulmonary and cerebral events unrelated to aortic aneurysms in 10 (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late outcomes did not statistically differ after both procedures. However, the prevalence of cancer-related death occurring late after arch repair was significantly higher after endovascular repair. The most important observation from this series was that significantly more patients died of malignant disease during follow-up after endovascular repair than open repair.

Long-term Results of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection and Risk Factors for Survival

Purpose: To compare characteristics of acute, subacute, and chronic type B aortic dissection and their influence on long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: In a single-center, retrospective cohort study, 314 patients (median age 52 years; 244 men) with acute (n=165), subacute (n=115), or chronic (n=34) type B aortic dissection underwent TEVAR between January 2009 and December 2013. Patient demographics, risk factors, and imaging characteristics were compared among the groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify any factors influencing survival. Results: The acute and subacute patients exhibited more complications at presentation than chronic patients. However, the chronic patients exhibited more aneurysmal dilatation (p<0.001) and true lumen collapse (p<0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 68.1±22.9 months (range 2–108), subacute patients showed a lower reintervention rate (3.6% vs 12.1% vs 12.1%, p=0.045), a lower major complication rate (14.4% vs 33.1% vs 27.3%, p=0.002), and better cumulative overall survival (p=0.03) than the acute and chronic groups, respectively. Furthermore, acute patients developed more stent-graft–induced distal erosion (p=0.017) and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) (p=0.036), whereas chronic patients had less aortic remodeling in the stented segment (p<0.001), distal thoracic aorta (p<0.001), and abdominal aorta (p=0.047). Finally, multivariable analysis demonstrated age >52 years, visceral malperfusion, and RTAD as independent factors influencing overall survival; aneurysmal dilatation, rupture/impending rupture, and RTAD were independent factors influencing aorta-specific survival. Conclusion: Acute and subacute patients had increased risks of rupture and complications at presentation, whereas chronic patients had increased risks for aneurysmal dilatation. From a long-term perspective, the subacute phase might be an optimal time for TEVAR in cases of type B aortic dissection that do not need emergent interventions. The risk factors influencing survival should be identified, carefully managed, and possibly prevented.

Preoperative distal aortic diameter is a significant predictor of late aorta-related events after endovascular repair for chronic type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

Long-term therapeutic effects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic type B aortic dissection remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the possible predictors of late aortic rupture and re-interventions after TEVAR.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the operative outcomes of 40 patients who underwent TEVAR for chronic type B aortic dissection at Kyushu University Hospital. During a mean follow-up period of 39.2 months, we assessed aortic morphology via computed tomography and then employed a multivariable Cox regression analysis in an attempt to identify the predictors of late aorta-related events.

RESULTS

The early success rate of TEVAR was 100%. During the follow-up, however, three patients died from aortic rupture. Eight patients required aortic re-intervention, including thoraco-abdominal aortic graft replacement, repeated TEVAR, total arch replacement and EVAR. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that the preoperative maximum distal aortic diameter was a significant predictor of late aorta-related events. The cutoff value of the distal aortic diameter was 40 mm. Freedom from aorta-related events was 94.6% at 1 year and 78.3% at 3 years. The survival rate was not significantly different despite the re-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is an effective treatment for chronic type B dissection, with acceptable mid-term results. The preoperative distal aortic diameter is a significant risk factor for late aorta-related events. When the maximum distal aortic diameter is ≥ 40 mm, a therapeutic strategy should be developed taking into consideration the possible need for aortic re-intervention.

The evolution of treatments for uncomplicated type B intramural hematoma patients

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether uncomplicated type B intramural hematoma (IMHB) patients with known evolution predictors could benefit from more aggressive therapy.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed in uncomplicated IMHB patients with evolution predictors between January 2001 and August 2018. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to identify the specific factors associated with aorta-related mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 226 uncomplicated acute IMHB patients with evolution predictors were included. The conventional therapy group included 187 patients, and the other 39 patients received the more aggressive therapy. Aorta-related mortality in the first year was higher in the conventional therapy group than in the more aggressive therapy group (15% vs 2.5%, P = .035), and more patients died after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) (13 of 27 patients, 48.1% vs 2.5%, P < .001). The more aggressive therapy group had a higher rate of hematoma resolution than the conventional therapy group (81.6% vs 62.2%, P = .024), a lower possibility of hematoma worsening (2.6% vs 17.0%, P = .021), and a lower reintervention rate (0% vs 11.9%, P = .028). Cox regression analysis revealed that a higher rate of focal intimal disruption (FID) development (hazard ratio [HR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-11.46, P = .010), and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40, P < .001) were associated with increased aorta-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

More aggressive therapy for uncomplicated IMHB patients with evolution predictors during the acute phase may result in better clinical outcomes. A higher rate of FID development and a higher CRP level are associated with increased aorta-related mortality.

Painless retrograde type A aortic dissection followed conservative treatment of type B aortic dissection: a case report

Background

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) is a fatal aortic disease secondary to descending aortic dissection, and might be misdiagnosed due to its atypical symptoms lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Case presentation

We herein reported a case of a 40-year old Chinese non-comorbid man who received conservative treatment for acute type B aortic dissection and progressed to RTAD in a painless manner in a week. After open surgical aortic repair with stented elephant truck technique, the patient survived without obvious complication and cured with a satisfactory outcome in a half-year follow-up.

Conclusion

This case indicates that RTAD may present without typical symptoms, early diagnosis and open surgical procedure are imperative for treating RTAD.

Surgical Strategies for Type B Aortic Dissection by Frozen Elephant Trunk

The timing and choice of surgical method for type B aortic dissection, is still a topic of much debate. We performed total arch replacement using frozen elephant trunk (TAR-FET) as a means of preventing distant aortic events, such as retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD). We conducted analysis of 142 patients with acute type B dissection who were admitted between January of 2010 and July of 2017. Fifty-five cases required surgical intervention to treat enlargement of the false lumen diameter and ULP formation 2 weeks after the onset of symptoms. 17 TAR-FET were performed with a mean of 42±26 days period from onset to surgery. There were no complications of RTAD or paraplegic, and 90% of patient demonstrated aortic event free survival (5 years) and false lumen reduction ratio of 35%. Based on our analysis, using TAR-FET properly avoids serious complications like RTAD, and is a viable treatment option for type B dissection. (This is a translation of J Jpn Coll Angiol 2018; 58: 151-157.).

Filament inadequate wall apposition of the different ends of flow diverters in the abdominal aorta of rabbits

BACKGROUND

Flow diverters (FDs) with flared ends (FEs) or straight ends (SEs) are used either alone or when overlapped to treat complex intracranial aneurysms. We evaluated filament inadequate wall apposition (IWA) of the FEs and SEs of FDs in vivo.

METHODS

A total of 24 FDs with FEs and SEs were placed in an overlapping manner in the abdominal aortae of six rabbits (two sets per rabbit). Digital subtraction angiography was performed immediately after stent insertion and three months later. The anatomical and histopathological aortic features at FEs and SEs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Angiography revealed no significant difference in terms of changes in arterial diameter between the FE and SE groups (p = 0.877). Gross anatomical evaluation revealed IWA of the different ends of FDs but no thrombi or bleeding, showing that the metallic filaments were not in touch with the vessel wall and nor had they penetrated the vessel wall. The filaments' IWA rates of FEs and SEs were 8.33% and 8.85%, respectively. The IWA rate at overlapping ends was lower than that at non-overlapping ends. The maximum neo-intimal thickness at FEs was greater than that at SEs (149.4 ± 48.9 and 98.6 ± 26.6 µm, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the FEs and SEs of FDs can exhibit IMA. IWA events are reduced at the overlapped regions. On pathological evaluation, FEs increased neo-intimal thicknesses more than SEs did, but hyperplasia was minimal on angiography.

Three-step surgical treatment of aortoesophageal fistula after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A case report

•

The number of aortoesophageal fistula (AEF) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recently increasing due to the spread of TEVAR.

•

AEF is a rare but fatal disease, and only surgery can save the life of patients with AEF after TEVAR.

•

The therapeutic strategy for AEF after TEVAR remains controversial.

•

The three-step surgical approach described herein could be a useful therapeutic option for AEF after TEVAR.

Introduction

Aortoesophageal fistula (AEF) is a fatal complication results in sudden massive hematemesis. Although thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is an established method of treating aortic aneurysms or aortic dissection, the number of AEF after TEVAR is recently increasing due to the spread of TEVAR. However, the therapeutic strategy for AEF remains controversial.

Presentation of case

We describe a 71-year-old man with Stanford B aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm rupture treated by TEVAR who developed AEF between the thoracic aorta and upper thoracic esophagus 20 months thereafter. We applied a three-step surgical procedure for this patient comprising resection of the esophagus as the infectious source, removal of an aortic aneurysm with stent-graft and replacement of the aorta, and final reconstruction of the esophagus. Thereafter, the patient resumed oral intake and has remained relapse-free for 24 months without adverse events.

Discussion

Previous reports have described simultaneous resection of the esophagus and aortic stent-graft via a left thoracotomy followed by a two-step surgical reconstruction of the esophagus. We applied a three-step procedure consisting of resections of the esophagus and aortic stent-graft on separate occasions followed by esophageal reconstruction in this patient. The first procedure in the three-step approach is less stressful than that of the two-step approach.

Conclusion

The three-step surgical approach to treating AEF after TEVAR resulted in a good outcome for this patient. Thus, this surgical strategy is a useful option for treating AEF after TEVAR.