Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm and dissection.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before April 1, 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We assessed the association between CSFD strategies, including routine CSFD vs selective CSFD or no CSFD, and the SCI rates after TEVAR for patients with aortic dissection (AD), solitary thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the association between different aortic pathologies, including AD and thoracic aneurysms, and SCI rates after TEVAR with and without prophylactic CSFD. The data are presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies of 3561 patients (2671 with TAA or TAAA and 890 with type B AD) were included in the present analysis. The data are presented as the pooled ERs and 95% CIs. The overall SCI rate for patients who had undergone TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD for AD (ER, 1.80%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.72%) was significantly lower than that for the aortic aneurysm group (ER, 5.73%; 95% CI, 4.20%-7.27%; P < .0001). The SCI rate after TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD was not significantly different from that without CSFD for AD (P = .51). No association was found between the rates of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD vs selective prophylactic CSFD for aortic aneurysms (P = .76) and AD (P = .70). The SCI rate after TEVAR without CSFD for aortic aneurysms, including isolated TAA and TAAA (ER, 3.49%; 95% CI, 0.23%-6.76%) was not significantly different from that for AD (ER, 3.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-7.20%; P = .91). For the patients with TAAAs, the rate of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD was significantly lower than that with selective prophylactic CSFD (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that SCI occurs more often after TEVAR for aortic aneurysms than for AD. Routine prophylactic CSFD, compared with selective CSFD, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative SCI after TEVAR for TAAAs. No significant association was found between the SCI rate and routine prophylactic CSFD for patients undergoing TEVAR for isolated TAA or AD.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following One versus Two Stage Hybrid Repair of Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

For thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), it is unclear whether it is better to perform hybrid repair in one (single) or two stages (staged). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of single vs. staged hybrid repair of TAAA.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Databases (1 January 1994 to 11 May 2020) were searched for studies on hybrid repair of TAAA. Cohort studies and case series reporting outcomes of single and staged hybrid repair of TAAA were eligible for inclusion. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and an 18 item tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality, and the secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, overall survival, and other mid term events. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies was included in the meta-analysis. The quality assessment of the included studies suggested low or moderate risk of bias. The pooled estimates for aneurysm rupture and death during stage interval were 2% (95% CI 0%-4%, I² = 0%) and 4% (95% CI 2%-7%, I² = 0%), respectively. Single repair was associated with a significantly higher 30 day risk of death when compared with patients who completed staged procedures successfully (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.36-5.12, I² = 0%). Staged repair also had lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (single: 10%, 95% CI 5%-16%; staged: 2%, 95% CI 0%-5%) and intestinal complications (single: 15%, 95% CI 8%-25%; staged: 3%, 95% CI 1%-6%). For mid term outcomes, single and staged repair had comparable 12 month overall survival, aneurysm related mortality, rate of re-intervention, and graft patency.

CONCLUSION

Two stage hybrid repair may represent a better choice for patients with controlled risk of aneurysm rupture, because it can provide lower 30 day mortality risks, MACE, and intestinal complications, as well as comparable mid term outcomes. Randomised controlled trials are needed to ascertain the effect of repair staging in patients for elective TAAA.

Infrarenal aortic repair with or without false lumen intentional placement of endografts for hybrid management of complex aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Aortic dissection (AD) often involves the infrarenal aorta. We review our experience with open infrarenal aortic repair with or without false lumen intentional placement (FLIP) of endografts in the proximal dissected aorta as part of a hybrid strategy to treat complex AD.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing intervention for AD was reviewed. Data regarding diagnosis, imaging features, nature of the infrarenal repair (one- vs two-stage procedure), endoleaks, need for additional interventions, morbidity, and mortality were collected.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2017, there were 16 patients with AD with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA), malperfusion, or both who underwent open infrarenal aortic repair or replacement combined with endovascular repair in a single- or multiple-stage procedure. Fifteen patients had a chronic AD and one patient had an acute AD. The most common indication for intervention was absolute size or rapid growth of the abdominal, thoracic, or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (65%). In four patients with AD, the infrarenal replacement surgical graft was used as a common distal seal zone, allowing FLIP of an endograft to treat the proximal AD. Ten (62%) cases were done in two or more stages. Three patients had infrarenal aortic replacement with debranching only. In two of these patients, the proximal dissected aorta has remained stable without aneurysmal degeneration. One patient died as a result of rupture of his aneurysm while awaiting the second stage (perioperative mortality, 6%). Patients were observed from 1 month to 7 years. One patient had a stable type II endoleak, and one patient required subsequent replacement of ascending aortic arch for aneurysmal disease. One patient died of unrelated causes on follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid infrarenal aortic repair for treatment of complex AD can be performed with low morbidity and mortality and excellent medium-term results. This strategy can resolve malperfusion while simultaneously creating a landing zone using the false lumen as the conduit for the stent graft (FLIP) in selected patients. The FLIP technique allows full expansion of the endograft, potential preservation of lumbar and intercostal artery flow, and exclusion of the weaker false lumen while, in some cases, decompressing and thus stabilizing the proximal dissected aorta.

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: open, endovascular, or hybrid?

Successful repair of complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms requires careful surgical planning based on anatomic and patient considerations. Not only are surgical considerations key, but also post-operative care, regardless of surgical approach, can dramatically impact both short- and long-term outcomes. While open repair has been the gold standard for decades, the technical challenges associated with operative repair, a specialty approach requisite for good outcomes, and the unique challenges in the post-operative care of these patients have given providers pause when considering operative intervention. The relatively recent development of elegant endovascular and hybrid approaches to this problem has shown improved short-term morbidity and reasonable durability. Here, we discuss these three techniques for correction of complex thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms to provide some guidance for optimization of outcomes based on individual patient anatomy and comorbid conditions.

Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Thrombosed Infrarenal Component: A Modified Hybrid Technique without Aortic Cross Clamping

The authors report the successful repair of a Crawford type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) with a thrombosed infrarenal component using a modified hybrid technique without aortic clamping in a high-risk patient. A 64-year-old male with a history of hypertension, diabetes, and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presented with acute on chronic backache and bilateral short distance claudication. A computerized tomography scan demonstrated a large, nonleaking Crawford type III TAAA with thrombosed infrarenal component of the aneurysm. In addition, both common iliac arteries were occluded with the chronic thrombus. A single-stage, modified hybrid procedure involving an aortobifemoral bypass without aortic clamping, debranching of right renal, superior mesenteric, and celiac arteries as well as an endovascular repair of the thoracic aneurysm was performed. Unfortunately, despite a technically sound repair, the patient died postoperatively from a massive pulmonary embolism. TAAA with a thrombosed infrarenal aorta and bilateral common iliac arteries can be repaired using a single-stage modified hybrid procedure without aortic clamping in high-risk patients who cannot tolerate thoracotomy and aortic cross clamping.

Debranching aortic surgery

Conventional open surgery still remains as the gold standard of care for aortic arch and thoracoabdominal pathology. In centers of excellence, open repair of the arch has been performed with 5% immediate mortality and a low rate of complications; however overall mortality rates are around 15%, being up to 40% of all patients rejected for treatment due to their age or comorbidities. For thoracoabdominal aortic pathology, data reported from centers of excellence show immediate mortality rates from 5% to 19%, spinal cord ischemia from 2.7% to 13.2%, and renal failure needing dialysis from 4.6% to 5.6%. For these reasons, different alternatives that use endovascular techniques, including debranching procedures, have been developed. The reported results for hybrid debranching procedures are controversial and difficult to interpret because series are retrospective, heterogenic and including a small number of patients. Clearly, an important selection bias exists: debranching procedures are performed in elderly patients with more comorbidities and with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms that have more complex and extensive disease. Considering this fact, debranching procedures still remain a useful alternative: for aortic arch pathology debranching techniques can avoid or reduce the time of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) or cardiac arrest which may be beneficial in high-risk patients that otherwise would be rejected for treatment. And compared to pure endovascular techniques, they can be used in emergency cases with applicability in a wide range of anatomies. For thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, they are mainly useful when other lesser invasive endovascular options are not feasible due to anatomical limitations or when they are not available in cases where delaying the intervention is not an option.