Epidemiological Analysis of 5,595 Procedures of Endovascular Correction of Isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Disease Over 12 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil

OBJECTIVES

In Brazil, descending thoracic aorta disease, including aneurysms and dissections, is managed preferentially by endovascular treatment, owing to its feasibility and good results. In this study, we analyzed endovascular treatment of isolated descending thoracic aortic disease cases in the Brazilian public health system over a 12-year period.

METHODS

Public data from procedures performed from 2008 to 2019 were extracted using web scraping techniques to assess procedure type frequency (elective or urgency), mortality, and governmental costs.

RESULTS

A total of 5,595 procedures were analyzed, the vast majority of which were urgent procedures (61.82% vs. 38.18%). In-hospital mortality was lower for elective than for urgent surgeries (4.96 vs.10.32% p=0.008). An average of R$16,845.86 and R$20,012.04 was paid per elective and emergency procedure, respectively, with no statistical difference (p=0.095).

CONCLUSION

Elective procedures were associated with lower mortality than urgent procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between elective and urgent procedures regarding costs.

Does aortic valve repair in valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction compromise the longevity of the procedure?

OBJECTIVES:

The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time.

METHODS:

From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns).

RESULTS:

The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients).

CONCLUSION:

Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.