Search

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents optimal therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). Persistent knowledge gaps remain, including the optimal length of aortic coverage, impact on distal aortic remodeling, and fate of the dissected abdominal aorta. Review of the Emory Aortic Database identified 92 patients who underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD from 2012 to 2018. Standard TEVAR covered aortic zones 3 and 4 (from the left subclavian to the mid-descending thoracic aorta). Extended TEVAR fully covered aortic zones 3 though 5 (from the left subclavian to the celiac artery). Long-term imaging, clinical follow-up, and overall and aortic-specific mortality were reviewed. Extended TEVAR (n = 52) required a greater length of coverage vs standard TEVAR (n = 40) (240 ± 32 mm vs 183 ± 23 mm; P <.01). In-hospital mortality occurred in 5.4% of patients (7.7% vs 2.5%; P =.27) owing to mesenteric malperfusion (n = 3) or rupture (n = 2). The overall incidences of postoperative stroke, transient paraparesis, paraplegia, and dialysis were 5.4% (3.9% vs 7.5%; P =.38), 3.2% (5.8% vs 0%; P =.18), 0%, and 0% respectively, equivalent between groups. Follow-up was 96.6% complete to a mean of 6.1 years (interquartile range, 3.5-8.6 years). There were significantly higher rates of complete thrombosis or obliteration of the entire thoracic false lumen after Extended TEVAR (82.2% vs 51.5%; P =.04). Distal aortic reinterventions were less frequent after extended TEVAR (5.8% vs 20%; P =.04). Late aorta-specific survival was 98.1% after extended TEVAR vs 92.3% for standard TEVAR (P =.32). Extended TEVAR for complicated aTBAD is safe, results in a high rate of total thoracic false lumen thrombosis/obliteration, and reduces distal reinterventions. Longer-term follow-up will be needed to demonstrate a survival benefit compared to limited aortic coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Late adverse events (LAEs) are common among initially uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD); however, identifying those patients at highest risk of LAEs remains a significant challenge. Early false lumen (FL) growth has been suggested to increase risk, but confident determination of growth is often hampered by error in two-dimensional clinical measurements. Semi-automated three-dimensional (3D) mapping of aortic growth, such as by vascular deformation mapping (VDM), can potentially overcome this limitation using computed tomography angiograms (CTA). We hypothesized that FL growth in the early pre-dissection phase by VDM can accurately predict LAEs. We performed a two-center retrospective study of patients with uTBAD, with paired CTAs in the acute (1-14 days) and subacute/early chronic (1-6 months) periods. VDM analysis was used to map 3D growth. Standard clinical CT measures (ie, aortic diameters, tear characteristics) were also collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted using a decision tree and Cox proportional hazards model. LAEs were defined as aneurysmal FL (>55 mm); rapid growth (>5 mm within 6 months); aorta-specific mortality, rupture, or re-dissection. A total of 107 (69% male) patients with uTBAD initially met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up of 7.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.7-9.9 years). LAEs occurred in 72 patients (67%) at 2.5 years (IQR, 0.7-4.8 years) after the initial event. A multivariate decision tree model identified VDM growth (>2.1 mm) and baseline diameter (>42.7 mm) as optimal predictors of LAEs (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.94), achieving an 87% accuracy (sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 76%) after leave-one-out validation. Guideline reported high-risk features were not significantly different between groups. Early growth of the FL in uTBAD was the best tested indicator for LAEs and improves upon the current gold-standard of baseline diameter in selecting patients for early prophylactic thoracic endovascular aortic repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) results have been studied in short-term time frames. This study aimed to evaluate midterm and long-term outcomes of TEVAR, emphasizing postoperative aortic remodeling and need for reintervention. This is an institutional retrospective review of TEVAR for isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Data were collected from 2004 to 2018. Primary outcomes studied included aneurysm sac remodeling, freedom from reintervention, and all-cause mortality. Other outcomes studied include endoleak rates, neurologic complication rates, and any overall postoperative complication rates. During the study period, 219 patients underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. The median effect of TEVAR on sac diameter was a 0.7-cm decrease in size (interquartile range, −1.4 to 0.0 cm). During the study period, 80% (n = 147) of patients experienced aneurysm sac regression or stability. Perioperative neurologic complications occurred in 16% (n = 34) of patients. Significant predictors of sac growth were endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 65; P <.001), preoperative carotid-subclavian bypass (OR, 8; P =.003), and graft oversizing <20% (OR, 15; P =.046). Every 1-mm increase in aortic diameter at the proximal TEVAR landing zone led to an increased odds of endoleak (OR, 2; P =.049). Access complications (OR, 8) and subclavian artery coverage (OR, 6) significantly increased the odds of reintervention, whereas every percentage of graft oversizing protected against reintervention (OR, 0.005). Life-table analysis revealed an overall survival of 78% (71%-83%) at median follow-up. At 3 years, survival was 88% (80%-93%) for those with aneurysm sac stability or regression, whereas it was 70% (49%-84%) for those with aneurysm sac growth (P =.0402). Cox proportional hazards model showed that the only protective factor for mortality was percentage oversizing, with every 1% of oversizing having a hazard ratio (HR) of <.001 (P =.032). This was counterbalanced by the fact that patients with graft oversizing >30% had an increased odds of mortality with HR >10 (P =.049). Other significant factors that increased the odds of mortality included endoleak (HR, 3.6; P =.033), diabetes (HR, 4.1; P =.048), age (every 1-year increase in age; HR, 1.2; P =.002), year of surgery (every year subsequent to 2004; HR, 1.3; P =.012), and peripheral artery disease (HR, 5.2; P =.041). The majority of patients (80%) experience sac stability or regression after TEVAR, which offers a clear survival advantage. Endoleaks are predictive of sac growth, conferring increased mortality. Rigorous surveillance is necessary to prevent future aortic events through reintervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a national data set, we sought to describe the population of patients and the nature and timing of reinterventions after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by aortic disease as well as their impact on survival. We evaluated the national data set for TEVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2017. Student t -test and χ 2 analysis were used to compare continuous and categorical variables in the reintervention and no reintervention groups, respectively. Freedom from reintervention and survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. A total of 7006 patients were evaluated: 51.2% thoracic aortic aneurysm, 33.5% type B dissection (TBD), 7.0% penetrating aortic ulcer, 6.7% trauma, and 1.6% intramural hematoma. Overall, 553 patients (7.9%) underwent at least one reintervention, with an in-hospital reintervention rate of 3.5%. Reinterventions were most commonly performed for TBD (11.5%), with reinterventions for other diseases occurring at lower rates: thoracic aortic aneurysm, 6.7%; intramural hematoma, 5.4%; penetrating aortic ulcer, 4.8%; and trauma, 1.8%. The most common cause of reintervention across all aortic diseases was type I endoleak. The most common long-term reinterventions were placement of endovascular stent graft (65%), other surgical treatments (15.9%), other endovascular treatment (13%), endovascular branch treatment (12.4%), surgical treatment with no device removal (11.0%), and surgical branch treatment (10.4%). Freedom from reintervention was decreased for TBD compared with other diseases (P <.001). There was no difference in survival comparing patients undergoing reinterventions and those without (P =.87). However, patients undergoing in-hospital reintervention trended toward increased mortality (P =.075). Whereas reinterventions were not rare after TEVAR, there was no difference in mortality between patients undergoing reintervention and those without. Patients undergoing TEVAR for TBD demonstrated the highest reintervention rate. This study highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to address disease-specific patterns of reintervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the efficacy of the provisional extension to induce complete attachment (PETTICOAT) technique for type B and postoperative residual type B aortic dissections compared with the conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) technique. In this retrospective study, we compared sequential aortic morphologic changes in consecutive patients with type B and postoperative residual type B aortic dissections treated with the PETTICOAT technique between January 2016 and December 2017 with patients treated with the conventional TEVAR between January 2013 and December 2015. Outcomes included aortic remodeling and aorta-related adverse events for 2 years postoperatively. Forty-eight patients were included in this study (24 in the PETTICOAT group, 24 patients in the conventional TEVAR group). Although both groups showed aortic remodeling in the descending thoracic aorta, the PETTICOAT group developed significantly better aortic remodeling in the abdominal aorta compared with the conventional TEVAR group during the observation period. The PETTICOAT group had significantly fewer aorta-related adverse events compared with the conventional TEVAR group (8% vs 54%; P <.001). Aorta-related adverse events more commonly occurred in the poor remodeling group compared with in the good remodeling group (P =.001; hazard ratio, 8.32; 95% confidence interval, 2.26-30.64). This study suggests that the PETTICOAT technique for aortic dissection may promote aortic remodeling and decrease the incidence of aorta-related adverse events. Additional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for dissection project is to assess the effectiveness of TEVAR for type B dissection by evaluation in a prospective quality improvement registry. Here we describe the project cohort and 30-day outcomes of TEVAR for both acute dissection (AD) and chronic dissection (CD) patients and focus specifically on outcomes of uncomplicated AD patients based on timing of treatment., Methods: Summary statistics were performed comparing patients with AD (<30 days) and patients with CD. Both groups were further divided into those with complicated (ie, malperfusion or rupture) or uncomplicated presentation. Further subdivision of the uncomplicated AD patients into treatment at ≤48 hours, >48 hours to <7 days, ≥7 days to ≤14 days, and >14 days to <30 days was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for 30-day survival and freedom from reintervention., Results: Data for 397 patients (204 AD patients and 193 CD patients) were collected from 40 institutions. Overall, AD patients were younger than CD patients (58.8 vs 62.2 years; P = .003). Technical success, including coverage of the primary entry tear, was 98.0% for AD patients and 99.0% for CD patients, with a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality in AD patients (AD, 9.3%; CD, 5.2%; P = .126). Any degree of procedure-related spinal cord ischemia occurred in 4.4% of AD patients vs 2.1% of CD patients (P = .261), with a deficit at discharge in 3.4% of AD patients vs 0.5% of CD patients (P = .068). Disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of AD patients vs 1.6% of CD patients (P = .725); retrograde type A dissection occurred in 1.1% of AD patients vs 2.6% of CD patients (P = .412). There was a trend toward a lower freedom from reintervention in AD patients (90.7% vs 94.8%; P = .13). In uncomplicated AD patients, rapid aortic expansion was more common in the treatment groups of ≥7 days to ≤14 days and >14 days to <30 days compared with those treated within 7 days of dissection (P = .042). The uncomplicated AD cohorts based on timing of treatment were otherwise similar in demographics and presentation, with no significant differences in 30-day mortality or serious complications, such as spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or retrograde type A dissection. The 30-day reintervention rate for uncomplicated AD patients was 5.8%, with no apparent differences in reintervention rates according to timing of treatment of initial TEVAR., Conclusions: As expected, AD patients demonstrated a trend toward a higher 30-day mortality and lower freedom from reintervention compared with CD patients. Mortality at 30 days after TEVAR for uncomplicated AD was 5.8%, and there were no clear patterns in mortality or reintervention based on timing of treatment. Further study and evaluation at longer follow-up are needed to determine the impact of timing of intervention in uncomplicated AD patients., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)