Search

Malperfusion is a common lethal complication of acute aortic dissection following rupture, for which the optimal management strategy has yet to be clearly established. The objective of this study was to reassess the management of acute type A aortic dissection (Type A-AAD) with malperfusion. We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of all patients with Type A-AAD with malperfusion at the University of Michigan and compared the results from patients that directly underwent open surgical repair versus those who had percutaneous reperfusion prior to open surgical repair. Based on the results, we developed a patient care protocol for the treatment of all patients with acute type A dissection. We later re-analyzed the long-term outcomes for patients using the protocol. The present study demonstrated that, although the outcomes for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome treated with initial percutaneous reperfusion and delayed open surgical intervention are not as good as the results for patients with uncomplicated Type A-AAD that undergo immediate surgical repair, their outcomes continue the long-term outcomes of the former group are superior. To outdo patients with acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome treated with immediate open surgical intervention. In conclusion, at the University of Michigan we continue to use our patient care protocol to treat patients with Type A-AAD.

Question: A 65 year old man with history of colorectal cancer treated with left hemicolectomy and transverse colon colostomy 6 years ago was admitted to the hospital with bloody colostomy output. His other medical history was notable for type II diabetes, obesity and heavy alcohol use. He has had intermittent bloody colostomy output for the past three years. It was bright red blood that would fill his ostomy bag. This has been treated at other hospitals with periodic admission for blood transfusion and also with local cautery. A stomal revision was planned but was not performed because of unknown reasons. On admission he was hemodynamically stable, and his blood pressure was 190/100. Physical examination was unremarkable except for pallor, mild splenomegaly and colostomy. There were no stigmata of chronic liver disease. His labs included white blood cell count 2.7/mm3, hemoglobin 9.7 g/dl, platelets 56,000/mm3, normal electrolytes, urea nitrogen 12 mg/dl, creatinine 1.0 mg/dl, AST 30 IU/ml, ALT 18 IU/ml, alkaline phosphatase 55 IU/ml, total bilirubin 1.4 mg/dl, and International Normalized Ratio of prothrombin time 1.2. On the third day of admission, he had another episode of bright red blood that filled the colostomy bag associated with light-headedness and hypotension. His hemoglobin dropped to 7.6 g/dl. He responded well to resuscitation with 0.9% normal saline and 4 units of packed red blood cells. An EGD showed a normal esophagus and mild portal hypertensive gastropathy. The colonoscopy through his colostomy showed normal colon and terminal ileum. A CT-angiography was performed (Figure A) and the patient was referred to Interventional Radiology for further management. Figure A What is the diagnosis?

BackgroundRisk factors and outcomes after iliofemoral complications after thoracic aortic endovascular repair remain poorly characterized. This study was performed to characterize factors influencing perioperative iliofemoral complications during thoracic aortic endovascular repair.MethodsAll patients undergoing transfemoral thoracic aortic endovascular repair since 2005 with adequate preoperative aortoiliac 3-dimensional imaging (n = 126) were identified. Assessment of imaging was blinded with regard to occurrence of iliofemoral complications, defined as anything other than successful transfemoral device delivery and primary closure of an arteriotomy.ResultsThe complication rate was 12% (n = 15). Univariate analysis identified that female gender, preoperative ankle-brachial index, average and minimal iliac diameters, diameter difference between iliac artery and sheath size, and iliac morphology score (calculated by combining iliac tortuosity, calcification, and vessel diameter) were associated with iliofemoral complications (all P

Background The presence of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) of the descending thoracic aorta has been associated with a poor long-term prognosis. Although early results have suggested acceptable outcomes for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for PAU, few studies have described the late outcomes of this approach. Methods From 1993 to 2009, 37 patients (43.2% male; mean age, 72 years) underwent TEVAR for PAU. Associated intramural hematoma was present in 19. Comorbidities included hypertension in 31, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 16, coronary artery disease in 22, and renal failure (mean preoperative creatinine, 1.4 mg/dL). Urgent or emergent indications were identified in 22 patients (59.5%), including presentation with rupture in 15 (40.5%). Results TEVAR was successfully performed in all patients. Arch repair was performed in 14 and total descending repair in 13. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and total arch debranching in one patient electively presenting with an asymptomatic PAU. Early morbidity included stroke (5.4%), temporary paraplegia (5.4%), and need for dialysis (2.7%). In-hospital or 30-day mortality was seen in two patients (5.4%). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, median survival was 89.8 months. Independent predictors of late mortality included urgent or emergent presentation (odds ratio, 14.7; P = .007). Actuarial freedom from TEVAR treatment failure (ie, need for open or endovascular aortic reintervention, aortic rupture, or aortic-related death) was 81.6% ± 7.8% at 5 years. Analysis stratified by type of pathology (PAU vs PAU and intramural hematoma) showed no significant baseline differences in age, comorbidities, or extent of repair. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, however, presentation with PAU and intramural hematoma was associated with an increased risk for TEVAR treatment failure ( P = .033). Conclusions TEVAR can be safely accomplished for patients presenting with PAU. The presence of associated intramural hematoma may adversely affect the late outcomes of therapy, highlighting the need for careful planning, prudent balancing of the benefits of immediate vs delayed treatment of the fragile aortic wall, and the imperative nature of attentive follow-up in patients with PAU.

BackgroundWe previously reported an improvement in early mortality for patients presenting with acute type A dissection with malperfusion using a strategy of initial percutaneous intervention to restore end-organ perfusion and delayed operative repair after resolution of the malperfusion syndrome. This study evaluates the late outcomes with this approach.MethodsA total of 196 patients were admitted with acute type A dissection (1997–2007). Seventy patients with ischemic end-organ dysfunction underwent percutaneous fenestration or branch vessel stenting. Operative therapy was planned after resolution of the reperfusion injury. Outcomes were compared for patients with (MP) and without (UC) dissection with ischemic end-organ dysfunction.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 57.1 years, and 173 patients underwent operative repair (n = 126 UC group; n = 47 MP group). The remaining 23 patients in the MP group died before repair from complications of malperfusion (11) or aortic rupture (12) while awaiting resolution of the malperfusion syndrome. Operative mortality was seen in 9.2% of all patients (9.5% in UC group vs 8.5% in MP group; P = 1.0). On analysis of the entire cohort (n = 196), the mean survival was higher for the uncomplicated group (95.9 months for UC group vs 53.7 months for MP group; P < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent operation (n = 173) revealed similar mean survival (95.9 months for UC group vs 80.5 months for MP group; P = .45).ConclusionA strategy of immediate reperfusion, stabilization, and planned operative repair for acute type A dissection with malperfusion still carries a significant risk for early and late mortality. However, those patients who survive the initial malperfusion and undergo repair have a similar operative and late survival when compared with those patients presenting with uncomplicated dissection.

Background Iliac artery endoconduits (ECs) have emerged as important alternatives to retroperitoneal open iliac conduits (ROICs) to aid in transfemoral delivery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present, to our knowledge, the first comparative analysis between these alternative approaches. Methods All patients undergoing TEVAR with either ROIC (n = 23) or internal EC (n = 16) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 72.4 ± 11.5 years (82.1% female). Device delivery was accomplished in 100% of cases. The primary outcome was the presence of iliofemoral complications, which was defined as: (1) the inability to successfully deliver the device into the aorta via the ROIC or EC approach; (2) rupture, dissection, or thrombosis of the ipsilateral iliac or femoral artery; and/or (3) retroperitoneal hematoma requiring exploration and evacuation. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and rates of limb loss, claudication, or revascularization. Results At a median follow-up of 10.1 months, the incidence of iliofemoral complications was less for the EC approach compared with the ROIC technique (12.5% vs 26.1%; P = .301). No patients sustained limb loss. Revascularization was performed in two patients after ROIC. Lower extremity claudication occurred in one patient after EC. Early mortality was seen in one patient who underwent EC. Two-year Kaplan-Meier survival for the entire cohort was 74.4%, and did not differ between groups (ROIC, 78.3% vs EC, 68.8%; P = .350). Two-year Kaplan-Meier freedom from limb loss, claudication, or revascularization did not differ between the two approaches (ROIC, 91.3% vs EC, 93.8%; P = .961). Conclusions Results of this early comparative evaluation of alternative access routes for TEVAR suggest that an EC approach is safe, effective, and associated with low rates of early mortality and late iliofemoral complications. In selected patients, the EC may be considered an appropriate delivery route for transfemoral TEVAR.

ObjectiveOpen repair for acute type B dissection with malperfusion is associated with significant morbidity. Thoracic aortic endovascular repair has been proposed as a less-invasive therapy for acute type B dissection with malperfusion. Benefits of thoracic aortic endovascular repair include the potential for false lumen thrombosis. Its risks include both early morbidity and mortality, and uncertain late results with potentially unstable landing zones. We present the first long-term analysis of an alternative endovascular approach consisting of percutaneous flap fenestration with true lumen and branch vessel stenting to restore end-organ perfusion.MethodsOutcomes were analyzed for 69 patients presenting with acute type B dissection with malperfusion from 1997 to 2008. All patients were evaluated with angiography and treated with a combination of flap fenestration, true lumen, or branch vessel stenting where appropriate.ResultsMean age was 57.3 years. Identified malperfused vascular beds included spinal cord (5), mesenteric (40), renal (51), and lower extremity (47). Major morbidity included dialysis need (11), stroke (3), paralysis (2), and 30-day mortality (n = 12, 17.4%). Mean Kaplan–Meier survival was 84.3 months. Although late mortality was associated with age (P < .0001), neither the type nor the number of malperfused vascular beds correlated with vital status at last follow-up (P > .4). Freedom from aortic rupture or open repair at 1, 5, and 8 years was 80.2%, 67.7%, and 54.2%, respectively.ConclusionPresentation with acute type B dissection with malperfusion carries a significant risk for both early and late mortality. Percutaneous approaches allow for rapid restoration of end-organ perfusion with acceptable results. These long-term results can serve as comparative data by which to evaluate newer therapies for acute type B dissection with malperfusion, such as thoracic aortic endovascular repair.

Background. Optimal treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (CBAD), whether open (open descending aortic repair, OAR) or endovascular (thoracic endovascular aortic repair, TEVAR), is controversial, suggesting a comparative analysis is warranted. Methods. One hundred twenty-two of 1,049 patients (1993 to 2013) undergoing descending aortic repair required intervention for CBAD 29.2 ± 34.9 months after the initial acute event and formed the study cohort (mean age 59.7 years). Those with degenerated residual type A dissection were excluded (n[ 65). Eighty-eight had extent IIIB CBAD; 11 had intramural hematoma. Indications for surgery included aneurysmal degeneration (n [ 105), rupture (n [ 8), acute or chronic dissection (n [ 8), and extension of dissection (n [ 1). Open strategy included descending (n [ 71) and thoracoabdominal repair (n [ 19), with hypothermic circulatory arrest used in 70 patients. The TEVAR was performed with (n [ 2) or without (n [ 30) visceral debranching. A treatment strategy propensity score incorporating time since initial acute event, CBAD extent, year of intervention, age, and selected comorbidities was constructed for multivariable analysis. Results. Early outcome included the following: 30-day mortality 4% (n [ 5); stroke 2% (n [ 2); permanent