Search

We performed a contemporary assessment of clinical and radiographic factors of stroke after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients undergoing TEVAR from 2006 to 2017 were identified. We assessed clinical and radiographic data, including preoperative head and neck computed tomography, Doppler ultrasonography, and intraoperative angiography. Our primary outcome was stroke after TEVAR. Four hundred seventy-nine patients underwent TEVAR, mean age 68.1 ± 19.5 years, 52.6% male. Indications for TEVAR included aneurysms (n = 238, 49.7%) or dissections (n = 152, 31.7%). Ishimaru landing zones were Zone 2 (n = 225, 47.0%), Zone 3 (n = 151, 31.5%), or Zone 4 (n = 103, 21.5%). Stroke occurred in 3.8% (n = 18) of patients, with 1.9% (8) major events (modified Rankin Scale >3). Pathophysiology was predominantly embolic (n = 14), and occurred in posterior (n = 6), anterior (n = 6), or combined circulation (n = 4), and in the left hemisphere (n = 10) or bilateral (n = 6). Univariate analysis suggested use of lumbar drain (33.3% versus 57.2%, P = 0.04), inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery (16.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.04) and number of implanted components (2.5 ± 1.2 vs 2.0 ± 0.97, P = 0.03) were associated with stroke. Multivariable analysis identified number of implanted components (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.17-2.67 P = 0.00) and inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery as independent predictors of stroke. Stroke was associated with a higher perioperative mortality (27.8% vs 3.9%, P < 0.01). Stroke after TEVAR is primarily embolic in nature and related to both anatomic and procedural factors. This may have important implications for device development in the era of endovascular arch repair., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The impact of left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization before thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on cerebrovascular flow is not well described. We studied bilateral vertebral and carotid artery flow characteristics before and after TEVAR to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of LSA revascularization., Methods: Seventy-four patients with mixed etiologies (mean age 70.9 ± 10.5 years) underwent LSA revascularization and TEVAR (2006-2016) and had available preoperative and postoperative carotid duplex study available. Data from patient demographics, procedures, preoperative, and postoperative carotid duplex studies were gathered. Revascularization was by left common carotid artery (LCCA) to LSA bypass (n = 70, 94.6%) or LSA to LCCA transposition (n = 4, 5.4%)., Results: Duplex confirmation of antegrade left vertebral artery (LVA) flow decreased significantly after TEVAR with LSA revascularization (100.0% vs. 77.9%, P < 0.001). Incidence of retrograde LVA flow increased from 0.0% to 8.3% (P = 0.063). Postoperatively, LVA bidirectional flow was observed in 3 patients (4.4%). Flow directions in the right vertebral artery (RVA) did not change significantly. Peak systolic velocity (PSV) in the LVA decreased significantly after TEVAR from 55.1 ± 22.0 cm/s to 35.9 ± 26.3 cm/s (P < 0.001). In contrast, PSV increased in the RVA and the right internal carotid artery (ICA; 52.2 ± 21.7 cm/s to 63.2 ± 23.3 cm/s, P = 0.012 and 95.3 ± 46.8 cm/s to 102.8 ± 42.9 cm/s, P = 0.011). PSV did not change significantly in the left ICA. At mean follow-up of 36.6 ± 26.8 months, primary bypass patency was 100.0%. Postoperatively, one case of temporary spinal cord ischemia was seen (1.4%). Stroke rate was 6.9% (n = 5, 100.0% embolic), all without permanent disabilities. Stroke circulation distribution was 60.0% posterior, 20.0% anterior, and 20.0% mixed. Location of stroke was left sided (n = 2) or in both hemispheres (n = 3). There were no deaths at 30 days. Neurological events during follow-up included 3 new strokes. All-cause mortality rate during follow-up was 12.2% (n = 9)., Conclusions: Adjunctive LSA revascularization in the setting of zone 2 TEVAR coverage is associated with hemodynamic vertebral artery changes. Future studies in larger sample sizes should evaluate whether these novel findings are an important determinant of postoperative neurologic events., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the applicability of an off-the-shelf scalloped stent-graft to preserve left subclavian artery (LSA) flow in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection., Methods: The computed tomography angiograms (CTA) of 70 consecutive patients (median age 64 years; 44 men) with acute Stanford type B aortic dissection were retrospectively analyzed to identify patients in whom a short proximal landing zone (<15 mm from the retrogradely dissected wall layers) would require LSA overstenting during TEVAR. A scalloped stent-graft was deemed possible in those patients with the intimal entry tear located at least 20 mm distant from the LSA ostium., Results: The LSA needed to be covered in 56 (80%) patients. Of these, an off-the-shelf scalloped stent-graft would have been applicable in 23 (41%) patients. In the latter group, the median aortic diameter was 31 mm (range 26-37), the median length of the LSA ostium was 13 mm (range 10-20), and the median width of the LSA ostium was 15 mm (range 11-24). Three differently sized off-the-shelf stent-grafts with the largest scallop possible could have adequately treated 20 (36%) of the 56 patients in the acute phase., Conclusion: In this single-center imaging-based study, involvement of the LSA in the setting of acute type B aortic dissection was seen in 80% of patients treated with TEVAR. Three off-the-shelf stent-grafts would suffice to treat one-third of these acute type B aortic dissections and may offer a relatively simple solution to preserve LSA flow, thereby lowering the risk of malperfusion of the (posterior) cerebrum, spinal cord, and left arm in an urgent/emergent setting.

Background: Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. In this study, the effect of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on aortic stiffness is investigated by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) in an ex vivo porcine model., Methods: Fifteen fresh porcine thoracic aortas were connected to a benchtop pulsatile system. Intraluminal pressures were recorded in the ascending aorta and at the celiac trunk using a needle connected to a pressure sensor. The distance between the needles was divided by the time difference between the base of the pressure peaks to calculate aortic PWV at baseline and after stent-graft deployment and distal stent-graft extension., Results: Mean aortic PWV was 5.0 m/s at baseline. PWV increased by 4% after proximal stent-graft deployment (P = 0.09) and by 18% after stent-graft extension (P < 0.001). Pulse pressure in the nonstented ascending aorta increased by 11.0 ± 1.2 mm Hg after proximal stent-graft deployment (P < 0.001) and by 17.3 ± 1.5 mm Hg after stent-graft extension (P < 0.001). The increases in PWV and pulse pressure showed a positive linear correlation with the percentage of stent-graft coverage (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this experimental setup, aortic stiffness increased after stent-graft deployment, dependent on the percentage of the aorta that was covered by stent graft. These results show that TEVAR leads to significant changes in aortic hemodynamics, which merits evaluation in the clinical setting., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The high-risk patient cohort of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (uTBADs) needs to be clarified. We compared uTBAD patients treated with best medical treatment (BMT), with and without aortic growth, from the Acute Dissection Stent Grafting or Best Medical Treatment (ADSORB) trial database. Furthermore, we looked for trends in outcome for aortic growth and remodeling after BMT and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and BMT (TEVAR+BMT)., Methods: BMT patients with available baseline and a 1-year follow-up arterial computed tomography scan were identified. True lumen and false lumen diameter was assessed at baseline and at follow-up. Patients with false lumen growth (group I) and without false lumen growth (group II) were compared. Predictors of false lumen and total lumen (aortic) growth were identified. Lastly, BMT outcomes were compared with BMT+TEVAR for false lumen thrombosis and change in false lumen and total aortic diameter in four sections: 0 to 10 cm (A), 10 to 20 cm (B), 20 to 30 cm (C), and 30 to 40 cm (D) from the left subclavian artery., Results: The dissection was significantly longer in group I than in group II (43.2 ± 4.9 cm vs 30.4 ± 8.8 cm; P = .002). The number of vessels originating from the false lumen at baseline was identified as an independent predictor of false lumen growth (odds ratio, 22.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-481.5; P = .049). Increasing age was a negative predictor of total aortic diameter growth (odds ratio, 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.813-1.00; P = .0502). The proximal sections A and B showed complete thrombosis in 80.6% in the BMT+TEVAR group compared with 9.5% in the BMT group. In these sections, changes from patent to partial or partial to complete thrombosis were observed in 90.3% of the TEVAR+BMT group vs 31.0% in the BMT group. In sections C and D, the change in thrombosis was 74.1% for the TEVAR+BMT group vs 20.6% for the BMT group. The false lumen diameter increase at section C was larger in the BMT group. Total lumen diameter decreased in sections A and B in the TEVAR+BMT group compared with an increase in the BMT group (-4.8 mm vs +2.9 mm, and -1.5 mm vs +3.8 mm, respectively). Sections C and D showed minimal and comparable expansion in both treatment groups., Conclusions: The new imaging analysis of the ADSORB trial patients identified the number of vessels originating from the false lumen as an independent predictor of false lumen growth in uTBAD patients. Increasing age was a negative predictor of aortic growth. Our analysis may help to identify which uTBAD patients are at higher risk and should receive TEVAR or be monitored closely during follow-up., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To quantify the impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on radial aortic strain with the aim of elucidating stent-graft-induced stiffening and complications., Methods: Twenty fresh thoracic porcine aortas were connected to a mock circulatory loop driven by a centrifugal flow pump. A high-definition camera captured diameters at five different pressure levels (100, 120, 140, 160, and 180 mmHg), before and after TEVAR. Three oversizing groups were created: 0-9% ( n  = 7), 10-19% ( n  = 6), and 20-29% ( n  = 6). Radial strain (or deformation) derived from diameter amplitude divided by baseline diameter at 100 mmHg. Uniaxial tensile testing evaluated Young's moduli of the specimens., Results: Radial strain was reduced after TEVAR within the stented segment by 49.4 ± 24.0% ( P  < 0.001). As result, a strain mismatch was observed between the stented segment and the proximal non-stented segment (7.0 ± 2.5% vs 11.8 ± 3.9%, P  < 0.001), whereas the distal non-stented segment was unaffected ( P  = 0.99). Stent-graft oversizing did not significantly affect the amount of strain reduction ( P  = 0.30). Tensile testing showed that the thoracic aortas tended to be more elastic proximally than distally ( P  = 0.11)., Conclusions: TEVAR stiffened the thoracic aorta by 2-fold. Such segmental stiffening may diminish the Windkessel function considerably and might be associated with TEVAR-related complications, including stent-graft-induced dissection and aneurysmal dilatation. These data may have implications for future stent-graft design, in particular for TEVAR of the highly compliant proximal thoracic aorta., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thoracic aortic stent grafts are orders of magnitude stiffer than the native aorta. These devices have been associated with acute hypertension, elevated pulse pressure, cardiac remodelling and reduced coronary perfusion. However, a systematic assessment of such cardiovascular effects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is missing. The CardiOvascular Remodelling following Endovascular aortic repair (CORE) study aims to (1) quantify cardiovascular remodelling following TEVAR and compare echocardiography against MRI, the reference method; (2) validate computational modelling of cardiovascular haemodynamics following TEVAR using clinical measurements, and virtually assess the impact of more compliant stent grafts on cardiovascular haemodynamics; and (3) investigate diagnostic accuracy of ECG and serum biomarkers for cardiac remodelling compared to MRI., Methods and Analysis: This is a prospective, nonrandomised, observational cohort study. We will use MRI, CT, echocardiography, intraluminal pressures, ECG, computational modelling and serum biomarkers to assess cardiovascular remodelling in two groups of patients with degenerative thoracic aneurysms or penetrating aortic ulcers: (1) patients managed with TEVAR and (2) control patients managed with medical therapy alone. Power analysis revealed a minimum total sample size of 20 patients (α=0.05, power=0.97) to observe significant left ventricular mass increase following TEVAR after 1 year. Consequently, we will include 12 patients in both groups. Advanced MRI sequences will be used to assess myocardial and aortic strain and distensibility, myocardial perfusion and aortic flow. ECG, echocardiography and serum biomarkers will be collected and compared against the imaging data. Computational models will be constructed from each patient imaging data, analysed and validated. All measurements will be collected at baseline (prior to TEVAR) and 1-year follow-up. The expected study period is 3 years., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the University of Michigan IRB. The results will be disseminated through scientific journals and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT02735720., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening aortic disease. The initial management goal is to prevent aortic rupture, propagation of the dissection, and symptoms by reducing the heart rate and blood pressure. Uncomplicated TBAD patients require prompt medical management to prevent aortic dilatation or rupture during subsequent follow-up. Complicated TBAD patients require immediate invasive management to prevent death or injury caused by rupture or malperfusion. Recent developments in diagnosis and management have reduced mortality related to TBAD considerably. In particular, the introduction of thoracic stent-grafts has shifted the management from surgical to endovascular repair, contributing to a fourfold increase in early survival in complicated TBAD. Furthermore, endovascular repair is now considered in some uncomplicated TBAD patients in addition to optimal medical therapy. For more challenging aortic dissection patients with involvement of the aortic arch, hybrid approaches, combining open and endovascular repair, have had promising results. Regardless of the chosen management strategy, strict antihypertensive control should be administered to all TBAD patients in addition to close imaging surveillance. Future developments in stent-graft design, medical therapy, surgical and hybrid techniques, imaging, and genetic screening may improve the outcomes of TBAD patients even further. We present a comprehensive review of the recommended management strategy based on current evidence in the literature., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVAR (BEVAR/FEVAR) for CBAD., Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and October 2015. Studies describing outcomes of OSR, TEVAR, B/FEVAR, or all, for CBAD patients initially treated with medical therapy, were included. Primary endpoints were early mortality, and one-year and five-year survival. Secondary endpoints included occurrence of complications. Furthermore, a Time until Treatment Equipoise (TUTE) graph was constructed., Results: Thirty-five articles were selected for systematic review. A total of 1081 OSR patients, 1397 TEVAR patients and 61 B/FEVAR patients were identified. Early mortality ranged from 5.6% to 21.0% for OSR, 0.0% to 13.7% for TEVAR, and 0.0% to 9.7% for B/FEVAR. For OSR, one-year and five-year survival ranged 72.0%-92.0% and 53.0%-86.7%, respectively. For TEVAR, one-year survival was 82.9%-100.0% and five-year survival 70.0%-88.9%. For B/FEVAR only one-year survival was available, ranging between 76.4% and 100.0%. Most common postoperative complications included stroke (OSR 0.0%-13.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-11.8%), spinal cord ischemia (OSR 0.0%-16.4%, TEVAR 0.0%-12.5%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-12.9%) and acute renal failure (OSR 0.0%-33.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-34.4%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-3.2%). Most common long-term complications after OSR included aneurysm formation (5.8%-20.0%) and new type A dissection (1.7-2.2%). Early complications after TEVAR included retrograde dissection (0.0%-7.1%), malperfusion (1.3%-9.4%), cardiac complications (0.0%-5.9%) and rupture (0.5%-5.0%). Most common long-term complications after TEVAR were rupture (0.5%-7.1%), endoleaks (0.0%-15.8%) and cardiac complications (5.9%-7.1%). No short-term aortic rupture or malperfusion was observed after B/FEVAR. Long-term complications included malperfusion (6.5%) and endoleaks (0.0%-66.7%). Reintervention rates after OSR, TEVAR and B/FEVAR were 5.8%-29.0%, 4.3%-47.4% and 0.0%-53.3%, respectively. TUTE for OSR was 2.7 years, for TEVAR 9.9 months and for B/FEVAR 10.3 months., Conclusion: We found a limited early survival benefit of standard TEVAR over OSR for CBAD. Complication rates after TEVAR are higher, but complications after OSR are usually more serious. Initial experiences with B/FEVAR show its feasibility, but long-term results are needed to compare it to OSR and standard TEVAR. We conclude that optimal treatment of CBAD remains debatable and merits a patient specific decision. TUTE seems a feasible and useful tool to better understand management outcomes of CBAD.

Long-term outcomes of elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) are not well defined. A review of the literature on the follow-up outcomes of elective TEVAR for degenerative TAA resulted in 22 relevant articles. Two- and five-year freedom from aneurysm-related death varied between 93.0% and 100.0%, and 82.4% to 92.7%, respectively. Two-year and five-year all-cause survival ranged between 68.0% and 97.2% and 47.0% to 78.0%, respectively. Follow-up ranged between 17.3 and 66.0 months. Most common endograft-related complication was endoleak, with reported rate between 1.4% and 14.8% during six months up to five years of follow-up. Endovascular reinterventions were reported in 0.0-32.3%, secondary open surgery was needed in 0.0% to 4.7% during follow-up. Aneurysm-related survival rates after elective TEVAR for degenerative TAA are acceptable. However, reported incidences of endograft-related complications vary considerably in the literature, but the majority can be managed with conservative treatment or additional endovascular procedures., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved into an established treatment option for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) since it was first introduced 2 decades ago. Morbidity and mortality have decreased due to the minimally invasive character of TEVAR, with adequate stabilization of the dissection, restoration of true lumen perfusion, and subsequent positive aortic remodeling. However, several studies have reported severe setbacks of this technique. Indeed, little is known about the biomechanical behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and the impact on the vascular system. This study sought to systematically review the performance and behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and related biomechanical aortic changes in TBAD patients in order to update current knowledge and future perspectives., (© The Author(s) 2015.)