Search

Treatment approach to type A aortic dissection with malperfusion, immediate open aortic repair vs upfront endovascular treatment, remains controversial. From January 2017 to July 2021, 301 consecutive type A repairs were evaluated at our institution. Starting in 2019, all type A aortic dissections were performed in a fixed-fluoroscopy, hybrid operating room. Propensity score matching was used to control baseline patient characteristics between traditional and hybrid operating room approaches. There were 144 patients in the traditional group and 157 in the hybrid group. In the hybrid group, 41% (64/157) underwent intraoperative angiograms, and of those, 58% (37/64) received at least 1 endovascular intervention. Following propensity matching, 125 patients remained in each the traditional and hybrid groups. Thirty-day survival was significantly improved in the hybrid cohort at 96.7% (122/125) as compared to the traditional cohort at 87.2% (109/125) (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in perioperative paralysis (1.6% vs 1.6%, P > 0.9), new hemodialysis (12% vs 9.6%, P = 0.5), fasciotomy (2.4% vs 5.6%, P = 0.20, and exploratory laparotomy (1.6% vs 4.8%, P = 0.3). The hybrid operating room approach to type A aortic dissection, provides the ability to immediately assess distal malperfusion and perform endovascular interventions at the time of open aortic repair, and is associated with significantly higher 30-day and 2-year survival when compared to a stepwise repair approach in a traditional operating room., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first-line treatment for descending thoracic aortic rupture (DTAR), but its midterm and long-term outcomes remain undescribed. This study evaluated whether TEVAR would improve midterm outcomes of nontraumatic DTAR relative to open surgical repair (OSR)., Methods: Between December 1999 and October 2018, 118 patients with DTAR were treated with either OSR (n = 39) or TEVAR (n = 79) at a single center. Primary end points were 30-day and long-term all-cause mortalities. Secondary end points included stroke, permanent spinal cord ischemia (SCI), prolonged ventilation support or tracheostomy, permanent hemodialysis, and aortic reintervention., Results: Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with TEVAR (OSR, 38.5%; TEVAR, 16.5%; P = .01). Stroke (15.6% vs 3.8%; P = .03), permanent SCI (15.6% vs 2.5%; P = .02), prolonged ventilation (30.8% vs 8.9%; P = .002), and tracheostomy (12.8% vs 2.5%; P = .04) were significantly lower after TEVAR than OSR. Need for hemodialysis trended higher after OSR (12.8% vs 5.1%; P = .2). Mean follow ups were 1048 ± 1591 days for OSR group and 828 ± 1258 days for TEVAR. All-cause mortality at last follow-up was significantly lower after TEVAR than OSR (35.4% vs 66.7%; P = .001). Aortic reintervention was required more frequently within 30 days after TEVAR (15.2% vs 2.6%; P = .06). By multivariate analysis, TAAA was an independent predictor for mortality., Conclusions: TEVAR improves both early and midterm outcomes of DTAR relative to OSR. TAAA was a predictor of mortality. Endovascular approach to DTAR may provide the greatest chance at survival., (Copyright © 2019 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was proved to be effective in thoracic descending aortic aneurysm (TDAA) repair in 1994 and approved by the FDA in 2005. Since then, TEVAR has become the first-line, recommended treatment for intact or ruptured DTAA or as a bridge to definitive open surgical repair in connective tissue disease. TEVAR has decreased perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery due to the lack of thoracotomy, aortic cross-clamping and left heart bypass. Improvement in materials, manufacturing and device delivery systems have allowed for the expansion of indications. Thoughtful and accurate pre-procedure planning is the hallmark of successful TEVAR. Familiarization and adherence to the instructions for use for an aortic device will give the best possible chance of success.

We describe the endovascular repair for a proximal endograft migration following a modified frozen elephant trunk (mFET) repair for a retrograde type A dissection (retro-A AD). A 40-year-old man presented with a type B aortic dissection that progressed to a retro-A AD. He was emergently taken to the operating room for an mFET repair. Computed tomography (CT) angiogram on the day of discharge revealed that the proximal end of the endograft migrated through the primary intimal tear resulting in obstruction of true lumen flow. The patient returned to the catheterization lab for endovascular repair utilizing a through-and-through wire to extend the endograft proximally and a left carotid-subclavian artery bypass. This complication highlights the importance of postoperative CT surveillance and the endovascular technique utilized to restore aortic true lumen flow.

The frozen elephant technique has simplified aortic arch surgery. As with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, frozen elephant technique reconstructions often require reintervention. Skilled endovascular management of frozen elephant technique complications is imperative as novel devices emerge. We describe 2 patients who required early intervention for severe foreshortening and incomplete expansion of the Thoraflex (Vascutek, Inchinnan, United Kingdom) stent graft., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chronic aortic dissecting aneurysms (TAAD) presenting after acute Stanford type A or B dissection includes both arch and/or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). Approximately 60% of patients who survive surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissections will require another aortic procedure. Similarly, more than 70% of patients with chronic type B aortic dissections will experience false lumen dilation at 5-year follow-up, often requiring intervention. Open or hybrid aortic repairs of complex TAAD involving the arch and the TAAA are very demanding procedures for both patients and clinicians. Open surgery remains the first line therapy in fit patients. Recent development of branched arch devices has offered an alternative option for high-risk patients. Technical challenges associated with the endovascular management of these complex aneurysms include proximal sealing zone often located in the aortic arch or the ascending aorta, narrow true lumen working space, and aortic branch perfusion by either the true or false lumen, or both. Recent studies have reported encouraging results with endovascular treatment of these complex dissecting aneurysms, especially following open ascending aortic repair. The aim of this review was to describe the available strategies for arch repair in the setting of a chronic TAAD and to determine the subset of patients that can benefit from of a totally endovascular approach.