Search

This study investigated the long-term outcomes of patients treated with open surgical repair for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (c-AAAs). A total of 119 patients with c-AAAs undergoing repair between January 2010 and June 2016 in a high-volume aortic center were included. The long-term imaging follow-up consisted of yearly abdominal ultrasound examinations and 5-year computed tomography angiography. At a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 38 months), forty-three deaths (37%) and three (2.5%) aortic-related deaths were observed. Long-term chronic renal decline was observed in fifty (43.8%) patients, significantly correlated with post-operative acute kidney injury. During the follow-up, five reinterventions (4.3%) were performed. The present study suggests that open c-AAA repair can be performed with acceptable operative risk with durable results. To achieve the best possible long-term outcome, the open surgery repair of complex AAA should be performed in high-volume aortic centers and tailored to the patient.

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to

Visceral malperfusion is a common complication of acute aortic dissections; its meaning and management is subject to high variability depending on the setting of onset (type A or type B dissection), the degree of severity and the affected organs. The term “visceral malperfusion” is an ill-defined entity as confusion reigns in the literature regarding its definition and whether it refers to mesenteric malperfusion only or if it includes also renal malperfusion. This distinction is crucial for decision-making in the clinical setting, for clarity in reporting of clinical series and interpretation of available data. Renal failure is a well-known prognostic factor for poor outcome in the setting of acute aortic dissection; however diagnosis of renal ischaemia as opposed to renal failure from other causes remains an open challenge. Mesenteric malperfusion and ischaemia are probably second only to rupture as a direct cause for mortality; in most cases clinical diagnosis becomes obvious only when irreversible damages have occurred and outcome of treatment is often frustrating. Early diagnosis on the other hand proves to be extremely difficult and far from being an exact science. The aim of this chapter is to highlight the limitations of our current knowledge about “visceral malperfusion”, its definition, the available diagnostic tools and therapeutic approaches and to get the reader curious about this complex entity, cautious with judgement and creative when solutions are needed.