Dataset Information

Long-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Open Repair for Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been adopted rapidly for treating traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TAI). The long-term durability and efficacy remain unknown.

Objective

To determine the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and those of open repair (OR) for traumatic TAI.

Design, setting, participants

This nationwide cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database to evaluate patients with traumatic TAI between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. This single-payer National Health Insurance program covered more than 99.9% of the Taiwanese population. Those who received OR or TEVAR for TAI by propensity score matching were included. Data analysis was conducted in October 2017.

Exposures

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair vs open repair.

Main outcomes and measures

In-hospital outcomes, all-cause mortality, aorta reintervention, and stroke during follow-up.

Results

Of the 287 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.66 [17.98] years; 80.5% male) who received OR or TEVAR for TAI, propensity score matching yielded 100 patients each in the OR and TEVAR groups. After propensity score matching, in-hospital mortality risk was significantly lower in the TEVAR group (9 [9.0%]) than in the OR group (27 [27.0%]; TEVAR vs open repair: odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.60). With a mean (SD) follow-up of 2.80 (2.63) years, the proportion of survivors was 71.9% at 1 year, 70.8% at 2 years, 68.2% at 3 years, and 65.1% at 5 years in the OR group vs 88.9% at 1 year, 88.9% at 2 years, 88.9% at 3 years, and 88.9% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P < .001). The TEVAR group had only 2 events (2%) of late reintervention and 1 event (1%) of late cerebrovascular accident. The proportion of freedom from reintervention was 100% at 1 year, 100% at 2 years, 100% at 3 years, and 100% at 5 years in the OR group vs 97.4% at 1 year, 97.4% at 2 years, 97.4% at 3 years, and 97.4% at 5 years in the TEVAR group (log-rank test, P = .18).

Conclusion and relevance

Compared with OR, TEVAR was associated with better long-term outcomes, mainly owing to lower mortality during the perioperative period. In addition, TEVAR was associated with a similar rate of survival and reintervention after hospital discharge.

SUBMITTER: Cheng YT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6484615 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection by thoracic endovascular aortic repair has some challenges, and its long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze the 5-year clinical outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection, compare the differences between patients with and without adverse aortic events (AAEs), and identify risk factors for AAEs. Methods and Results Patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection from January 2009 to June 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. The primary end points were AAEs, including aorta-related death, procedural complications, and disease progression requiring reintervention. Clinical outcomes were described at the 5-year follow-up visit. The secondary end point was the comparison of the results between patients with and without AAEs. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were used to identify potential risk factors for AAEs. A total of 214 patients were enrolled. AAEs occurred in 46 (21.5%) patients. Compared with patients without AAEs, those with AAEs had higher rates of residual type A aortic dissection (26.1% versus 4.2%, P<0.001) and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm (69.6% versus 11.3%, P<0.001), and a lower rate of complete false lumen thrombosis (23.9% versus 89.9%, P<0.001). Meanwhile, the median interval from symptom onset to intervention was longer in patients with AAEs (26 months versus 12 months, P=0.004). Partial or no false lumen thrombosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 14.71 [95% CI, 5.67-38.14; P<0.001]) and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm (AOR, 10.16 [95% CI, 3.86-26.73; P<0.001]) were identified as independent risk factors for AAEs. Conclusions While thoracic endovascular aortic repair of chronic type B aortic dissection might be challenging in some cases, its long-term outcomes appeared promising as this treatment was effective in preventing catastrophic aortic events. Patients with AAEs showed higher rates of residual type A aortic dissection and aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm, a lower rate of complete false lumen thrombosis, and a longer median interval from symptom onset to intervention. Failure of complete false lumen thrombosis and an aortic diameter ≥5.5 cm were predictors of AAEs.

Project description:Endovascular repair of traumatic thoracic aortic injuries (TTAI) is an alternative to conventional open surgical repair. Single-institution studies have shown a survival benefit with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), but whether this is being realized nationally is not clear. The purpose of our study was to document trends in the increase in use of TEVAR and its effect on outcomes of TTAI nationally.Patients admitted with a TTAI between 2005 and 2011 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were grouped by treatment into TEVAR, open repair, or nonoperative management. Primary outcomes were relative use over time and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality.Included were 8384 patients, with 2492 (29.7%) undergoing TEVAR, 848 (10.1%) open repair, and 5044 (60.2%) managed nonoperatively. TEVAR became the dominant treatment option for TTAI during the study period, starting at 6.5% of interventions in 2005 and accounting for 86.5% of interventions in 2011 (P < .001). Nonoperative management declined concurrently with the widespread of adoption TEVAR (79.8% to 53.7%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality after TEVAR decreased during the study period from 33.3% in 2005 to 4.9% in 2011 (P < .001), and an increase in mortality was observed for open repair from 13.9% to 19.2% (P < .001). Procedural mortality (TEVAR or open repair) decreased from 14.9% to 6.7% (P < .001), and mortality after any TTAI admission declined from 24.5% to 13.3% during the study period (P < .001). In addition to lower mortality, TEVAR was followed by fewer cardiac complications (4.1% vs 8.5%; P < .001), respiratory complications (47.5% vs 54.8%; P < .001), and shorter length of stay (18.4 vs 20.2 days; P = .012) compared with open repair. In adjusted mortality analyses, open repair proved to be associated with twice the mortality risk compared with TEVAR (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.7), and nonoperative management was associated with more than a fourfold increase in mortality (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.8-5.3).TEVAR is now the dominant surgical approach in TTAI, with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality benefits over open aortic repair. Overall mortality after admission for TTAI has declined, which is most likely the result of the replacement of open repair by TEVAR as well as the broadened eligibility for operative repair.

Project description:ImportanceEndovascular aneurysm repair is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative mortality and morbidity compared with open aneurysm repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this benefit decreases over time owing to increased reinterventions and late aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair.ObjectiveTo compare long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study used deidentified data with 6-year follow-up from the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. Patients undergoing first-time elective endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2018 were propensity score matched. Patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, concomitant procedures, or prior history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2018.ExposuresFirst-time elective endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary long-term outcome of interest was 6-year all-cause mortality, rupture, and reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and perioperative complications.ResultsAmong a total of 32 760 patients (median [IQR] age, 75 [70-80] years; 25 706 [78.5%] men) who underwent surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, 28 281 patients underwent endovascular repair and 4479 patients underwent open repair. After propensity score matching, there were 2852 patients in each group. Open repair was associated with significantly lower 6-year mortality compared with endovascular repair (548 deaths [35.6%] vs 608 deaths [41.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; P = .002), with increases in mortality starting from 1 to 2 years (84 deaths [4.3%] vs 126 deaths [6.7%]; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83; P = .001) and 2 to 6 years (211 deaths [25.8%] vs 241 deaths [30.6%]; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P = .001). Open repair, compared with endovascular repair, also was associated with significantly lower rates of 6-year rupture (117 participants [5.8%] vs 149 participants [8.3%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97; P < .001) and reintervention (190 participants [11.6%] vs 267 participants [16.0%]; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; P < .001). Open repair was associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.41-5.26; P < .001) and complications.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that overall mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was higher with endovascular repair than open repair despite reduced 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity after endovascular repair. Endovascular repair additionally was associated with significantly higher rates of long-term rupture and reintervention. These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and long-term follow-up surveillance for patients who undergo endovascular repair.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.MethodsFrom November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28-83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsAmong the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1-108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).ConclusionTEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.

Project description:Background Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been increasingly used for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. This study sought to evaluate the influence of sex on outcomes after TEVAR. Methods and Results This was an observational study from the Nationwide Readmissions Database analyzing all patients who underwent TEVAR from 2010 to 2018. Sampling weights were used to generate national estimates. International Classification of Diseases-Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms or dissections who underwent TEVAR. Patients were dichotomized according to sex, and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied. Mixed model regression for in-hospital mortality and weighted logistic regression with bootstrapping for 30-day readmissions were performed. A supplemental analysis was performed according to pathology (aneurysm or dissection). A weighted total of 27 118 patients were identified. Propensity-matching yielded 5026 risk-adjusted pairs. Men were more likely to undergo TEVAR for type B aortic dissection, whereas women were more likely to undergo TEVAR for aneurysm. In-hospital mortality was roughly 5% and was equivalent in the matched groups. Men were more likely to have paraplegia, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmias, while women were more likely to require transfusions after TEVAR. There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction, heart failure, respiratory failure, spinal cord ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, stroke, or 30-day readmission between the matched groups. On regression analysis, sex was not an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality. Female sex was, however, significantly associated with a decreased odds of 30-day readmission (odds ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P<0.001). Conclusions Women are more likely to undergo TEVAR for aneurysms, while men are more likely to undergo TEVAR for type B aortic dissection. In-hospital mortality after TEVAR is comparable among men and women irrespective of indication. Female sex is independently associated with a reduced odds of 30-day readmission after TEVAR.