Dataset Information

Evaluation of Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Performed with and without Prophylactic Embolization of the Left Subclavian Artery in Patients with Traumatic Aortic Injury.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To report the authors' experience in performing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for zone 2 lesions after traumatic aortic injury (TAI).

Materials and methods

This retrospective review included 10 patients who underwent zone 2 TEVAR after identification of aortic isthmus injury by CT angiography (CTA) upon arrival at the emergency room of a regional trauma center from 2016 to 2019. Patients were classified into two groups: those who underwent left subclavian artery (LSA) embolization concurrently with the main TEVAR procedure, and those in whom LSA embolization was not performed during the main procedure, but was planned as a bailout treatment if type II endoleak was noted on follow-up CTA images. Pre-procedural and procedure-related factors and post-procedure prognosis were compared between the groups.

Results

There were no differences in pre-procedural factors, occurrence of endoleaks, and post-procedure prognosis (including mortality) between patients in the two groups. The duration of the procedure was shorter in the non-LSA embolization group (61 minutes vs. 27 minutes, p = 0.012). During follow-up, type II endoleak did not occur in either group.

Conclusion

Delaying preventative LSA embolization until stabilization of the patient would be desirable when performing zone 2 TEVAR for TAI, in the absence of endoleak on the completion aortography image taken after complete deployment of the stent graft.

SUBMITTER: Bae M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005354 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsThis study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.ResultsA total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

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:Purpose: To evaluate the perioperative stroke incidence following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with differing left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage and revascularization approaches in a real-world setting of a nationwide clinical registry. Materials and Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was interrogated from 2005 to 2017 to identify all nonemergent TEVAR and/or open LSA revascularization procedures. In this time frame, 2346 TEVAR cases met the selection criteria for analysis. The 30-day stroke incidence was compared between patients undergoing TEVAR with (n=888) vs without (n=1458) LSA coverage, for those with (n=228) vs without (n=660) concomitant LSA revascularization among those with coverage, and following isolated LSA revascularization for occlusive disease (n=768). Multivariable logistic regression was employed for risk-adjusted analyses and to identify factors associated with stroke following TEVAR. Results of the regression analyses are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The stroke incidence was 2.3% following TEVAR without vs 5.2% with LSA coverage (p<0.001). In TEVARs with LSA coverage, the stroke incidence was 7.5% when the LSA was concomitantly revascularized and 4.4% without concomitant revascularization, while stroke occurred in 0.5% of isolated LSA revascularizations. Of 33 TEVAR patients experiencing a perioperative stroke, 8 (24%) died within 30 days. LSA coverage was associated with stroke both with concomitant revascularization (OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 7.5, p<0.001) and without concomitant revascularization (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8, p=0.002). Other preoperative factors associated with stroke were dyspnea (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0, p=0.014), renal dysfunction (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.8, p=0.049), and international normalized ratio ≥2.0 (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 13, p=0.045). Conclusion: Stroke following TEVAR with LSA coverage occurs frequently in the real-world setting, and concurrent LSA revascularization was not associated with a lower stroke incidence.

Project description:ImportanceThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been adopted rapidly for treating traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TAI). The long-term durability and efficacy remain unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and those of open repair (OR) for traumatic TAI.Design, setting, participantsThis 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.ExposuresThoracic endovascular aortic repair vs open repair.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital outcomes, all-cause mortality, aorta reintervention, and stroke during follow-up.ResultsOf 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 relevanceCompared 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.