Dataset Information

Placement of a Zenith® Dissection Endovascular System in the Descending Thoracic Aorta Can Hamper Further Surgical Aortic Operations.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The efficacy of endovascular treatment for complicated Stanford type B acute aortic dissection is being established. However, aortic events sometimes occur, and some cases require surgical intervention.

Report

A 52 year old man underwent ascending aorta replacement for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection in August 2016. Post-operative computed tomography (CT) showed residual dissection from the aortic arch to the right common iliac artery and a large re-entry in the right common iliac artery (RCIA). Two months after the operation, CT revealed enlargement of the false lumen of the thoracic aorta and the thoracic aortic diameter. Aiming to reduce the false lumen and remodel the aorta, a three stage operation was performed, as described below. Four months after the dissection, total aortic arch replacement and a frozen elephant trunk insertion were performed as the first stage. Subsequently, as a second stage operation, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) was performed using a Zenith® Dissection Endovascular System (Cook Japan Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), with the aim of expanding the true aortic lumen. The implanted devices were a stent graft for the proximal part and two bare stents for the middle and distal part. As a third stage operation, abdominal aortic endovascular treatment was performed with the purpose of closing the re-entry from the RCIA. However, two years after the three stage operation, CT showed that the thoracic aorta was over 60 mm in diameter. Graft replacement of the thoraco-abdominal aorta was performed. The bare stents were expected to be easily removable from the aorta, but unexpectedly, they were strongly attached to the intima, which made it extremely difficult to perform surgical and aortic operations.

Discussion

Surgical operations for the aorta can become more difficult after bare stent placement in the aorta.

SUBMITTER: Nogami E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077723 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Penetrating ulcers of aorta, aortic dissections and intramural hematomas all come under acute aortic syndromes and have important similarities and differences. Case report We report a 67?year old man with rupture of a large penetrating ulcer of the distal ascending aorta with hemopericardium and left hemothorax. He underwent interposition graft replacement of ascending aorta and hemi-arch with a 30?mm Gelweave Vascutek graft but represented 6?months later with development of a penetrating ulcer which ruptured into a huge 14?cm pseudoaneurysm. This was repaired with a 28?mm Vascutek Gelseal graft replacement of arch and interposition graft reconstruction of innominate and left common carotid arteries. 6?weeks later, however, he ruptured his proximal descending aorta and underwent TEVAR satisfactorily. Unfortunately, 2?days later, he developed a pathological fracture of left proximal tibia with metastasis from a primary renal cell carcinoma. He died 3?weeks later from respiratory failure. We shall briefly outline the similarities and differences in presentation and management of penetrating aortic ulcers, aortic dissections and intramural haematomas. We shall discuss, in greater detail, penetrating ulcers of thoracic aorta, their natural history, location, complications and management. Conclusion This case report is unique on account of initial successful surgical redressal following rupture of penetrating ulcer of distal ascending aorta into left pleural and pericardial cavities, normally associated with instant death. The haemodynamic effects of the rupture were staggered due to initial contained rupture into a smaller pseudoaneurysm, followed by a further rupture into a false aneurysmal sac followed eventually by generalised rupture into the pleural and pericardial cavities - a unique way of aortic rupture. Further development of another penetrating ulcer and a small pseudoaneurysm in the distal arch 6?months later which further ruptured into a larger 14?cm false aneurysmal sac, which again did not result in exsanguination, is again extraordinarily rare. Thereafter he underwent emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for a further rupture of descending thoracic aorta. All three ruptures were managed successfully and would usually be associated with near-certain death, only for the patient to succumb eventually to the complications of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Project description:Objective: The optimal treatment modality for retrograde type A intramural hematoma (IMH) remains debatable. This study evaluated and compared surgical outcomes and aortic remodeling after open aortic repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with retrograde type A IMH with a primary intimal tear or ulcer like projection in the descending aorta. Methods: A single center, retrospective observational study was performed on patients with retrograde type A IMH undergoing either open aortic repair and TEVAR. From June 2009 and November 2019, 46 patients with retrograde type A IMH who received either open aortic repair or TEVAR at our institution were reviewed for clinical outcomes, including post-operative mortality/morbidity, re-intervention rate and aortic remodeling. Results: 33 patients underwent open aortic repair and 13 underwent TEVAR. Median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR] 15.2 years) and 63 years (IQR 22.5 years) for the open repair group and TEVAR group, respectively. The median duration of follow-up for TEVAR patients was 37.6 months and 40.3 months for open aortic repair. No difference in the 5-year estimated freedom from all-cause mortality (82.1 vs. 87.8%, p = 0.34), re-intervention (82.5 vs. 93.8%, p = 0.08), and aortic-related mortality (88.9 vs. 90.9%, p = 0.88) were observed between the TEVAR and open repair group, respectively; however, the open repair group had a significantly higher 30-day composite morbidity (39.4 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.037). All patients from both treatment groups had complete resolution of the IMH in the ascending aorta. With regard to the descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR group had a significantly greater regression in the diameter of the false lumen or IMH thickness when compared to the open repair group [median 14mm (IQR 10.1) vs. 5mm (IQR 9.5), p < 0.001]. Conclusion: TEVAR and open aortic repair were both effective treatments for retrograde type A IMH, in which no residual ascending aortic IMH was observed during follow-up. TEVAR was also associated with lower post-operative composite morbidities and better descending aortic remodeling. In selected patients with retrograde type A IMH, TEVAR might be a safe, effective alternative treatment modality.