Dataset Information

The Long-Term Clinical Impact of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Advanced Esophageal Cancer Invading Aorta.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Advanced esophageal cancer invading the aorta is considered unsuitable for surgery with definitive chemotherapy or chemoradiation as the treatments of choice. In the current study, we evaluated the long-term clinical impact of combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with multimodality treatment in caring for such patients.

Methods

We evaluated 48 patients who had advanced esophageal cancer with aortic invasion. The oncological outcome, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), after multimodality treatment with or without TEVAR is evaluated for these patients.

Results

Overall, 25/48 patients (52.1%) received a TEVAR procedure. There was no significant difference in OS (p = 0.223) between patients who did or did not receive TEVAR; however, patients who received TEVAR had significantly less local tumor recurrence (p = 0.020) and longer PFS (p = 0.019). This impact was most evident in patients who received both TEVAR and esophagectomy, with an incremental increase in hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression of 2.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-9.96) and 4.37 (95% CI 1.33-14.33) observed under multivariable analysis, respectively, in comparison with patients who underwent only one or neither of these procedures (p = 0.005 for trend test).

Conclusion

TEVAR is a feasible procedure for esophageal cancers invading the aorta and can be used for curative-intent resection to improve local tumor control and PFS.

SUBMITTER: Chen KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8591004 | 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: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.