Dataset Information

Influence of measurement and sizing techniques in thoracic endovascular aortic repair on outcome in acute complicated type B aortic dissections.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the first-line therapy in acute complicated type B aortic dissections (cTBAD). Nevertheless, no evidence-based consensus on the optimal measurement technique and sizing for TEVAR in cTBAD exists. The aim was to evaluate how different measurement and sizing techniques for TEVAR affect long-term outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective analysis investigating the association between sizing and postoperative results after TEVAR in patients with cTBAD, treated between January 2003 and December 2020. Diameter measurements were performed perpendicular to a centreline in pre-interventional Computed tomography angiographies. Oversizing was determined by measuring aortic diameter in zone 2 of the aortic arch in relation to the implanted stent graft, and categorized into 2 sizing groups (≤10% and >10%). The primary outcome was freedom from aortic-related events. Secondary outcomes included mortality and a comparison of 3 alternative measurement techniques considering the estimated pre-dissection diameter.

Results

Fifty-seven patients (median age 69, interquartile range 59.6-78.2 years) were included. Stent graft oversizing by ≤10% showed a trend towards fewer aortic-related events hazard ratio 0.455 (95% confidence interval 0.128-1.624, P = 0.225).The 3 measurement techniques using the pre-dissection aortic diameter differed by a mean of 1.7-4.0 mm with a variability of up to 8.4 mm. In none of the 57 patients, the same stent graft would have been chosen based on the different measurement techniques using an oversizing ≤10%.

Conclusions

TEVAR oversizing of ≤10% in patients with cTBAD might reduce aortic-related events up to 50%. Consensus on measurement techniques of the pre-dissection aortic diameter and stent graft sizing is of paramount importance.

SUBMITTER: Rychla M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8972260 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of measurement and sizing techniques in thoracic endovascular aortic repair on outcome in acute complicated type B aortic dissections.

Rychla Miriam M Dueppers Philip P Meuli Lorenz L Rancic Zoran Z Menges Anna-Leonie AL Kopp Reinhard R Zimmermann Alexander A Reutersberg Benedikt B

Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 20220301 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the first-line therapy in acute complicated type B aortic dissections (cTBAD). Nevertheless, no evidence-based consensus on the optimal measurement technique and sizing for TEVAR in cTBAD exists. The aim was to evaluate how different measurement and sizing techniques for TEVAR affect long-term outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Retrospective analysis investigating the association between sizing and postoperative results after TEVAR in patie ...[more]

PMID: 34788425

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndovascular 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsIncluded 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).ConclusionsTEVAR 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:BackgroundThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an alternative to open repair for the treatment of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (rTAAs). The aim of this study was to assess national trends in the use of TEVAR for the treatment of rTAA and to determine its impact on perioperative outcomes.MethodsPatients admitted with an rTAA between 1993 and 2012 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were grouped in accordance with their treatment: TEVAR, open repair, or nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were treatment trends over time and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and length of stay. Trend analyses were performed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and adjusted mortality risks were established using multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 12,399 patients were included, with 1622 (13%) undergoing TEVAR, 2808 (23%) undergoing open repair, and 7969 (64%) not undergoing surgical treatment. TEVAR has been increasingly used from 2% of total admissions in 2003-2004 to 43% in 2011-2012 (P < .001). Concurrently, there was a decline in the proportion of patients undergoing open repair (29% to 12%; P < .001) and nonoperative treatment (69% to 45%; P < .001). The proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair has increased for all age groups since 1993-1994 (P < .001 for all) but was most pronounced among those aged 80 years with a 7.5-fold increase. After TEVAR was introduced, procedural mortality decreased from 36% in 2003-2004 to 27% in 2011-2012 (P < .001); mortality among those undergoing nonoperative treatment remained stable between 63% and 60% (P = .167). Overall mortality after rTAA admission decreased from 55% to 42% (P < .001). Since 2005, mortality for open repair was 33% and 22% for TEVAR (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, open repair was associated with a twofold higher mortality than TEVAR (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-2.5).ConclusionsTEVAR has replaced open repair as primary surgical treatment for rTAA. The introduction of endovascular treatment appears to have broadened the eligibility of patients for surgical treatment, particularly among the elderly. Mortality after rTAA admission has declined since the introduction of TEVAR, which is the result of improved operative mortality as well as the increased proportion of patients undergoing surgical repair.

Project description:ObjectiveIn endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), proximal type 1A endoleaks can occur as a result of hostile neck anatomy or over- or undersizing of the endograft. As the current standard is based on the diameter or average of the short and long axes in a central lumen reconstruction image, it can falter in irregularly shaped aortic necks. An alternative method is circumference-based, therefore minimizing the measurement error. In this study we aimed to assess the degree of discrepancy between both methods and the association of this discrepancy with the occurrence of endoleak type 1A.MethodsAll patients with early (<30 days post-operative) endoleak type 1A after elective EVAR at our center between 2004 and 2016 were identified for a retrospective case-control study. Control patients were matched based on hostile neck anatomy, such as calcification, thrombus, reverse taper, and β-angulation. The aortic neck diameter was measured using the traditional, diameter-based method as well as an alternative method, based on the circumference of the aortic neck.ResultsIn 482 EVAR patients, 18 early endoleak type 1A cases were found (3.9%). After exclusion, 12 cases remained and 48 matching controls were found. No significant differences were found between the two measuring methods at any level below the renal arteries. The inter-observer variability was significant for the D(mean) (0.4 ± 1.69 mm, P = .02) and was larger than the D(circ) method (-0.1 ± 1.03 mm, P = .35). In only four out of 12 cases the endograft size was 10-20% larger than the D(mean) and D(circ) measurements. The differences between the diameter of the D(mean) and D(circ) and the chosen endograft were smaller for the case group (-8 ± 25.6% and -7 ± 24%) than for the control group. (-12.4 ± 12.4% and -11 ± 10.7%).ConclusionThe difference between the D(mean) and D(circ) methods for aortic neck measurement was not large enough to play a significant role in the incidence of endoleak type 1A. Inadequate oversizing and considerable β-angulation of the aortic neck may have been the cause of endoleak type 1A in this population. Robust and well-investigated sizing methods are paramount for accurate endograft sizing and prevention of endoleak type 1A. Therefore the lack of studies in this field and a sizeable inter-observer variability do not justify the widespread reliance on the traditional diameter-based methods for endograft sizing.

Dataset Information

Influence of measurement and sizing techniques in thoracic endovascular aortic repair on outcome in acute complicated type B aortic dissections.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Influence of measurement and sizing techniques in thoracic endovascular aortic repair on outcome in acute complicated type B aortic dissections.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets