Surgical repair of a pseudocoarctation with cervical aortic arch complicated by multiple aneurysms of the aorta: a case report.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Makani S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5491740 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9196320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Persistent fifth aortic arch (PFAA) is a rare congenital cardiovascular anomaly of the aortic arch, which can occur independently but is frequently associated with other cardiovascular malformations including patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), interrupted aortic arch (IAA), pulmonary atresia, tetralogy of Fallot, and transposition of the great vessels. PFAA can be classified into three different types according to different abnormal vascular connections (type A, B and C). We report an infant diagnosed with PFAA along with interrupted fourth aortic arch (type B) and PDA. Several surgical methods have been delivered to patients diagnosed with PFAA. In our case, the correction of coarctation PFAA and the ligation of PDA were performed without cardiopulmonary bypass through left lateral thoracotomy. We removed the coarctation part of the PFAA, and then performed the end-to-end anastomosis between the fifth aortic arch and the descending aorta. Despite the stenosis at the site of anastomosis was observed 10 months after the operation, the patient resulted in good recovery by once balloon dilation procedure. Thus, we recommend it is more appropriable to select this procedure in the surgical treatment of PFAA for those patients whose fourth aortic arches were interrupted with fifth aortic arches well developed. Our experience can provide a beneficial reference for future cases.
| S-EPMC8905098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.Search methodsThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.Selection criteriaWe considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.Main resultsNo RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.Authors' conclusionsDue to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.
| S-EPMC8407084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aortic arch repair is one of the most complex surgeries and carries a high risk of complications as well as mortality. Since 1975, when the arch repair was first done by Randall B. Griepp using hypothermic circulatory arrest, many new technologies were introduced. But even with the use of antegrade and retrograde perfusion techniques and improvement of surgical techniques and grafts, the rate of mortality, cerebral, spinal, and visceral damage was much higher as compared to any other cardiac surgeries. With further developments aimed at less invasive approaches, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) along with de-branching of supra-aortic vessels or the frozen elephant trunk was introduced. Here, in this article, we review the myriad of approaches to the aortic arch and have come to a conclusion that while traditional open surgery is considered as the gold standard for treatment of extensive aortic arch pathologies, one school of thought suggests hybrid techniques such as the frozen elephant trunk and aortic arch vessel de-branching as more appropriate procedures for high-risk patients, where co-morbidities may contraindicate cardiopulmonary bypass and longer operative times required for traditional repair. No randomized trials are present to compare between open and hybrid or endovascular procedure in normal or high-risk patients. The meta-analysis of most of the studies defines open surgery as the gold standard for arch pathology because the hybrid procedures did not provide any proven survival benefits or decrease in stroke rate and spinal ischemia when compared to open surgery in early, mid, or long-term results.
| S-EPMC7525865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.
| S-EPMC6624804 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8575399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Large mural thrombi in the relatively normal ascending aorta are extremely uncommon conditions that may lead to major adverse cardiovascular events due to new embolism. Because of their changeable variations, the management of these unstable thrombi is challenging and controversial. The size, morphology, location, embolic involvement, and patients' conditions are all crucial for therapeutic decision-making. Treatment options include anticoagulation, thrombolysis, surgical thrombectomy, and endovascular stenting. Therefore, surgical strategies should be highly individualized. Herein, we present a rare case of a huge thrombus from the ascending aorta to the arch in a 43-year-old man. Considering the high risks of catastrophic embolic events, surgical removal of the aortic mass, thromboendarterectomy, and reconstruction of the arterial wall were performed with a satisfactory outcome. This report illustrates our experience of surgical strategies and perioperative treatments for this challenging case, and contemporary surgical management for mural thrombi in the ascending aorta was also thoroughly discussed.
| S-EPMC9996118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms are treated the same, they differ in embryological development and pathological processes. This study examines the microscopic structural differences between aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms, correlating these features to the macroscopic pathophysiological processes.MethodsWe obtained surgical samples from ascending aortic aneurysms (n = 11), aortic root aneurysms (n = 3), and non-aneurysmal patients (n = 7), Aortic collagen and elastin content were examined via histological analysis, and immunohistochemistry techniques used to determine collagen I, III, and IV subtypes. Analysis was via observational features, and colour deconvolution quantification techniques.ResultsElastin fiber disruption and fragmentation was the most extensive in the proximal aneurysmal regions. Medial fibrosis and collagen density increased in proximal aneurysmal regions and aortic root aneurysms (p < 0.005). Collagen I was seen in highest quantity in aortic root aneurysms. Collagen I content was greatest in the sinus tissue regions compared to the valvular and ostial regions (p < 0.005) Collagen III and IV quantification did not vary greatly. The most susceptible regions to ultrastructural changes in disease are the proximal ascending aorta and aortic root.ConclusionsThe aortic root differs histologically from the ascending aorta confirming its unique composition in aneurysm pathology. These findings should prompt further evaluation on the influence of this altered structure on function which could potentially guide clinical management.
| S-EPMC8424949 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7541281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAortic thrombosis is an uncommon condition with serious embolic complications. COVID-19 is currently recognized to be associated with both venous and arterial thrombosis. However, only a limited number of COVID-19 cases associated with aortic thrombosis have been reported in the literature since the beginning of the pandemic.Case presentationA 66-year-old lady was admitted to our hospital with acute ischemic stroke. Floating aortic arch thrombus was detected incidentally on CT imaging. Interestingly, the patient reported a history of fever and cough and was found to have COVID-19 pneumonia based on nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and imaging. The patient received three months of anticoagulant therapy, and repeated imaging study did not reveal any aortic thrombus.Clinical discussionCOVID-19 related aortic thrombosis has been reported chiefly in severe cases. The SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect the endothelium of the vessels, which might explain the occurrence of arterial thrombosis in milder COVID-19 cases with the absence of the hyperinflammatory state. The management guideline for aortic thrombosis is scarce and based only on case reports and series.ConclusionAortic thrombosis is a devastating condition that can be easily missed without clinical suspicion. Our patient developed acute ischemic stroke, most likely embolic originating from the aortic thrombus. The clinician should consider this condition in any COVID-19 patient presenting with thromboembolic events, such as stroke or acute limb ischemia. Further study is required to explain the pathophysiology of arterial/venous thrombosis in mild-moderate COVID-19 cases.
| S-EPMC8381619 | biostudies-literature