Perioperative aortic dissection rupture after endovascular stent graft placement for treatment of type B dissection / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>The perioperative aortic dissection (AD) rupture is a severe event after endovascular stent graft placement for treatment of type B AD. However, this life-threatening complication has not undergone systematic investigation. The aim of the study is to discuss the reasons of AD rupture after the procedure.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The medical record data of 563 Stanford type B AD patients who received thoracic endovascular repair from 2004 to December 2011 at our institution were collected and analyzed. Double entry and consistency checking were performed with Epidata software.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Twelve patients died during the perioperation after thoracic endovascular repair, with an incidence of 2.1%, 66.6% were caused by aortic rupture and half of the aortic rupture deaths were caused by retrograde type A AD. In our study, 74% of the non-rupture surviving patients had the free-flow bare spring proximal stent implanted, compared with 100% of the aortic rupture patients (74% vs. 100%, P = 0.213). The aortic rupture patients are more likely to have ascending aortic diameters = 4 cm (62.5% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.032), involvement the aortic arch concavity (62% vs. 27%, P = 0.041) and have had multiple stents placed (P = 0.039).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Thoracic AD endovascular repair is a safe and effective treatment option for AD with relative low in-hospital mortality. AD rupture may be more common in arch stent-graft patients with an ascending aortic diameter = 4 cm and with severe dissection that needs multi-stent placement. Attention should be paid to a proximal bare spring stent that has a higher probability of inducing an AD rupture. Post balloon dilation should be performed with serious caution, particularly for the migration during dilation.</p>

Changes of cerebrospinal fluid pressure after thoracic endovascular aortic repair / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Decreasing the intracranial pressure has been advocated as one of the major protective strategies to prevent spinal cord ischemia after endovascular aortic repair. However, the actual changes of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure and its relation with spinal cord ischemia have been poorly understood. We performed CSF pressure measurements and provisional CSF withdrawal after thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and compared the changes of CSF pressure in high risk patients and in patients with new onset paraplegia and paraparesis.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Four hundred and nineteen patients were evaluated for the risk of spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Patients with identified risk factors before the procedure constituted group H and received prophylactic sequential CSF pressure measurement and CSF withdrawal. Patients who actually developed spinal cord ischemia constituted group P and received rescue CSF pressure measurements and CSF withdrawal.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Among the 419 patients evaluated, 17 were graded as high risk. Four patients actually developed spinal cord ischemia after endovascular repair. The incidence of spinal cord ischemia in this investigation was 0.9%. The patients who actually developed spinal cord ischemia had no identified risk factors and had elevated CSF pressure, ranging from 15.4 to 30.0 mmHg. Six of the 17 patients graded as high risk had elevated CSF pressure: >20 mmHg in two patients and >15 mmHg in four patients. Sequential CSF pressure measurements and provisional withdrawal successfully decrease CSF pressure and prevented symptomatic spinal cord ischemia in high-risk patients. However, these measurements could only successfully reverse the neurologic deficit in two of the patients who actually developed spinal cord ischemia.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Cerebrospinal fluid pressure was elevated in patients with spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Sequential measurements of CSF pressure and provisional withdrawal of CSF decreased CSF pressure effectively in high risk patients and provided effective prevention of spinal cord ischemia. Risk factor identification and prophylactic measurements play the key role in prevention of spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.</p>

Totally percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the preclosing technique: a case-control study / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>The conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involves groin incisions under general or epidural anesthesia. As technology moves towards less invasive procedures, a total percutaneous approach is desirable. In this study, we describe a Preclosing technique and investigate its safety and efficacy for femoral access sites management, and evaluate its advantages as compared to those of traditional surgical cutdown approaches.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The Preclosing technique involves two or multiple 6 F Perclose Proglide devices deployed in the femoral artery before upsizing to a 20-25 F sheath. The sutures were secured to close the arteriotomy at the end of the procedure. The medical records of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repairs using the Preclosing technique between December 2009 and November 2010 (group A) were compared with those using surgical femoral cutdown from January 2008 to November 2009 (group B). Outcome measures included rates of technical success, early complications, anesthesia method, procedure time, cardiac care unit (CCU) stay, time from procedure to discharge, hospital stay, procedure expense, hospital cost.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, in the endograft models or profiles. The technical success rate was 100.0% (85/85) in group A vs. 97.4% (147/151) in group B (P < 0.05). There was no access-related mortality in both groups. Compared with group B, the incidence of early complications were fewer in group A, 9.4% (8/85) vs. 22.5% (34/151) (P < 0.01). Local anesthesia with conscious sedation was used more often in group A, 68.2% (58/85) vs. 51.7% (78/151) in group B (P < 0.01). The procedure duration was shorter, (96 ± 33) minutes in group A vs. (127 ± 41) minutes in group B (P < 0.01). The length of the CCU stay, the duration from procedure to discharge, and the hospital stay were both reduced in group A, (117.3 ± 88.3) hours, (7.5 ± 5.3) days and (15.3 ± 6.8) days vs. (132.7 ± 115.5) hours, (10.5 ± 5.0) days and (19.5 ± 7.8) days in group B (P < 0.01). The procedure cost was RMB (109,000 ± 30,000) Yuan in group A vs. RMB (108,000 ± 25,000) Yuan in group B (P = NS). The hospital cost was RMB (130,000 ± 35,000) Yuan in group A vs. RMB (128,000 ± 33,000) Yuan in group B (P = NS).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Total percutaneous TEAVR with the Preclosing technique is safe and effective with meticulous technique and appropriate patient selection. The Preclosing technique decreases access-related complications, depends less on general anesthesia and the surgeon's cooperation, saves procedure time and shortens the CCU/hospital stay. With these advantages, the use of two percutaneous closure devices increases the hospital cost only slightly.</p>