Central Repair With Antegrade TEVAR for Malperfusion Syndromes in Acute Debakey I Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: In acute DeBakey I aortic dissection presenting with malperfusion syndromes, we assessed whether standard open repair with concomitant antegrade stent grafting (thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair; TEVAR) of the descending thoracic aorta (DTA) improves outcomes compared with standard repair alone. METHODS: From 2005 to 2012, 277 patients with acute DeBakey I dissection underwent emergent operation. Of these, 104 patients (37%) presenting with end-organ malperfusion were divided into those undergoing standard distal repair entailing transverse hemiarch replacement (Standard group, n = 65) versus standard repair with concomitant DTA TEVAR during circulatory arrest (TEVAR group, n = 39). Prospectively maintained aortic dissection database was retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and preoperative comorbidities were similar. Circulatory arrest (56 ± 12 versus 34 ± 14 minutes, p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (176 ± 43 versus 119 ± 80, p = 0.001) times were longer in the TEVAR group. Overall, postoperative stroke rate (5% [n = 2] versus 6% [n = 4], p = 1), paraplegia rate (5% [n = 2] versus 5% [n = 3], p = 1.0), and renal failure rate (10% [n = 4] versus 22% [n = 14], p = 0.2) were similar. In-hospital/30-day mortality rate was lower in the TEVAR group but was not significant (18% (n = 7) versus 34% [n = 22], p = 0.1). In patients presenting with malperfusion involving greater than one end-organ system, the mortality rate was significantly improved in the TEVAR group (28% [n = 6] versus 58% [n = 14], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standard repair with antegrade TEVAR of the DTA for acute DeBakey I aortic dissection presenting with malperfusion syndromes can be safely performed. Further, true lumen stabilization achieved through DTA TEVAR may provide a survival benefit in patients with distal multiorgan malperfusion.

Hemiarch replacement with concomitant antegrade stent grafting of the descending thoracic aorta versus total arch replacement for treatment of acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear†.

OBJECTIVES: For acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear, conventional distal reconstruction entails total arch replacement (TAR). Some surgeons at our institution have utilized an alternative reconstructive strategy-primary arch tear repair and transverse hemiarch reconstruction (THR) with concomitant antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We assessed early and mid-term outcomes comparing these two surgical strategies for arch tear management. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional aortic dissection database was carried out to compare early and mid-term outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear. Hemiarch reconstruction with concomitant antegrade TEVAR was compared against conventional TAR. Arch tear at the origin of great vessels or greater curve was primarily repaired with interrupted sutures in TEVAR patients. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2013, 61 of 284 DeBakey I aortic dissection patients undergoing intervention for arch tear were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-one patients had TAR (TAR group) and 30 patients had hemiarch + TEVAR (TEVAR group). Demographics and clinical presentation were similar. TEVAR group had more patients presenting in cardiogenic shock [3% (n = 1) vs 13% (n = 4), P = 0.2] and tamponade [10% (n = 3) vs 23% (n = 7), P = 0.2]. Intraoperatively, TEVAR group had lower cardiopulmonary bypass (239 ± 34 vs 313 ± 80 min, p0.001) and circulatory arrest (60 ± 15 vs 78 ± 45 min, P = 0.04) times. TAR group had higher in-hospital/30-day mortality [26% (n = 8) vs 13% (n = 4), P = 0.3], but stroke rates were similar [6% (n = 2) vs 7% (n = 2), P = 1]. One-year (80 ± 7.3 vs 71 ± 8.3%), 3-year (73 ± 8.3 vs 67 ± 8.6%) and 5-year (73 ± 8.3 vs 67 ± 8.6%) actuarial survival were improved in TEVAR group, although not significantly (log-rank, P = 0.56). TEVAR promoted increased false lumen thrombosis (43 vs 85%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In treating DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear, hemiarch replacement with primary tear repair and concomitant TEVAR is a safe alternative to conventional TAR, with improved distal aortic remodelling.

Impact of timing on major complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been shown to have survival benefit in patients with complicated type B dissection compared with open surgery or medical therapy. We analyze the impact of timing of intervention from the onset of symptoms to TEVAR, and its relation to complications. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2012, we performed 132 TEVARs for acute and subacute (<6 weeks) type B dissection; 186 other patients were managed with medical therapy only. Patients were followed in a clinical registry. Standard univariate and survival methods were used. RESULTS: Of the 132 TEVARs for type B dissection, 70 were performed within 48 hours of presentation (Acute-Early); 44 between 48 hours and 14 days from presentation (Acute-Delayed); and 18 between 14 days and 6 weeks of presentation (Subacute). Demographic characteristics were similar among groups. Severe complications were more common in the Early-Acute and Delayed-Acute patients than in the Subacute patients (P = .04) Retrograde type A dissection tended to be more common in the Acute-Early group. Overall survival was similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed intervention appears to lower the risk of complications of TEVAR for aortic dissection in patients who are stable enough to wait. Among patients initially managed medically, new TEVAR indications were not uncommon, and such patients must be followed closely.

Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta in patients at high risk for open repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although endovascular repair has been widely adopted for treatment of descending thoracic aortic pathologies, its role in ascending aortic pathologies remains undefined. We reviewed our experience with endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathologies in patients facing high or prohibitive risk with open surgical treatment. METHODS: From 2007 to 2013, 6 patients (aged 16-90 years) underwent endovascular repair (pseudoaneurysm, n = 4; acute type A aortic dissection, n = 2). Their records were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: All patients had extensive comorbidities or anatomic features making an open surgical approach high risk. Three cases were done on an emergency basis (aortic dissection, n = 2; ruptured pseudoaneurysm, n = 1). Ascending aortic access was obtained through transapical (n = 4), transfemoral (n = 1), and left common carotid artery (n = 1) approaches. Cook Zenith TX2 (n = 4), Cook EVAR iliac limb (n = 1), and Amplatzer occluder (n = 1) devices were used, with 3 patients requiring more than 1 stent-graft. Stent-graft lengths ranged from 55 to 81 mm; diameters ranged from 22 to 40 mm. Technical success was achieved in 5 cases (83%); 1 patient (type A dissection) had an intraoperative endoleak not amendable to further endovascular repair. In-hospital and 30-day mortalities were zero. One patient sustained a minor stroke, which reversed completely. Stay ranged from 5 to 15 days. On follow-up, 1 patient (type A dissection) had an endoleak at 12 months. Two patients died of nonaortic causes at 6 and 27 months after endovascular repair. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of ascending aortic pathology is feasible in patients facing high risk with open surgery, with promising early results. Technical challenges remain in adapting current endovascular technology to ascending aortic pathologies, particularly type A aortic dissection.