Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for esophageal cancer invading the thoracic aorta: a questionnaire survey study

Esophagus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-80
Author(s):  
Masayuki Watanabe ◽  
Masanobu Nakajima ◽  
Katsunori Nishikawa ◽  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
Hisahiro Matsubara
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Clelia Gervasi ◽  
Carlo Alberto De Pasqual ◽  
Jacopo Weindelmayer ◽  
Luca Mezzetto ◽  
Lorenzo Scrsone ◽  
...  

Abstract Bleeding from the thoracic aorta is potentially fatal in patients with advanced esophageal cancer (AEC). Esophageal malignancy is the third most common cause of aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF), after thoracic aortic aneurysm and ingestion of foreign body. The involvement of aortic wall often contraindicates chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) treatment, thus reducing life expectancy of these patients. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a well described mini-invasive technique that can be also applied for coverage of aortic lumen in case of invasion by esophageal cancer (EC). Only few cases have been published with this atypical indication. Between 2016 and 2018, in our tertiary hospital three patients affected by AEC involving the thoracic aorta were treated by means of prophylactic TEVAR (ProTEVAR). We did not observe procedure-related complications and all patients were reconsidered fit for preoperative or definitive CRT.


Esophagus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masayuki Watanabe ◽  
Michio Sato ◽  
Minoru Fukuchi ◽  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
Hisahiro Matsubara

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 233-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaspar Mestres ◽  
Marvin E. Garcia ◽  
Xavier Yugueros ◽  
Rodrigo Urrea ◽  
Paolo Tripodi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiko Sasaki ◽  
Hideto Egashira ◽  
Shinnosuke Tokoro ◽  
Chikamasa Ichita ◽  
Satoshi Takizawa ◽  
...  

Background. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of an aortoesophageal fistula is an effective emergency treatment for patients with T4-esophageal cancer, as it prevents sudden death, and is a bridge to surgery. However, the course of unresectable malignant aortoesophageal fistula treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair alone is not well-known. Case Presentation. We report a 67-year-old Japanese man with T4-esophageal cancer who experienced a chemoradiation-induced aortoesophageal fistula and was rescued with thoracic endovascular aortic repair. He recovered after the procedure and survived for 4 additional months with management of a mycotic aneurysm and secondary aortoesophageal fistula with the exposure of the stent graft into the esophagus. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortoesophageal fistula with T4-esophageal cancer extended life for nearly an average of 4 months in the reported cases. As a postoperative complication, the exposure of the stent graft into the esophagus is rare but life-threatening; the esophageal stent insertion was effective. Conclusions. With postoperative management advances, thoracic endovascular aortic repair can improve survival and increase the quality of life of patients with T4-esophageal cancer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-247
Author(s):  
Andrés Reyes Valdivia ◽  
Sara Busto Suárez ◽  
África Duque Santos ◽  
Ahmad Amer Zanabili Al-Sibbai ◽  
Claudio Gandarias Zúñiga ◽  
...  

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document