Risk Factors Predicting for Perioperative and Long-Term Mortality in Acute and Subacute Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Patients

Objectives Abdominal aortic aneurysms are conventionally treated by open repair surgery. While endovascular aortic repair improves survival in high-risk patients, younger patients (40–65 years) potentially at lower risk with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair usually have poorer post-operative outcomes and require longer term follow-up. In this study, clinical data on younger patients were analyzed to investigate whether endovascular aortic repair leads to poorer short- and long-term outcomes. Methods This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing clinical outcomes in patients aged 40–65 years undergoing open repair or endovascular aortic repair and published between 2000 and 2017. In-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and post-operative complication data were retrieved from eligible studies and clinical outcomes were compared. Twenty-one retrospective cohort analyses were included, accounting for 250,837 patients (149,051 endovascular aortic repair; 101,786 open repair). Risk ratios were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.3. Results Younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing endovascular aortic repair had a significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28–0.57; p < 0.00001), long-term mortality (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.82; p = 0.01), incidence of reintervention (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.66; p < 0.0001), and incidence of renal failure (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.37–1.82; p < 0.00001). Conclusions Endovascular aortic repair may improve short- and long-term survival and reduce post-operative complications in younger patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Download Full-text

Unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection: A 16-year single-center report

Vascular ◽

10.1177/1708538117746555 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 400-409

Author(s):

Junjun Liu ◽

Rongjie Zhang ◽

Rui Feng ◽

Jiaxuan Feng ◽

Zhiqing Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Aortic Dissection ◽

Operation Time ◽

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽

Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽

Rank Test ◽

Type B ◽

Type B Aortic Dissection ◽

Aortic Repair ◽

Type Ia

Background Unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair mean additional stents implantation beyond the preoperative planning to achieve operation success. This study aimed to reveal the prevalence and consequences of unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection and explore the reasons, risk factors and solutions for unplanned stents. Methods Retrospectively analysis consecutive patients diagnosed as type B aortic dissection with initial tear originating distal from the left subclavian artery and underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair from September 1998 to June 2014 in our center. Results Under the criteria, this study enrolled 322 patients, with 83 (25.8%) patients in unplanned group. The incidence rate of unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection in each year demonstrates as a bimodal curve. The curve showed that, 2003 and, 2004 was the first and highest peak and 2007 was the second peak. There was no difference in five-year survival rate between planned and unplanned patients (log-rank test, p = 0.994). The unplanned group had higher hospitalization expenses (142,699.08 ± 78,446.75 yuan vs. 175,238.58 ± 34,838.01 yuan; p = 0.019), longer operation time (104.50 ± 93.24 min vs. 179.08 ± 142.47 min; p < 0.001) and hospitalization time (17.07 ± 16.62 d vs. 24.00 ± 15.34 d; p = 0.001). The reasons for unplanned stents were type Ia endoleak (46 patients, 55.4%), bird beak (25 patients, 30.1%), and inappropriate shaping of stent (9 patients, 10.8%). Asymptomatic aortic dissection patients had higher incidence of unplanned stents. Short proximal neck length (2.66 ± 0.59 mm vs. 2.50 ± 0.51 mm; p = 0.016), short stent coverage length (154.62 ± 41.12 mm vs. 133.60 ± 44.33 mm; p = 0.002), and large distal stent oversize (75.44±10.77% vs. 82.68±15.80%; p <0.001) were risk factors for unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Conclusion There are some special risk factors and reasons for unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection. Knowing these can we reduce the utilization of unplanned stents with appropriate methods.

Download Full-text