Risk Factors Associated With Reintervention After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Descending Aortic Pathologies

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin-Ah Son ◽  
Deok Heon Lee ◽  
Tak-Hyuk Oh ◽  
Joon Yong Cho ◽  
Young Ok Lee ◽  
...  

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with several short-term benefits, including reduced morbidity and mortality; however, the long-term durability of TEVAR and the need for secondary aortic reintervention remain unclear. We aimed to determine the adverse outcomes, including aortic reintervention, after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection. Methods: Between October 2009 and July 2016, 130 patients underwent TEVAR at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We excluded 35 patients with traumatic injury and included the remaining 95 patients in our study after TEVAR. The patients included in this study were categorized into 2 groups (reintervention [R] and nonintervention [N] groups) according to the need for reintervention. The mean follow-up period for all 95 patients was 22.4 (20.6) months. Results: The overall actuarial survival rates were 83.7% (4.1%) and 63.6% (8.8%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from aortic reintervention after TEVAR were 94.0% (3.5%), 72.8% (8.2%), and 48.9% (10.5%) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The independent risk factors for aortic reintervention were endoleaks after TEVAR (odds ratio [OR] 6.13, P = .017), increase in aortic size by over 5% per year (OR 20.40, P = .001), and peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; OR 13.62, P = .007). Patients with preoperative hemoptysis tended to show a greater need for aortic reintervention ( P = .059). Increase in aortic size by over 5% per year and PVOD were the primary risk factors for endoleaks (OR 3.82, P = .013 and OR 4.37, P = .021, respectively). Conclusion: Survival after TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathologies was satisfactory in most of the patients chosen as candidates for the procedure. However, the occurrence of endoleaks, increase in aortic size by over 5% per year, and PVOD were the primary causes of aortic reintervention.

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (04) ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Newman ◽  
Allan Mattia ◽  
Frank Manetta

The utility of Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) continues to progress at a very rapid rate. Initially implemented for the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms, TEVAR has evolved to treat a variety of aortic pathologies and reduce overall morbidity and mortality rates compared with traditional open surgical repair.Given the rapidly evolving nature of endovascular thoracic intervention, we hereby briefly review the current literature on the evolving applications of TEVAR.TEVAR continues to rapidly evolve and is being applied to a growing number of aortic pathologies. Given the perioperative, short- and mid-term morbidity and mortality rates, TEVAR is quickly surpassing traditional open surgical intervention as the ideal procedure for patients undergoing intervention of the descending thoracic aorta and applicability to ascending and arch pathologies is being explored. However, as more data becomes available TEVAR may be associated with higher rates of reoperative requirements. Data remains limited on the long-term efficacy of the intervention and should continue to be investigated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. e125
Author(s):  
Abhishek Rao ◽  
Ambar Mehta ◽  
Richard Schutzer ◽  
Danielle Bajakian ◽  
Nicholas Morrissey ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. S36 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Pisimisis ◽  
Birgit Kantor ◽  
Ali Khoynezhad ◽  
Brian D. Lahr ◽  
Kent R. Bailey ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 140 (6) ◽  
pp. S161-S167 ◽  
Author(s):  
George T. Pisimisis ◽  
Ali Khoynezhad ◽  
Khalid Bashir ◽  
Matthew J. Kruse ◽  
Carlos E. Donayre ◽  
...  

Vascular ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-409
Author(s):  
Junjun Liu ◽  
Rongjie Zhang ◽  
Rui Feng ◽  
Jiaxuan Feng ◽  
Zhiqing Zhao ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 1340-1348.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junichi Tazaki ◽  
Kanji Inoue ◽  
Hirooki Higami ◽  
Nobuya Higashitani ◽  
Masanao Toma ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document