scholarly journals Correction to: Thoracic endovascular repair of a rare case of leaking aortic arch intramural hematoma secondary to Giant cell arteritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhijit Salaskar ◽  
Farzad Najam ◽  
Elizabeth Pocock ◽  
Shawn Sarin
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhijit Salaskar ◽  
Farzad Najam ◽  
Elizabeth Pocock ◽  
Shawn Sarin

Abstract Background Traditionally thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) secondary to Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) were treated with resection and open repair. However no prior studies have reported an aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) as a presentation of GCA or outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in TAA or IMH secondary to GCA. Case presentation A 59 year old female, nonsmoker, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic with a known history of GCA, temporal arteritis on prednisone presented with shortness of breath & chest pain. Chest CT revealed aortic arch IMH and large left hemothorax. CTA confirmed distal aortic arch focal dilation, a focal intimal irregularity in the distal aortic arch and extensive IMH without any active extravasation or signs of aortitis. Patient underwent an urgent TEVAR without oversizing the aortic landing zones. Post TEVAR aortogram showed exclusion of the site of IMH origin and dilated aortic arch segment by the stent and absence of active extravasation. One month post-TEVAR CTA showed patent stent graft with resolution of IMH and hemothorax. One year after TEVAR, patient remained asymptomatic. Conclusion GCA can present as an IMH secondary to underlying chronic vasculitis. When endovascular repair is considered, great care should be taken not to grossly oversize aortic landing zones.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (20) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan P.M. Smorenburg ◽  
Matthew Montesano ◽  
Tijs J. Hoogteijling ◽  
Maarten Truijers ◽  
Petr Symersky ◽  
...  

Background Endovascular repair has become a viable alternative for aortic pathological features, including those located within the aortic arch. We investigated the anatomic suitability for branched thoracic endovascular repair in patients previously treated with conventional open surgery for aortic arch pathological features. Methods and Results Patients who underwent open surgery for aortic arch pathological features at our institution between 2000 and 2018 were included. Anatomic suitability was determined by strict compliance with the anatomic criteria within manufacturers’ instructions for use for each of the following branched thoracic stent grafts: Relay Plus Double‐Branched (Terumo‐Aortic), TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates), Zenith Arch Branched Device (Cook‐Medical), and Nexus Stent Graft System (Endospan Ltd/Jotec GmbH). Computed tomography angiography images were analyzed with outer luminal line measurements. A total of 377 patients (mean age, 64±14 years; 64% men) were identified, 153 of whom had suitable computed tomography angiography images for measurements. In total, 59 patients (15.6% of the total cohort and 38.6% of the measured cohort) were eligible for endovascular repair using at least one of the devices. Device suitability was 30.9% for thoracic aneurysms, 4.6% for type A dissections, 62.5% for type B dissections, and 28.6% for other pathological features. Conclusions The anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of all aortic arch pathological features was modest. The highest suitability rates were observed for thoracic aneurysms and for type B dissections, of which repair included part of the aortic arch. We suggest endovascular repair of arch pathological features should be reserved for high‐volume centers with experience in endovascular arch repair.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document