The effects of operative indication and urgency of intervention on patient outcomes after thoracic aortic endografting

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX 75390-9157, USA.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter (Impact Factor: 3.02). 04/2011; 53(4):926-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.052
Source: PubMed


Endovascular repair for complex thoracic aortic pathology has emerged over the past decade as an alternative to open surgical repair. Reports suggest lower morbidity and mortality rates associated with endovascular interventions. The purpose of this report was to analyze a large single institution experience in endovascular thoracic aortic repair based on clinical presentation as well as within and outside specific instructions for use.
Records of all patients undergoing thoracic aortic endografting at our institution were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, interventional indications and acuity, operative details, and clinical outcomes. Study outcomes were analyzed by clinical presentation (urgent/emergent vs elective) and aneurysm morphology that was within and outside specific instructions for use as recommended by the manufacturer.
Between March 2006 and October 2009, 96 patients underwent thoracic endografting for aneurysm (n = 43), transection (n = 7), penetrating ulcer (n = 11), dissection (n = 19; acute = 9, chronic = 10), pseudoaneurysm (n = 11), or miscellaneous indications (n = 5). Endografting was performed with various endografts (Gore TAG: 59; Medtrontic Talent: 26; Zenith-TX2: 7; Combination: 4.Involvement of the arch (n = 42, 43.75%) was treated with subclavian artery coverage without revascularization in 13 (13.5%), debranching in 20 (20.8%), and fenestration/stenting in 9 (9.38%). Involvement of the visceral vessels (n = 24, 25%) was treated with debranching in 15 (15.6%) or fenestration/stenting in 9 (9.4%). Patients had a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 10.96 (range: 0-38) months. Overall mortality was 6.25% (n = 6). Mean intensive care unit stay was 6.26 ± 8.55 (range: 1-63, median: 4) days, and hospital stay was 9.97 ± 10.31 (range: 1-65, median: 65) days. Major complications were infrequent and included: spinal cord ischemia (n = 6, 6.25%), stroke (n = 6, 6.25%), myocardial infarction (n = 3, 3.15%), renal failure (n = 6, 6.25%), and wound complications (n = 9, 9.38%). Reoperation was required in 13 (13.54%), with early intervention in 2 (2.1%). The vast majority of patients were discharged directly to home (n = 66, 68.8%). There were no significant differences between death (1/49 [2%] vs 5/47 [10.6%], P = .07), stroke (3/49 [6%] vs 3/47 [6%], P = 1.0), or spinal cord ischemia (3/49 [6%] vs 3/47 [6%], P = 1.0) when comparing urgent/emergent presentation to elective cases, respectively. However, there were significant differences in death (6/58 [10.5%] vs 0/38 [0%], P = .04) and spinal cord ischemia (6/58 [10.5%] vs 0/38 [0%], P = .04) but not stroke (5/58 [8.8%] vs 1/38 [2.5%], P = .24] when procedures were performed outside the specific instructions for use.
Results of this single-institution report suggest that endovascular thoracic aortic repair is a safe and effective treatment option for a variety of thoracic pathology including both elective and emergent cases. However, off-label usage of the devices is associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality and spinal cord ischemia, but the risk still appears acceptable given the majority of cases were emergent.

Download full-text


Available from: Erin H Murphy, Mar 17, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Not Available
    No preview · Conference Paper · Feb 1983
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) devices are increasingly being utilized to treat aortic pathologies outside of the original Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval for nonruptured descending thoracic aorta aneurysms (DTAs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing TEVAR, elucidating the role of surgical and pathologic variables on morbidity and mortality. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data were reviewed for all patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aorta repair from 2005 to 2007. The patients' operative indication and surgical complexity were used to divide them into study and control populations. Comorbid profiles were assessed utilizing a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Thirty-day occurrences of mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs) were used as study endpoints. Univariate and multivariate models were created using demographic and clinical variables to assess for significant differences in endpoints (P ≤ .05). A total of 440 patients undergoing TEVAR were identified. When evaluating patients based on operative indication, the ruptured population had increased mortality and SAE rates compared to the nonruptured DTA population (22.6% vs 6.2%;P < .01 and 35.5% vs 9.1%;P < .01, respectively). Further analysis by surgical complexity revealed increased mortality and SAE rates when comparing the brachiocephalic aortic debranching population to the noncovered left subclavian artery population (23.1% vs 6.5%; P = .02 and 30.8% vs 9.1%; P < .01, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that operative indication was not a correlate of mortality or SAEs (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P = .92 and OR, 1.42; P = .39, respectively); however, brachiocephalic aortic debranching exhibited a deleterious effect on mortality (OR, 8.75; P < .01) and SAE rate (OR, 6.67; P = .01). The operative indication for a TEVAR procedure was not found to be a predictor of poor patient outcome. Surgical complexity, specifically the need for brachiocephalic aortic debranching and aortoiliac conduit, was shown to influence the occurrence of SAEs in a multivariate model. Comparative data, such as these, illustrate real-world outcomes of patients undergoing TEVAR outside of the original FDA-approved indications. This information is of paramount importance to various stakeholders, including third-party payers, the device industry, regulatory agencies, surgeons, and their patients.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2011 · Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved as an alternative to open repair for a range of aortic pathology. The earliest endovascular repairs were limited to descending thoracic aortic pathology, but growing experience has resulted in the use of stents in the ascending aorta and aortic arch. This review presents the current literature pertaining to thoracic endoluminal stent repair, with emphasis on the role of intravenous contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography, the primary cross-sectional imaging modality used in these patients. Radiologists play an integral role in patient selection, procedural planning, and postprocedural follow-up.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2012
Show more