OBJECTIVE: Respiratory adverse events (RAEs) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remain poorly characterized due to the lack of comprehensive studies that identify individuals prone to these complications. This study aims to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and outcomes of RAEs after TEVAR.
METHODS: We identified Vascular Quality Initiative patients undergoing TEVAR isolated to zones 0-5 from 2010 to 2023 for non-traumatic pathologies. After determining the incidence of post-operative RAEs, we assessed baseline characteristics, pathology, procedural details, and postoperative complications stratified by respiratory complication status: none, pneumonia only, reintubation only, or both. We then examined pre- and intra-operative variables independently associated with the development of postoperative RAEs using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to determine associations between postoperative RAEs and 5-year survival adjusting for preoperative variables and other non-respiratory post-operative complications in a separate model.
RESULTS: Of 10,708 patients, 8.3% had any RAE (pneumonia only: 2.1%, reintubation only: 4.8%, both: 1.4%). Patients with any RAE were more likely to present with aortic dissection (any respiratory complication: 46% vs no respiratory complication: 35%; p<.001), and be symptomatic (58% vs 48%;p<.001). Developing RAEs post-TEVAR was associated with male sex (aRR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.01-1.41]; p=0.037), obesity (1.31[1.07-1.61]; p=0.009), morbid obesity (1.68[1.20-2.32]; p=0.002), renal dysfunction (eGFR 30-45: 1.45[1.15-1.82]; p=0.002; eGFR <30/hemodialysis: 1.7[1.37-2.11]; p<0.001), anemia (1.31[1.09-1.58]; p=0.003), aortic diameter >65mm (1.54[1.25-1.89]; p<0.001), proximal disease in the aortic arch (1.23[1.03-1.48]; p=0.025) or ascending aorta (1.61[1.19-2.14]; p=0.002), acute aortic dissection (2.13[1.72-2.63]; p<0.001), ruptured presentation (3.07[2.43-3.87]; p<0.001), same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment (1.51[1.25-1.82]; p<0.001), COPD on home oxygen (1.58[1.08-2.25]; p=0.014), limited self-care or bed-bound status (2.12[1.45-3.03]; p<0.001), and intraoperative transfusion (1.88[1.47-2.40]; p<0.001). Patients who developed post-operative RAEs had higher 30-day mortality (27% vs 4%; p<.001) and 5-year mortality than patients without respiratory complications (46% vs 20%; p<0.001). After adjusting for pre-operative and post-operative variables, 5-year mortality was higher in patients who developed any post-operative RAE (aHR: 1.8[1.6, 2.1]; p<.001), post-operative pneumonia only (1.4[1.0, 1.8];p=.046), reintubation only (2.2[1.8, 2.6]; p<.001) or both (1.5[1.1, 2.0]; p=.008).
CONCLUSIONS: RAEs after TEVAR are common, more likely to occur in male patients with obesity, renal dysfunction, anemia, COPD on home oxygen, acute aortic dissection, ruptured presentation, same-day surgical thoracic branch treatment, who received intra-operative transfusion, and are associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year mortality regardless of the development of other post-operative complications. Considering these factors in assessing risks and benefits of TEVAR procedures, along with implementing customized post-operative care, can potentially improve clinical outcomes.

暂无摘要。

Although there are established high-risk features in acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), its management is variable. This study characterizes complicated, uncomplicated, and high-risk TBAD in addition to their management and outcomes to gain insight into the actual significance of these high-risk features and the reality of real-world practice in managing TBAD. A retrospective review of 62 patients was conducted. Patient demographics, management, and outcomes were characterized and evaluated with Pearson\'s χ2 test, Fisher\'s exact test, or analysis of variance. Of the 32 high-risk TBADs, 66% (n = 21) received endovascular repair, 31% (n = 10) were medically managed, and 3% (n = 1) received hybrid (open and endovascular) repair. Refractory hypertension and pain (52%, n = 11) were the most common high-risk features in patients with high-risk TBAD who received endovascular repair. A maximum aortic diameter of >40 mm (67%, n = 6) was the most common high-risk feature in patients who received medical management. The most prevalent high-risk feature for all treatment groups in the high-risk TBADs was an aortic diameter of >40 mm (n = 16; 50%). Adverse postoperative outcomes were highest in the high-risk and complicated groups with endoleak as the most common adverse outcome (high-risk 12.9%, complicated 13.6%). Of the 62 patients, 47% (n = 26) had follow-up since their admission with an average follow-up time of 69 ± 166 days. The significance of high-risk features in the management of high-risk TBAD remains unclear. This single-center experience with managing acute TBAD reveals the reality of inadequate follow-up that may be specific to this disease process. This highlights a need to direct more efforts to assess long-term outcomes after treatment.

Teaching point: A ruptured aorto-iliac aneurysm, complicated by an iliac arteriovenous fistula, is rare but has a possibly fatal outcome and requires prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

We report the case of a 65-year-old male patient who was deemed unfit for open surgery and underwent zone 0 endovascular repair with a physician-modified fenestrated endograft for a symptomatic penetrating ulcer. A thoracic stent graft was modified creating a large fenestration for the innominate artery and the left common carotid artery, and a second small fenestration for the left subclavian artery and the left vertebral artery, which had a common origin. No bridging stent was used for the left subclavian artery to avoid coverage of the left vertebral artery. The postoperative course was uneventful, and no leaks nor other complications were detected on postoperative computed tomography angiography. Although long-term durability needs to be better assessed, our experience suggests that physician-modified fenestrated endografts are a feasible option for the emergent treatment of aortic arch lesions in unfit patients and provide satisfactory results in the short term.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was compare elective surgical repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) via a posterior approach vs. endovascular exclusion, analysing early and five year outcomes in a multicentre retrospective study.
METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2023, a retrospectively maintained dataset of all consecutive asymptomatic PAAs that underwent open repair with posterior approach or endovascular repair in 37 centres was investigated. An aneurysm length of ≤ 60 mm was considered the only inclusion criterion. A total of 605 patients were included; 440 PAAs (72.7%) were treated via a posterior approach (open group) and the remaining 165 PAAs (27.3%) were treated using covered stents (Endo group). Continuous data were expressed as median with interquartile range. Thirty day outcomes were assessed and compared. At follow up, primary outcomes were freedom from re-intervention, secondary patency, and amputation free survival. Secondary outcomes were survival and primary patency. Estimated five year outcomes were compared using log rank test.
RESULTS: At 30 days, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, graft occlusion, or re-interventions. Three patients (0.7%) in the open group experienced nerve injury. The overall median duration of follow up was 32.1 months. At five year follow up, freedom from re-intervention was higher in the open group (82.2% vs. 68.4%; p = .021). No differences were observed in secondary patency (open group 90.7% vs. endo group 85.2%; p = .25) or amputation free survival (open group 99.0% vs. endo group 98.4%; p = .73). A posterior approach was associated with better survival outcomes (84.4% vs. 79.4%; p = .050), and primary patency (79.8% vs. 63.8%; p = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: Early and long term outcomes following elective repair of PAAs measuring ≤ 60 mm via a posterior approach or endovascular exclusion seem comparable. Nerve injury might be a rare but potential complication for those undergoing open surgery. Endovascular repair is associated with more re-interventions.

BACKGROUND: Management of subclavian artery injuries (SAI) and iliac artery injuries (IAI) in adolescent trauma patients poses a considerable challenge due to their complex anatomical locations. The aim of our study was to determine the association between the injury mechanism and type of repair with the outcomes of patients with traumatic SAI and IAI.
METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database2017-2020, adolescent (<18 y) patients with SAI and IAI undergoing either endovascular or open repair were included. Patients were stratified by mechanism (blunt versus penetrating) and type of repair (endovascular [E] versus open [O]) and compared. Outcomes measured were mortality and major complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Over 4 y, 170 pediatric patients were identified, of which 73 (43%) sustained an SAI and 97 (57%) had IAI. The mean age was 15 and 79% were male. Overall, 39% were managed endovascularly. Both groups had comparable median injury severity score (E: 23 versus O: 25, P = 0.278). For patients with blunt injury (n = 60), the type of repair was neither associated with major complications (E: 39% versus O: 33%, P = 0.694) nor mortality (E: 2.6% versus O: 4.8%, P = 0.651). For patients with penetrating injuries (n = 110), the endovascular repair had significantly lower morbidity (19% versus 41%, P = 0.034) and mortality (3.7% versus 21%, P = 0.041). On multivariable logistic regression, endovascular repair was identified as the only modifiable risk factor associated with reduced mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.201, 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.76], P = 0.038).
CONCLUSIONS: Difficult-to-access vascular injuries result in significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular repair was found to be the only modifiable factor associated with decreased mortality of patients with penetrating injury, whereas the type of repair was not associated with mortality in those with blunt injury.

Objective: We aimed to analyse patient outcomes following open (OAR) or endovascular repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in Finland and Sweden from 1998 to 2017. Both intact and ruptured AAAs (rAAAs) were included in the analysis. Methods: Patient-level data from national registries in Finland and Sweden were analysed, pairing operations for intact and ruptured AAA repair with mortality data (date of death). All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Anonymized patient data from both countries were pooled, comprising a total of 32,324 operations. Ruptured and intact AAAs were considered separately. In total, EVAR was performed on 9619 intact AAAs and 1470 rAAAs, while OAR was performed on 13,241 intact AAAs and 7994 rAAAs. The patient\'s age, sex and the date of operation were obtained as demographic information. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate long-term (10-year) survival after the treatment of AAA or rAAA with either modality. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed in three different age groups (<65 years, 65-79 years and ≥80 years). Results: Considering all age groups together, the 1-, 3- and 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival rates after EVAR were 93.4%, 80.5% and 35.3%, respectively, for intact AAA repair and 67.2%, 55.9% and 22.2%, respectively, for rAAA repair. For OAR of intact AAAs, the 1-, 3- and 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 92.1%, 84.8% and 48.7%, respectively. The respective rates for OAR of rAAAs were 55.4%, 49.3% and 24.6%. In a Cox regression analysis, a more recent year of operation was associated with improved survival, and older age affected survival negatively for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. If patients survived the first 90 days after the operation, the survival after intact AAA repair was 13.5 years for those <65 years (general population: 18.0 years), and 7.3 years for those ≥80 years (general population: 7.9 years). After rAAA repair, the mean survival was 13.1 years for patients <65 years and 5.5 years for patients ≥80 years, respectively. Conclusions: The long-term survival of patients undergoing intact AAA treatment at the age of 80 or older is close to that of the general population, provided they survive the operation. Conversely, for patients younger than 65, the long-term survival is markedly worse. The long-term survival of AAA patients has improved over time. Open surgery is still a safe and effective option for young patients undergoing intact AAA repair. Our results support the ESVS guidelines recommendation of EVAR being the first-line treatment for patients with rAAA.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this case series is to investigate the outcomes of double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.
METHODS: All consecutive patients with a distal anastomotic aneurysm after open ascending aorta surgery who underwent aortic arch repair with a homemade double-fenestrated stent-graft from 2017 to 2023 were reviewed. Study endpoints included technical success, 30-day, and long-term follow up analysis of mortality, morbidity, and reinterventions.
RESULTS: 10 patients were treated with double-fenestrated PMEGs for anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery of the ascending aorta. Of these, 9 were male with a mean age of 58 years. Nine patients were initially treated for acute dissection, and 2 had mechanical aortic valves. The mean time between open surgery and the treatment of the pseudoaneurysm was 4.15 years. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone was consistently in zone 0, and all endografts were deployed via femoral access. Early outcomes revealed one endoleak (type 1a), which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. No deaths or strokes occurred during the early postoperative period. During long-term follow up (mean time 35 months), no endoleaks requiring intervention occurred, and there were no reports of stent fractures or migrations. No patient died from an aortic-related cause.
CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs for distal anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery is feasible and represents a promising alternative in patients ineligible for redo surgery.

UNASSIGNED: This single-center study aimed to assess patients who underwent intentional percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) with Hybrid Technique combining a single Perclose (Abbott, Abbott Park, Illinois) Suture-Mediated Closure Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and compare outcomes with the standard Dual Perclose technique. Materials and Methods: Consecutive elective pEVAR patients treated from November 2022 to November 2023, with healthy femoral accesses and introducer sheaths ≤20 French (F) outer diameter, were included. Coin-toss randomization determined whether a combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Hybrid Technique) or the standard double Perclose Devices (Dual Perclose) was used. In Hybrid Technique, a single Perclose device was positioned at 12 o\'clock; a single Angio-Seal VIP 8F was placed after sheaths removal. Dual Perclose followed standard procedure. Primary endpoints included immediate hemostasis, sheath diameter differences, access conversion rate, technical success, and cost analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The study involved 60 pEVAR patients (median age=78, interquartile range [IQR]=72-85 years) within the inclusion criteria. In 14 (24%) cases, only 1 femoral access was studied. There were 106 pEVAR accesses, with 58 (54.7%) in the Hybrid Technique group and 48 (45.3%) in the Dual Perclose group. Both groups exhibited homogeneity in pre-operative characteristics and sheath diameter (Hybrid Technique-16F vs Dual Perclose-18F; p=0.202). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the Hybrid Technique group vs 87.5% for the Dual Perclose group (p=0.006). Surgical access conversion was unnecessary. Technical success was 100%, with all 6 femoral bleeding cases after Dual Perclose resolved endovascularly, using additional devices. Cost analysis showed a median cost of 330 euros (IQR=0) for the Hybrid Technique group vs 384 euros (IQR=360-456) for the Dual Perclose group (p<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3%, in 2 fragile patients, without access-related complications. Multivariate analysis identified Dual Perclose access (odds ratio [OR]=35.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=18.3-36.8; p<0.001) and obesity (OR=19.7; 95% CI=1.4-23.9.5; p<0.001) as independent risk factors for immediate hemostasis failure. Median follow-up was 134 days (IQR=41-227), with 1 Hybrid Technique case (2%) successfully treated with thrombin injection for a small femoral pseudoaneurysm after 62 days.
UNASSIGNED: The elective Hybrid Technique with combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F during pEVAR in selected patients appears to be non-inferior to the standard Dual Perclose procedure. It demonstrates a positive trend in reducing immediate hemostasis failure and costs. Both procedures achieved technical success and avoiding surgical access conversions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces a novel elective hybrid technique combining a single Perclose device with a single Angio-Seal VIP 8Fr for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic interventions. Results for hybrid technique showed 100% technical success and efficient immediate hemostasis, while costing less than standard dual Perclose procedure. Both procedures did not require surgical conversions. Despite being a single-center study, it demonstrates potential benefits of the intentional application of this hybrid technique towards minimally invasiveness. Obesity and dual Perclose technique were identified as independent risk factors for hemostasis failure, reaffirming the hybrid technique procedure\'s efficacy as well as and non-inferiority to standard procedure.