Search

Objective: Adequate proximal and distal seal zones are necessary for successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Often, the achievement of an adequate distal seal zone requires celiac artery (CA) coverage by endograft with or without preservation of CA blood flow. The outcomes of CA coverage without its flow preservation were studied only in small case series. This study aims to determine the difference in outcomes between CA coverage with vs without preservation of CA blood flow during TEVAR using a multi-institutional national database., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for all TEVAR patients distally landing in zone 6. The cohort was divided into TEVAR with vs without CA flow preservation. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics, as well as postoperative mortality, morbidities, and complications, were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed., Results: Of 25,549 reviewed patients, 772 had a distal landing in Zone 6, 212 of which (27.5%) had TEVAR without CA flow preservation, whereas 560 (72.5%) underwent TEVAR with CA flow preservation. Indications for TEVAR were aneurysm in 431 (55.8%), dissection in 247 (32.0%), or other in 94 (12.2%) cases. Patients who underwent TEVAR without CA flow preservation had statistically significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.3% vs 5.9%; P = .010), 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (8.0% vs 4.3%; P = .039), as well as a tendency of increased intestinal ischemia requiring intervention (1.9% vs 0.5%; P = .077). After adjusting for potential confounders, CA coverage without flow preservation was associated with more than a two-fold increase in the overall 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-5.92; P = .006) and 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.11-6.72; P = .029). In a sub-group analysis based on disease pathology, these results persisted only in the aneurysm group (30-day mortality [OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.01-5.48; P = .047]; 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.08-7.67; P = .034]), whereas there was no significant association between CA flow preservation status and the endpoints in the dissection subgroup (30-day mortality [OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.22-6.05; P = .856], 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.16-5.19; P = .911])., Conclusions: CA coverage during TEVAR without preservation of its blood flow is associated with significantly higher mortality in patients with aortic aneurysm, but not dissection. In patients with aortic aneurysm, CA flow should be preserved during TEVAR whenever feasible, whereas in patients with dissection, it may be safe to cover CA without preservation of its flow. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these findings and compare the open vs endovascular revascularization techniques on outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for severe blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). Successful outcomes rely on accurate endograft sizing, but initial imaging may underestimate aortic diameters. This study examines the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) on endograft sizing and clinical outcomes in BTAI patients., Methods: A prospectively collected multi-institutional dataset from the Aortic Trauma Foundation was analyzed. Patients with BTAI undergoing TEVAR with IVUS were compared to patients who underwent TEVAR alone. Demographics and operative variables were compared, focusing on IVUS effects on endograft sizing by examining maximal proximal and distal aortic diameter on initial CT imaging compared to the graft diameters used during TEVAR., Results: 293 patients underwent TEVAR for BTAI with IVUS utilized in 124 cases (42.3%). The average graft size in the IVUS and non-IVUS groups were similar proximally (26.91 ± 4.3 mm IVUS vs 27.77 ± 4.7 mm non-IVUS, P = 0.116) and distally (25.96 ± 4.7 mm IVUS vs 26.51 ± 4.7 mm non-IVUS). IVUS did not impact the difference between graft size and initial CT measurements proximally (4.32 ± 4.8 mm IVUS vs 4.23 ± 3.9 mm non-IVUS, P = 0.859) or distally (4.17 ± 5.9 mm IVUS vs 4.50 ± 4.3 mm non-IVUS, P = 0.606). Although delayed hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke occurred less frequently in IVUS patients (0.8% IVUS vs 7.1% non- IVUS, P = 0.024), in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (5.6% IVUS vs 7.7% non-IVUS, P = 0.581)., Conclusions: IVUS is not associated with significant changes in endograft sizing compared to sizing based on CT scan alone in BTAI patients. IVUS was not associated with differences in mortality but was associated with a decrease in delayed hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. Routine IVUS in BTAI patients may not be necessary for accurate sizing, but there may be a relationship between IVUS and stroke., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown., Methods: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed., Results: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon., Competing Interests: Disclosures S.Z. reports consulting and scientific advising for WL Gore, Cook Medical, and Terumo Aortic. B.S. is an expert consultant for Terumo Corporation. H.V. is a consultant for Medtronic, WL Gore, Terumo Aortic, Artivion, Endologix, and Philips. J.H. is or has been a proctor or consultant for WL Gore, Terumo Aortic, and Cook Medical; S.T. is a consultant and speaker for Medtronic, WL Gore, and Terumo Aortic., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes)., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate., Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes)., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) is associated with high perioperative survival, although mortality is a possible outcome. However, no risk score has been developed to predict mortality after TEVAR for intact DTAA to aid in risk discussion and preoperative patient selection. Our objective was to use a multi-institutional database to develop a 30-day mortality risk calculator for TEVAR after DTAA repair., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients treated with TEVAR for intact DTAA between August 2014 and August 2020. Univariable and multivariable analyses aided in developing a 30-day mortality risk score. Internal validation was done with K-fold cross-validation and calibration curve analysis., Results: Of 2141 patients included in the analysis, 90 (4.2%) died within 30 days after the procedure. Clinically relevant variables identified to be independently associated with 30-day mortality and therefore used to derive the predictive model included age 75 years or greater (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-3.44; P < .001), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .036), American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV/V (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.39-4.10; P = .002), urgent vs elective procedure (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.90-6.33; P < .001), emergent vs elective procedure (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 2.36-11.75; P < .001), prior carotid revascularization (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.64-6.39; P = .001), and proximal landing zone <3 (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.65-3.81; P < .001). The model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75. Internal validation demonstrated a bias-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.79) and a calibration slope of 1.00 with a corresponding intercept of 0.00., Conclusions: This study provides a novel clinically relevant risk prediction model to estimate 30-day mortality risk after TEVAR for DTAA. The TEVAR Mortality Risk Calculator provides useful prognostic information to guide patient selection and facilitate preoperative discussions and shared decision making. An easily accessible online version of the TEVAR Mortality Risk Score is available to facilitate ease of use., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is the second leading cause of death from blunt trauma. In the present study, we aimed to determine the outcomes of medical management (MM) for BTAI. We hypothesized from the results of several previously reported studies, that patients with a minimal aortic injury (BTAI grades 1 and 2) could safely be treated with definitive MM alone., Methods: The Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry was used to examine the demographics, injury characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with BTAI. We analyzed a subset of patients for whom MM was initiated as definitive therapy., Results: From November 2016 to April 2020, 432 patients (median age, 41 years; 76% male; median injury severity score, 34) with BTAI (Society for Vascular Surgery grade 1, 23.6%; grade 2, 14.4%; grade 3, 51.2%; grade 4, 10.9%) were evaluated. Of the 432 patients, 245 (57%) had received MM in the initial period and 114 (26.4%) had received MM as the planned definitive therapy (grade 1, 59.6%; grade 2, 23.7%; grade 3, 15.8%; grade 4, 0.9%). The most common mechanism of BTAI was a motor vehicle collision (60.4%). Hypotension was present on arrival in 74 patients (17.2%). Continuous titratable infusion of antihypertensive medication was used for 49.1%, followed by intermittent bolus administration (29.8%), with beta-blockers (74.6%) the most common agent used. Treatments were targeted to a goal systolic blood pressure for 83.3%, most often to a target goal systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg (66.3%). The MM goals based on blood pressure control were attained in 64.0% (73 of 114). Twelve patients (10.5%; grade 1, 1; grade 2, 0; grade 3, 10; grade 4, 1) had required subsequent intervention after MM. Eleven patients (9.6%) had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair and one (0.9%) had required open repair for a grade 4 injury. The overall in-hospital mortality for patients selected for definitive MM was 7.9%. No aortic-related deaths had occurred in the patients receiving definitive MM., Conclusions: Approximately one in four patients with BTAI will receive MM as definitive therapy. The variation in the pharmacologic therapies used is considerable. MM for patients with minimal aortic injury (BTAI grades 1 and 2) is safe and effective, with a low overall intervention rate and no aortic-related deaths. These findings support the use of definitive MM for grade 2 BTAI., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Although several studies have evaluated the impact of obesity on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, literature examining this association in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is sparse. Here, we use a multi-institutional, international database to assess the role of body mass index (BMI) on adverse outcomes in patients who underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA) and type B dissections (TBD)., Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA or TBD from August 2014 to August 2020 was performed. Patients who were underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m 2 ) or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ) were compared with those of normal weight (≥18.5 to <30 kg/m 2 ). Adjustment for confounding was done with multivariable logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards regression as appropriate for studying postoperative or 1-year outcomes. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Other outcomes included any postoperative complication, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia., Results: A total of 3423 participants were included in the study, of whom 3.3% (n = 113) were underweight, 65.9% (n = 2253) had normal weight, and 30.8% (n = 1053) were obese. Compared with normal weight, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality in underweight patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-4.14; P = .156). Obese patients who underwent TEVAR for TBD had a 2.7-fold increase in the odds of 30-day mortality compared with normal weight (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.52-4.68; P = .001). Obese and normal weight patients with DTAA had equivalent odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23; P = .292). The adjusted hazard of 1-year mortality was 2-fold higher in underweight patients compared with normal weight (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.41-3.29; P < .001), driven by a higher risk of mortality among patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.63-4.21; P < .001). There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality risk between normal weight and obesity in both DTAA (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.09; P = .146) and TBD (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; P = .248)., Conclusions: In this study, obese patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA had comparable 30-day and 1-year mortality risk as normal weight individuals. Obese patients who underwent TEVAR for TBD demonstrated a 2.7-fold increase in the odds of 30-day mortality, but equivalent mortality risk as normal weight patients at 1 year. TEVAR represents a safe minimally invasive option for treatment of DTAA in obese patients. Future work should be directed toward minimizing perioperative mortality among patients with TBD to optimize TEVAR outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs) of the aorta has not been well described. Although repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain, or growth, no threshold has been established for treating those found incidentally. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach for treating these pathologic entities. However, the periprocedural and postoperative outcomes have not been well defined., Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone TEVAR for PAUs and/or IMHs from January 2011 to February 2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had follow-up data available. The patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify the risk factors for major adverse events (MAEs) and postoperative and late mortality., Results: The cohort was 54.8% female, and 69.9% were former smokers, with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent, with 57.8% classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4. Of the 1042 patients, 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure. Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%), and 44.5% had undergone nonelective repair. The MAE incidence was 17%. The independent predictors of MAEs were a history of coronary artery disease, nonwhite race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Of the index hospitalization mortalities, 73% were treatment related. For the 809 patients with follow-up (mean, 25.1 ± 19 months), the all-cause mortality was 10.6%. The predictors of late mortality during follow-up included age >70 years, ruptured presentation, and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and end-stage renal disease. A subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated that the former were frequently women (58.2% vs 45.3%; P < .001), with a greater incidence of MAEs (20.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001), including higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs 1.5%; P = .002) and mortality (5.6% vs 0.7%; log-rank P = .015), and a prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs 3.7 days; P < .0001), despite similar procedural risks. During follow-up, late mortality was greater in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs 6.5%; log-rank P = .025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group., Conclusions: We found significantly greater morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared with asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality during follow-up, with the overall prognosis largely dependent on preexisting comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with increasing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMHs and PAUs., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) complicated by malperfusion carries high morbidity and mortality. The present study was undertaken to compare the characteristics of malperfusion and uncomplicated cohorts and to evaluate the long-term differences in survival using a granular, national registry., Methods: Patients with TBAD entered into the thoracic endovascular aortic repair/complex endovascular aortic repair module of the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2010 to 2019 were included. The demographic, radiographic, operative, postoperative, in-hospital, and long-term reintervention data were compared between the malperfusion and uncomplicated TBAD groups using t tests and χ 2 analysis, as appropriate. Overall survival was compared using Cox regression to generate survival curves., Results: Of the 2820 included patients, 2267 had uncomplicated TBAD and 553 had malperfusion. The patients with malperfusion were younger (age, 55.8 vs 61.2 years; P < .001), were more often male (79.7% vs 68.1%; P < .001), had a higher preoperative creatinine (1.8 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .001), had more often presented with an American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 4 or 5 (81.9% vs 58.4%; P < .001), and had more often presented with urgent status (77.4% vs 32.8%; P < .001). In contrast, the uncomplicated TBAD group had had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a larger aortic diameter (4.0 cm vs 4.9 cm; P < .001). The malperfusion group more frequently had proximal zones of disease in zones 0 to 2 (38.6% vs 31.5%; P = .002) and distal zones of disease in zones 9 and above (78.7% vs 46.2%; P < .001), with a greater number of aortic zones traversed (7.7 vs 5.1; P < .001) and a greater frequency of dissection extension into branch vessels (61.8% vs 23.1%; P < .001). Patients with malperfusion also exhibited greater case complexity, with a greater need for branch vessel stenting and longer procedure times. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was greater in the malperfusion group (39.4% vs 17.1%; P < .001) and included a greater rate of spinal cord ischemia (6.3% vs 2.2%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (10.4% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and in-hospital mortality (11.6% vs 5.6%; P < .001). In-hospital reintervention was also greater for the malperfusion patients (14.5% vs 7.4%; P < .001), although the incidence of long-term reinterventions was similar between the two groups (8.7% vs 9.7%; P = .548). A proximal zone of disease in zone 0 to 2 was associated with decreased survival. In contrast, a distal zone of disease in 9 and above, in-hospital reintervention, and long-term follow-up were associated with increased survival. Despite these differences, long-term survival did not differ between the malperfusion and uncomplicated groups (P = .320.) CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with TBAD and malperfusion represent a unique cohort. Despite the greater need for branch vessel stenting and in-hospital reintervention, they had similar long-term reintervention rates and survival compared with those with uncomplicated TBAD. These data lend insight with regard to the observed differences between uncomplicated and malperfusion TBAD., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Racial disparities in open thoracic aortic aneurysm repair have been well-documented, with Black patients reported to suffer from poor outcomes compared with their White counterparts. It is unclear whether these disparities extend to the less invasive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study aims to examine the clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 1-year survival of Black vs White patients undergoing TEVAR in a national vascular surgery database., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively queried to identify all patients who underwent TEVAR between January 2011 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival after TEVAR. Secondary outcomes included various types of major postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and perioperative complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of 1-year survival., Results: A total of 2669 patients with TEVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative, of whom 648 were Black patients (24.3%). Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger and had a higher burden of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, dialysis dependence, and anemia. Black patients were more likely to be symptomatic, present with aortic dissection, and undergo urgent or emergent repair. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between Black and White patients (3.4% vs 4.9%; P = .1). After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and operative factors, Black patients were independently associated with a 56% decrease in 30-day mortality risk compared with their White counterparts (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .01) and not associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.17; P = .42). Black patients also had a significantly better 1-year overall survival (log-rank, P = .024) and were associated with a significantly decreased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) after adjusting for multiple clinical factors., Conclusions: Although Black patients carried a higher burden of comorbidities, the racial disparities in perioperative outcomes and 1-year survival do not persist in TEVAR., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has significantly improved the ability to treat traumatic aortic injuries (tTEVAR). We sought to determine whether a greater center volume correlated with better outcomes., Methods: Vascular Quality Initiative data of TEVAR (2011-2017) for trauma were used in the present analysis. Using the distribution of the annual case volume at the participating centers, the sample was stratified into three terciles. In-hospital mortality at high-volume centers (HVCs) and low-volume centers (LVCs) was compared after adjustment for risk factors established in our previous Vascular Quality Initiative-based risk model containing age, gender, renal impairment, left subclavian artery involvement, and select concomitant injuries., Results: A total of 619 tTEVAR cases were studied across 74 centers. HVCs (n = 184 cases) had performed ≥4.9 cases annually and LVCs (n = 220 cases) had performed ≤2.4 cases annually. Both crude mortality (4.4% vs 8.6%; P = .22) and adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.09; P = .08) showed a trend toward better outcomes for tTEVAR performed at HVCs than at LVCs. The addition of center volume to our previous multivariate model significantly improved its discriminative ability (C-statistic, 0.90 vs 0.88; P = .02). The overall TEVAR volume (for all indications) was not associated with increased odds of mortality for tTEVAR (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.20; P = .11), nor did it improve the model's discriminative ability., Conclusions: Higher volume centers showed improved perioperative mortality after tTEVAR. The thoracic aortic trauma volume was more predictive than the overall TEVAR volume, suggesting that technical expertise is not the driving factor. Stable patients might benefit from transfer to a higher volume center before repair., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the perioperative stroke incidence following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with differing left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage and revascularization approaches in a real-world setting of a nationwide clinical registry. Materials and Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was interrogated from 2005 to 2017 to identify all nonemergent TEVAR and/or open LSA revascularization procedures. In this time frame, 2346 TEVAR cases met the selection criteria for analysis. The 30-day stroke incidence was compared between patients undergoing TEVAR with (n=888) vs without (n=1458) LSA coverage, for those with (n=228) vs without (n=660) concomitant LSA revascularization among those with coverage, and following isolated LSA revascularization for occlusive disease (n=768). Multivariable logistic regression was employed for risk-adjusted analyses and to identify factors associated with stroke following TEVAR. Results of the regression analyses are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The stroke incidence was 2.3% following TEVAR without vs 5.2% with LSA coverage (p<0.001). In TEVARs with LSA coverage, the stroke incidence was 7.5% when the LSA was concomitantly revascularized and 4.4% without concomitant revascularization, while stroke occurred in 0.5% of isolated LSA revascularizations. Of 33 TEVAR patients experiencing a perioperative stroke, 8 (24%) died within 30 days. LSA coverage was associated with stroke both with concomitant revascularization (OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 7.5, p<0.001) and without concomitant revascularization (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8, p=0.002). Other preoperative factors associated with stroke were dyspnea (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0, p=0.014), renal dysfunction (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.8, p=0.049), and international normalized ratio ≥2.0 (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 13, p=0.045). Conclusion: Stroke following TEVAR with LSA coverage occurs frequently in the real-world setting, and concurrent LSA revascularization was not associated with a lower stroke incidence.

Objective: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is among the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Spinal fluid drainage has been proposed as a viable means to reduce SCI, but few data exist to support its routine use. This study investigated the association of preoperative spinal fluid drainage with the risk of SCI after TEVAR., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing TEVAR (coverage of zones 0-5) between September 2014 and March 2018 (inclusive). Patients with preoperative spinal malperfusion, aortic rupture on presentation, and connective tissue disorders were excluded. One-to-one propensity matching was used to balance patients on 44 separate dimensions by the nearest neighbor principle to compare those with vs those without preoperative spinal drainage. The primary end point was SCI still present at the time of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and prolonged intensive care unit stay (>7 days)., Results: Among 4287 patients who underwent TEVAR (mean age, 67.1 [standard deviation, 13.7] years; 1665 [38.8%] women and 2622 [61.2%] men), 2076 had a spinal drain placed. Propensity matching yielded 1292 pairs with adequate covariate balance (all 44 absolute standardized differences <0.1). In the 2584 propensity-matched patients, spinal drain placement was associated with a reduced risk of SCI (1.5% vs 2.5%; risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.89; P = .02). The rates of 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 5.0%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.01; P = .05) and prolonged intensive care unit stay (7.0% vs 5.7%; risk-adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45; P = .48) did not differ on the basis of spinal drain placement. The crossover rate was 10% (127/1292), and those with postoperative drain placement had a 20% (26/127) SCI rate on discharge., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular aortic repair, preoperative placement of a spinal drain, compared with no drain, was associated with reduced risk of SCI. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage as a rescue measure does not provide the same protection offered by routine preoperative placement. Further investigation, including randomized controlled trials, is needed to more definitively determine the role for spinal drainage in TEVAR., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to evaluate outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage without bypass (TEVAR + SUB) to TEVAR with coverage of the LSA with a bypass at the time of the initial procedure or later at a separate procedure (TEVAR + SUB + BYPASS)., Methods: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims for 2006-2007 were queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes for TEVAR, TEVAR + SUB, TEVAR + SUB + BYPASS or later as a separate procedure., Results: A total of 2676 patients underwent TEVAR; 869 (32.5%) underwent TEVAR + SUB and 49 (5.6%) TEVAR + SUB + BYPASS. At the time of the initial procedure, TEVAR + SUB + BYPASS was associated with a higher incidence of stroke compared to TEVAR + SUB (12.8% vs. 3.8 %; p = 0.0033). Among TEVAR + SUB, only 1.93% (50 patients) had a subsequent bypass performed during a one-year follow-up. Overall rates of morbidity (p = 0.004) and mortality (p = 0.011) trended towards significance in favor of TEVAR + SUB., Conclusions: TEVAR + SUB were associated with lower rates of mortality and complications. Only a small percentage of TEVAR + SUB required a bypass at one year after procedure. Our data suggest that routine LSA bypass during TEVAR is unnecessary and associated with increase morbidity and mortality., (© The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)