Wanhainen, Anders

Objective: To describe outcomes after elective and non-elective fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Background: FB-EVAR has been increasingly utilized to treat TAAAs; however, outcomes after non-elective versus elective repair are not well described. Methods: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAAs at 24 centers (2006–2021) were reviewed. Endpoints including early mortality and major adverse events (MAEs), all-cause mortality, and aortic-related mortality (ARM), were analyzed and compared in patients who had non-elective versus elective repair. Results: A total of 2603 patients (69% males; mean age 72±10 year old) underwent FB-EVAR for TAAAs. Elective repair was performed in 2187 patients (84%) and non-elective repair in 416 patients [16%; 268 (64%) symptomatic, 148 (36%) ruptured]. Non-elective FB-EVAR was associated with higher early mortality (17% vs 5%, P<0.001) and rates of MAEs (34% vs 20%, P<0.001). Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range, 7–37 months). Survival and cumulative incidence of ARM at 3 years were both lower for non-elective versus elective patients (50±4% vs 70±1% and 21±3% vs 7±1%, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-elective repair was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI] 1.50–2.44; P<0.001) and ARM (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.63–3.62; P<0.001). Conclusions: Non-elective FB-EVAR of symptomatic or ruptured TAAAs is feasible, but carries higher incidence of early MAEs and increased all-cause mortality and ARM than elective repair. Long-term follow-up is warranted to justify the treatment.

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient’s quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to present a narrative review on endovascular techniques (ET) for revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and on risk factors for postoperative stroke following TEVAR procedures. METHODS Non-systematic search of the literature from the PubMed, Ovid and Scopus databases to identify relevant English-language articles fully published in the period 1 January 2010–1 August 2020. RESULTS Current general agreement is that LSA revascularization should be always attempted in the elective setting. Under urgent circumstances, it can be delayed but might be considered during the same session on a case-by-case basis. Three ET are currently available: (i) chimney/snorkels (also known as parallel grafts), (ii) fenestrations or branches and (iii) proximal scallops. The main issue with ET is the potential for increased peri-operative stroke risk owing to increased manipulation within the aortic arch. Also, they are relatively novel and further assessment of their long-term durability is needed. Intra-operative embolism and loss of left vertebral artery perfusion are hypothesized as the main causes of stroke in patients undergoing TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS The overall risk of stroke seems higher without LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. As LSA revascularization might have a direct effect in preventing posterior stroke, it should be routinely performed in elective cases, while a case-by-case evaluation can be made under urgent circumstances. While ET can provide effective options for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, they are novel and need further durability assessment. Stroke after TEVAR is a multifactorial pathological process and preventing TEVAR-related cerebral injury remains a significant unmet clinical need.