BACKGROUND: With the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the TAG thoracic device, more thoracic pathologies are being treated using endovascular techniques. Although endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs have some apparent similarities, there are substantive anatomic, pathologic, and technical differences that could impact perioperative outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify these differences. METHODS: During a 5-year period, 121 endovascular thoracic aortic repairs (TEVAR) and 450 abdominal aortic repairs (EVAR) were performed at a single institution. Preoperative, intraoperative, and early postoperative data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Aggregate outcome measures were compared between the two cohorts, with statistical significance achieved at P < .05. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing EVAR was 72.8 +/- 8.3 compared with 68.3 +/- 13.9 for TEVAR (P = .02). More women underwent TEVAR (30.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001). Aneurysms undergoing TEVAR were larger than those for EVAR (62.0 mm vs 58.3 mm, P = .01). Intraoperatively, EVAR required 26.2 minutes of fluoroscopy compared with 22.1 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). The amount of contrast used was higher in TEVAR (133.6 mL vs 93.6 mL, P < .001). The mean procedure times were 164 minutes for EVAR and 115 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). Iliac conduits were required in 46 patients (10.2%) undergoing EVAR, and in 24 (19.8%) undergoing TEVAR (P = .007). The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 2.0% for EVAR and 5.0% for TEVAR (P = NS). The median length of stay was longer for TEVAR (3 days vs 2 days, P =.034). There were 54 postoperative complications in 36 TEVAR patients (29.8%), including 13 neurologic (10.7%), 8 renal (6.6%), 7 pulmonary (5.8%), 6 ischemic (5.0), and 5 (4.1%) hemorrhagic events. Among the EVAR group, 136 (30.2%) patients had postoperative complications, which included 45 ischemic (10.0%), 34 wound (7.6%), 22 renal (4.9%), 12 cardiac (2.7%), 8 pulmonary (1.8%), 5 gastrointestinal (1.1%), and 4 neurologic (0.9%) events. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively higher proportion of women underwent TEVAR than EVAR, and this was reflected in the greater need for iliac conduits to accommodate the larger delivery catheters of the thoracic devices. Intraoperative imaging techniques were also different, and TEVAR required higher contrast volumes despite shorter overall procedure times. The incidence of strokes and spinal cord ischemia was also higher during TEVAR. Despite apparent similarities of devices and techniques, EVAR and TEVAR are fundamentally different procedures with different perioperative outcomes.
BACKGROUND: With the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the TAG thoracic device, more thoracic pathologies are being treated using endovascular techniques. Although endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs have some apparent similarities, there are substantive anatomic, pathologic, and technical differences that could impact perioperative outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify these differences. METHODS: During a 5-year period, 121 endovascular thoracic aortic repairs (TEVAR) and 450 abdominal aortic repairs (EVAR) were performed at a single institution. Preoperative, intraoperative, and early postoperative data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Aggregate outcome measures were compared between the two cohorts, with statistical significance achieved at P < .05. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing EVAR was 72.8 +/- 8.3 compared with 68.3 +/- 13.9 for TEVAR (P = .02). More women underwent TEVAR (30.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001). Aneurysms undergoing TEVAR were larger than those for EVAR (62.0 mm vs 58.3 mm, P = .01). Intraoperatively, EVAR required 26.2 minutes of fluoroscopy compared with 22.1 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). The amount of contrast used was higher in TEVAR (133.6 mL vs 93.6 mL, P < .001). The mean procedure times were 164 minutes for EVAR and 115 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). Iliac conduits were required in 46 patients (10.2%) undergoing EVAR, and in 24 (19.8%) undergoing TEVAR (P = .007). The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 2.0% for EVAR and 5.0% for TEVAR (P = NS). The median length of stay was longer for TEVAR (3 days vs 2 days, P =.034). There were 54 postoperative complications in 36 TEVARpatients (29.8%), including 13 neurologic (10.7%), 8 renal (6.6%), 7 pulmonary (5.8%), 6 ischemic (5.0), and 5 (4.1%) hemorrhagic events. Among the EVAR group, 136 (30.2%) patients had postoperative complications, which included 45 ischemic (10.0%), 34 wound (7.6%), 22 renal (4.9%), 12 cardiac (2.7%), 8 pulmonary (1.8%), 5 gastrointestinal (1.1%), and 4 neurologic (0.9%) events. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively higher proportion of women underwent TEVAR than EVAR, and this was reflected in the greater need for iliac conduits to accommodate the larger delivery catheters of the thoracic devices. Intraoperative imaging techniques were also different, and TEVAR required higher contrast volumes despite shorter overall procedure times. The incidence of strokes and spinal cord ischemia was also higher during TEVAR. Despite apparent similarities of devices and techniques, EVAR and TEVAR are fundamentally different procedures with different perioperative outcomes.
Authors: Jason Zakko; Salvatore Scali; Adam W Beck; Charles T Klodell; Thomas M Beaver; Tomas D Martin; Thomas S Huber; Robert J Feezor Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Salvatore T Scali; Robert J Feezor; Catherine K Chang; David H Stone; Philip P Goodney; Peter R Nelson; Thomas S Huber; Adam W Beck Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: M M Sieren; C Schareck; M Kaschwich; M Horn; F Matysiak; E Stahlberg; F Wegner; T H Oechtering; J Barkhausen; J Goltz Journal: CVIR Endovasc Date: 2021-06-14