Kimberly C Zamor1, Mark K Eskandari2, Heron E Rodriguez2, Karen J Ho2, Mark D Morasch3, Andrew W Hoel4. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Division of General Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Heart and Vascular Center, St Vincent Healthcare, Billings, MT. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: awhoel@nmh.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines for management of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are based on low-quality evidence, and there is limited literature that addresses optimal revascularization techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of LSA coverage during TEVAR and revascularization techniques. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study from 2001 to 2013. Patients were categorized by LSA revascularization and by revascularization technique, carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), or subclavian-carotid transposition (SCT). Thirty-day and mid-term stroke, spinal cord ischemia, vocal cord paralysis, upper extremity ischemia, primary patency of revascularization, and mortality were compared. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent TEVAR with LSA coverage, 25% (n = 20) were unrevascularized and the remaining patients underwent CSB (n = 22 [27.5%]) or SCT (n = 38 [47.5%]). Mean follow-up time was 24.9 months. Comparisons between unrevascularized and revascularized patients were significant for a higher rate of 30-day stroke (25% vs 2%; p = 0.003) and upper extremity ischemia (15% vs 0%; p = 0.014). However, there was no difference in 30-day or mid-term rates of spinal cord ischemia, vocal cord paralysis, or mortality. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or midterm outcomes for CSB vs SCT. Primary patency of revascularizations was 100%. Survival analysis comparing unrevascularized vs revascularized LSA was statistically significant for freedom from stroke and upper extremity ischemia (p = 0.02 and p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for advanced age, urgency, and coronary artery disease, LSA revascularization was associated with lower rates of perioperative adverse events (odds ratio = 0.23; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: During TEVAR, LSA coverage without revascularization is associated with an increased risk of stroke and upper extremity ischemia. When LSA coverage is required during TEVAR, CSB and SCT are equally acceptable options.
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines for management of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are based on low-quality evidence, and there is limited literature that addresses optimal revascularization techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of LSA coverage during TEVAR and revascularization techniques. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study from 2001 to 2013. Patients were categorized by LSA revascularization and by revascularization technique, carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), or subclavian-carotid transposition (SCT). Thirty-day and mid-term stroke, spinal cord ischemia, vocal cord paralysis, upper extremity ischemia, primary patency of revascularization, and mortality were compared. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent TEVAR with LSA coverage, 25% (n = 20) were unrevascularized and the remaining patients underwent CSB (n = 22 [27.5%]) or SCT (n = 38 [47.5%]). Mean follow-up time was 24.9 months. Comparisons between unrevascularized and revascularized patients were significant for a higher rate of 30-day stroke (25% vs 2%; p = 0.003) and upper extremity ischemia (15% vs 0%; p = 0.014). However, there was no difference in 30-day or mid-term rates of spinal cord ischemia, vocal cord paralysis, or mortality. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or midterm outcomes for CSB vs SCT. Primary patency of revascularizations was 100%. Survival analysis comparing unrevascularized vs revascularized LSA was statistically significant for freedom from stroke and upper extremity ischemia (p = 0.02 and p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for advanced age, urgency, and coronary artery disease, LSA revascularization was associated with lower rates of perioperative adverse events (odds ratio = 0.23; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: During TEVAR, LSA coverage without revascularization is associated with an increased risk of stroke and upper extremity ischemia. When LSA coverage is required during TEVAR, CSB and SCT are equally acceptable options.
Authors: Elliot L Chaikof; Jan D Blankensteijn; Peter L Harris; Geoffrey H White; Christopher K Zarins; Victor M Bernhard; Jon S Matsumura; James May; Frank J Veith; Mark F Fillinger; Robert B Rutherford; K Craig Kent Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Josef Klocker; Anna Koell; Maximilian Erlmeier; Georg Goebel; Werner Jaschke; Gustav Fraedrich Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas S Maldonado; David Dexter; Caron B Rockman; Frank J Veith; Karan Garg; Frank Arko; Hernan Bertoni; Sharif Ellozy; William Jordan; Edward Woo Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Salvatore T Scali; Catherine K Chang; Stephen G Pape; Robert J Feezor; Scott A Berceli; Thomas S Huber; Adam W Beck Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: André B Queiroz; Jackson B Lopes; Vanessa P Santos; Pedro B A F Cruz; Ronald J R Fidelis; José S Araújo Filho; Luiz C S Passos Journal: Aorta (Stamford) Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Shahin Hajibandeh; Shahab Hajibandeh; Stavros A Antoniou; Francesco Torella; George A Antoniou Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-27