Nikolaos Tsilimparis1, Stephan Haulon2, Konstantinos Spanos3, Fiona Rohlffs3, Franziska Heidemann3, Timothy Resch4, Nuno Dias4, Tilo Kölbel3. 1. German Aortic Center, Department of Vascular Medicine, University Heart Center, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: ntsilimparis@yahoo.com. 2. Aortic Center, Department of Aortic and Vascular Surgery, Hospital Marie Lannelongue, INSERM UMR_S 999, Universite Paris Sud, Le Plessis-Robinson, France. 3. German Aortic Center, Department of Vascular Medicine, University Heart Center, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Vascular Center, Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate patients who underwent extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage (from the aortic arch to abdominal aorta) in terms of early and midterm clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was undertaken. All patients were treated with extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage with fenestrated and branched endografts at three experienced endovascular centers. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, there were 33 patients (22 male [67%]) treated with a combination of fenestrated-branched stent grafts in the aortic arch and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Most of the patients (20/33 [61%]) had fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (fb-EVAR) of the thoracoabdominal aorta as a second-stage procedure after thoracic arch (fb-Arch) repair, 10 had fb-Arch repair as the first procedure, and three patients had a single-stage procedure. The mean age was 67 ± 13 years, and the mean interval between procedures was 13 ± 12 months. For fb-Arch repair, 20 fenestrated and 13 branched devices were used; for fb-EVAR, 23 fenestrated, 5 branched, and 5 composite devices were used. The use of spinal drainage was more common in fb-EVAR (20/33 [61%]). Technical success was 100%. Mean hospital stay was 15 ± 13 days for fb-Arch repair and 12 ± 9 days for fb-EVAR. Two patients died in the hospital after fb-EVAR, resulting in a 30-day mortality of 6% (2/33). No deaths occurred during the fb-Arch repair component or in the single-stage cases. Four patients developed spinal cord injury (12%), 1 had permanent paraplegia (3%), and 2 patients had a neurologic event (1 stroke [3%] and 1 transient ischemic attack [3%]). Six patients (18%) died during a mean follow-up of 23 ± 17 months. The survival at 12 months after the second procedure was 72%, and the freedom from any reintervention was 82%. The 12-month freedom from reintervention was 87% for fb-Arch repair and 81% for fb-EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive endovascular coverage of the aorta for aortic disease seems to be a feasible procedure in experienced centers, with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality. Spinal cord ischemia appears acceptable despite extensive aortic coverage.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate patients who underwent extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage (from the aortic arch to abdominal aorta) in terms of early and midterm clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was undertaken. All patients were treated with extensive endovascular aortic stent graft coverage with fenestrated and branched endografts at three experienced endovascular centers. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, there were 33 patients (22 male [67%]) treated with a combination of fenestrated-branched stent grafts in the aortic arch and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Most of the patients (20/33 [61%]) had fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (fb-EVAR) of the thoracoabdominal aorta as a second-stage procedure after thoracic arch (fb-Arch) repair, 10 had fb-Arch repair as the first procedure, and three patients had a single-stage procedure. The mean age was 67 ± 13 years, and the mean interval between procedures was 13 ± 12 months. For fb-Arch repair, 20 fenestrated and 13 branched devices were used; for fb-EVAR, 23 fenestrated, 5 branched, and 5 composite devices were used. The use of spinal drainage was more common in fb-EVAR (20/33 [61%]). Technical success was 100%. Mean hospital stay was 15 ± 13 days for fb-Arch repair and 12 ± 9 days for fb-EVAR. Two patients died in the hospital after fb-EVAR, resulting in a 30-day mortality of 6% (2/33). No deaths occurred during the fb-Arch repair component or in the single-stage cases. Four patients developed spinal cord injury (12%), 1 had permanent paraplegia (3%), and 2 patients had a neurologic event (1 stroke [3%] and 1 transient ischemic attack [3%]). Six patients (18%) died during a mean follow-up of 23 ± 17 months. The survival at 12 months after the second procedure was 72%, and the freedom from any reintervention was 82%. The 12-month freedom from reintervention was 87% for fb-Arch repair and 81% for fb-EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive endovascular coverage of the aorta for aortic disease seems to be a feasible procedure in experienced centers, with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality. Spinal cord ischemia appears acceptable despite extensive aortic coverage.
Authors: Alice Finotello; Bianca Pane; Mauro Di Bartolo; Rachele Del Pizzo; Simone Mambrini; Giovanni Pratesi; Giovanni Spinella Journal: Aorta (Stamford) Date: 2022-08-07