Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair timing on aortic remodeling in acute type B aortic intramural hematoma

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized in the management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH). Optimal timing for intervention has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR timing on postoperative aortic remodeling. A retrospective ch...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2022-02, Vol.75 (2), p.464-472.e2
Hauptverfasser: Mesar, Tomaz, Alie-Cusson, Fanny S., Lin, Maggie J., Dexter, David J., Rathore, Animesh, Stokes, Gordon K., Panneton, Jean M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized in the management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH). Optimal timing for intervention has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR timing on postoperative aortic remodeling. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent TEVAR for TBIMH from January 2008 to September 2018. Imaging was reviewed pre- and postoperatively. Primary data points included true lumen diameter (TLD) and total aortic diameter (TAD) at the site of maximal pathology. Primary endpoint was aortic remodeling evidenced by a TAD/TLD ratio closest to 1.0. Secondary outcome was occurrence of aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM): aortic rupture, aortic-related death, progression to dissection, or need for aortic reintervention within 12 months. Patients undergoing emergent TEVAR (within 24 hours, ‘eTEVAR’) were compared with the remainder – delayed TEVAR (‘dTEVAR’). We analyzed 71 patients that underwent TEVAR for TBIMH; 25 underwent emergent TEVAR and 46 patients underwent dTEVAR (median, 5.5 days; range, 2-120 days). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities, and patients did not differ in presenting IMH thickness (12.6 ± 3.1 vs 11.3 ± 4.1 mm; P = .186) nor presenting TAD/TLD ratio (1.535 ± 0.471 vs 1.525 ± 0.397; P = .928) for eTEVAR and dTEVAR groups, respectively. eTEVAR patients had larger average presenting maximal descending aortic diameter (45.8 ± 14.3 vs 38.2 ± 7.5 mm; P = .018) and higher incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer on presenting computed tomography angiography (52.0% vs 21.7%; P = .033). Thirty-day mortality was 2 of 25 (8.0%) for eTEVAR and 2 of 45 (4.4%) for dTEVAR (P = .602). Postoperative aortic remodeling was more complete in the dTEVAR group (1.23 ± 0.12 vs 1.33 ± 0.15; P = .004). Case-control matching (controlling for presenting descending aortic diameter and penetrating aortic ulcer) on 30 patients still showed better aortic remodeling in the dTEVAR group (1.125 ± 0.100 vs 1.348 ± 0.42; P < .001). The incidence of AREM was higher in the eTEVAR (6/25; 24.0%) group compared with the dTEVAR group (2/46; 4.3%). At 12 months, freedom from AREM was higher in the dTEVAR group (95.7% vs 76.0%; P = .011). Postoperative TAD/TLD ratio was the best predictor for late aortic-related adverse events (area under the receiver operator characteristic = 0.825; P = .003). TEVAR for acute TBIMH within 24 hours of admission is
ISSN:0741-5214
1097-6809
DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2021.08.059