Long-Term Thoracic Endovascular Repair Follow-Up from 1999 to 2019: A Single-Center Experience.

Mads Liisberg, Francois Baudier, Cengiz Akgül, Jes S Lindholt
Author Information
  1. Mads Liisberg: Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Elite Research Centre of Individualised Treatment of Arterial Diseases (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: Mads.liisberg@rsyd.dk.
  2. Francois Baudier: Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Elite Research Centre of Individualised Treatment of Arterial Diseases (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
  3. Cengiz Akgül: Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Elite Research Centre of Individualised Treatment of Arterial Diseases (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
  4. Jes S Lindholt: Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Elite Research Centre of Individualised Treatment of Arterial Diseases (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was introduced in the early 1990s and long-term follow-up studies are warranted in current guidelines.
METHODS: patients undergoing TEVAR were consecutively included from 1999 to 2019. Thoracic aortic disease includes thoracic aortic aneurysms, aortic dissection, traumatic rupture, penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU), and intramural hematoma (IMH). Our prospective database recorded baseline characteristics, endoleak or aneurysm growth, and death. patients were included at the time of treatment and censored at death or first reintervention depending on the analysis. Primary end point was all-cause death; secondary end point was reintervention. Survival and failure analyses were done using STATA IC 16.0 and truncated at 15 years of follow-up.
RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty six patients were included and 63% were men. Their mean age at intervention was 66.2 ± 14.5 years and they were followed for a mean of 5.2 ± 4.5 years. Indications for TEVAR were acute aortic syndrome in 40.6%, chronic aortic disease in 44.5%, and traumatic rupture in 14.8%. Technical success was seen in 94.1% of the operations, and the left subclavian artery was covered in 27.7%. A 30-day mortality rate was 21.2% (22/104) and 1.75% (2/114) (P < 0.001) for urgent and elective patients, respectively. Twelve patients (4.7%) died within 24 hr of treatment. Overall, long-term mortality recorded 112 (43.8%) deaths, 29 patients had reinterventions (11.3 %, 95% confidence interval: 7.7-15.9), and aneurysms accounted for 62.1% of all reinterventions. Twenty four (82.8%) reinterventions occurred within the first 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: This long-term follow-up study shows excess mortality in patients treated for acute aortic syndrome compared to chronic aortic disease, within the first 30 days; this difference diminishes at the end of follow-up. Most endoleaks occur within the first 5 years, although new endoleaks continue to develop decades after in previous endoleak-free patients calling for lifelong surveillance.

MeSH Term

Male
Humans
Female
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
Follow-Up Studies
Endovascular Procedures
Treatment Outcome
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic
Aorta, Thoracic
Aortic Diseases
Endoleak
Ulcer

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0aorticpatientsfollow-upfirstwithinThoracicTEVARlong-termincludeddiseasedeathend5 years8%mortalityreinterventionsPatients1999aneurysmstraumaticrupturerecordedtreatmentreinterventionpointmean5acutesyndromechronic1%7%endoleaksBACKGROUND:endovascularrepairintroducedearly1990sstudieswarrantedcurrentguidelinesMETHODS:undergoingconsecutively2019includesthoracicdissectionpenetratingulcerPAUintramuralhematomaIMHprospectivedatabasebaselinecharacteristicsendoleakaneurysmgrowthtimecensoreddependinganalysisPrimaryall-causesecondarySurvivalfailureanalysesdoneusingSTATAIC160truncated15 yearsRESULTS:Twohundredfiftysix63%menageintervention662 ± 14followed2 ± 4Indications406%445%14Technicalsuccessseen94operationsleftsubclavianarterycovered2730-dayrate212%22/104175%2/114P < 0001urgentelectiverespectivelyTwelve4died24 hrOverall11243deaths29113%95%confidenceinterval:77-159accounted62Twentyfour82occurredCONCLUSIONS:studyshowsexcesstreatedcompared30 daysdifferencediminishesoccuryearsalthoughnewcontinuedevelopdecadespreviousendoleak-freecallinglifelongsurveillanceLong-TermEndovascularRepairFollow-Up2019:Single-CenterExperience

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.