Results of high-risk endovascular procedures in patients with non-dissected thoracic aortic pathology: intermediate outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate mid-term outcome in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for non-dissected aortic pathology with favourable and unfavourable landing zone and aortic anatomy.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2011, TEVAR was performed in 208 patients with descending thoracic aortic disease. Of 105 patients with non-dissected thoracic aortic pathology, 69 presented with unfavourable anatomy as defined by short length (<15 mm), large diameter (>42 mm), angulation of >60° of the proximal or distal landing zone or extreme aortic tortuosity. The endpoints perioperative mortality, 1-year survival, endoleak occurrence and incidence of secondary intervention were compared with the remaining 36 patients with favourable anatomy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 18 months. TEVAR was performed emergently in 24 of 69 (35%) patients with unfavourable anatomy and in 11 of 36 (31%) of those with favourable anatomy (P = 0.68). No patients underwent conversion to open surgery, no periinterventional rupture was observed. Perioperative mortality did not differ between cohorts (1/69 vs 1/36, P = 0.78). Postoperative permanent spinal cord ischaemia occurred in patients with unfavourable anatomy only (2/69 vs 0/36, P = 0.78). Early endoleak and secondary intervention were more frequent in patients with unfavourable anatomy (19/69 vs 7/36 and 13/69 vs 1/36), but not statistically significant (P = 0.5 and P = 0.13, respectively). One-year aorta-related survival rates were similar in both groups (66/69 vs 33/36, P = 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Mid-term outcome after TEVAR does not differ between patients with favourable and unfavourable landing zone anatomy in terms of aorta-related survival. However, the more frequent need for secondary intervention warrants a more rigorous follow-up after TEVAR in patients with unfavourable anatomy.