Trends and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open concomitant cervical debranching

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery Vol. 73; no. 4; pp. 1205 - 1212.e3
• Main Authors: Bellamkonda, Kirthi S., Yousef, Sameh, Nassiri, Naiem, Dardik, Alan, Guzman, Raul J., Geirsson, Arnar, Ochoa Chaar, Cassius I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-04-2021
• Subjects: Carotid–carotid bypass; Carotid–subclavian bypass; Carotid–subclavian transposition; Complex TEVAR; Open cervical debranching; Thoracic endovascular aortic repair; Thoracic endovascular aortic repair; Complex TEVAR; Carotid–subclavian transposition; Carotid–carotid bypass; Carotid–subclavian bypass; Open cervical debranching
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.103

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the most common surgical procedure for treatment of descending thoracic aortic pathology. Cervical debranching in the form of carotid–subclavian bypass or transposition (CSBT) and carotid–carotid bypass (CCB) has enabled the use of TEVAR for the treatment of more complex anatomy involving the arch. The present study examined the effects of concomitant cervical bypass on the perioperative outcomes of TEVAR.
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files (2005-2017) were reviewed. Using the Current Procedural Terminology codes, all patients who had undergone TEVAR were identified and were divided into three groups: TEVAR, TEVAR with one bypass (CSBT or CCB), and TEVAR with two bypasses (CSBT and CCB). The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of the three groups were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with mortality.
A total of 3281 patients had undergone TEVAR and 10% had also undergone one or more debranching procedure (one bypass, 9%; two bypasses, 1%). The frequency of debranching had increased from 3.4% to 10.9% (P = .01) during the study period. Significant differences were found among the three groups in age, sex, smoking history, urgency of surgery, and anesthesia technique. The patients who had undergone TEVAR with cervical debranching had had significantly greater morbidity, longer operating times, and longer hospital stays compared with those who had undergone TEVAR alone. The mortality of TEVAR with two bypasses (22.6%) was significantly greater than that of TEVAR alone (7.5%) and TEVAR with one bypass (6.8%; P < .01). The total morbidity (30.9% vs 35.1% vs 67.7%; P < .001) and stroke rate (3% vs 7.5% vs 12.9%; P < .0001) increased with the increasing number of bypasses. A subgroup analysis of patients who had undergone TEVAR with one bypass showed no significant differences in mortality between TEVAR plus CSBT (6.6%) vs TEVAR plus CCB (8.8%; P = .63). Multivariable analysis showed that TEVAR with two bypasses was associated with significantly increased mortality compared with TEVAR alone (odds ratio [OR], 4.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-10.73) and TEVAR with one bypass (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.24-9.51). Older age (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13), dependent functional status (OR, 1.48; 1.00-2.19), dialysis (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.57-4.33), and emergent status (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.73-4.90) were also associated with mortality.
TEVAR with concomitant cervical debranching has been increasingly used to treat complex aortic pathology but is associated with significantly worse outcomes than TEVAR alone. As advanced endovascular technology to treat the aortic arch emerges, the outcomes of open surgical debranching in the present study constitute an important benchmark for comparison.