Urgent Endovascular Aortic Repair Requiring Coverage of the Left Subclavian Artery

Peter L Haldenwang; Christoph Heute; Karla J Schero; Markus Schlömicher; Lorine Haeuser; Volkmar Nicolas; Justus T Strauch

doi:10.1055/a-2125-3173

Urgent Endovascular Aortic Repair Requiring Coverage of the Left Subclavian Artery

Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Oct 16. doi: 10.1055/a-2125-3173. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Peter L Haldenwang¹, Christoph Heute², Karla J Schero³, Markus Schlömicher¹, Lorine Haeuser⁴, Volkmar Nicolas², Justus T Strauch¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
² Institute for Radiologic Diagnostics, Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitatsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
³ Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University Bochum, Herne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
⁴ Department of Urology and Neuro-Urology, Marien Hospital Herne Academic Teaching Hospital of the University Bochum, Herne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.

PMID: 37419141
DOI: 10.1055/a-2125-3173

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of the optimal left subclavian artery (LSA) management during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the distal aortic arch in an urgent setting.

Methods: A total of 52 patients with acute aortic syndromes underwent TEVAR (March 2017 to May 2021) requiring proximal landing in the distal aortic arch. Decision for partial or complete LSA ostial endograft coverage, with or without additional bypassing, was made depending upon the aortic pathology and vascular anatomy. We focused on the patency of the circle of Willis and the unilateral dominance of one carotid or a vertebral artery: 35% underwent complete (complete LSA group) and 17% partial LSA coverage (partial LSA group), whereas in 48% the LSA was reached only by the bare springs of the endograft (control group). A total of 22% of the complete LSA group underwent LSA bypass before TEVAR, whereas 11% underwent cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Endpoints were 30-day and 1-year mortality, stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and malperfusion.

Results: Technical success was achieved in 96%. The endograft length was 171 ± 34 (complete LSA group) versus 151 ± 22 (partial LSA group) versus 181 ± 52 mm (control group), covering 6 ± 2 versus 5 ± 1 versus 7 ± 2 intercostal arteries. The 30-day mortality, stroke and SCI rates did not differ. One patient with arm malperfusion underwent LSA bypass post-TEVAR. After 1 year, aortic interventions occurred in 6 (complete LSA group) versus 22 (partial LSA group) versus 13% (control group). One-year mortality (0 vs. 0 vs. 8%), stroke (6 vs. 0 vs. 4%), and SCI (0 vs. 0 vs. 4%) were similar between groups.

Conclusion: With an adequate analysis of vascular anatomy, coverage of the LSA for TEVAR is safe and may offer results similar to TEVAR starting distal to the LSA.