Subclavian revascularization in the age of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and comparison of outcomes in patients with occlusive disease
Salvatore T Scali,Catherine K Chang,Stephen G Pape,Robert J Feezor,Scott A Berceli,Thomas S Huber,Adam W Beck
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2013.04.005
Abstract:Objective: Open surgical revascularization for subclavian artery occlusive disease (OD) has largely been supplanted by endovascular treatment despite the excellent long-term patency of bypass. The indications for carotid-subclavian bypass (C-SBP) and subclavian transposition (ST) have been recently expanded with the widespread application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), primarily to augment proximal landing zones or treat endovascular failures. This study was performed to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing C-SBP/ST in the context of contemporary endovascular therapies and evolving indications. Methods: A prospective database including all procedures performed at a single institution from 2002 to 2012 was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent subclavian revascularization for TEVAR or OD indications. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patency was determined by computed tomography angiography in the TEVAR group. Noninvasive studies were used for the OD patients. Life-table methods were used to estimate patency, reintervention, and survival. Results: Of 139 procedures identified, 101 were performed for TEVAR and 38 for OD. All TEVAR patients underwent C-SBP/ST to augment landing zones (49% preoperative; 41% intraoperative), treat arm ischemia (8% postoperative), or for internal mammary artery salvage (2%). OD patients had a variety of indications, including failed stent/arm fatigue, 49%; asymptomatic >80% internal carotid stenosis with concurrent subclavian occlusion, 18%; symptomatic cerebrovascular OD, 13%; redo bypass, 8%; and coronary-subclavian steal, 5%. Differences in postoperative stroke and death, primary patency, or freedom from reintervention were not significant. The 30-day postoperative stroke, death, and combined stroke/death rates were, respectively, 10.8%, 5.8%, and 13.7% for the entire cohort; 8.9%, 7.1%, and 12.9% in TEVAR patients; and 15.8%, 2.6%, and 15.8% in OD patients. The 1- and 3-year primary patencies were, respectively, 94% and 94% for TEVAR and 93% and 73% for OD patients. Survival was similar between the groups, with an estimated survival rate of 88% at 1 year and 76% at 5 years. Conclusions: Stroke risk in this contemporary series of C-SBP/ST performed for TEVAR and OD indications may be higher than previously reported in historical series. In TEVAR patients, this may be attributed to procedural complexity of the TEVAR in patients requiring subclavian revascularization. In OD patients, this is likely due to the changing patient population that requires more frequent concomitant carotid interventions. Despite the short-term morbidity, excellent bypass durability and equivalent long-term patient survival can be anticipated.