Clinical Outcomes of Celiac Artery Coverage with Vs. Without Revascularization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.
Xinsheng Xie,Wei Zhang,Weiguo Fu,Wayne W. Zhang,Lixin Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000003196
IF: 6.133
2024-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:To the Editor: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been widely accepted as the first-line treatment when aortic repair is indicated. However, TEVAR is still limited by anatomic conditions in many circumstances, and the most common exclusion situations are inadequate proximal and/or distal landing zones when important branch vessels are involved. The incidence of insufficient distal landing zone in descending TEVAR ranges from 2.5% to 15.2%, and different approaches to extend it were described.[1] Hybrid surgery with combined TEVAR and open revascularization of visceral vessels has been employed from the early stage of endovascular aortic repair but it is associated with poor outcomes. Endovascular visceral artery revascularization, such as branched and fenestrated endograft, has been used more recently. Outcomes of stenting visceral arteries during fenestrated/branched aortic repair were explored by several studies and promising results were exhibited.[2] However, these techniques demand heavily on available device and technical skills. Currently, there is no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved branched TEVAR endograft for visceral artery preservation. Chimney or snorkel procedures are relatively easier to perform, but it is associated with a higher incidence of endoleaks.[3] Intentional coverage of the celiac artery (CA) without revascularization was an alternative to extend the insufficient distal landing zone. The first case was reported by Saito et al[4] for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair in 2006. Well-developed collateral circulation between CA and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) makes this technique tolerable in some patients. A systematic review by Jim et al[5]documented the applicability of planned CA coverage in TEVAR with prerequisites in selective patients. However, the outcomes of CA coverage with vs. without revascularization have not been compared. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare morbidity and mortality of planned CA coverage during TEVAR with and without revascularization. Publications in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 2006 to 2021. Finally, sixteen publications were enrolled for our analysis supplementary figure A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60. The specific process can be found in the methods section of the supplementary materials, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60. Baseline information, device used for endovascular repair and revascularization, and patency of target vessels were summarized in Supplementary Table, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60. The necessity of planned or inevitable CA coverage during TEVAR ranged from 2.5% (5/202) to 15.2% (7/46) across the studies enrolled. The pooled rates of morbidity, mesenteric ischemia and spinal cord ischemia, were 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0–3%, I2 = 80%) and 2% (95% CI, 0–16%, I2 = 92%) in the revascularization group, respectively [Supplementary Figure B, a,b, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60]. They were lower than those in the coverage group, pooled as 3% (95% CI, 0–8%, I2 = 58%) and 4% (95% CI, 1–9%, I2 = 29%) [Supplementary Figure B, c,d, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60]. The pooled rates of 30-day mortality and overall mortality till the end of follow-up were 5% (95% CI, 1–12%, I2 = 89%) and 11% (95% CI, 1–28%, I2 = 94%) in the revascularization group [Supplementary Figure C, a,b, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60] vs. 2% (95% CI, 0–6%, I2 = 40%) and 8% (95% CI, 2–17%, I2 = 69%) in the coverage group [Supplementary Figure C, c,d, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60]. In addition, the pooled rates of endoleak and re-intervention in the CA coverage group were 16% (95% CI, 8–26%, I2 = 56%) and 7% (95% CI, 2–16%, I2 = 67%), respectively [Supplementary Figure D, a,b, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60]. Type II endoleak (58.6%, 17/29) was the most common type, followed by type Ib (17.2%, 5/29) and type Ia (6.9%, 2/29). Five additional endoleaks were reported but not specifically characterized. In the patients who had CA coverage without revascularization prior to or during TEVAR, 35.7% (5/14) reintervention procedures were performed for mesenteric ischemia. The others were required for progressive endoleaks and complications of access sites. Funnel plots are provided in Supplementary Figure E, a1–b6, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60. CA is an important visceral artery supplying liver, pancreas, spleen, and gastrointestinal tract. According to previous publications, up to 15% TEVAR need CA coverage to extend distal landing zone.[6] Because of collaterals existing between CA and SMA, CA was covered without revascularization in some studies.[7] However, the risk of visceral ischemia is always a concern and mesenteric ischemia still occurred in some patients even though the collateral circulation is demonstrated by computed tomography angiography (CTA) or digital subtract angiography (DSA). In such cases, planned CA coverage without revascularization is associated with post-TEVAR complications. The risk factors or circumstances include the history of previous surgery in which the collaterals might be ligated or resected, and poor portal vein inflow and mesenteric artery stenosis.[8] In this study, results indicate that CA coverage with revascularization is associated with lower pooled rates of mesenteric ischemia and spinal cord ischemia. In the coverage group, unexpected distal migration of stent graft could block the orifice of SMA, causing significant mesenteric ischemia because CA is not revascularized. Similarly, occlusion of CA stent is the major cause of bowel ischemia in CA revascularization group. These findings show, on the other hand, that the importance of CA patency could not be ignored, especially in patients with inadequate collaterals between CA and SMA. However, the pooled rates of either 30-day or overall mortality are higher in the revascularization group. Actually, the mortality is high in the revascularization group but morbidity was low because of more severe aortic pathology. Apart from the high demand on the device and technical skills for CA revascularization, more extensive aortic pathology in the revascularization group also contributes to higher mortality. Moreover, revascularization of other visceral arteries simultaneously might also increase the difficulty of procedure and the risk of complications. Mesenteric collaterals between the CA and SMA are the most important prerequisite of CA coverage. Preoperative CTA, and preoperative or intraoperative selective arteriography have been utilized to evaluate the collaterals.[9] Other strategies, such as intraoperative catheter inserting into SMA as a marker of distal landing zone, choosing endograft with distal bare springs for fear of SMA unintentional coverage and late endograft migration, and SMA stenting if stenosis existed, are reported to preserve the mesenteric circulation.[10] Preoperative CTA with intraoperative fluoroscopy image fusion guidance is a novel valuable technique that is able to illustrate the anatomic relations among the stent graft devices, aorta, and its branches. This real-time guidance may help accurate stent graft deployment, facilitate visceral vascular cannulation if needed, and decrease the risk of accidental visceral vessel coverage. It can also reduce contrast volume during the procedure. Intravascular ultrasound is very helpful to assess the size and length of distal landing zone, facilitating accurate endografts implantation. However, this analysis revealed a little higher post-operative bowel ischemia in CA coverage group, even when patent SMA and rich collaterals were documented. It suggested that preoperative patent SMA and collaterals do not guarantee adequate mesenteric circulation of 100% when CA coverage is planned. In addition, publications that were included in this study mainly focused on perioperative complications and deaths. Chronic ischemia sequela secondary to CA coverage without revascularization might also be considered for the long-term outcomes. In summary, CA coverage without revascularization during TEVAR is acceptable for selected patients with adequate mesenteric collaterals and patent SMA. However, CA revascularization using endovascular modality still exhibits slight superiority in reducing perioperative morbidity, which may be advocated first when the technique permits. The main results of this study are shown in graphic abstract, supplementary file, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C60. This study has a few limitations. First, studies enrolled are mainly single-arm retrospective investigations. Patient selection and management bias could not be eliminated because of retrospective review. Therefore, we took advantage of metaprop analysis in R project with DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model. Second, CA was not the only intervened mesenteric arteries in some studies. We only extracted the subgroup revascularizing CA regardless of other mesenteric arteries of these studies and extensive aortic pathologies were more frequent in those patients. Studies on intended revascularization of CA to extend the distal landing zone are called for to decrease the heterogeneity of patients. The data about the influence of vascular patency after revascularization on prognosis for stratification analysis is incomplete. Intentional CA coverage without revascularization during TEVAR is acceptable for selected patients with adequate collaterals between SMA and CA. However, revascularization using endovascular modality is associated with a lower risk of postoperative morbidity and it is encouraged when devices and techniques are available. Conflicts of interest None.