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 degrees 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.