Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Pages 1265-1270 , December 2009

A comparative analysis of open and endovascular repair for the ruptured descending thoracic aorta

Presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, March 20-22, 2009.

  • Himanshu J. Patel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Himanshu J. Patel, MD, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, CVC Room 5144, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, SPC 5864, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5864
  • ,
  • David M. Williams, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich
  • ,
  • Gilbert R. Upchurch Jr, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich
  • ,
  • Narasimham L. Dasika, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich
  • ,
  • G. Michael Deeb, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich

Received 25 March 2009 ,Accepted 20 July 2009.

  • Image Result

    A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing open descending thoracic aortic repair to thoracic aortic endovascular repair. This actuarial analysis demonstrates that following either open or endovascula

    A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing open descending thoracic aortic repair to thoracic aortic endovascular repair. This actuarial analysis demonstrates that following either open or endovascular thoracic aortic repair, there is no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier survival for patients presenting with descending aortic rupture. The 10-year survival for TEVAR is 21.3% vs that for DTAR at 30.8% (log rank P = .72). The survival curves have been truncated at seven years, where the standard error exceeds 10%.

  • Image Result
    A Kaplan-Meier analysis describing the need for reintervention in any aortic segment. This analysis suggests that the need for aortic reintervention at any aortic segment (treated, adjacent, or remote

    A Kaplan-Meier analysis describing the need for reintervention in any aortic segment. This analysis suggests that the need for aortic reintervention at any aortic segment (treated, adjacent, or remote) is significantly higher in the TEVAR group. Freedom from reintervention at four years was 87.4% for DTAR vs 61.2% for TEVAR (P = .037). In this analysis, if patients were deemed to be nonoperative, or refused further intervention, the date at which point the need for reintervention was identified was used as the time of treatment failure.

  • Image Result
    The evolution of therapy for descending aortic rupture at the University of Michigan. This graph divides the entire TEVAR era at the University of Michigan into three time periods. The years 1993-1999

    The evolution of therapy for descending aortic rupture at the University of Michigan. This graph divides the entire TEVAR era at the University of Michigan into three time periods. The years 1993-1999 reflect the time when no commercial endografts were generally available, and the dominant procedure is open aortic repair. During the years 2000-2004, endografts were typically available as part of clinical trials, although we did selectively utilize custom-fabricated devices. Finally, 2005-2008 reflects the time period when thoracic endografts were commercially available. This graph demonstrates an increasing shift toward endovascular repair during the study period, likely reflecting the ability to now offer a therapeutic option to patients previously considered non-operative candidates (ie, previously referred to medical therapy alone). Note, however, during this period, open repair is still considered an important option during this period, representing the primary mode of therapy for patients considered suitable candidates for open repair.

 Competition of interest: Himanshu J. Patel, MD, has been paid consulting fees by and is on the speaker's bureau of WL Gore Inc, and Medtronic Inc. David M. Williams, MD, has been paid consulting fees and is on the speaker's bureau of WL Gore Inc.

 The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.

PII: S0741-5214(09)01564-X

doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.07.091

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 50, Issue 6 , Pages 1265-1270 , December 2009