BackgroundThe management of the left subclavian artery when coverage is necessary during thoracic aorta endografting remains a matter of debate.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of a single-centre experience with thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) was performed. Between April 2004 and October 2012, 125 cases of TEVAR were performed. The analysis focused on patients who required coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA). We analysed mortality and morbidity with special attention to the rates of cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) in the early and midterm.ResultsOf the 125 patients, 53 (42 %, group A) required an intentional coverage of the LSA to obtain an adequate proximal seal for the endograft; the remaining patients constituted group B. None of the patients in group A had protective LSA revascularisation prior to TEVAR. The primary technical success rate was 79.2 vs. 90.3 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.08), and the primary clinical success rate was 77.4 vs. 82 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.53). The 30-day mortality rate was 11.3 vs. 11.1 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.97). The 30-day morbidity was 7.5 vs. 13.9 % (group A vs. group B, p = 0.4). CVA occurred in 1.9 % of group A patients, compared to 1.4 % of patients from group B (p = 0.82). The SCI incidence rate was 0 vs. 1.4 % (p = 0.39). The mean follow-up of group A was 24.1 months (range 2–64.6 months, SD = 19). Additionally, the 1-year estimated survival was 85.5 %, and the 3-year estimated survival was 78 %. There were no midterm CVAs; one event of SCI occurred in the seventh post-operative month in group A.ConclusionOur analysis, although retrospective and based on one institution experience, shows a realistic population of TEVAR patients. We prove that TEVAR with coverage of LSA origin can be accomplished with minimal neurological morbidity in this patient population. The study shows that LSA revascularisation is not mandatory before endograft deployment, especially in emergency settings. We also prove that although zone 2 TEVAR extends the proximal landing zone, it does not prevent type IA endoleaks from appearing. A multicentre randomised control trial with higher number of patients is necessary for proper, robust conclusion to be established.

It is extremely difficult to provide non-compressible torso hemorrhage control particularly in trauma setting. A vast majority of cases present inability of successful exsanguination arrest, leading to cardiovascular collapse, myocardial and cerebral hypoperfusion and death eventually. The only possible treatment for these patients is prompt bleeding control, either open or endovascular. Aortic occlusion seems to be the most rapid and convenient way to restrain blood loss and possibly increase survival. However, it is not proven yet. Traditional aortic occlusion for trauma consisted of supradiaphragmatic thoracic aorta cross-clamping through resuscitative thoracotomy (RT). This complicated and devastating procedure triggered the necessity to work on a simpler, less invasive resuscitation bridge which can be implemented in emergency department or even prehospital manner. Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) provides a novel method of hemorrhagic shock stabilization in bleeding below the diaphragm. The mechanism lies in improving myocardial and cerebral perfusion and ceasing major bleeding itself. This method together with invasive endovascular and surgical procedures creates a new approach of choice for trauma patients. It is called Endovascular Hybrid Trauma and Resuscitation Management (EVTM) and introduces this concept to modern clinical practice. Through a detailed review, this article aims to introduce REBOA procedure to a broader recipient and present REBOA details, benefits and limitations.

No abstract

A b s t r a c t

PurposeTraumatic aortic injury (TAI) is a rare but life-threatening type of injury. We investigate whether the anatomy of the aortic arch influences the severity of aortic injury.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of twenty-two cases treated with TEVAR for TAI in our department from 2009 to 2014. Aortic injury was assessed in accordance with the recommendations of the Society of Vascular Surgery. We measured the aortic arch angle and the aortic arch index, based on the initial angio-CT scan, in each of the analyzed cases.ResultsThe mean aortic arch index and mean aortic arch angle were 6.8 cm and 58.3°, respectively, in the type I injury group; 4.4 cm and 45.9° in the type III group; 3.3 cm and 37° in the type IV group. There were substantial differences in both the aortic arch index and the aortic arch angle of the type III and IV groups. A multivariate analysis confirmed that the aortic arch angle was significantly associated with the occurrence of type III damage (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.03–2.2).ConclusionsThe severity of TAI is influenced by the sharpness of the aortic arch. There is an inverse relationship between the severity of aortic injury and the aortic arch index.