Our minimum 10-year follow-up study of endovascular repair for acute traumatic transection of the thoracic aorta demonstrated that the reduction in the operative mortality rate of TEVAR, compared with open repair, lasts over time, without any device-related issues. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether the thoracic aorta expansion continues and becomes clinically significant.

Patients' mean age was 62.7 ± 17.9 years, 84% of them had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3, and 42% had an aortic rupture. TEVAR was performed in zone 0 (n = 17), 1 (n = 17), or 2 (n = 59) in 42% of patients. Technical success rate was 96.4%. Overall 30-day mortality was 11.7% (elective aneurysm, 11.6%; emergent aneurysm, 34.3%; acute type B dissection, 14.8%; chronic dissection, 4.2%; septic, 8.3%; and traumatic, 1.7%). Major adverse events included stroke in 4.5%, spinal cord ischemia in 1.8%, and retrograde aortic dissection in 2.7%. Mean follow-up was 43.4 ± 38 months. Estimated aortic complications-free survivals at 12, 36, 60, and 120 months were (% ± standard error) 73% ± 3%, 64% ± 4%, 62% ± 4% and 57% ± 5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated for a chronic aortic dissection had a significant risk of late reintervention (P = .001) CONCLUSIONS: Because of its simplicity and low morbimortality rate, TEVAR has become the first-line approach for thoracic aortic diseases. Mortality outcomes are related to aortic pathology, emergent status, and proximal landing zone. To improve long-term results, rigorous patient selection and follow-up, development of referral centers, and technologic evolution of materials have to be reached.

The occurrence of RTAD after hybrid aortic arch repair is common. To prevent this complication, preoperative screening of the aortic arch, ascending aorta, and aortic root morphology is critical.

Cold-stored venous allografts may be used for performing infragenicular revascularization for CLI with acceptable safety and efficacy results despite poor long-term patency. Their level of performance remains inferior to autologous vein sources but seems comparable to alternative allografts or prosthetic conduit. Their availability is a major advantage compared with other biologic alternative sources.

Hybrid aortic arch repair by sequential transposition of the left common carotid artery and of the left subclavian artery for zone 1 lesions provides an attractive alternative for treating hemi-aortic arch lesions in high-risk patients with minimal atherosclerotic disease in the aorta and great vessels with acceptable primary results and encouraging midterm efficacy to prevent rupture. This hybrid strategy avoiding prosthetic bypass offers several advantages over conventional repair, including the potential to treat patients who are not candidates for open repair and single-stage treatment of some pathologic conditions previously requiring 2-stage repair.