Searched for: in-biosketch:true
person:dibara02
Comparative outcomes of physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of post-dissection and degenerative complex abdominal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms
DiBartolomeo, Alexander D; Pyun, Alyssa J; Ding, Li; O'Donnell, Kathleen; Paige, Jacquelyn K; Magee, Gregory A; Weaver, Fred A; Han, Sukgu M
OBJECTIVE:Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. METHODS:A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention. RESULTS:Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS:PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.
PMID: 37187413
ISSN: 1097-6809
CID: 5856242
Risk of Stroke with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of the Aortic Arch
DiBartolomeo, Alexander D; Ding, Li; Weaver, Fred A; Han, Sukgu M; Magee, Gregory A
BACKGROUND:Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR. METHODS:The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS:Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.
PMID: 37121336
ISSN: 1615-5947
CID: 5856222
Use of retrograde left subclavian branch portal of Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis for physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm [Case Report]
DiBartolomeo, Alexander D; Miranda, Elizabeth; Pyun, Alyssa J; Fleischman, Fernando; Magee, Gregory A; Han, Sukgu M
A 75-year-old man who had undergone zone 2 thoracic endovascular repair of a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer using a Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) device (W.L. Gore & Associates) 5 years before had presented with an enlarging extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. A physician-modified five-vessel fenestrated-branched endograft repair was performed using preloaded wires. The visceral renal vessels were sequentially catheterized from the left brachial access via the TBE portal, and the endograft was deployed in staggered fashion. At 1 year of follow-up, imaging studies demonstrated a stable aneurysm sac, patent visceral renal branches, and no endoleak. The retrograde portal of Gore TAG TBE can facilitate fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.
PMCID:10033987
PMID: 36970139
ISSN: 2468-4287
CID: 5856172
Techniques of antegrade in situ laser fenestration for endovascular aortic repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms
DiBartolomeo, Alexander D; Han, Sukgu M
Antegrade in situ laser fenestration allows for incorporation of visceral and renal arteries during endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. This technique can be particularly useful for urgent and emergent cases and for centers without access to manufactured fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair devices. In the present report, we have described two techniques of antegrade in situ fenestration, the common pitfalls, and the anatomic considerations for each technique.
PMCID:9729918
PMID: 36507085
ISSN: 2468-4287
CID: 5889972
Novel endovascular technique for repair of superior mesenteric arteriovenous fistula with portal vein aneurysm
Hsu, Ashley C.; DiBartolomeo, Alexander D.; Weaver, Fred A.; Magee, Gregory A.
ORIGINAL:0017678
ISSN: 2772-6878
CID: 5856132
Bilateral renal forniceal rupture due to retroperitoneal hematoma after femoral venous access [Case Report]
DiBartolomeo, Alexander D; Titus, Jessica M; Engstrom, Bjorn I; Stephenson, Elliot J
Retroperitoneal hematoma is a potential complication of femoral venous access that rarely leads to bilateral ureteral obstruction. We present the case of a 73-year-old woman who underwent an ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation complicated by laceration of an aberrant obturator artery during femoral venous cannulation, leading to a compressive retroperitoneal hematoma, bilateral ureteral obstruction, acute renal failure, and renal forniceal rupture. The patient was successfully treated with embolization of the inferior epigastric artery and aberrant obturator artery, hematoma evacuation, and ureteral stent placement. This case illustrates a rare complication of arterial laceration during femoral venous access without ultrasound guidance.
PMCID:7056605
PMID: 32154470
ISSN: 2468-4287
CID: 5889962