Tortuosity of the descending thoracic aorta: Normal values by age.

BackgroundAging changes the aorta in length, tortuosity and diameter. This is relevant in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and in the long term follow up.Methods and resultsTwo groups of hundred patients 60°). A linear regression model was built to test the effect of age and gender on tortuosity. Tortuosity was more pronounced in the ≥ 65 compared to the ConclusionNormal DTA tortuosity increases with age. This is important to understand natural aging and for TEVAR planning and follow-up

Comparative Analysis of Porcine and Human Thoracic Aortic Stiffness

Objectives: To compare porcine and human thoracic aortic stiffness using the available literature. Methods: The available literature was searched for studies reporting data on porcine or human thoracic aortic mechanical behaviour. A four fibre constitutive model was used to transform the data from included studies. Thus, equi-biaxial stress stretch curves were generated to calculate circumferential and longitudinal aortic stiffness. Analysis was performed separately for the ascending and descending thoracic aorta. Data on human aortic stiffness were divided by age <60 or ≥60 years. Porcine and human aortic stiffness were compared. Results: Eleven studies were included, six reported on young porcine aortas, four on human aortas of various ages, and one reported on both. In the ascending aorta, circumferential and longitudinal stiffness were 0.42±0.08 MPa and 0.37±0.06 MPa for porcine aortas (4-9 months) versus 0.55±0.15 MPa and 0.45±0.08 MPa for humans <60 years, and 1.02±0.59 MPa and 1.03±0.54 MPa for humans ≥60 years. In the descending aorta, circumferential and longitudinal stiffness were 0.46±0.03 MPa and 0.44±0.01 MPa for porcine aortas (4-10 months) versus 1.04±0.70 MPa and 1.24±0.76 MPa for humans <60 years, and 3.15±3.31 MPa and 1.17±0.31 MPa for humans ≥60 years. Conclusions: The stiffness of young porcine aortic tissue shows good correspondence with human tissue aged <60 years, especially in the ascending aorta. Young porcine aortic tissue is less stiff than human aortic tissue aged ≥60 years

A geometric reappraisal of proximal landing zones for thoracic endovascular aortic repair according to aortic arch types

Objective: This study assessed whether the additional use of the aortic arch classification in type I, II, and III may complement Ishimaru's aortic arch map and provide valuable information on the geometry and suitability of proximal landing zones for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Methods: Anonymized thoracic computed tomography scans of healthy aortas were reviewed and stratified according to the aortic arch classification, and 20 of each type of arch were selected. Further processing allowed calculation of angulation and tortuosity of each proximal landing zone. Data were described indicating both proximal landing zone and type of arch (eg, 0/I). Results: Angulation was severe (>60°) in 2/III and in 3/III. Comparisons among the types of arch showed an increase in proximal landing zones angulation (P <.001) and tortuosity (P = .009) depending on the type of arch. Comparisons within type of arch showed no change in angulation and tortuosity across proximal landing zones within type I arch (P = .349 and P = .409), and increases in angulation and tortuosity toward more distal proximal landing zones within type II (P = .003 and P = .043) and type III (P <.001 in both). Conclusions: The aortic arch classification is associated with a consistent geometric pattern of the aortic arch map, which identifies specific proximal landing zones with suboptimal angulation for stent graft deployment. Arches II and III also appear to have progressively less favorable anatomy for thoracic endovascular aortic repair compared with arch I

Correction: Changes in aortic pulse wave velocity of four thoracic aortic stent grafts in an ex vivo porcine model.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186080.]

Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair on radial strain in an ex vivo porcine model

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on radial aortic strain with the aim of elucidating stent-graft-induced stiffening and complications. METHODS: Twenty fresh thoracic porcine aortas were connected to a mock circulatory loop driven by a centrifugal flow pump. A high-definition camera captured diameters at five different pressure levels (100, 120, 140, 160, and 180 mmHg), before and after TEVAR. Three oversizing groups were created: 0-9% (n = 7), 10-19% (n = 6), and 20-29% (n = 6). Radial strain (or deformation) derived from diameter amplitude divided by baseline diameter at 100 mmHg. Uniaxial tensile testing evaluated Young's moduli of the specimens. RESULTS: Radial strain was reduced after TEVAR within the stented segment by 49.4 +/- 24.0% (P < 0.001). As result, a strain mismatch was observed between the stented segment and the proximal non-stented segment (7.0 +/- 2.5% vs 11.8 +/- 3.9%, P < 0.001), whereas the distal non-stented segment was unaffected (P = 0.99). Stent-graft oversizing did not significantly affect the amount of strain reduction (P = 0.30). Tensile testing showed that the thoracic aortas tended to be more elastic proximally than distally (P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR stiffened the thoracic aorta by 2-fold. Such segmental stiffening may diminish the Windkessel function considerably and might be associated with TEVAR-related complications, including stent-graft-induced dissection and aneurysmal dilatation. These data may have implications for future stent-graft design, in particular for TEVAR of the highly compliant proximal thoracic aorta

Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review

<div><p>Background</p><p>Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVAR (BEVAR/FEVAR) for CBAD.</p><p>Methods</p><p>EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and October 2015. Studies describing outcomes of OSR, TEVAR, B/FEVAR, or all, for CBAD patients initially treated with medical therapy, were included. Primary endpoints were early mortality, and one-year and five-year survival. Secondary endpoints included occurrence of complications. Furthermore, a Time until Treatment Equipoise (TUTE) graph was constructed.</p><p>Results</p><p>Thirty-five articles were selected for systematic review. A total of 1081 OSR patients, 1397 TEVAR patients and 61 B/FEVAR patients were identified. Early mortality ranged from 5.6% to 21.0% for OSR, 0.0% to 13.7% for TEVAR, and 0.0% to 9.7% for B/FEVAR. For OSR, one-year and five-year survival ranged 72.0%-92.0% and 53.0%-86.7%, respectively. For TEVAR, one-year survival was 82.9%-100.0% and five-year survival 70.0%-88.9%. For B/FEVAR only one-year survival was available, ranging between 76.4% and 100.0%. Most common postoperative complications included stroke (OSR 0.0%-13.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-11.8%), spinal cord ischemia (OSR 0.0%-16.4%, TEVAR 0.0%-12.5%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-12.9%) and acute renal failure (OSR 0.0%-33.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-34.4%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-3.2%). Most common long-term complications after OSR included aneurysm formation (5.8%-20.0%) and new type A dissection (1.7–2.2%). Early complications after TEVAR included retrograde dissection (0.0%-7.1%), malperfusion (1.3%–9.4%), cardiac complications (0.0%–5.9%) and rupture (0.5%–5.0%). Most common long-term complications after TEVAR were rupture (0.5%–7.1%), endoleaks (0.0%–15.8%) and cardiac complications (5.9%-7.1%). No short-term aortic rupture or malperfusion was observed after B/FEVAR. Long-term complications included malperfusion (6.5%) and endoleaks (0.0%-66.7%). Reintervention rates after OSR, TEVAR and B/FEVAR were 5.8%-29.0%, 4.3%-47.4% and 0.0%-53.3%, respectively. TUTE for OSR was 2.7 years, for TEVAR 9.9 months and for B/FEVAR 10.3 months.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>We found a limited early survival benefit of standard TEVAR over OSR for CBAD. Complication rates after TEVAR are higher, but complications after OSR are usually more serious. Initial experiences with B/FEVAR show its feasibility, but long-term results are needed to compare it to OSR and standard TEVAR. We conclude that optimal treatment of CBAD remains debatable and merits a patient specific decision. TUTE seems a feasible and useful tool to better understand management outcomes of CBAD.</p></div

Blood Flow after Endovascular Repair in the Aortic Arch: A Computational Analysis

The benefits of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have encouraged stent graft deployment more proximally in the aortic arch. This study quantifies the hemodynamic impact of TEVAR in proximal landing zone 2 on the thoracic aorta and the proximal supra-aortic branches

Time until Treatment Equipoise.

<p><b>Results of TUTE analysis</b> for OSR (top), TEVAR (middle) and B/FEVAR (bottom) for CBAD.</p

Complications and survival TEVAR.

<p>Complications and survival TEVAR.</p

Complications and survival OSR.

<p>Complications and survival OSR.</p