The changing surgical approach to proximal aortic aneurysm disease

Introduction

Current incidence of thoracic aortic aneurysm is approximately 10 in 100,000 patients per year which is increased from 5.9 in 100,000 since 1980s, this is purely because of the advancement in medical practice and imaging studies that can identify more cases of thoracic aortic aneurysm than ever before (1,2). The yearly incidence of either aortic dissection or rupture in these patients was roughly 3.5 per 100,000 patients (3).

Proximal aortic aneurysmal disease can involve any part of the ascending aorta to the proximal aortic arch up to the origin of innominate artery. It could be either segmental aneurysmal disease involving only the ascending aorta, or involve the entire proximal aorta. Proximal aortic aneurysms can be classified as true or false, with the majority being true aneurysms comprising of normal histologic components of the aorta (4). However, false aneurysms present in a minority of cases, commonly following trauma to the aortic wall (5).

Presence of proximal aortic aneurysm poses a risk for rupture or dissection if left untreated on timely manner and therefore endanger life. The mortality rate from such emergency presentations is varying, it can be as high as 50% if not treated within first 48 hours of presentation (6), while It can be less than 20% if operated on in specialized centre by an experienced surgeon (7,8). Nevertheless, in the establishment of such aneurysmal disease, prophylactic surgical intervention has played a key role in reducing the incidence of such catastrophic events (9), elective surgical intervention at early stage have a mortality rate under 5% (9) and it can significantly reduce future chances of life threatening emergency presentation.

In the emergency setting, the gold standard method is through open repair of the dissected proximal aorta with or without utilization of brain protection mechanisms (10-12). Such form of intervention ranges from isolated replacement of the ascending aorta to a full aortic root replacement (Bentall procedure) with full-arch replacement in extreme cases (13). The decision to choose type of the procedure is multi-factorial; however the two key factors used as solid base for such decision are tear entry sites and the haemodynamic status of the patient (14).

Prophylactic root surgery

Presence of proximal aortic aneurysm mandates regular follow up and monitoring the aneurysm and careful planning for early surgical intervention prior to any catastrophic events. Current guidelines recommends an early, elective surgical repair of the aneurysm if the size is ≥5.5 cm, or there is an annual increase in aneurysm size of >0.5 cm, however the threshold is much lower in patients with connective tissue disorders such as Marfan syndrome (≥4.5 cm or an annual increase in size of 0.2 cm, class IIa, level C evidence) (15,16). However, size itself is not the only clinical factor in the entire decision process to operate on patients with established aortic aneurysm, there are other risk factors that can contribute to such process, including body surface area, positive family history of aortic dissection, presence of hypertension, having bicuspid aortic valve, connective tissue disorder, previous cardiac surgery (10,17). The recommended size for prophylactic root surgery by the guidelines has been challenged by many large studies, among them is the reported outcomes of International Registry of Aortic Dissection (IRAD) that reported 60% of their patients had aneurysm size of <55 mm (18). Several studies have published their data of performing early prophylactic aortic root replacement in the essence to reduce the chance of acute type A aortic dissection and its associated mortality and morbidities (19-21). This is of particular importance in patients with connective tissue disorders and aortopathies such as Marfan and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (9). Aalberts et al. (22) studied 53 patients in planning their prophylactic root surgery based on body surface area rather than size alone, they reported satisfactory outcomes and concluded that such method can be of effective in preventing future aortic dissection. Similar favourable outcomes were reported by Shimizu et al. (23) in their cohort of 50 patients, the group that underwent elective surgical repair had better perioperative outcomes when compared to those who presented with emergency dissection, therefore they suggested an early aortic root operation in Marfan patients to prevent future dissection. A further study by Alexiou et al. (24) of 65 patients reported similar satisfactory outcomes when compared between elective repair vs. emergency repair of aneurysm. Furthermore, elective surgery was found to have better outcomes for patients than emergency intervention, with 5-year survival rate of approximately 85% in elective patients compared to 37% in emergency cases (25).

Open surgical approaches

The choice of surgical repair is dependent on several factors, the key ones are: surgical acuity, presence or absence of connective tissues disorders and extend of the aneurysm itself. The gold standard surgical treatment for such aneurysmal disease is aortic root and ascending aorta replacement, especially in the presence of connective tissue disorders (26-28). Isolated ascending aorta replacement is performed when there is a segmental aneurysm and in the absence of Marfan or other connective tissue disorder. However, numerous studies have reported that Bentall procedure (total aortic root replacement) and its variants as a reliable surgical procedure with excellent durability of the repair (29-32). This surgical option is limited by lifelong anticoagulation requirement and poor patient adherence when a mechanical prosthesis is used. Consequently, bioprosthetic surgical procedures have been introduced and have become an attractive alternative in patients whom lifelong anticoagulation is contraindicated, but limited tissue graft availability and its durability may contribute to its infrequent use compared to mechanical conduits (26). The choice of replacing aortic root with ascending aorta is gold standard in Marfan and other connective tissue disorders (33). Hagl et al. have reported excellent short and long term outcomes in utilizing Bentall procedure for proximal aortic aneurysm repair in 142 patients of their series (34).

With advancement in surgical practice and during the early 1990s, several other technical procedures have come into practice as alternate to Bentall procedure in the form of valve sparing aortic root replacements (David and Yacoub’s procedures), in such procedures, the diseased aortic root is replaced while the aortic valve is spared and thus no requirement for anti-coagulation and less risk of re-operation due structural degeneration as in biological prosthesis, additionally, lower risk of endocarditis (33). However, the major drawback of this procedure was the rate of progression of aortic valve insufficiency and requirement for re-operation at later stage which is considered as high risk (35). Kallenbach et al. (36) in their study of 548 patients that underwent four different techniques of open repairs, noted that all these techniques had low mortality rates and low rate of reoperation and prevent occurrence of future aortic dissection, of particular note that David’s procedure showed very good early and mid-term results. Similarly, Schneider et al. reported comparable and very good outcomes of performing VSRR vs. Bentall procedure in patients with proximal aortic aneurysm (37). While de Oliveira et al. (38), although, has reported similar survival rates between VSRR against Bentall in 105 patients, however they reported a lower rate of valve-related complications in VSRR group of patients and thus suggested utilization of this technique when there is no crucial evidence of dilated aortic annulus.

Role of minimal access approach

Traditionally any operations on aortic root were performed through full sternotomy to have adequate exposure of the heart and great vessels. However, as with any other surgical practice, the era of practice is diverting toward minimal access surgery that aims to provide better postoperative outcomes, mainly potential shorter hospital stay, less chance of sternal wound infection, less pain and ultimately better cosmesis for the patient (39). The practice of minimal access technique in aortic root surgery has evolved dramatically over the last 10 years. The initial technique was applied to Bentall procedure through mini-sternotomy approach via upper J mini-sternotomy. Shrestha et al. (40) have reported their experience in utilizing mini-sternotomy vs. full sternotomy for VSRR procedure, their cohort were composed of 40 patients between both groups, they have noted no significant differences in the operating time between (280.3±78.9 vs. 248.6±32.3 minutes), although intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in full sternotomy (2.1±1.5 vs. 1.3±0.6 days respectively), however total hospital stay was shorter in full sternotomy group (9.1±2.7 vs. 10.4±6.8 days respectively). Based on their reported outcomes, they have recommended mini-sternotomy as safe alternative technique to full sternotomy in carefully selected patients.

In a separate study, Lentini et al. (41) analyzed 102 patients that underwent upper mini-sternotomy for proximal aortic surgeries; they reported ICU stay of 2.2±2.0 days while total hospital stay of 7.8±4.6 days, there was only 1 case of sternal wound dehiscence and 0% 30-day mortality. On the contrary to above, Wachter et al. (42) recommend J-upper mini-sternotomy for patients undergoing elective VSRR, if operated on by experienced surgeon. Their conclusion comes from the reported data of 192 patients that underwent elective VSRR and reported no difference in ICU and LOS between matched group of mini vs. full sternotomy group of patients (P=0.07 and 0.17 respectively). However, they reported a higher rate of additional cardiac procedures in full sternotomy patients (57.4% vs. 13.9%, P<0.001), there were also higher rate of blood loss (1,080±903 vs. 528.7±528.9 mL respectively, P<0.001) while no difference in rate of blood transfusion (59.3% vs. 41.7%, P=0.133). Finally, they reported no difference in 30-day mortality rates.

In the largest study of reporting outcomes between mini-sternotomy vs. full sternotomy in aortic root surgery by Levack et al. (43), they concluded that J mini-sternotomy is safe and feasible technique in isolated primary elective proximal aortic surgeries, however the choice of the technique should be carefully planned for each patient based on several pre-operative parameters. Their study was based on 966 propensity matched patients (483 patients in each group) between mini vs. full sternotomy. There was no difference in the post-operative rate of stroke (0.625, P=1.0), renal failure (P=0.3), sternal wound infection (0% in both) and operative mortality (0.415% vs. 0%, P=0.16). Intra-operatively, there was no difference in the rate of blood transfusion (P=0.08), and no difference during postoperative period (P=0.6). Finally, ICU and total hospital stay were much shorter in mini-sternotomy patients (P<0.0001 in both cases).

Stenting in proximal aneurysmal disease

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers a minimally invasive approach in the management of proximal aneurysm disease and has evolved as an alternative procedure to open repair in selected cases (44). TEVAR has grown in popularity since its inception in the early 1990s and often became the only viable option in high-risk, inoperable patients with advanced age and severe comorbidities (45,46). Although, endovascular stent grafts of the ascending aorta are predominantly utilized in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm (44). Current literature supports the use of endovascular therapy in the management of other thoracic aortic diseases, including intramural hematoma (47-49), aortic rupture (50-52), and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers (53). However, no TEVAR-specific risk stratification tool is available to predict endovascular outcomes in proximal aneurysmal disease and necessitates the establishment of such tool (54).

TEVAR has relatively lower mortality and paraplegia rates compared to conventional open repair, but is not without risk or limitation (55-59). Still, endovascular therapy has anatomical restrictions and exposure of patients to extensive radiation times (60). An important complication of TEVAR to note is endoleaks which can be difficult to treat and complicated. Most endoleaks can be prevented with careful consideration to morphological details, such as landing zone length, multiple stents utilization, overlapping segments’ length as well as angulation in the aorta (61).

The use of TEVAR is mainly reserved for high risk patients who present with emergency and deem inoperable for open repair in cases of acute type A aortic dissection or in cases of chronic dissection (62). Roselli et al. (47) analyzed 22 patients that underwent TEVAR for ATAAD, intramural haematoma, chronic dissection, pseudoaneurysm or aorta-cardiac fistula. They reported that stenting in acute or chronic diseases of ascending aorta is a feasible and reliable technique in high risk patients and can give acceptable outcomes. Similarly, Piffaretti et al. (63) concluded that TEVAR is a reliable, effective and safe method in treating ascending aortic pseudoaneurysm and penetrating aortic ulcers, and in highly selected patients. Finally, Muetterties et al. (44) performed a systematic review of stenting in proximal aortic pathologies; they have identified 52 articles with a total of 138 patients. There were different pathologies within the reported cohort, over 50% of the cases were ATAAD and 28% were aortic pseudoaneurysms. They concluded that current trends in using TEVAR in managing such patients with a range of ascending aortic pathologies are reported successfully and the reported mortality in such high-risk cohort is comparable to open repair techniques.

Conclusions

Although open proximal aortic surgery is the current gold standard treatment for proximal aneurysm disease, there is a shift in surgical approach of this complex condition. TEVAR and hybrid procedures offer safer alternatives in high-risk patients. Short-term results are encouraging for these innovative techniques, but only long-term follow-up studies will elucidate their effectiveness. Constant innovation is changing the surgical approach to proximal aneurysmal disease for optimal patient outcome.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Visualized Surgery for the series “Innovations in Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Surgery”. The article has undergone external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2018.09.13). The series “Innovations in Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Surgery” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. MB served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the series. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Elefteriades JA. Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: Reading the Enemy’s Playbook. Curr Probl Cardiol 2008;33:203-77. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Clouse WD, Hallett JW, Schaff HV, et al. Improved prognosis of thoracic aortic aneurysms: a population-based study. JAMA 1998;280:1926-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Clouse WD, Hallett JW, Schaff HV, et al. Acute aortic dissection: population-based incidence compared with degenerative aortic aneurysm rupture. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:176-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Ramanath VS, Oh JK, Sundt TM, et al. Acute aortic syndromes and thoracic aortic aneurysm. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:465-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Malvindi PG, van Putte BP, Heijmen RH, et al. Reoperations for Aortic False Aneurysms After Cardiac Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:1437-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Melvinsdottir IH, Lund SH, Agnarsson BA, et al. The incidence and mortality of acute thoracic aortic dissection: results from a whole nation study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;50:1111-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Conzelmann LO, Weigang E, Mehlhorn U, et al. Mortality in patients with acute aortic dissection type A: analysis of pre- and intraoperative risk factors from the German Registry for Acute Aortic Dissection Type A (GERAADA). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;49:e44-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Bashir M, Harky A, Fok M, et al. Acute type A aortic dissection in the United Kingdom: Surgeon volume-outcome relation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017;154:398-406.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Treasure T, Takkenberg JJM, Pepper J. Surgical management of aortic root disease in Marfan syndrome and other congenital disorders associated with aortic root aneurysms. Heart 2014;100:1571-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Harky A, Bashir M, Antoniou A, et al. Size and dissection: what is the relation? Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018:1-7.
11. Harky A, Bashir M, Antoniou A, et al. The changing surgical approach to acute type A aortic dissection. J Vis Surg 2018;4:151. [Crossref]
12. Antoniou A, Bashir M, Harky A, et al. Decoding the volume-outcome relationship in Type A aortic dissection. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Poon SS, Theologou T, Harrington D, et al. Hemiarch versus total aortic arch replacement in acute type A dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2016;5:156-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Grabenwoger M, Weiss G. Type A aortic dissection: the extent of surgical intervention. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013;2:212-5. [PubMed]
15. Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2873-926. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Circulation 2010;121:e266-369. [PubMed]
17. Parish LM, Gorman JH, Kahn S, et al. Aortic size in acute type A dissection: implications for preventive ascending aortic replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35:941-5; discussion 945-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Pape LA, Tsai TT, Isselbacher EM, et al. Aortic diameter >or = 5.5 cm is not a good predictor of type A aortic dissection: observations from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Circulation 2007;116:1120-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Elefteriades JA, Ziganshin BA, Rizzo JA, et al. Indications and imaging for aortic surgery: Size and other matters. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:S10-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Elefteriades JA, Pomianowski P. Practical Genetics of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2013;56:57-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Coady MA, Rizzo JA, Hammond GL, et al. What is the appropriate size criterion for resection of thoracic aortic aneurysms? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:476-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Aalberts JJJ, Waterbolk TW, van Tintelen JP, et al. Prophylactic aortic root surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome: 10 years’ experience with a protocol based on body surface area. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;34:589-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Shimizu H, Kasahara H, Nemoto A, et al. Can early aortic root surgery prevent further aortic dissection in Marfan syndrome? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012;14:171. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Alexiou C, Langley SM, Charlesworth P, et al. Aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan’s syndrome: the Southampton experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:1502-7; discussion 1508. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Davies RR, Goldstein LJ, Coady MA, et al. Yearly rupture or dissection rates for thoracic aortic aneurysms: simple prediction based on size. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:17-27; discussion 27-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Pagni S, Slater AD, Trivedi JR, et al. Proximal Thoracic Aortic Replacement for Aneurysmal Disease Using the Freestyle Stentless Bioprosthesis: A 10-Year Experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:873-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Kotelis D, Kalder J, Jacobs MJ. Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta: the last frontier? J Thorac Dis 2016;8:E825-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Tsilimparis N, Debus ES, Oderich GS, et al. International experience with endovascular therapy of the ascending aorta with a dedicated endograft. J Vasc Surg 2016;63:1476-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Beckerman Z, Leshnower BG, McPherson L, et al. The evidence in a Bentall procedure with Valsalva graft: is this standard of care? J Vis Surg 2018;4:98. [Crossref] [PubMed]
30. Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, et al. Sixteen-year experience with aortic root replacement. Results of 172 operations. Ann Surg 1991;214:308-18; discussion 318-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Midulla PS, Ergin A, Galla J, et al. Three faces of the Bentall procedure. J Card Surg 1994;9:466-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Ergin MA, Spielvogel D, Apaydin A, et al. Surgical treatment of the dilated ascending aorta: when and how? Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67:1834-9; discussion 1853-6.
33. Nardi P, Ruvolo G. Current Indications to Surgical Repair of the Aneurysms of Ascending Aorta. J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016;1:2.
34. Hagl C, Strauch JT, Spielvogel D, et al. Is the Bentall procedure for ascending aorta or aortic valve replacement the best approach for long-term event-free survival? Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:698-703; discussion 703. [Crossref] [PubMed]
35. Flynn CD, Tian DH, Wilson-Smith A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes in Marfan patients undergoing aortic root surgery by composite-valve graft or valve sparing root replacement. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:570-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Kallenbach K, Kojic D, Oezsoez M, et al. Treatment of ascending aortic aneurysms using different surgical techniques: a single-centre experience with 548 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;44:337-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Schneider U, Ehrlich T, Karliova I, et al. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome-the Homburg experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:697-703. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. de Oliveira NC, David TE, Ivanov J, et al. Results of surgery for aortic root aneurysm in patients with Marfan syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:789-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
39. Iribarne A, Easterwood R, Chan EY, et al. The golden age of minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: current and future perspectives. Future Cardiol 2011;7:333-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Shrestha M, Krueger H, Umminger J, et al. Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is safe. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015;4:148-53. [PubMed]
41. Lentini S, Specchia L, Nicolardi S, et al. Surgery of the Ascending Aorta with or without Combined Procedures through an Upper Ministernotomy: Outcomes of a Series of More Than 100 Patients. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;22:44-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Wachter K, Franke UF, Yadav R, et al. Feasibility and clinical outcome after minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017;24:377-83. [PubMed]
43. Levack MM, Aftab M, Roselli EE, et al. Outcomes of a Less-Invasive Approach for Proximal Aortic Operations. Ann Thorac Surg 2017;103:533-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Muetterties CE, Menon R, Wheatley GH. A systematic review of primary endovascular repair of the ascending aorta. J Vasc Surg 2018;67:332-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Kolvenbach RR, Karmeli R, Pinter LS, et al. Endovascular management of ascending aortic pathology. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:1431-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. De Rango P, Isernia G, Simonte G, et al. Impact of age and urgency on survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2016;64:25-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Roselli EE, Idrees J, Greenberg RK, et al. Endovascular stent grafting for ascending aorta repair in high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:144-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
48. Kappert U, Ghazy T, Ouda A, et al. Transapical Endovascular Stenting of Penetrating Atherosclerotic Ulcer of Ascending Aorta. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:e101-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
49. Zimpfer D, Czerny M, Kettenbach J, et al. Treatment of an Acute Type B Dissection with an Intramural Haematoma in the Ascending Aorta by Percutaneous Endovascular Stent-Graft Placement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;54:500-1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
50. Krankenberg H, Bader R, Sixt S, et al. Endovascular Repair of Ascending Aortic Aneurysm by Transapical Approach and Periscope Technique. J Endovasc Ther 2013;20:13-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Uchida K, Imoto K, Yanagi H, et al. Endovascular Repair of Ascending Aortic Rupture: Effectiveness of a Fenestrated Stent-Graft. J Endovasc Ther 2010;17:395-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
52. McCallum JC, Limmer KK, Perricone A, et al. Case report and review of the literature total endovascular repair of acute ascending aortic rupture: a case report and review of the literature. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2013;47:374-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
53. Lee HC, Park JS, Lee HW, et al. Ruptured penetrating aortic ulcer in the ascending aorta treated with two parallel stent grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013;24:1577-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, et al. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;16:9-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
55. Leurs LJ, Bell R, Degrieck Y, et al. Endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic diseases: combined experience from the EUROSTAR and United Kingdom Thoracic Endograft registries. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:670-9; discussion 679-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
56. Kirkwood ML, Pochettino A, Fairman RM, et al. Thoracic Aortic Endograft Explant: A Single-Center Experience. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2010;44:440-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
57. Makaroun MS, Dillavou ED, Wheatley GH, et al. Five-year results of endovascular treatment with the Gore TAG device compared with open repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:912-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
58. Fairman RM, Criado F, Farber M, et al. Pivotal results of the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System: The VALOR Trial. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:546-54.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
59. Zipfel B, Chiesa R, Kahlberg A, et al. Endovascular Repair of Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury: Final Results From the Relay Endovascular Registry for Thoracic Disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:774-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
60. Younes HK, Davies MG, Bismuth J, et al. Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Pushing the envelope. J Vasc Surg 2010;51:259-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
61. Dumfarth J, Michel M, Schmidli J, et al. Mechanisms of Failure and Outcome of Secondary Surgical Interventions After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:1141-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
62. Chiu P, Miller DC. Evolution of surgical therapy for Stanford acute type A aortic dissection. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2016;5:275-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
63. Piffaretti G, Galli M, Lomazzi C, et al. Endograft repair for pseudoaneurysms and penetrating ulcers of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:1606-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]