English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Left subclavian artery revascularization (LSA) is frequently performed in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study was to compare different techniques for LSA revascularization during TEVAR.    Methods  We performed a single center’s retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019. Patients were categorized by LSA revascularization methods, including direct coverage without revascularization (Unrevascularized), carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), fenestrated TEVAR (F-TEVAR). Indications, demographics, operation details, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical analysis.    Results  171 patients underwent TEVAR with LSA coverage, 16.4% (n = 28) were unrevascularized and the remaining patients underwent CSB (n = 100 [58.5%]) or F-TEVAR (n = 43 [25.1%]). Demographics were similar between the unrevascularized and revascularized groups, except for procedure urgent status ( p  = 0.005). The incidence of postoperative spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher between unrevascularized and revascularized group (10.7% vs. 1.4%;  p  = 0.032). There was no difference in 30-day and mid-term rates of mortality, stroke, and left upper extremity ischemia. CSB was more likely time-consuming than F-TEVAR [3.25 (2.83–4) vs. 2 (1.67–2.67) hours,  p  = 0], but there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or midterm outcomes for CSB versus F-TEVAR. During a mean follow-up time of 24.8 months, estimates survival rates had no difference.    Conclusions  LSA revascularization in zone 2 TEVAR is necessary which is associated with a low 30-day rate of spinal cord ischemia. When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, CSB and F-TEVAR are all safe and effective methods, and F-TEVAR appears to offer equivalent clinical outcomes as a less time-consuming and minimally invasive alternative.

Left subclavian artery revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair: single center’s clinical experiences from 171 patients