Key result
Urgent carotid-subclavian bypass during TEVAR is not linked to higher in-hospital mortality versus elective repair.
Why the study?
Data on left carotid-subclavian bypass outcomes are lacking, particularly regarding graft-related complications and patency at follow-up, amid declining use due to endovascular alternatives.
What are the short- and mid-term outcomes and patency rates of left carotid-subclavian bypass (LCSB) in patients undergoing TEVAR, and do they differ between urgent and elective settings?
Cohort (n=161)
What are the short- and mid-term outcomes and patency rates of left carotid-subclavian bypass (LCSB) in patients undergoing TEVAR, and do they differ between urgent and elective settings?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Left carotid-subclavian bypass during TEVAR demonstrates excellent long-term patency (99% at 5 years) and safety, with comparable in-hospital mortality between elective and urgent cases.
OBJECTIVES: Left carotid-subclavian bypass (LCSB) is a classic strategy for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) patients. Its employment has been reduced in recent years due to the advent of endovascular solutions for LSA management. Data on outcomes of LCSB are lacking, especially for graft-related complications and patency at follow-up. METHODS: All patients who underwent TEVAR with LCSB from November 2005 to January 2025, in an elective or urgent setting, were retrospectively analysed in terms of pre- and intraoperative characteristics, short- and mid-term outcomes. In-hospital outcomes were compared between the urgent and elective groups. LCSB patency at follow-up imaging was reported. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed on survival, freedom from reintervention and LCSB patency. RESULTS: LCSB was performed in 161 patients, 36 of which (22.3%) were urgent procedures. In-hospital mortality was 3.7%, with no significant difference between the elective and the urgent group (3.2% vs 5.6% respectively, P = .491). There was a not statistically significantly higher incidence of stroke in the urgent patients (0.8% vs 5.6%, P = .057). LCSB-related complications occurred in 12 patients (7.4%). Overall LCSB patency at last available follow-up was 97.4%. LSA embolization was necessary in 7 cases (4.5%) due to type II endoleak. At 5 years, survival was 87.4%, freedom from reintervention was 88.5% and LCSB patency was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: LCSB is safe and effective as a LSA revascularization strategy. Even in urgent patients, LCSB was not linked to worse in-hospital outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murana et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Thoracic aortic disease requiring thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) (n=161). Urgent left carotid-subclavian bypass vs. Elective left carotid-subclavian bypass was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (p=0.491). Urgent left carotid-subclavian bypass during TEVAR was not associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to elective procedures (5.6% vs 3.2%, P=0.491).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: