Objective To investigate the surgical approach and efficacy of reconstruction of the isolated left vertebral artery (ILVA) in single upper hemisternotomy for total aortic arch replacement. Methods From March 2017 to October 2023, patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement under single upper hemisternotomy in General Hospital of Northern Theater Command were selected. According to the presence of ILVA, they were divided into a conventional group and an ILVA group. All the ILVA group underwent intraoperative ILVA reconstruction. The perioperative clinical data between two groups were compared. Results A total of 504 patients were collected, including 471 males and 31 females, with an average age of 50.4±11.4 years. There was no increase in the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass or postoperative hospitalization in the ILVA group (n=31) compared to the conventional group (n=473), and the rates of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. There were 2 (6.45%) patients of acute cerebral infarction and 2 (6.45%) patients of perioperative death in the ILVA group, with no spinal cord injuries. Conclusion ILVA reconstruction during total aortic arch replacement in single upper hemisternotomy is feasible, safe, and effective, and prioritizing off pump ILVA-left common carotid artery transposition.
ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of anatomical variations of the isolated left vertebral artery (ILVA) on clinical outcomes and imaging outcomes in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair. MethodsThe clinical data of patients with TBAD in West China Hospital, Sichuan University from January 2016 to December 2023 were collected, and the differences of clinical outcomes and imaging outcomes between patients with and without ILVA were compared. ResultsBased on the inclusion criteria and the result of propensity score-based matching, 82 patients with TBAD were included, including 17 patients with ILVA (ILVA group) and 65 patients without ILVA (control group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the radiological and surgical information (P>0.05). The median time of the follow-up for these 82 patients were 37 months, during which there were no significant differences in aortic-related death, aortic event, stroke, adverse aortic remodeling, type Ⅰ A endoleak, and retrograde progression between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the re-intervention rate [HR=2.56, 95%CI (1.55, 8.11), P=0.03] and the incidence of type Ⅱ internal leakage [OR=1.36, 95%CI (1.08, 2.11), P=0.04] in the ILVA group were higher. ConclusionsNo significant differences were observed for ILVA patients in terms of serious adverse events such as aortic-related death and retrograde progression, comparing with the patients with normal aortic arch. However, the patients with ILVA were more susceptible to complications such as reintervention and type Ⅱ endoleak, which warranted the necessity of intensive postoperative follow-up for these patients.