{"title":"A Systematic Review of Transcarotid Approach for Endovascular Aortic Repair in Treating Aortic Disease.","authors":"Haofan Shi, Xingyou Guo, Chengkai Su, Haoyue Huang, Yihuan Chen, Jinlong Zhang, Bowen Zhang, Xiang Feng, Zhenya Shen","doi":"10.1177/15385744251335775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of transcarotid approach endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in patients where conventional femoral access is not possible.Materials and MethodsA systematic review of all articles discussing transcarotid approach EVAR published in the PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsIn accordance with the inclusion criteria, 17 articles discussing transcarotid approach EVAR were retrieved, encompassing 18 patients. Among these patients, 6 patients were related to ascending aortic disease, including 4 cases of pseudoaneurysms, 1 case of penetrating ulcer, and 1 case of dissection. 9 patients had descending aortic disease, comprising 6 aneurysms, 2 penetrating ulcers, and 1 pseudoaneurysm. There were 3 cases of abdominal aortic disease, including 2 aneurysms and 1 endoleak. Among these patients, 10 cases had access through the left common carotid artery, and 8 cases had access through the right common carotid artery. One patient experienced spinal cord ischemia and subsequently died of multi-organ failure caused by acute pancreatitis. Additionally, there was one case of minor embolization in the nonsurgical carotid supply area. No cerebral infarctions were observed in the vascular territory of the ipsilateral carotid artery at the surgical approach site.ConclusionsResearch on transcarotid approach EVAR is limited and predominantly consists of case reports, with a notable absence of randomized controlled trials. This systematic review suggests that transcarotid approach EVAR may be a viable alternative for selecting patient groups when the conventional femoral artery approach is not feasible. These findings indicate that this method is associated with a relatively manageable perioperative complications and mortality rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"15385744251335775"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744251335775","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of transcarotid approach endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in patients where conventional femoral access is not possible.Materials and MethodsA systematic review of all articles discussing transcarotid approach EVAR published in the PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsIn accordance with the inclusion criteria, 17 articles discussing transcarotid approach EVAR were retrieved, encompassing 18 patients. Among these patients, 6 patients were related to ascending aortic disease, including 4 cases of pseudoaneurysms, 1 case of penetrating ulcer, and 1 case of dissection. 9 patients had descending aortic disease, comprising 6 aneurysms, 2 penetrating ulcers, and 1 pseudoaneurysm. There were 3 cases of abdominal aortic disease, including 2 aneurysms and 1 endoleak. Among these patients, 10 cases had access through the left common carotid artery, and 8 cases had access through the right common carotid artery. One patient experienced spinal cord ischemia and subsequently died of multi-organ failure caused by acute pancreatitis. Additionally, there was one case of minor embolization in the nonsurgical carotid supply area. No cerebral infarctions were observed in the vascular territory of the ipsilateral carotid artery at the surgical approach site.ConclusionsResearch on transcarotid approach EVAR is limited and predominantly consists of case reports, with a notable absence of randomized controlled trials. This systematic review suggests that transcarotid approach EVAR may be a viable alternative for selecting patient groups when the conventional femoral artery approach is not feasible. These findings indicate that this method is associated with a relatively manageable perioperative complications and mortality rates.
目的本研究的目的是评估经颈动脉入路血管内主动脉修复术(EVAR)的可行性、有效性和安全性。材料和方法对PubMed、Embase、Ovid、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库中发表的所有讨论经颈动脉入路EVAR的文章进行系统回顾。本综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。结果按照纳入标准,共检索到17篇讨论经颈动脉入路EVAR的文献,包括18例患者。其中6例患者与升主动脉疾病有关,其中假性动脉瘤4例,穿透性溃疡1例,夹层1例。9例降主动脉病变,其中动脉瘤6例,穿透性溃疡2例,假性动脉瘤1例。腹主动脉病变3例,其中动脉瘤2例,内漏1例。其中左侧颈总动脉入路10例,右侧颈总动脉入路8例。1例患者脊髓缺血,随后死于急性胰腺炎引起的多器官功能衰竭。此外,在非手术颈动脉供应区有一例轻微栓塞。手术入路处同侧颈动脉血管区未见脑梗死。结论经颈动脉入路EVAR的研究有限,主要由病例报告组成,明显缺乏随机对照试验。本系统综述提示,当常规股动脉入路不可行时,经颈动脉入路EVAR可能是选择患者组的可行选择。这些结果表明,这种方法与相对可控的围手术期并发症和死亡率相关。