4.7 Review

Avoiding Stroke in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair JACC Review Topic of the Week

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 3, Pages 265-277

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.053

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Early postoperative stroke remains a challenging complication in endovascular aortic arch repair, with varying incidence rates among different techniques and devices. Preidentifying high-risk patients and careful perioperative management are crucial in reducing stroke incidence. Further research is needed to develop specific intraoperative prevention methods and optimize endovascular techniques for aortic arch treatment.
As the bottleneck of endovascular aortic arch repair, early postoperative stroke remains a devastating complication in high-risk patients and a critical concern for the development of optimal endovascular techniques and devices. The incidence of early postoperative stroke varies widely among currently available endovascular techniques and devices, with reported rates ranging from 0.0% to 42.9%, and is significantly influenced by the severity of the patient's preexisting aortic atherosclerotic burden, air released from the endovascular device, and a variety of factors leading to cerebral perfusion insufficiency. Currently, preidentification of high-risk patients and careful perioperative management appear to play a critical role in reducing stroke incidence. Specific intraoperative prevention methods are still lacking, but embolic protection devices and carbon dioxide or high-volume saline flushing of endovascular devices appear promising. Detailed preoperative stroke risk stratification and screening for optimal endovascular techniques and devices for aortic arch treatment are unmet clinical needs. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;82:265-277) & COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available