Objective analysis of midterm outcomes of conventional and hybrid aortic arch repair by propensity-score matching

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the objective outcomes of conventional total aortic arch repair (CTAR) and hybrid arch repair by using propensity-score matching to reduce selection bias.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and April 2016, 470 consecutive patients underwent isolated aortic arch repair (excluding hemiarch or partial arch reconstruction, and cases with concomitant cardiac surgeries) at a single cardiovascular institute. We categorized 337 total aortic arch repair with antegrade cerebral perfusion under circulatory arrest as the CTAR group and 58 hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair as the HAR group. Seventy-five patients with scheduled and staged thoracic endovascular aortic repair after total aortic arch repair with elephant trunk were excluded. Then, we compared early and midterm outcomes between the propensity-matched group (43 CTAR vs HAR pairs).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 30-day and operative deaths between the CTAR and HAR groups (4.7% [2/43] vs 7.0% [3/43]; P = .4142 and 11.6% [5/43] vs 16.3% [7/43]; P = .5637). Although there were no significant differences in the incidences of other major complications, permanent stroke was observed more frequently in the HAR group (0% [0/43] vs 11.6% [5/43]; P = .0064) compared with the CTAR group. Matching analysis, however, revealed an equivalent 5-year survival rate between the CTAR and HAR groups (80.5% vs 59.9%; P = .1300).

CONCLUSIONS

Matching analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of stroke in the HAR group but equivalent midterm outcomes in the hybrid group compared with the CTAR group.

Total aortic arch endovascular repair using an iliac branch device

A 76-year-old man who 2 years before underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aneurysm of the aortic arch was admitted to our department with dysphonia and dysphagia due to an increasing diameter of aneurysm of the aortic arch because of type Ia endoleak. To obtain an adequate proximal neck for conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair, the double chimney graft technique was chosen using a hypogastric component of the iliac branch Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) for the anonymous trunk. At 1-year follow-up, computed tomography scan showed patent chimney graft and no endoleaks. This is the first report in the literature using a hypogastric branch in the aortic arch.

Hybrid Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms with Endografting of the Ascending Aorta

BACKGROUND

Different "hybrid" techniques that combine open debranching of the supra-aortic vessels with endografting of the aortic arch have emerged as alternatives to the open arch repair in high-risk patients. This study aims to review the early and mid-term results of single-stage hybrid arch repair with ascending aorta stent graft deployment for aortic arch aneurysms and dissections.

METHODS

Between June 2006 and May 2015, five consecutive patients, with an age range of 54-78 years, with complex aortic arch diseases, were treated with a hybrid approach in which the endograft had a proximal landing zone in the ascending aorta. Indications included: acute and chronic type A aortic dissections and three arch aneurysms associated with distal aortic pathology. Length of postoperative clinical and imaging follow-up ranged from 10 to 121 months and was completed in all patients.

RESULTS

Technical success of the endografting was achieved in all cases. There was one in-hospital mortality secondary to pulmonary embolism, one case of retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) detected before discharge and one case of late type Ib endoleak that required an endografting procedure. No postoperative stroke or transient or permanent spinal cord ischemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid arch repair with endograft landing in zone 0 may decrease mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12735 (J Card Surg 2016;31:341-347).

Evolving practice pattern changes and outcomes in the era of hybrid aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVE

The role of hybrid repair in the management of aortic arch pathology, and long-term outcomes with these techniques, remains uncertain. We report a decade of experience with hybrid arch repair (HAR) and assess institutional practice patterns with regard to the use of hybrid and open techniques.

METHODS

Hybrid and open total and distal arch procedures performed between July 2005 and January 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional aortic surgery database. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival were calculated. Hybrid and open procedural volumes over the study period were assessed to evaluate for potential practice pattern changes.

RESULTS

During the study period 148 consecutive procedures were performed for repair of transverse and distal aortic arch pathology, including 101 hybrid repairs and 47 open total or distal arch repairs. Patients in the hybrid repair group were significantly older with a greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Perioperative mortality and outcomes were not significantly different between the hybrid and open groups, aside from decreased median length of stay after hybrid repair. Need for subsequent reintervention was significantly greater after hybrid repair. Unadjusted long-term survival was superior after open repair (70% 5-year survival open vs 47% hybrid; P = .03), although aorta-specific survival was similar (98% 5-year aorta-specific survival open vs 93% hybrid; P = .59). Institutional use of HAR decreased over the final 3 years of the study, with an associated increased use of open total or distal arch repairs. This was primarily the result of decreased use of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. Concurrent with this apparent increased stringency around patient selection for HAR, perioperative morbidity and mortality was reduced, including avoidance of retrograde type A dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

HAR remains a viable option for higher-risk patients with transverse arch pathology with perioperative outcomes and long-term aorta-specific survival similar to open repair, albeit at a cost of increased reintervention. This observational single-institution study would suggest decreased use in more recent years in favor of open repair due to avoidance of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. This decline in the institutional use of native zone 0 hybrid repairs was associated with improved perioperative outcomes.