Is Conventional Open Repair Still a Good Option for Aortic Arch Aneurysm in Patients of Advanced Age?

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Preoperative renal function affects outcomes of surgery for aortic arch aneurysm in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the optimal surgical procedure for arch aneurysm in the elderly based on preoperative comorbidities, especially focusing on renal function.

METHODS

The medical records of 374 patients who experienced arch surgery between 2008 and 2019 were reviewed. Among the 374 patients, 92 who underwent total arch replacement (TAR) were assigned to the TAR group and the remaining 152 who underwent debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (DTEVAR) were assigned to the DTEVAR group.

RESULTS

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was an independent risk factor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.85; p = 0.029) in the TAR group but not in the DTEVAR. In the Grade I/II category CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 60 mL/min), freedom from all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the TAR group than in the DTEVAR group (p = 0.0155, log-rank). Freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the two groups in the Grade IIIa CKD (eGFR, 45-60) (p = 0.584, log-lank), Grade IIIb (eGFR, 30-45) (p = 0.822), and Grade IV/V (eGFR < 30) (p = 0.548).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients who underwent TAR, CKD was the independent risk factor of the mortality, but not in the patients who underwent debranching TEVAR. Conversion of surgical strategy from TAR to debranching TEVAR in the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms in the elderly with CKD below Grade IIIa is acceptable considering that less-invasiveness. While, in the elderly with Grade I/II CKD, TAR still remains as a primary choice for the arch repair for better mid-term survival.

Open aortic arch surgery: the gold standard method

Aortic arch pathologies are complex and treating them requires close team collaboration and technical skills to provide safe outcomes with low morbidity and mortality rates. Such challenges are facing both aortic and vascular surgeons. Open aortic arch repair has been the standard method of practice in all cases of aortic arch pathologies for the last four decades since the very first successful published case series by Griepp et al. during 1975. However, since then, repair of multi-segmented thoracic aortic pathologies has been explored through endovascular techniques; this is with or without open repair as a one-stage procedure especially in high-risk and elderly patients. Although the role of endovascular techniques in thoracoabdominal aorta is well established, its utilization as solo technique in aortic arch pathologies remains debatable. In this review, we highlight current evidences behind using open, endovascular, and hybrid procedures in aortic arch surgery.

Surgical Repair of Distal Aortic Arch Aneurysm With Distal Extension: Sternotomy Versus Thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus as to whether a median approach or a lateral approach is better for distal aortic arch aneurysms with distal extensions. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of these two approaches for distal aortic arch aneurysms with distal extensions.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2017, 212 consecutive patients with distal aortic arch aneurysms with distal extensions underwent surgery using different approaches: hemiarch and descending thoracic aneurysm replacement through thoracotomy (group 1, n = 91); and total arch and descending thoracic aneurysm replacement through sternotomy (group 2, n = 121). Early and late outcomes were compared using scores and inverse probability of treatment adjustments to reduce treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality was 9.89% (9 of 91) in the thoracotomy group and 2.48% (3 of 121) in the sternotomy group (p = 0.02). The sternotomy group had a lower incidence of permanent stroke (2.48%, 3 of 121) compared with the thoracotomy group (10.99%, 10 of 91, p = 0.01). After adjustment, patients who underwent thoracotomy were at a greater risk of hospital mortality (odds ratio 5.0, p = 0.01), permanent stroke (odds ratio 6.83, p < 0.01), and pneumonia (odds ratio 2.99, p = 0.04), compared with patients who underwent sternotomy. The overall survival at 10 years was 69.8% ± 7.0% for the thoracotomy group and 83.0% ± 5.0% for the sternotomy group (unadjusted p = 0.049, adjusted p = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

The sternotomy approach showed better outcomes in terms of operative mortality, stroke, and pneumonia, as well as long-term survival compared with the thoracotomy approach. These results suggested that the sternotomy approach was more appropriate for patients with distal aortic arch aneurysms with distal extensions.