Early Outcomes After Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair With Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest

Outcomes of Deep Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest for Descending and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) in patients undergoing descending thoracic (DTAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We present our outcomes after open DTAA and TAAA repair with and without DHCA.

METHODS

From 1999 to 2022, 81 (38.8%) patients undergoing DTAA or TAAA repair required DHCA because proximal cross-clamping was not feasible or aneurysmal pathology extended into the arch and 128 (61.2%) patients required only distal bypass. Because of intrinsic pathological differences in patients requiring DHCA, confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare groups in lieu of formal hypothesis tests.

RESULTS

DHCA patients had more chronic dissections (64.2% vs. 43.8%, 95% CI for difference: 6-35%) and higher body mass indices (29.5 ± 6.8 vs. 27.2 ± 6.6, CI: 26-421%). More non-DHCA patients had medial degeneration (9.9% vs. 31.3%, CI: -33 to -7%). There were 10 (12.4%) in-hospital deaths for the DHCA and 10 (7.8%) for the non-DHCA group (CI: -5 to 14%). Survival at 10 years was 52.6% (CI: 42.1-65.7%) for the non-DHCA group and 48.3% (CI: 40.3-57.9%) for the DHCA group. The only meaningful differences in postoperative outcomes were intensive care unit (5.5 days vs. 6 days, CI: 12-410%) and hospital stay (19 days vs. 12 days, CI: 74-470%), which were longer in the DHCA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stays, selective use of DHCA is safe and effective with comparable morbidity and mortality to non-DHCA in open DTAA and TAAA repair.

Comparison of open thoracoabdominal repair for chronic aortic dissections and aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Aortic dissection is common in patients undergoing open surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Most often, dissection is chronic and is associated with progressive aortic dilatation. Because contemporary outcomes in chronic dissection are not clearly understood, we compared patient characteristics and outcomes after open TAAA repair between patients with chronic dissection and those with non-dissection aneurysm.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 3470 open TAAA repairs performed in a single practice. Operations were for non-dissection aneurysm in 2351 (67.8%) and chronic dissection in 1119 (32.2%). Outcomes included operative mortality and adverse events, a composite variable comprising operative death and persistent (present at discharge) stroke, paraplegia, paraparesis, and renal failure necessitating dialysis. Logistic regression identified predictors of operative mortality and adverse events. Time-to-event analyses examined survival, death, repair failure, subsequent progressive repair, and survival free of failure or subsequent repair.

RESULTS

Compared with patients with non-dissection aneurysm, those with chronic dissection were younger, had fewer atherosclerotic risk factors, and were more likely to have heritable thoracic aortic disease and undergo extent II repair. The operative mortality rate was 8.5% (n = 296) overall and was higher in non-dissection aneurysm patients (n = 217; 9.2%) than in chronic dissection patients (n = 79; 7.1%; P = .03). Adverse events were less frequent (P = .01) in patients with chronic dissection (n = 145; 13.0%), 22 (2.0%) of whom had persistent paraplegia. Chronic dissection was not predictive of operative mortality (P = .5) or adverse events (P = .6). Operative mortality and adverse events, respectively, were independently predicted by emergency repair (odds ratio [OR], 3.46 and 2.87), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.74 and 1.81), extent II TAAA repair (OR, 1.44 and 1.73), increasing age (OR, 1.04/year and 1.04/year), and increasing aortic cross-clamp time (OR, 1.02/minutes and 1.02/minutes). Patients with chronic dissection had lower 10-year unadjusted mortality (42% vs 69%) but more frequent repair failure (5% vs 3%) and subsequent repair for progressive aortic disease (11% vs 5%) than patients with non-dissection aneurysm (P < .001); these differences were no longer statistically significant after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of open TAAA repair vary by aortic disease type. Emergency repairs and atherosclerotic diseases most commonly occur in patients with non-dissection aneurysm and independently predict operative mortality. Repair of chronic dissection is associated with low rates of adverse events, including operative mortality and persistent paraplegia, along with reasonable late survival and good durability. However, patients with chronic dissection tend to more commonly undergo subsequent repair to treat progressive aortic disease, which emphasizes the need for robust long-term imaging surveillance protocols.

Risk profile and operative outcomes in patients with and without Marfan syndrome undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

To compare operative and long-term outcomes between patients with and without Marfan syndrome undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We identified all consecutive patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair between 1997 and 2022. Primary outcome was composite of major adverse events. Secondary outcomes were individual complications and long-term survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed. Weighted Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate long-term survival. Multivariable analysis identified factors associated with major adverse events.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty-four patients underwent open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ninety (13.1%) had Marfan syndrome, whereas 594 (86.9%) did not. Marfan patients were younger (46 years [range, 36-56 years] vs 69 years [range, 61-76 years]; P < .001). Extent II or III aneurysms (57 out of 90 [63.3%] vs 211 out of 594 [35.6%]; P < .001) and type I or III chronic dissection (77 out of 90 [85.3%] vs 242 out of 594 [40.8%]; P < .001) were more common. Cardiovascular risk factors were less frequent in Marfan patients. There was no difference in major adverse events between groups (12 out of 90 [13.3%] vs 100 out of 594 [16.8%]; P = .49). Operative mortality was similar between groups (3 out of 90 [3.3%] vs 28 out of 594 [4.7%]; P = .75). Unweighted survival at 10 years was 78.7% vs 46.8% (P = .001). Weighted Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference in long-term survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.32-1.99; P = .62; Log-rank P = .12). At multivariable analysis, renal insufficiency (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.43-3.68; P < .01) and urgent/emergency procedure (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.35-3.48; P < .01) were associated with major adverse events, whereas Marfan syndrome was not (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.69-3.49; P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

Open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair can be performed with similar operative outcomes in patients with and without Marfan syndrome despite differing risk profiles. Operative/perioperative strategies must be tailored to specific needs of each patient to optimize outcomes.

Risk Factors and Early Outcomes for Gastrointestinal Complications in Patients Undergoing Open Surgery for Type A Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal complications need to be paid more attention, especially in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal complications after open surgery for type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institutional study including patients who underwent open surgery for type A aortic dissection during 2012-2020 was conducted. Univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with gastrointestinal complications. The related clinical outcomes were compared between the patients with and without gastrointestinal complications.

RESULTS

Among the 2746 patients, 150 developed gastrointestinal complications. The development of gastrointestinal complications contributed to the higher rate of mortality (P = .008), longer stay in the intensive care unit (P < .001), and longer hospital stay (P < .001). Logistic regression analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR] 1.020; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-1.057; P = .011), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification greater than grade III (OR 1.724; 95%CI 1.179-2.521, P = .005), pre-induction mean arterial pressure (OR 0.978; 95%CI 0.965-0.990, P = .001), aortic cross-clamp time (OR 1.012; 95%CI 1.005-1.019, P = .001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (OR 1.007; 95%CI 1.002-1.011, P = .002), and intraoperative transfusion of red blood cells (OR 1.214; 95%CI 1.122-1.314, P = .001) were independent risk factors for gastrointestinal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of gastrointestinal complications after open surgery for type A aortic dissection was 5.5%, resulting in increased mortality and prolonged hospital stay. It is necessary to take suitable strategies to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications.

The result of prospective evaluation of 3-dimensional printing-aided extensive thoracoabdominal aorta repair

OBJECTIVES

Paraplegia is a distressing complication after open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair, and revascularization of T8-L2-level segmental arteries is considered pivotal to prevent paraplegia. We employed 3-dimensional (3D) printing to efficiently revascularize segmental/visceral arteries and prospectively evaluated its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

From January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022, we prospectively enrolled patients of extent I, II, or III TAAA repair. Guidance models were 3D-printed based on preoperative computed tomography, and multibranched aortic grafts were manually constructed upon this model before surgery. The composite outcome of operative mortality, permanent stroke, and permanent spinal cord deficit (SCD) was compared with the historical control group (n = 77, in 2015-2020), subjected to similar TAAA repair without 3D printing.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients (58.6 ± 13.2 years) underwent open TAAA repair with the aid of 3D printing. Extent I, II, and III repairs were performed in 14 (36.8%), 17 (44.7%), and 7 (18.4%), respectively. Concomitant arch repair and bi-iliac reconstruction were performed in 7 (18.4%) and 6 patients (15.8%), respectively. Mean pump time was 107.7 ± 55.5 minutes. Operative mortality, permanent stroke, and permanent SCD each occurred in 1 patient (2.6%), and the incidence of the composite outcome was 7.9% (3/38). In the control group, mean pump time was 166.0 ± 83.9 minutes, significantly longer than the 3D-printing group (P < .001), and operative mortality, permanent stroke, permanent SCD, and the composite outcome occurred in 7 (9.1%), 9 (11.7%), 8 (10.4%), and 19 (24.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Open repairs of extensive TAAA with 3D printing showed favorable safety and efficacy, which need further validation by larger studies.

Whole Body Retrograde Perfusion Combined With Central Aortic Perfusion Strategy in the Repair of Distal Arch Pathology Through a Lateral Thoracotomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of the hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) + retrograde whole-body perfusion (RBP) technique with those of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA-only) approach.

METHODS

Limited data are available on cerebral protection techniques when distal arch repairs are performed through a lateral thoracotomy. In 2012, the RBP technique was introduced as adjunct to HCA during open distal arch repair via thoracotomy. We reviewed the results of the HCA + RBP technique compared with those of the DHCA-only approach. From February 2000 to November 2019, 189 patients (median age, 59 [IQR, 46 to 71] years; 30.7% female) underwent open distal arch repair via lateral thoracotomy to treat aortic aneurysms. The DHCA technique was used in 117 patients (62%, median age 53 [IQR, 41 to 60] years), whereas HCA + RBP was used in 72 patients (38%, median age 65 [IQR, 51 to 74] years). In HCA + RBP patients, cardiopulmonary bypass was interrupted when systemic cooling achieved isoelectric electroencephalogram; once the distal arch had been opened, RBP was then initiated via the venous cannula (flow of 700 to 1000 mL/min, central venous pressure <15 to 20 mm Hg).

RESULTS

The stroke rate was significantly lower in the HCA + RBP group (3%, n=2) compared with the DHCA-only (12%, n=14) (P=.031), despite longer circulatory arrest times in HCA + RBP compared with the DHCA-only (31 [IQR, 25 to 40] minutes vs 22 [IQR, 17 to 30] minutes, respectively; P<.001). Operative mortality for patients undergoing HCA + RBP was 6.7% (n=4), whereas for those undergoing DHCA-only it was 10.4% (n=12) (P=.410). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year age-adjusted survival rates for the DHCA group are 86%, 81%, and 75%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year age-adjusted survival rates for the HCA + RBP group are 88%, 88%, and 76%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The addition of RBP to HCA in the treatment of distal open arch repair via a lateral thoracotomy is safe and provides excellent neurological protection.

Reappraisal of the role of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials during open distal aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Intraoperative motor and somatosensory evoked potentials have been applied to monitor spinal cord ischemia during repair. However, their predictive values remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials on spinal cord ischemia during open distal aortic repair.

METHODS

Our group began routine use of both somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials at the end of 2004. This study used a historical cohort design, using risk factor and outcome data from our department's prospective registry. Univariate and multivariable statistics for risk-adjusted effects of motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials on neurologic outcome and model discrimination were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Both somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials were measured in 822 patients undergoing open distal aortic repair between December 2004 and December 2019. Both motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials were intact for the duration of surgery in 348 patients (42%). Isolated motor evoked potential loss was observed in 283 patients (34%), isolated somatosensory evoked potential loss was observed in 18 patients (3%), and both motor evoked potential and somatosensory evoked potential loss were observed in 173 patients (21%). No spinal cord ischemia occurred in the 18 cases with isolated somatosensory evoked potential loss. When both signals were lost, signal loss happened in the order of motor evoked potentials and then somatosensory evoked potentials. Immediate spinal cord ischemia occurred in none of those without signal loss, 4 of 283 (1%) with isolated motor evoked potential loss, and 15 of 173 (9%) with motor evoked potential plus somatosensory evoked potential loss. Delayed spinal cord ischemia occurred in 12 of 348 patients (3%) with intact evoked potentials, 24 of 283 patients (8%) with isolated motor evoked potentials loss, and 27 of 173 patients (15%) with motor evoked potentials + somatosensory evoked potentials loss (P < .001). Motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials loss were each independently associated with spinal cord ischemia. For immediate spinal cord ischemia, no return of motor evoked potential signals at the conclusion of the surgery had the highest odds ratio of 15.87, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.936, whereas motor evoked potential loss had the highest odds ratio of 3.72 with an area under the curve of 0.638 for delayed spinal cord ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials are both important monitoring measures to predict and prevent spinal cord ischemia during and after open distal aortic repairs. Intraoperative motor evoked potential loss is a risk for immediate and delayed spinal cord ischemia after open distal aortic repair, and somatosensory evoked potential loss further adds predictive value to the motor evoked potential.

28-Year Experience with Ruptured and Symptomatic Type I-III Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms at a Large Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Given the relative rarity of ruptured and symptomatic type I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), data is scarce with regard the outcomes of those who survive to repair. The goal of this study was to determine short and long-term outcomes after open repair of type I-III TAAA surgery for ruptured and symptomatic TAAA and compare the results to elective TAAA repairs.

METHODS

All open type I-III TAAA repairs performed from 1987 to 2015 were evaluated using an institutional database. Charts were retrospectively evaluated for perioperative outcomes: major adverse event (MAE), in-hospital death, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) and long-term survival. Ruptured, symptomatic and elective repair cohorts were created for comparison. Univariate analysis was performed using the Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Logistic regression was used for in-hospital endpoints; survival analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards modelling and Kaplan-Meier techniques.

RESULTS

Five hundred-sixteen patients had an open type I-III TAAA repair during the study period. Fifty-nine (11.4%) were performed for rupture and 51 (9.9%) were performed for symptomatic aneurysms (RAs). Ruptured and symptomatic groups were more likely to be older, female, and have larger presenting aortic diameters. Most of the ruptured and symptomatic cases were transferred from an outside facility (59.3% and 54.9%, respectively). Intraoperatively, the elective cohort was more likely to receive left heart bypass as an operative adjunct; ruptures were less likely to receive a renal bypass, and operative time was highest for the elective cohort. Perioperative mortality was 18.6% for ruptured, 2.0% for symptomatic, and 7.4% for elective indications. Ruptures were most likely to require new hemodialysis after repair (20.3% vs. 10.3% for elective, P = 0.02). On adjusted analysis, ruptures were more likely to suffer from perioperative death (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-11.4) and MAEs (AOR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.4-5.4). Ruptured and symptomatic aneurysms were not independently associated with SCI; however, preoperative hemodynamic instability was predictive (AOR: 8.7, 95% CI: 1.7-44.2). Both rupture and symptomatic cases were associated with decreased survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis with 5-year survival for ruptures at 35%, symptomatic at 47.7% and elective at 63.7%, P < 0.001. Adjusted hazards of death were 1.2 (95% CI: 0.9-1.8) in the symptomatic cohort and 2.3 (95% CI: 1.5-3.7) in the ruptured cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Open ruptured and symptomatic type I-III TAAA repairs can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Most symptomatic and rupture repairs were performed after transfer from another institution. Postoperative SCI is most strongly related to the preoperative hemodynamic status of the patient.

Diaphragm Preservation Reduces Respiratory Failure After Extent I Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate the impact of surgical approach (thoracophrenolaparotomy vs thoracotomy crura splitting) on the outcomes of extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Patient data were extracted from our aortic surgery database. The primary endpoint was need for tracheostomy, and secondary endpoints were operative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, spinal cord injury, de novo dialysis, and major adverse events (composite of secondary endpoints and tracheostomy). Freedom from death and reoperation during follow-up were calculated. Risk adjustment was obtained with propensity score matching and multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five patients underwent extent I repair. Compared with thoracophrenolaparotomy patients (n = 226), thoracotomy crura-splitting patients (n = 99) had a higher rate of previous coronary revascularization (27.3% vs 14.2%, P = .005), valvular disease (64.6% vs 50.4%, P = .018), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (61.6% vs 28.3%, P = .000) and a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second (46% vs 69%, P = .000). In a matched sample thoracotomy crura splitting was associated with a decreased need for tracheostomy (4.0% vs 13.1%, P = .035). The need for tracheostomy was predicted by female gender (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-8.30; P = .023), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.98; P = .003), and thoracophrenolaparotomy (odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-11.73; P = .029). Five-year freedom from mortality and reoperation were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, thoracotomy crura splitting was associated with decreased need for tracheostomy.

Early Gastrointestinal Complications After Open Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The present study was done to examine the incidence, predictors, and impact of early gastrointestinal (GI) complications after open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 3587 open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs performed at our center from 1986 to 2019. We used univariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with GI complications, including bleeding, ischemia, obstruction, and acute pancreatitis. Adverse event was defined as operative death or persistent stroke, paraplegia, paraparesis, or renal failure necessitating dialysis.

RESULTS

Gastrointestinal complications developed after 213 repairs (5.9%). Gastrointestinal complications less often developed after extent I repair than after repairs that involved infrarenal abdominal aortic segments (ie, extent II to IV repairs; P = .003). Patients who had GI complications more often underwent endarterectomy, stenting, or bypass of visceral arteries (51.2% vs 42.2%; P = .01). Use of selective visceral perfusion did not differ between groups. Patients who had GI complications had higher rates of operative mortality (34.3% vs 6.6%) and adverse events (44.1% vs 13.2%) and had longer hospitalization (29 vs 11 days; P < .001 for all). Independent predictors of GI complications included incidental splenectomy, rupture, non-extent I repair, older age, and longer aortic cross-clamp time. Short-term, midterm, and long-term survival were poorer for patients who had GI complications (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although uncommon, early GI complications after open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair are associated with significant early and late morbidity and mortality. Development of perioperative strategies to mitigate these complications is warranted.

Staged total arch replacement, followed by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair, for patients with mega aortic syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to review the clinical outcomes of a staged approach using total arch replacement (TAR) with an elephant trunk or a frozen elephant trunk, followed by fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) for patients with mega aortic syndrome.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data and outcomes of 11 consecutive patients (8 men; mean age, 71 ± 7 years) treated by staged TAR and F-BEVAR from January 2014 to December 2018. The F-BEVAR procedures were performed under a prospective, nonrandomized, physician-sponsored investigational device exemption protocol. All patients had had mega aortic syndrome, defined by an ascending aorta, arch, and extent I-II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. The endpoints were 30-day mortality, major adverse events (MAE), patient survival, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from target vessel instability.

RESULTS

Of the 11 patients, 6 had developed chronic postdissection aneurysms after previous Stanford A (three A₁₁, two A₁₀, one A₉) dissection repair and 5 had had degenerative aneurysms with no suitable landing zone in the aortic arch. The thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were classified as extent I in four patients and extent II in seven. One patient had died within 30 days after TAR (9.0%). However, none of the remaining 10 patients who had undergone F-BEVAR had died. First-stage TAR resulted in MAE in three patients (27%), including one spinal cord injury. The mean length of stay was 12 ± 6 days. The mean interval between TAR and F-BEVAR was 245 ± 138 days with no aneurysm rupture during the interval. Second-stage F-BEVAR was associated with MAE in two patients (20%), including spinal cord injury in one patient from spinal hematoma due to placement of a cerebrospinal fluid drain. The mean follow-up period was 14 ± 10 months. At 2 years postoperatively, patient survival, primary patency, secondary patency, and freedom from renal-mesenteric target vessel instability was 80% ± 9%, 94% ± 6%, 100%, and 86% ± 8%, respectively. No aortic-related deaths occurred during the follow-up period. Four patients had required reintervention, all performed using an endovascular approach.

CONCLUSIONS

A staged approach to treatment of mega aortic syndrome using TAR and F-BEVAR is a feasible alternative for selected high-risk patients. Larger clinical experience and longer follow-up are needed.

Open vs. endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: tale of the tape

Open surgical repair persists as the gold-standard operation for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm; however, endovascular repair has become commonplace. Technical considerations in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm treatment are particularly complex, insofar as it involves critical branching arteries feeding the visceral organs. Newer, low-profile devices make total endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair more feasible and, thus, appealing. For younger and low-risk patients, the choice between open and endovascular therapy remains controversial. Despite the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, data suggest that endovascular aortic repair incurs a greater risk of spinal cord deficit, and the durability of endovascular aortic repair remains unclear. It is difficult to compare outcomes between endovascular and open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, primarily because of the current investigational status of endovascular devices, the variety of approaches to endovascular repair, differing patient populations, lack of prospective randomized studies, and minimal medium- and long-tern follow-up data on endovascular repair. When deciding between open and endovascular approaches, one should consider which is more suitable for each patient. Older patients generally benefit from a less invasive approach. Open repair should be considered for young patients and those with heritable thoracic aortic disease. Infection and fistulae are best treated by open repair, although endovascular intervention as a lifesaving bridge to definitive repair has evolved to become a critical component of initial treatment. It is crucial to have technical expertise in both open and endovascular procedures to provide the best aortic repair for the patient. This may require dedicated aortic programs at tertiary institutions.