Open versus Endovascular Repair of Arch and Descending Thoracic Aneurysms: A Retrospective Comparison

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.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following frozen elephant trunk: how it's done and device selection

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction in the mid-1990s the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique has quickly evolved into an effective hybrid treatment option for patients with various thoracic aortic pathologies, acute and chronic. However, a notable incidence of and risk for distal aortic reinterventions persists after the implementation of the FET device. In this review, the authors analyze the indications and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following FET.

AREAS COVERED

For this review, we looked not only at our own data but also searched PubMed for relevant studies, comments, and current recommendations of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Additionally, we outline our approach in this 2-stage-treatment plan.

EXPERT OPINION

The treatment of acute or chronic aortic pathologies involving the aortic arch frequently requires a 2-stage treatment approach. Sometimes, a tertiary procedure is needed to fix the entire aortic pathology. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair completion following FET requires careful planning to achieve the excellent clinical outcomes that we and numerous other aortic centers have shown. Only a dedicated aortic clinic provides the long-term continuous follow-up required to identify the few patients in need of a tertiary procedure.

Patient Blood Management in Vascular Surgery

Patient blood management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach aimed at appropriately allocating blood products to patients requiring transfusion while simultaneously minimizing inappropriate transfusions. The 3 pillars of patient blood management are optimizing erythropoiesis, minimizing blood loss, and optimizing physiological reserve of anemia. Benefits seen from PBM include limiting hospital costs and mitigating harm from numerous risks of transfusion.

The 3-step approach for the treatment of multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to describe our 3-step approach to treat multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic disease due to aortic dissection and to present our initial clinical results.

METHODS

Nine patients with multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathology due to aortic dissection underwent our 3-step approach, which consisted of total aortic arch replacement via the frozen elephant trunk technique, thoracic endovascular aortic repair for distal extension down to the level of the thoraco-abdominal transition and, finally, open thoraco-abdominal aortic replacement for the remaining downstream aortic segments. We assessed their baseline and aortic characteristics, previous aortic procedures, intraoperative details, clinical outcomes and follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 (42-66) years; 4 patients (44%) presented connective tissue disease. Eight patients (89%) had undergone previous aortic surgery for aortic dissection. In-hospital mortality was 0% (n = 0). None suffered symptomatic spinal cord injury or disabling stroke. During the follow-up period, 1 patient died of acute biliary septic shock 6 months after thoraco-abdominal aortic replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-step approach to treat multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathology due to aortic dissection, which involves applying both open and endovascular techniques, is associated with an excellent clinical outcome and low perioperative risk. Distal shifting of the disease process through the thoracic endovascular aortic repair extension-and thereby necessitating limited open thoraco-abdominal aortic repair-seems to be the major factor enabling these favourable results.

IRB APPROVAL

IRB approval was obtained (No. 425/15) from the institutional review board of the University of Freiburg.