Single Institution Experience with Hybrid Endovascular and Surgical Repairs Involving the Distal Aortic Arch

Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

Zone 2 hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Is it a good option for all types of thoracic aortic disease?

BACKGROUND

Zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is performed for the treatment of various thoracic aortic diseases involving the left subclavian artery. This study aimed to analyze the late clinical outcomes of zone 2 hybrid TEVAR according to the various indications.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients who underwent zone 2 TEVAR at our institution between December, 2010 and July, 2020 were enrolled. The indications were aortic aneurysm (AA, n = 15), acute type B aortic dissection (AD, n = 14), penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU, n = 8), traumatic aortic injury (TAI, n = 8), and others (n = 3). The clinical outcomes including early complications and mid-term aortic measurements were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100% and in-hospital mortality occurred in one patient. The early postoperative complications included stroke (n = 1), transient spinal cord ischemia (n = 1), neck wound hematoma (n = 1), and left phrenic or vagus nerve injury (n = 9). In patients with AD, positive remodeling was observed in ten patients (76.9%) (false lumen regression in the entire or thoracic aorta [n = 9], false lumen thrombosis in the thoracic aorta [n = 1]). However, in patients with AA, increased aneurysm was found in six patients (40%). Persistent aneurysmal growth was found in patients with a maximal aortic diameter of > 60 mm on initial imaging (4/6, 50%). No aortic expansion was observed in those with TAI or PAU. Endoleak was noted in five patients (10.4%), and among them, aortic reintervention was required only in patients with large AAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 2 hybrid TEVAR was associated with an acceptable early complication rate and provided acceptable mid-term aortic results for patients with AD, PAU, and TAI. However, patients with large AAs were at increased risk of aortic reintervention. In cases of large AA, clinicians should carefully consider whether zone 2 hybrid TEVAR or open surgical repair will be more effective for the patient.

One-stage hybrid procedure for distal aortic arch disease: mid-term experience at a single center

Background

This study analyzes the outcomes of a one-stage hybrid procedure combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in patients with distal aortic arch disease.

Methods

This retrospective study collected 103 hybrid procedures combining TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (mean age, 62.2±9.3 years; 90 males) performed from January 2009 to January 2019 at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. We analyzed 30-day and mid-term outcomes including survival rate and the incidence of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and endoleak.

Results

Five deaths (4.6%) occurred within 30 days, including type I endoleak in Zone 1 (n=1), hemorrhagic shock (n=1), stroke (n=2), and stent migration (n=1). Two patients developed SCI. The median follow-up time was 39.5 (interquartile range, 13.6-69.0) months. In all, 14 late deaths occurred; these were due to stroke (n=2), severe pneumonia (n=1), aortic rupture caused by type I endoleak (n=3), and sudden death (n=8). Six late endoleaks occurred including three type I and one type II in Zone 1 and two type I in Zone 2. In a competing risks analysis, the incidences of reintervention at 7 years, late death, and survival without reintervention were 8%, 22%, and 70%, respectively. In a Cox risk model, stroke (HR, 21.602; 95% CI: 2.798–166.796; P=0.003) was the only risk factor for 30-day mortality. Stroke (HR, 19.484; 95% CI: 5.245–72.380; P<0.001), SCI (HR, 15.548; 95% CI: 2.754–87.786; P=0.002), and endoleak (HR, 4.626; 95% CI: 1.068–20.040; P=0.041) were independent risk factors for long-term mortality.

Conclusions

The one-stage hybrid procedure provides acceptable mid-term results with good mid-term patency of extra-anatomic bypass. Strict selection of patients suitable for hybrid repair can effectively improve the survival rate and reduce the incidence of complications. At the same time, close follow-up patients should receive close long-term follow-up after hybrid procedure.

Follow-up results of aortic arch cervical debranching performed with the help of a temporary crossover external carotid artery bypass for cerebral protection followed by endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

Treating aortic arch aneurysms with conventional open surgical and endovascular stent graft procedures is challenging due to the complex anatomy of the arch and the arteries arising from it that nourish the brain. Cerebral protection is of the utmost importance during the treatment of thoracic aneurysms involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

Between May 2014 and November 2018, 7 patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms involving the aortic arch who underwent aortic arch cervical debranching with our technique were reviewed retrospectively. Because all the patients being considered for conventional surgical aortic arch replacement had serious comorbidities, they were selected to receive hybrid therapy. The mean age of the patients was 71.2 ± 9.4 years. One patient was a woman and 6 patients were men. One patient was given general anaesthesia; the remaining 6 patients had a regional block. A crossover temporary bypass was performed between the external carotid arteries with a 6-mm polytetrafluoroethylene graft for cerebral protection in all patients. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was successfully performed in all patients except 1 following debranching.

RESULTS

Neurological complications did not occur during the procedures. Patients were followed for a mean of 18.3 ± 4.9 months. One female patient died of exacerbating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease within the first follow-up year. Three other patients died: 1 died of natural causes; 1 died of pneumonia followed by multiorgan failure; and 1 died of myocardial infarction during the mid-term follow-up period. The remaining patients are still being followed and are event free.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of thoracic aortic diseases involving the aortic arch is facilitated when the aortic arch is debranched. Our cerebral protection method with a temporary crossover bypass between the external carotid arteries provides continuous pulsatile blood flow to the brain; hence, neurologically, it is a reliable procedure. The follow-up results of the patients who underwent aortic arch cervical debranching followed by TEVAR depended on their comorbidities.

One minute of circulatory arrest for acute type A aortic dissection --------- a simple operation for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD)

Background

Sun’s procedure is currently recognized as the standard procedure for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). But the operation istoo difficult for beginners. We hope to reduce the difficulty and complications of this operation.

Methods

The aortic arch was immediately cross-clamped after the stented graft was inserted into the distal aorta. Thereafter, the lower-body perfusion was restored. Then, anastomosis was performed between the proximal stent graft and the distal 4-branched Dacron graft. The other arteries were anastomosed to the arched branch of the 4-branched graft.

Results

The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was (207 ± 52) min, and the aortic cross-clamp time was (114 ± 39) min. The circulatory arrest time was (38 ± 16) sec. One patient (4%) died. The incidence of complications was stroke (4%), renal dysfunction requiring dialysis (4%), prolonged intubation(12%).

Conclusions

The time of circulatory arrest in this operation is less than 1 min, which can avoid the complications caused by DHCA and decrease risk of bleeding and complexity by shifting anastomosis more proximally. The effect of our operation is similar to and even better than that of Sun’s procedure. It does not even require relatively advanced skill, much experience and excellent psychological quality, especially suitable for beginners.