Zone 1 Aortic Arch Hybrid Endovascular Repair with Extra-anatomical Bypass: A Meta-analysis

Comparison of open and hybrid endovascular repair for aortic arch: a multi-centre study of 1052 adult patients

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate early and late outcomes by comparing open total arch repair and endovascular arch repair using proximal landing zone analysis in a multicentre cohort.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2019, patients treated surgically for aortic arch disease at 6 centres were included, excluding cases with type A aortic dissection, additional aortic root replacement and extensive aortic aneurysm. In all patients and populations with proximal landing zones 0/1 (N = 144) and 2 (N = 187), early and late outcomes were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 patients, including 331 (31%) and 721 (69%) patients undergoing endovascular arch repair and open total arch repair, respectively, were enrolled. After propensity score match (endovascular arch repair, 295; open total arch repair, 566), no significant difference was observed in in-hospital mortality rate (endovascular arch repair, 6.8%; open total arch repair, 6.2%; P = 0.716). Open total arch repair was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death [log-rank test; P = 0.010, hazard ratio (HR) 1.41 (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.71)]. The incidence of aorta-related death was higher in endovascular arch repair [Gray's test; P = 0.030, HR; 1.44 (95% confidence interval 1.20-1.73)]. When compared to endovascular arch repair with proximal landing zone 0/1, open total arch repair was associated with lower risks of all-cause death [log-rank test; P < 0.001, HR 2.04 (95% confidence interval 1.43-2.90)] and aorta-related death [Gray's test; P = 0.002, HR 1.67 (95% confidence interval; 1.25-2.24)]. There was no difference in the risk of all-cause death [log-rank test; P = 0.961, HR 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.67-1.46)] and aorta-related death [Gray's test; P = 0.55, HR 1.31 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.67)] between endovascular arch repair with proximal landing zone 2 and open total arch repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Open total arch repair was considered the 1st choice based on early and late results; however, endovascular arch repair may be a useful option if the proximal landing zone is limited to zone 2.

Open, endovascular or hybrid repair of aortic arch disease: narrative review of diverse strategies with diverse options

OBJECTIVES

The management of aortic arch disease is complex. Open surgical management continues to evolve, and the introduction of endovascular repair is revolutionizing aortic arch surgery. Although these innovative techniques have generated the opportunity for better outcomes in select patients, they have also introduced confusion and uncertainty regarding best practices.

METHODS

In New York, we developed a collaborative group, the New York Aortic Consortium, as a means of cross-linking knowledge and working together to better understand and treat aortic disease. In our meeting in May 2023, regional aortic experts and invited international experts discussed the contemporary management of aortic arch disease, differences in interpretation of the available literature and the integration of endovascular technology into disease management. We summarized the current state of aortic arch surgery in this review article.

RESULTS

Approaches to aortic arch repair have evolved substantially, whether it be methods to reduce cerebral ischaemia, improve haemostasis, simplify future operations or expand options for high-risk patients with endovascular approaches. However, the transverse aortic arch remains challenging to repair. Among our collaborative group of cardiac/aortic surgeons, we discovered a wide disparity in our practice patterns and our management strategies of patients with aortic arch disease.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to build unique institutional expertise in the context of complex and evolving management of aortic arch disease with open surgery, endovascular repair and hybrid approaches, tailored to the risk profiles and anatomical specifics of individual patients.

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.

The Call for the "Interventional/Hybrid" Aortic Surgeon: Open, Endovascular, and Hybrid Therapies of the Aortic Arch

Aortic arch pathology is relatively rare but potentially highly fatal and associated with considerable comorbidity. Operative mortality and complication rates have improved over time but remain high. In response, aortic arch surgery is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of cardiac surgery in terms of surgical volume and improved outcomes. Moreover, there has been a surge in novel devices and techniques, many of which have been developed by or codeveloped with vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Nevertheless, the extent of arch surgery, the choice of nadir temperature, cannulation, and perfusion strategies, and the use of open, endovascular, or hybrid options vary according to country, centre, and surgeon. In this review article, we provide a technical overview of the surgical, total endovascular, and hybrid repair options for aortic arch pathology through historical developments and contemporary results. We highlight key information for surgeons, cardiologists, and trainees to understand the management of patients with aortic arch pathology. We conclude by discussing training paradigms, the role of aortic teams, and gaps in knowledge, arguing for the need for wire skills for the future "interventional aortic surgeon" and increased research into techniques and novel devices to continue improving outcomes for aortic arch surgery.

Outcomes of Zone 1 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Fenestrated Surgeon-Modified Stent-Graft for Aortic Arch Pathologies

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of zone 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with fenestrated surgeon-modified stent-graft (SMSG) for aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and November 2020, 34 consecutive patients underwent zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG for aortic arch pathologies. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative, and follow-up morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 34 patients were treated with zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG. Twenty-four (70.6%) patients presented with type B aortic dissections, 9 (26.5%) patients presented with aneurysms (7 located on the lesser curvature side of aortic arch), 1 (2.9%) patient presented with type Ia endoleak after previous TEVAR owing to traumatic aortic dissection. The proximal landing zone for all patients were in zone 1, and all supra-aortic trunks were reconstructed, except for one left subclavian artery. Technical success was achieved in all cases. The 30-day estimated survival (±SE) was 90.9% ± 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 77.0%-97.0%]. The 30-day estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) was 87.9% ± 5.7% (95% CI: 73.4%-95.3%). At a median follow-up of 48 months (range, 12-68 months), 2 patients died, including 1 aortic-related death and 1 non-aortic-related death. One patient had reintervention 13 months after the operation owing to type Ia endoleak. All supra-aortic trunks were patent. The estimated survival (±SE) during follow-up was 85.1% ± 6.2% (95% CI: 69.9%-93.6%). One (2.7%) patient had stroke. The estimated freedom from reintervention (±SE) during follow-up was 84.2% ± 6.5% (95% CI: 69.9%-93.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 1 TEVAR with fenestrated SMSG is an alternate option for treatment of aortic arch pathologies in experienced centers.

Hybrid Technique Outcomes for High-Risk Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection With Landing Zone 1

In this report, we analyzed the outcomes of the hybrid technique for high-risk uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with landing zone 1. We enrolled 80 patients from January 2016 to January 2020 and retrospectively analyzed their outcomes, including mortality, aortic-related adverse events, and aortic remodeling. The mean age was 51.6 ± 9.9 years, and 68.0% (54 of 80) were men. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases (80 of 80), and 30-day mortality was 4% of patients (n = 3), including 2 dissection-related deaths. Immediate endoleaks occurred in 16 patients, including 11 type Ia and 5 type II. Four patients (5%) developed minor strokes postoperatively, and no short-term spinal cord ischemia and re-intervention occurred. The average length of stay was 20 ± 8 days. The overall mortality was 8% after a median follow-up of 44 months (38 to 52). Five patients (7%) developed strokes, and 11 (16%) had late endoleaks, including 1 type Ia, 5 type Ib, and 3 type II. Four re-interventions (5%) were necessary, 3 for endoleaks and 1 for retrograde type A dissection. Three bypass graft occlusions (5%) and 5 stoma stenoses (8%) were observed in the latest follow-up computed tomography. In conclusion, the hybrid technique with landing zone 1 might be a viable alternative to open aortic arch replacement in patients at high risk with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with acceptable early and late outcomes. However, stroke and endoleak complications should be further addressed.

Tailored approach and outcomes of aortic arch reconstruction after acute type A dissection repair

OBJECTIVE

After limited root/ascending with or without hemiarch repair for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), 20% to 30% of patients require distal reintervention, frequently for arch pathology. In this report, we describe an institutional algorithm for arch management after previous limited ATAAD repair and detail operative and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

From August 2005 to April 2021, 71 patients status post previous limited ATAAD repair underwent reoperative arch repair involving zones 1 to 3 for aneurysmal degeneration of residual arch dissection including complete cervical debranching with zone 0/1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair in 6 (8%), open total arch in 13 (18%), type I hybrid arch repair in 23 (32%), and type II/III hybrid arch repair in 29 (41%).

RESULTS

Mean age was 59 ± 12 years; time from index ATAAD repair to reoperation was 4 (interquartile range, 2-9) years. There were 2 (2.8%) in-hospital deaths and 2 (2.8%) postdischarge deaths within 30 days of surgery. Three patients suffered stroke (4.2%) and 2 (2.8%) had acute renal failure requiring dialysis. Overall Kaplan-Meier survival was 78%, 70%, and 58% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Institutional experience appeared to play a significant role in early and late outcomes, because there have been no operative mortalities in the past 9 years and improved survival of 87% versus 66%, 79% versus 58%, and 79% versus 40% at 1, 3, and 5 years in comparisons of the past 9 years with the previous era (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Aneurysmal degeneration of residual arch dissection after limited ATAAD repair presents a complex reoperative challenge. An algorithmic operative approach tailored to patient anatomy and comorbidities yields excellent early and late outcomes, which continue to improve with increasing institutional experience.

A review: Single and multi-branch devices for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with proximal sealing in Ishimaru Zone 0

Recently published experience has shown that endovascular management of the aortic arch, including sealing in the proximal zones, can be a viable option for patients considered unfit for conventional open repair. Endograft designs vary and include single or multibranch devices, with or without the addition of surgical debranching. Initial reports show that both techniques can be performed with high technical success and acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates in high volume centers. Single branch devices, available off-the-shelf, may provide a treatment option for emergent presentations where patients cannot wait for the design and manufacture of a customized endograft. Double or triple branched endografts are now increasingly implanted in high-volume aortic centers. The purpose of this review is to describe the single and multibranched endovascular devices currently available for aortic arch repair, their associated published outcomes, and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.

Current state of hybrid solutions for aortic arch aneurysms

Since its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from a novel approach to a well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. HAR procedures have been proposed as a means to circumvent the perioperative morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch replacement. These procedures, all of which remain off-label applications of approved endograft technology, combine more conventional open surgical techniques, to create endograft landing zones, with thoracic endovascular aortic repair to exclude the aortic pathology from the circulation. The current classification system for HAR was proposed in 2013 and consists of three types, designated by the Roman numerals I, II and III. The current system has become outdated, however, with the advent of newer technologies, and herein we propose a new, updated classification system that is more encompassing with regards to the broad array of options available to treat aortic arch disease. Likewise, an institutional algorithm to guide patient and operative selection for HAR is presented. Patients are considered for HAR if they have either high-risk comorbidities or high-risk anatomy, with an important feature of the algorithm being that any decisions about repair strategy should be made by a surgical team with expertise in both open and endovascular techniques. Despite being performed for nearly two decades, the evidence around HAR consists mainly of single center series (level B-C evidence) with no randomized controlled trials. The data suggest HAR to be a safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short and mid-term results. As we as aortic surgeons continue to move towards less invasive approaches, both conventional open and hybrid techniques will remain important tools in the toolbox for arch repair, although the advent of multi-branched arch endografts will almost certainly reduce the extent of open or hybrid repair in many patients and eliminate it altogether in others.