Procedure-Associated Costs and Mid-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Zone 0 and Zone 1 Aortic Arch Repair

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.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone 0

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model.

Results

Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.