Aortic Arch Reconstruction: Are Hybrid Debranching Procedures a Good Choice?

A Systematic Review of Contemporary Outcomes from Aortic Arch In Situ Laser Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

In situ laser fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (L-FEVAR) is a novel and creative solution for complex aortic pathologies in the urgent and emergency setting. Outcomes of this technique, however, are poorly reported. We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of L-FEVAR in aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Cochrane guidelines. A search was conducted using Google, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies evaluating L-FEVAR. Two independent reviewers determined study inclusion. Case reports and series including < 10 patients were excluded. Reviewers also assessed the methodological quality and extracted data regarding outcomes. A meta-analysis of endoleak event rates was conducted using a fixed-effect model due to small sample size.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria between 2013 and 2021. Most studies were retrospective (87.5%) with median follow-up duration of 12.5 months (range 10-42). There were 440 patients included (range 15-148), mostly men (64%). Mean age was 61 years (range 53-68). Included patients were all symptomatic with L-FEVAR being technically successful in 93.3% of cases. The main indication for aortic arch intervention was aortic dissection. Single fenestrations occurred most frequently (68%), followed by triple (22%) then double fenestrations (9%). Meta-analysis of 8 studies (n = 440) demonstrated an endoleak event rate of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.09, P < 0.001) with no observed statistically significant heterogeneity of effects (Q = 7.91, P = 0.34). The median operative time was 162 min (range 53-252) with median length of stay of 10 days (range 7-17). Primary branch patency was 96.6%. Secondary patency rate was 97%. Pooled complication rates such as endoleak occurred in 4.8%, stroke in 2.0%, spinal cord ischemia in 0.2%, retrograde dissection in 0.9%, and 30-day death in 2.0%. Access complications occurred in 0.4%. Antiplatelet regimen was poorly reported in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser fenestration is a feasible, safe, and effective approach to treat aortic arch disease in patients who are unsuitable for open or custom-made endovascular means. High technical success and excellent short-term branch patency can be achieved. These single-institution series exhibit promising short-term outcomes. In a similar paradigm to investigational device exemptions studies for custom-made and physician modified endografts, these preliminary data make a persuasive argument for larger long-term multi-institutional prospective study of this promising technique.

The impact of prophylactic ascending aortic replacement on the long-term prognosis of hybrid arch repair

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of prophylactic zone 0 replacement with prosthetic grafts on the long-term prognosis and perioperative safety of zone 0 hybrid arch repair (HAR) when zone 0 is neither dilated nor pathologic.

METHODS

115 patients whose zone 0 aorta was neither dilated nor pathologic and who underwent zone 0 HAR from January 2009 to December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed, and divided into two groups depending on whether zone 0 was replaced, with 46 patients in the no-replacement group and 69 patients in the replacement group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline difference, and outcomes were compared after IPTW adjustment. The primary endpoints were overall survival and adverse aortic events (AAEs). The secondary endpoints were early composite adverse events and other perioperative complications. Subgroup analysis was performed by age, diagnosis, zone 0 maximum diameter and risk stratification.

RESULTS

The 5-year IPTW-adjusted overall survival rate was 84% in the no-replacement group, 90% in the replacement group, respectively (P=.61). With death as a competing risk, the IPTW-adjusted cumulative incidence of AAEs at 5 and 10 years was 23% and 41% in the no-replacement group, and 14% and 25% in the replacement group, respectively (sHR=0.56, 95%CI=0.23∼1.39; P=.23). Considering proximal complications alone, the replacement group exhibited lower 5-year (3% vs 18%) and 10-year (6% vs 36%) cumulative incidences of proximal complications (sHR=0.11, 95%CI=0.01∼0.91, P=.04) after IPTW adjustment. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the benefits of zone 0 replacement in reducing AAEs were observed in the age≤60-year-old (sHR=0.15, 95%CI=0.03∼0.75, P=.02) and type B aortic dissection (TBAD) (sHR=0.24, 95%CI=0.07∼0.82, P=.02) subgroups. Additionally, zone 0 replacement did not increase early composite adverse event morbidity (9% vs 21%, P=.08) or early mortality (7% vs 6%, P=.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Although zone 0 was neither dilated nor pathologic, prophylactic zone 0 replacement in zone 0 HAR significantly reduced the incidence of proximal complications, without impairing perioperative safety. Additionally, this strategy was associated with benefits in reducing AAEs in younger and TBAD patients. Thus, prophylactic zone 0 replacement should be considered for reconstructing a stable proximal landing zone in zone 0 HAR.

Hybrid type II and frozen elephant trunk in acute Stanford type A aortic dissections

Objectives. Composite frozen elephant trunk is an increasingly popular solution for complex aortic pathologies. This review aims to compare outcomes of zone 0 type II hybrid (hybrid II) with the composite frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique in managing acute Stanford type A aortic dissections. Methods. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched using PRISMA protocol. 11 relevant studies describing the outcomes of hybrid II arch repair and FET techniques in patients with type A aortic dissection were included in the meta-analysis. The study focused on early post-operative 30-day outcomes analysing mortality, stroke, spinal cord injury, renal impairment requiring dialysis, bleeding and lung infection. Results. 1305 patients were included in the analysis - 343 receiving hybrid II repair and 962 treated with the FET. Meta-analysis of proportions showed Hybrid II was associated with less early mortality [5.0 (CI 3.1-7.8) vs 8.1 (CI 6.5-10.0) %], stroke [2.3 (CI 1.1-4.6) vs 7.0 (CI 5.5-8.8) %], spinal cord injury [2.0 (CI 0.9-4.3) vs 3.8 (CI 2.8-5.3) %], renal impairment requiring dialysis [7.9 (CI 5.5-11.2) vs 11.8 (CI 9.8-14.0) %], reoperation for bleeding [3.9 (CI 1.8-8.4) vs 10.6 (CI 8.1-13.8) %] and lung infection [14.8 (CI 10.8-20.0) vs 20.7 (CI 16.9-25.1) %]. Conclusion. Hybrid II should be considered in favour of FET technique in acute Stanford type A dissection patients who are at higher risk due to age and comorbidities.

Application of different types of hybrid aortic arch repair:Toward to solve dissection involving the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes and effectiveness of different types of hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic dissection involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 168 patients underwent hybrid aortic arch repair for dissection involving the aortic arch. We collected data from our electronic medical records, including the presenting pathology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes. We included the following types of hybrid aortic arch repair: classic type I, type II, and type III hybrid aortic arch repair, as well as the new type IV hybrid aortic repair. We defined type IV hybrid aortic arch repair as revascularization of supra-aortic branches through extra-anatomy bypass without sternotomy, followed by stent-graft placement.

RESULTS

There were 23, 82, and 63 patients who underwent type I, type II, and type IV hybrid aortic arch repair, respectively. There were no type III hybrid aortic repairs performed. Forty-nine cases were performed urgently. The technical success rate was 99.4%. The early mortality rates of the total group, type I group, type II group, and type IV group were 6.5%, 4.3%, 8.5%, and 4.8%, respectively. Postoperative complications mainly included tracheotomy (8.9%), stroke (6%), wound infection (4.2%), renal insufficiency (8.9%), and endoleak (7.7%). With a mean follow-up of 45.1±28.5 months, the total 1-year and 5-year actual survival rates were 93.5% and 89.0%, respectively. At 6 months, the aortic diameter at the level of the diaphragm decreased significantly (30.8±4.9 mm vs 28.5±6.3 mm, p=0.012), and the rate of thrombosis of the false lumen at the level of pulmonary bifurcation and diaphragm were 95.7% and 83.1%. Ten patients underwent reintervention of the aorta, including 7 endovascular reinterventions, 2 total thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, and 1 open total arch replacement. For the total group, the free from aorta reintervention rate at 5 years was 91.4%.

CONCLUSION

Our results with hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic dissection involving the aortic arch are acceptable. The hybrid aortic arch repair could promote thrombosis of the distal false lumen while excluding intimal tears in the aortic arch.

Midterm Outcomes of an Adjustable Puncture Device for In Situ Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the midterm outcomes of in situ fenestration (ISF) with an adjustable puncture device for aortic arch branch preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

From October 2016 to April 2019, patients with complicated type B aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm > 5.5 cm in diameter, or aortic penetrating ulcer with a base > 20 mm or depth > 15 mm, who received TEVAR requiring a proximal sealing beyond zone 3 and underwent ISF using an adjustable puncture device, were included. After the procedure, patients were monitored at one, three, six, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Peri-operative and follow up data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty of 51 patients (98%) received successful ISFs. One, two, or three aortic arch branches were preserved in 44, six, and one patient, respectively. Intra-operatively, eight type Ia endoleaks and one type II endoleak were found on angiography. One patient died of cerebral hernia three days post-procedure from a severe stroke; one patient suffered from transient paraplegia but recovered in two weeks; one patient had a non-disabling stroke. The median follow up was 31 months (22.5 - 36.5 months). At six month follow up, all nine unmanaged endoleaks had disappeared. One new type Ia endoleak was identified in a patient at the one month follow up which resolved spontaneously one year later. All revascularised arteries were patent at the last follow up. No fractures, migrations, or bridging stent kinks were found.

CONCLUSION

In this largest mechanical based ISF study to date, an adjustable puncture device was shown to facilitate the procedure of ISF during endovascular repair of aortic diseases involving the aortic arch, with high success. The midterm outcome demonstrates the efficacy and safety of the device in assisting with preservation of aortic arch branches.

Treatment of aortic arch rupture grade III with hybrid arch replacement: the key role of perfusion preservation

Hybrid arch replacement is a well-accepted method for the treatment of lesions involving the aortic arch, though its benefits compared to classic surgical techniques remain controversial. Multiple surgical approaches have been analyzed in the literature for the treatment of such a challenging pathology. In this case report, we describe the surgical management of a 72-year-old man presenting with a complicated aortic arch rupture. The patient was treated urgently with a type I hybrid arch replacement in two stages, with total preservation of cerebral and systemic perfusion. Our case shows that hybrid arch methods are applicable even in emergency cases.

Hybrid Surgery to Manage Aortic Arch Pathology

Background and Objectives: Aortic arch disease is still a high-risk surgical challenge despite major advances both in surgical and anesthesiological management. A combined surgical and endovascular approach has been proposed for aortic arch disease treatment to avoid hypothermia and circulatory arrest in high-risk patients. Materials and Methods: Between June 2004 and June 2021, 112 patients were referred to our department for aortic arch surgery; 38 (33.9%) patients underwent supra-aortic debranching and endovascular treatment. Of these, 21 (55%) patients underwent type I aortic arch hybrid debranching procedure and in 17 (45%) patients a type II aortic arch hybrid debranching procedure was performed. None of the patients were emergent. Results: No intra-operative deaths were recorded. In the type I aortic arch hybrid debranching patients’ group, one patient died at home waiting the endovascular step, one developed ascending aortic dissection and another one developed a pseudoaneurysm at the site of the debranching at follow-up. In the type II aortic arch hybrid debranching patients’ group, left carotid artery branch closure was detected at follow-up in one patient. Thirty day/in-hospital rates of adverse neurological events for both the surgical and endovascular procedures were 3% for minor stroke, with no permanent neurological deficit and 0% for permanent paraplegia/paraparesis. In 100% of the cases, the endovascular step succeeded and the type Ia endoleak rate was 0%. Conclusions: Hybrid arch surgery is a valuable option for aortic arch aneurysm treatment in patients with high surgical risk. The choice of aortic arch debranching between type I or type II is crucial and depends on anatomic and clinical patient characteristics. Further larger scale studies are needed to better define the advantages of these techniques.

Comparison of Prognosis Between Hybrid Debranching Surgery and Total Open Arch Replacement With Frozen Elephant Trunk for Type A Acute Aortic Syndrome Patients

Background: It is unclear whether the total arch replacement (TAR) combined with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation and hybrid debranching surgery have a difference in the prognosis of patients with type A acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We attempted to compare the short-term and long-term prognosis of total arch replacement (TAR) combined with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation and hybrid debranching surgery in patients with type A acute aortic syndrome (AAS).

Methods: From January 2014 to September 2020, a total of 518 patients who underwent TAR with FET surgery and 31 patients who underwent hybrid surgery were included. We analyzed the post-operative mortality and morbidity of complications of the two surgical methods, and we determined 67 patients for subgroup analysis through a 1:2 propensity score match (PSM). We identified risk factors for patient mortality and post-operative neurological complications through multivariate regression analysis.

Results: Compared with the TAR with FET group, hybrid surgery could reduce aortic cross-clamp time, reduce intraoperative blood loss and prevent some patients from cardiopulmonary bypass. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the TAR with FET group and the hybrid surgery group (10.6 vs. 9.7%). However, hybrid surgery had increased the incidence of permanent neurological complications in patients (95%CI: 4.7–35.7%, P = 0.001), especially post-operative cerebral infarction (P < 0.001). During the average follow-up period of 31.6 months, there was no significant difference in the 1-year survival rate and 3-year survival rate between the TAR with FET group and the hybrid surgery group (P = 0.811), but hybrid surgery increased the incidence of long-term neurological complications (P < 0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, surgical methods were not a risk factor for post-operative deaths, but hybrid surgery was a risk factor for post-operative neurological complications (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Hybrid surgery is an acceptable treatment for AAS, and its post-operative mortality is similar to FET. But hybrid surgery may increase the risk of permanent neurological complications after surgery, and this risk must be carefully considered when choosing hybrid surgery.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch with zone zero endografting-Case series with review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We present single-institution results of types I and II hybrid procedures for aortic arch disease with 30-day and long-term results and review of the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients that underwent zone 0 endografting and open bypass from ascending aorta to the arch vessels at our institution between January 2013 and 2020. The following data for the systematic review were extracted from eligible studies: 30-day/in-hospital mortality, stroke rate, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate, renal failure requiring dialysis, development of retrograde dissection, early (<30 days) types I and III endoleak, follow-up length, late (>30 days) endoleak, and late (>30 days) mortality.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent hybrid aortic arch treatment in our institution. The most common aortic arch pathology was degenerative aortic aneurysm. The rate of retrograde dissection and SCI was 8.33%. Regarding the literature data, a total of 768 patients undergoing types I and II hybrid aortic arch debranching procedure. The pooled rate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 10.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.21-14.06), SCI pooled rate was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.76%-4.33%), and retrograde dissection pooled rate was 3.22% (95% CI, 1.99-4.72).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid arch techniques provide safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and midterm results.

A 10-Year Aortic Center Experience with Hybrid Repair of Chronic "Residual" Aortic Dissection After Type A Repair

PURPOSE

Hybrid aortic arch repair in patients with chronic residual aortic dissection (RAD) is a less invasive alternative to conventional surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the short-term and long-term results of hybrid treatment for RAD after type A repair.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center cohort study, all patients treated for chronic RAD with hybrid aortic arch repair were included. Indications for treatment were rapid aortic growth, aortic diameter > 55 mm, or aortic rupture.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2020, we performed 29 hybrid treatments for chronic RAD. Twenty-four patients were treated for complete supra-aortic debranching in zones 0 and 5 with left subclavian artery debranching alone in zone 2. There was 1 perioperative death (3.4%): The patient was treated for an aortic rupture. There was no spinal cord ischemia and 1 minor stroke (3.4%). After a median follow-up of 25.4 months (range 3-97 months), the long-term mortality was 10.3% (3/29) with no late aortic-related deaths. Twenty-seven patients (93.1%) developed FL thrombosis of the descending thoracic aorta; the rate of aneurysmal progression on thoraco-abdominal aorta was 41.4% (12/29), and the rate of aortic reintervention was 34.5% (10/29).

CONCLUSION

In a high-volume aortic center, hybrid repair of RAD is associated with good anatomical results and a low risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality, including that of patients treated in zone 0. A redo replacement of the ascending aortic segment is sometimes necessary to provide a safer proximal landing zone and reduce the risk of type 1 endoleak after TEVAR.

Endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch

This article reviews endovascular management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch. Therapeutic strategies intended for this complex aortic condition are evolving rapidly to allow the treatment of various hostile aortic anatomy and frail patients. Principles, technical considerations, devices and outcomes of each technique are reviewed and summarized. Hybrid repair offer similar early mortality and stroke rates compared to open conventional surgery. Arch chimney and other parallel graft techniques present poor long term outcome, and should be limited to emergency situations where no other option is available. Fenestrated stent-grafting is subjected to many technical challenges in aortic arch due to difficulties in stent-graft orientation and fenestration positioning. In situ fenestration is an off-label technique that should only be used as an emergency bailout maneuver, considering that temporary coverage of supra aortic trunk vessel and its long-term durability raise concern. Finally, in experienced hands and appropriate anatomic conditions, arch branched graft technology has shown itself to be a safe and effective alternative to open conventional surgery. No randomized controlled trials have yet compared total endovascular aortic arch repair with hybrid techniques and open arch repair. The management of chronic post-dissection aneurysms of the aortic arch is challenging, decision-making and interventions should continue to be performed in high-volume centers with a dedicated aortic team with an expertise in both open and endovascular repairs.

A computational fluid dynamics analysis of a patient with acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection after type I hybrid arch repair

The clinical presentation and natural courses in acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection (AD) are quite different from classical acute type A or type B AD, and the benefit of hybrid technique for this clinical scenario has not been validated. By using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, we aim to investigate a series of hemodynamic-related changes in aortic morphology in a patient who underwent type I hybrid arch repair (HAR). Computed tomographic angiographies (preoperative, one week, one month and one year after HAR) of a 52-year old male patient with arch-entry type acute non-A-non-B dissection were collected. Three-dimensional models were reconstructed by using an image processing package Mimics (materialize). Morphological and hemodynamic parameters of aorta and its branch vessels were analysed. Post-operatively, the false lumen index (FLI) gradually decreased from 2.02 to 0.38 and the curvature of the aortic arch was also reduced. However, the aortic arch lengthened and the diameter of the distal abdominal aorta expanded. In addition, the blood flow gradually became organised and the pressure in the true lumen (TL) increased over time and eventually approximated the pressure in the false lumen (FL). Moreover, the region of the abnormal wall shear stress (WSS) in the TL progressively decreased while the WSS in most areas of the FL remained below 4 dyne/cm². The blood supply to most of the aortic branches returned to normal at the one-year follow-up. Type I HAR is an effective procedure for patients with acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection in terms of restoring normal blood flow in TL and facilitating positive remodeling of distal aorta. Long-term surveillance and follow-up is mandatory.

Role of hybrid arch debranching in the treatment of newly diagnosed aortic arch malperfusion after repair of acute type A aortic dissection

We present the case of a 41-year-old man who underwent repair of an acute DeBakey type A aortic dissection with a Bentall-De Bono operation and presented with an early aortic arch malperfusion. The malperfusion was successfully treated with a hybrid arch debranching procedure. In this setting, the hybrid arch debranching procedure offers a safe alternative for repair.

Off pump hybrid extra-anatomic techniques for aortic arch repair-own experience

Background

Treatment of the aortic arch pathologies is technically challenging. In this study we assess early and late outcomes of hybrid aortic arch repairs that comprise extra-anatomic surgical procedures completed by thoracic endovascular interventions [thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)].

Methods

Since 2007, 21 patients (8 women and 13 men) with a median age of 48 years have undergone hybrid procedures for aortic arch pathologies. All of them were treated without cardio-pulmonary bypass. All survivors were followed up regularly and imaging examination were performed. A technical success, procedural complications as well as the early and late mortality and morbidity rates were evaluated.

Results

All patients survived surgery and TEVAR was technically successful in all of them. However, 2 individuals died (in-hospital mortality rate 9.5%) during in-hospital stay, both due to multi-organ failure (MOF). Additionally, one patient developed symptoms of cerebral stroke, another one of spinal cord ischemia. During the follow-up that ranged from 6 to 118 months and was completed by 100% of the survivors, one patient died 3 years after procedure because of sepsis (aorto-oesophageal fistula prior to intervention) and late vascular graft occlusions were noted in three cases.

Conclusions

Hybrid procedures on the aortic arch that comprise surgical and endovascular interventions has become an attractive and safe therapeutic option with acceptable mortality and morbidity rate. They may be considered as a method of choice in treatment of the elderly and high-risk patients.