Less invasive surgical treatment for aortic arch aneurysms in high-risk patients: A comparative study of hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair and conventional total arch replacement

The outcomes of aortic arch repair between open surgical repair and debranching endovascular hybrid surgical repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, open surgical aortic arch repair (OAR) and debranching hybrid surgical aortic arch repair (HAR) serve as significant therapeutic approaches for aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. It remains unclear which technique is preferable. Our study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two procedures.

METHODS

To identify comparison studies of debranching HAR and OAR, a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 2002 to April 2022. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218080).

RESULTS

Sixteen publications (1316 patients), including six propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis papers, were included in this study. Compared with the HAR group, the patients who underwent OAR were younger (OAR vs HAR: 67.53 ± 12.81 vs 71.29 ± 11.0; P < .00001), had less coronary artery disease (OAR vs HAR: 22.45% vs 32.6%; P = .007), less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OAR vs HAR: 16.16% vs 23.92%; P = .001), lower rates of previous stroke (OAR vs HAR: 12.46% vs 18.02%; P = .05), and a lower EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) score (OAR vs HAR: 6.27 ± 1.04 vs 6.9 ± 3.76; P < .00001). HAR was associated with less postoperative blood transfusion (OAR vs HAR: 12.23% vs 7.91%; P = .04), shorter length of intensive care unit stays (OAR vs HAR: 5.92 ± 7.58 days vs 4.02 ± 6.60 days; P < .00001) and hospital stays (OAR vs HAR: 21.59 ± 17.54 days vs 16.49 ± 18.45 days; P < .0001), lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding complications (OAR vs HAR: 8.07% vs 3.96%; P = .01), fewer postoperative pulmonary complication (OAR vs HAR: 14.75% vs 5.02%; P < .0001), and acute renal failure (OAR vs HAR: 7.54% vs 5.17%; P = .03). In the PSM subgroup, the rates of spinal cord ischemic (OAR vs HAR: 5.75% vs 11.49%; P = .02), stroke (OAR vs HAR: 5.1% vs 17.35%; P = .01), and permanent paraplegia (OAR vs HAR: 2.79% vs 6.08%; P = .006) were lower in the OAR group than that in the HAR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year survival rates (HAR vs OAR: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.54; P = .10), the 3-year and 5-year survivals were significantly higher in the OAR group than that in the HAR group (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.69; P = .01; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.68; P = .01). In the PSM subgroup, the OAR group was also significantly superior to the HAR group in terms of 3-year and 5-year survivals (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.73; P = .04; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.67; P = .04). The reintervention rate in the HAR group was significantly higher than that in the OAR group (OAR vs HAR: 8.24% vs 16.01%; P = .01). The most common reintervention was postoperative bleeding (8.07%) in the OAR group and endoleak (9.67%) in the HAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that debranching HAR was associated with fewer perioperative complications than the OAR group, except for postoperative permanent paraplegia, reintervention, and stroke events. The OAR group demonstrated better 3-year and 5-year survivals than the debranching HAR group. However, patients in the OAR group had fewer comorbid factors and were younger than those in the HAR group. High-quality studies and well-powered randomized trials are needed to further evaluate this evolving field.

Coil-in-Plug Method for Left Subclavian Artery Embolization in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair with Arch Vessel Debranching

Objectives: Since 2018, we have routinely placed an Amplatzer vascular plug (AVP) in the proximal left subclavian artery (LSCA) to prevent embolic events during thoracic endovascular aortic repair with arch vessel debranching (d-TEVAR). Type II endoleaks of LSCA origin were observed in two patients (20%), and the coil-in-plug (CIP) method, i.e., microcatheter insertion through the plug and addition of coil embolization, which has been used since August 2019, was performed. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the CIP method for LSCA embolization. Methods: A total of 26 patients who underwent d-TEVAR for an aortic arch aneurysm between 2018 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Ten patients who underwent d-TEVAR with a simple AVP placement (the control group) and 16 patients who underwent d-TEVAR with the CIP method (the CIP group) were compared. Results: Two patients had type II endoleaks in the control group, whereas none had them in the CIP group. LSCA length was significantly shorter in patients with endoleaks than in those without endoleaks (24.5 vs. 50.3 mm; p<0.01). No perioperative deaths or cerebral infarctions occurred in either group. Conclusions: AVP placement in the LSCA during d-TEVAR effectively prevented perioperative cerebral infarction. d-TEVAR with CIP was especially useful in patients with a short LSCA.

Preliminary results from an Italian National Registry on the outcomes of the Najuta fenestrated aortic arch endograft

BACKGROUND

Arch pathology represents one of the last frontiers in aortic aneurysm endovascular management. Several companies recently developed dedicated branched and fenestrated endografts specifically designed for the aortic arch, aiming to overcome some of the issues associated with standard thoracic endograft and supra-aortic vessels extra-anatomic debranching. This study aimed to evaluate early outcomes obtained with a custom-made fenestrated endograft approved for thoracic aortic aneurysms exclusion.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated with the Najuta endograft (Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc, Tokyo, Japan) in Italy were enrolled prospectively and included in the study population. Anatomic characteristics and perioperative data were analyzed retrospectively. Study end points were technical success, 30-day clinical success, overall survival, supra-aortic vessel patency, endoleak, and need for reintervention or surgical conversion.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 76 patients received a Najuta endograft in Italy and were enrolled in the study. The median patient age was 72 years (interquartile range, 69-76 years) and 80.3% were male. Most of the patients received treatment for atherosclerotic aneurysms (80.3%); others were treated for postdissection aneurysms (7.9%), penetrating aortic ulcer (9.2%), or type I endoleak correction after previous thoracic endovascular repair (2.6%). Overall, 161 supra-aortic vessels were preserved through a dedicated fenestration. Technical success was achieved in 74 of 76 procedure (97.4%); both failures were associated with endoleak detection at final angiography (one type I and one type III endoleak). Two distal migrations occurred during the implanting procedure. Clinical success at 30 days was 94.7%. Two early reinterventions were needed within 30 days after index procedure: in one case, an aortic false lumen coils embolization was performed, because distal re-entry caused enlargement of the postdissection thoracic aneurysm. The other procedure consisted of a femoral pseudoaneurysm repair. The median follow-up was 7 months (interquartile range, 3-15 months); no supra-aortic vessel occlusions occurred and no patients needed surgical conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results suggest that, in selected patients with aortic arch pathology needing a proximal landing, an endovascular approach with the Najuta system is safe and effective, especially for those at high surgical risk. A strict follow-up with high-quality computed tomography angiography images and eventual evaluation for long-term complications is needed to confirm these initial experience findings.

Effectiveness and Minimal-Invasiveness of Zone 0 Landing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Branched Endograft

Background: Zone 0 landing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch diseases has become a topic of interest. This study aimed to verify whether branced TEVAR (bTEVAR) is an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment by comparing the outcomes of bTEVAR and hybrid TEVAR (hTEVAR) in landing zone 0. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included 54 patients (bTEVAR, n = 25; hTEVAR, n = 29; median age, 78 years; median follow-up period, 5.4 years) from October 2012 to June 2018. The logistic Euro-SCORE was significantly higher in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group (38% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Results: There was no significant difference the in-hospital mortality between the bTEVAR and hTEVAR groups (0% vs. 3.4%, p = 1.00). The operative time (220 vs. 279 min, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days, p = 0.013) were significantly shorter in the bTEVAR group than in the hTEVAR group. The 7-year free rates of aorta-related deaths (bTEVAR [95.5%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.390) and aortic reintervention (bTEVAR [86.3%] vs. hTEVAR [86.9%], Log-rankp = 0.638) were not significantly different. Conclusions: The early and mid-term outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. bTEVAR might be superior to hTEVAR in that it is less invasive. Therefore, bTEVAR may be considered an effective and a more minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients.

Hybrid and endovascular approaches to the aortic arch

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch remains open total arch replacement. High-risk operative candidates may benefit from hybrid or completely endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some are fenestrated or scalloped, whereas others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Initial results for completely endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging. Current data estimates that rates of successful deployment of arch endografts ranges from 84.2% to 100%, whereas operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%.

SUMMARY

More data are necessary to compare hybrid and endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch to conventional open total arch replacement. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. However, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in high-risk patients with complex aneurysms and dissections of the aortic arch.

Effectiveness of Proximal Landing Zones 0, 1, and 2 Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single Centre 12 Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is being accepted increasingly as a first line treatment for arch repair at the present authors' institution. This study aimed to clarify the effectiveness of zones 0, 1, and 2 landing hybrid TEVAR.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single centre case series. From April 2008 to March 2020, 348 patients (median age 72 years; interquartile range [IQR] 65, 77 years) were enrolled, with a median follow up period of 5.6 years (IQR 2.6, 8.7 years). The procedures included zone 0 in 135 patients (38.8%), zone 1 in 82 patients (23.6%), and zone 2 proximal landing zone (LZ) hybrid TEVAR in 131 patients (37.6%). The pathologies consisted of dissecting aortic aneurysms in 123 (35.3%) patients. Emergency procedures were performed in 39 (11.2%) patients.

RESULTS

The 30 day mortality (n = 2, 0.6%) and hospital deaths (n = 6, 1.7%) were registered. The stroke rate was 1.1% (n = 4), while early and late endoleak rates were 4.8% (n = 17) and 1.7% (n = 6), respectively. Type 1a endoleak and retrograde type A dissection occurred in seven (2.0%) and three (0.9%) patients, respectively. The cumulative survival, freedom from aorta related deaths, and freedom from aortic events in 10 years were 75.0%, 97.2%, and 84.1%, respectively. The freedom from aortic events in each landing zone in 10 years was 82.3%, 81.4%, and 87.9% for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The 10 year survival rates were 82.5% and 73.6%; the 10 year aorta related death free rates were 94.9% and 98.6%, and the 10 year aortic event free rates were 82.3% and 85.5% in the zone 0 and zone 1 and 2 TEVAR, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory early and long term results of hybrid arch repair at zones 0, 1, and 2 were achieved. To avoid complications and aortic events, the treatment strategy of hybrid arch repair for aortic arch pathologies should be tailored using accurate pre-operative assessment of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch.

Actual incidence of cerebral infarction after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a magnetic resonance imaging study

 

OBJECTIVES

The actual incidence of cerebral infarction (CI), including asymptomatic infarction, owing to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has not been reported in detail. This study was performed to investigate the incidence of post-TEVAR CI by using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and to determine the risk factors for both symptomatic and asymptomatic CI.

METHODS

We examined 64 patients undergoing TEVAR at our institute between April 2017 and November 2020. Aortic atheroma was graded from 1 to 5 by preoperative computed tomography. Cerebral DW-MRIs were conducted 2 days after the procedure to diagnose postoperative CI.

RESULTS

A total of 44 new foci were detected by post-interventional cerebral DW-MRI in 22 patients (34.4%). Only one patient developed a symptomatic stroke (1.6%), and TEVAR was successfully completed in all cases. Debranching of the aortic arch and left subclavian artery occlusion with a vascular plug was performed in 19 (29.7%) and 12 (18.8%) patients, respectively. The number of patients with proximal landing zones 0–2 was significantly higher in the CI group than in the non-CI group (68.2% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001). The following risk factors were identified for asymptomatic CI: aortic arch debranching (P < 0.001), left subclavian artery occlusion (P = 0.001) and grade 4/5 aortic arch atheroma (P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Over one-third of the patients examined by cerebral DW-MRI after TEVAR were diagnosed with CI. High-grade atheroma and TEVAR landing in zone 0–2 were found to be positively associated with asymptomatic CI.

Clinical trial registration

02-014.

Long-term results of hybrid aortic arch repair using landing zone 0: a single-centre study

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been gradually extended to the aortic arch region, with improved results. However, the rates of strokes and endoleaks in a hybrid TEVAR remain high. The goal of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing using our treatment strategy.

METHODS

From April 2008 to March 2020, a total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 3.2 years. The procedures included total debranching TEVAR with graft replacement of the ascending aorta in 62 patients, total debranching TEVAR with ascending aorta banding in 19 patients and total debranching TEVAR without ascending aorta banding in 21 patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality and hospital deaths were 1.0% (n = 1) and 3.9% (n = 4), respectively. The rates of aortic complications and endoleaks during the first 30 days postoperatively were 8.8% (n = 9) and 4.9% (n = 5), respectively. There was no type 1a endoleak, whereas retrograde type A dissection occurred in 2 (2.0%) patients. The rate of late aortic events was 3.9% (n = 4); there were no late endoleaks or aneurysm ruptures. The 10-year survival rate was 73.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3-83.8%]. The 10-year rates of aorta-related deaths and aortic events when performing a competitive-risk analysis were 29.4% (95% CI 16.3-42.5%) and 7.2 (95% CI 23.0-51.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory early and long-term results of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing were achieved using our treatment strategy. When performing hybrid TEVAR in zone 0, postoperative aortic events may be reduced by accurate preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta.

The imperative for an updated cirrhosis surgical risk score

The burden of cirrhosis is increasing, as is the need for surgeries in patients with cirrhosis. These patients have increased surgical risk relative to non-cirrhotic patients. Unfortunately, currently available cirrhosis surgical risk prediction tools are non-specific, poorly calibrated, limited in scope, and/or outdated. The Mayo score is the only dedicated tool to provide discrete post-operative mortality predictions for patients with cirrhosis, however it has several limitations. First, its single-center nature does not reflect institution-specific practices that may impact surgical risk. Second, it pre-dates major surgical changes that have changed the landscape of patient selection and surgical risk. Third, it has been shown to overestimate risk in external validation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the score does not account for differences in risk based on surgery type. The clinical consequences of inaccurate prediction and risk overestimation are significant, as patients with otherwise acceptable risk may be denied elective surgical procedures, thereby increasing their future need for higher-risk emergent procedures. Confident evaluation of the risks and benefits of surgery in this growing population requires an updated, generalizable, and accurate cirrhosis surgical risk calculator that incorporates the type of surgery under consideration.

Early-to-midterm outcomes of aortic balloon occlusion technique versus hybrid procedure for aortic arch diseases

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the early-to-midterm outcomes of patients treated with the frozen elephant trunk procedure with aortic balloon occlusion (FET-ABO) versus hybrid repair for aortic arch diseases.

METHODS

Patients who underwent the FET-ABO (n = 134) and the hybrid procedure (n = 220) from 2017 to 2020 at our institution were analysed retrospectively. Early-to-midterm outcomes were compared using inverse probability weighting. Low-risk and high-risk subgroup analyses were performed according to the cut-off of the additive European System for Cardiac Operative Evaluation value of 6.

RESULTS

The present study demonstrated similar 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 8.6%; P = 0.118) and adverse events between the FET-ABO and the hybrid groups. Fewer intraoperative red blood cell transfusions (0.54 ± 1.45 vs 1.26 ± 2.47 U; P = 0.001), decreased total hospital costs (P < 0.001) and considerable early-to-midterm survival [crude: hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.91; P = 0.030; adjusted: HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.91; P = 0.032) were obtained with the FET-ABO compared to the hybrid procedure. The inverse probability weighting method substantiated the foregoing results. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that the FET-ABO procedure had a trend towards improved survival in low-risk patients (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.93; P = 0.041) and achieved outcomes comparable to those of the hybrid procedure in high-risk patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15-1.42; P = 0.176).

CONCLUSIONS

The FET-ABO technique could be better promoted in hospitals lacking experience and equipment and could be more viable and cost-effective for selected patients compared with the hybrid procedure.

Management of arch aneurysms with a single-branch thoracic endograft in zone 0

Background

We present preliminary data from a patient cohort undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Ishimaru zone 0 and 1 using a novel branched arch endograft.

Methods

This US multicenter early feasibility investigational device exemption clinical trial treated 9 patients with a mean age 72.8 ± 8.0 years (77.8% male). The endograft was designed with a single side branch designed to facilitate aortic coverage proximal to the innominate or left carotid artery while maintaining branch vessel patency. Pathology treated included fusiform (n = 2) or saccular (n = 7) aneurysm, with a maximum aortic diameter of 6.3 ± 0.7 cm. Treatment was into zone 0 in 8 patients, and zone 1 in 1 patient.

Results

All patients underwent initial successful first-stage supra-aortic trunk revascularization using a variety of techniques, without the occurrence of stroke. For the second thoracic endovascular aortic repair stage, median total treatment length was 20 cm. The primary end point of device delivery and branch vessel patency was achieved in 100% of patients, without 30-day mortality or spinal cord ischemia. Cerebrovascular events were observed in 2 patients through 30 days. No type I or III endoleaks were reported and all side branches were patent at 12-month imaging follow-up.

Conclusions

Endovascular repair of Ishimaru zone 0 or 1 arch aortic aneurysms can be achieved with a novel branched arch endograft. Future studies will evaluate the mid-term outcomes with this device in other pathologies and further define the occurrence of postoperative neurologic events.

Risk Prediction Models for Post-Operative Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk of postoperative mortality. Currently available tools to predict postoperative risk are suboptimally calibrated and do not account for surgery type. Our objective was to use population-level data to derive and internally validate cirrhosis surgical risk models.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Disease (VOCAL) cohort, which contains granular data on patients with cirrhosis from 128 U.S. medical centers, merged with the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) to identify surgical procedures. We categorized surgeries as abdominal wall, vascular, abdominal, cardiac, chest, or orthopedic and used multivariable logistic regression to model 30-, 90-, and 180-day postoperative mortality (VOCAL-Penn models). We compared model discrimination and calibration of VOCAL-Penn to the Mayo Risk Score (MRS), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium MELD-Na, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores. We identified 4,712 surgical procedures in 3,785 patients with cirrhosis. The VOCAL-Penn models were derived and internally validated with excellent discrimination (30-day postoperative mortality C-statistic = 0.859; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.809-0.909). Predictors included age, preoperative albumin, platelet count, bilirubin, surgery category, emergency indication, fatty liver disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and obesity. Model performance was superior to MELD, MELD-Na, CTP, and MRS at all time points (e.g., 30-day postoperative mortality C-statistic for MRS = 0.766; 95% CI, 0.676-0.855) in terms of discrimination and calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The VOCAL-Penn models substantially improve postoperative mortality predictions in patients with cirrhosis. These models may be applied in practice to improve preoperative risk stratification and optimize patient selection for surgical procedures (www.vocalpennscore.com).

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the morbidity and mortality outcomes of adult patients with aortic arch disease managed with extra-anatomical bypass avoiding median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass, with simultaneous or staged hybrid zone 1 endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were carried out to identify relevant studies on zone 1 hybrid arch repair. Extracted data were analyzed by random effects models. Primary outcomes included 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Longitudinal survival was analyzed up to 7 years from date of operation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital morbidity, as well as late endoleak and reintervention.

RESULTS

Twenty studies incorporating 348 patients were included. In-hospital or 30-day mortality was 10.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.7-14.9%). Overall operative technical success was 89.8% (83.7-93.8%). Early type 1 endoleak rate was 14.0% (7.4-24.7%). Stroke prevalence was 9.5% (6.1-14.3%). Spinal cord paraplegia prevalence was 3.8% (1.9-7.6%). Retrograde aortic dissection prevalence was 4.1% (1.5-10.6%). Survival at 1 year postoperatively was 77.2% (66.1-85.4%). Survival at 3 years postoperatively was 73.7% (59.2-84.4%). Survival beyond 4 years postoperatively (range 58-80 months) was 65.9% (53.6-76.4%). Late type 1 endoleak prevalence was 11.8% (5.5-23.7%). Overall rate of reintervention was 11.6% (6.4-20.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 1 hybrid repair has evidence for satisfactory short- and long-term morbidity/mortality outcomes and may be considered as an alternative approach to aortic arch disease.

Hybrid Open-Endovascular Repair in a Patient With Giant Contained Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

Contained rupture of an aortic aneurysm is a high-mortality condition that requires immediate repair. Open repair has been the gold standard; however, endovascular and hybrid open-endovascular repair techniques have also emerged as less invasive solutions to this vascular emergency. Here. we present a patient with a giant 14.0 cm contained rupture of a Thoracic aortic aneurysm and 7.4 cm juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm who was successfully treated with hybrid open-endovascular repair.

Total endovascular aortic repairs using branched devices for arch and thoracoabdominal aneurysms

Endovascular repair can be an alternative to conventional surgery for arch and thoracoabdominal aneurysms; however, it has the limits of available stent-grafts in anatomy. We present the case of an 87-year-old woman who had dual aneurysms in the arch and thoracoabdominal regions. We considered that traditional open surgery was of extremely high risk, because she was an octogenarian and had multiple comorbidities. We successfully treated the aortic arch aneurysm and the thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm using endovascular stent-grafts in a high-risk patient who was a poor candidate for the conventional open surgery.

Determining the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone for TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: Comparing the Occurrence of the Bird-Beak Phenomenon in Zone 0 vs Zones 1 and 2

Purpose: To identify the optimal proximal landing zone for thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) of aortic arch pathologies so as to avoid the bird-beak phenomenon that leads to type Ia endoleak. Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center review was conducted of 164 patients (mean age 70.3±10.8 years, range 29–93; 127 men) who underwent repairs of the aortic arch using hybrid TEVAR from April 2008 to March 2017. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the proximal landing zone: 43 zone 0 patients (26.2%) had total debranching TEVAR (n=18) or total endovascular aortic repair (n=25) while 121 patients (73.8%) had TEVAR landing in zones 1 (n=41) or 2 (n=80). Bird-beak configurations, endoleaks, and stent migrations were assessed on the postoperative and latest computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans. Overall survival and freedom from the bird-beak configuration, aorta-related death, and aortic events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: All procedures were successful, without any 30-day mortality. There were 3 early complications (1.8%; all strokes) and 10 early endoleaks (6.1%; no type Ia). On the first postoperative CTA, 42 patients (25.6%) had a bird-beak configuration. The zone 0 patients had significantly fewer (p<0.001), shorter (p<0.004), and less angulated (p<0.001) bird-beak configurations than in zones 1–2. The mean follow-up period was 4.2 years (range 0.5–8.8). There were 18 late deaths (11.0%); only one was related to the aorta (rupture due to a type Ib endoleak in a zone 0 patient). The 5-year freedom from aorta-related death was not significantly different between groups (zone 0: 96.9% vs zones 1–2: 100%, p=0.080). On the latest CTA, 51 (31.0%) patients had a bird-beak configuration; of those, 22 (13.4%) showed >3-mm progression. The freedom from bird-beak configuration estimate was significantly higher in the zone 0 group (95.4%) vs zones 1–2 (57.8%; HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.31, p<0.001). There were 9 late endoleaks (4 type Ia; none in the zone 0 group). The rate of stent-graft migration was significantly lower in the zone 0 group (2.3% vs 14.1% in zones 1–2, p=0.035). Conclusion: Early and most late results in zone 0 TEVAR were equal to those in zones 1 and 2; however, there were no late type Ia endoleaks and fewer bird-beak configurations associated with zone 0 TEVAR, which suggests that zone 0 landing is advantageous for preventing these complications.

Acute Type I aortic dissection: a propensity-matched comparison of elephant trunk and arch debranching repairs

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to compare the performance of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) and the hybrid aortic arch debranching procedures for acute Type I aortic dissection.

METHODS

From January 2013 to December 2015, 168 patients with Type I aortic disease underwent ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement with FET implantation (the FET group, n = 132) or arch debranching with 1-stage aortic arch exclusion using an endovascular stent in a retrograde manner (the debranching group, n = 36). A propensity score-matched subgroup of 26 pairs was identified. Perioperative data and mid-term follow-up results were assessed.

RESULTS

In the FET and the debranching groups, the 30-day mortality rates were 14.4% and 5.6% (P = 0.254) and the incidence of stroke was 5.3% and 5.6% (P > 0.999). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shortened, and the circulatory arrest was exempted in the debranching group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was identified as a predictor for 30-day mortality (P = 0.027, odds ratio 1.01). Body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 was associated with multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (P = 0.016, odds ratio 3.51). Surgical modality did not significantly affect early outcomes. The 3-year survival rate was 76.1% (95% confidence interval, 63.0-81.9%) in the FET group and 82.5% (95% confidence interval, 65.2-91.8%) in the debranching group (P = 0.330).

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid aortic arch procedure without circulatory arrest can be safely performed on patients with acute Type I aortic dissection. Irrespective of cost-effectiveness, arch debranching was a promising alternative for patients who were unfit for the FET procedure.

Balloon protection of the left subclavian artery in debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

Since 2012, we have routinely applied balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery to prevent embolic events through the left vertebral artery during debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair. This study aimed to study the effectiveness of balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 157 patients who underwent debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair between 2007 and 2017. Of these, 71 patients for whom balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery was used were assigned to the balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery group (58 men; age: 78 ± 6.7 years), and 86 patients were assigned to the control group (66 men; age: 78 ± 8.9 years). A total of 51 patients from each group were matched by their propensity scores to adjust for differences in the patients' characteristics.

RESULTS

Perioperative stroke was significantly lower in the balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery group than in the control group (0%: 0/71 vs 7.9%: 7/86, P = .014). Freedom from all causes of mortality at 2 and 4 years was significantly higher in the balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery group compared with the control group (93%/76% vs 77%/59%, P = .015). Freedom from aortic death at 2 and 4 years was similar in both groups (97%/97% vs 91%/86%, P = .094). Propensity score matching yielded similar results of better freedom from all causes of mortality in the balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery group (93%/93% vs 81%/63%, P = .017) and equivalent aortic death in both groups (95%/95% vs 92%/88%, P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair using balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery demonstrated more appropriate early and late outcomes. Evaluation using propensity score matching enhanced the efficacy of balloon protection of the proximal left subclavian artery.

National Trends of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Versus Open Repair in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury

BACKGROUND

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) occurs in <1% of all trauma admissions. Considering the advent of multiple thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) devices over the past decade, improved outcomes of TEVAR supported in the literature, rapid diagnosis, and improved preoperative planning of BTAI using computed tomography imaging, we hypothesized that the national incidence of TEVAR in BTAI has increased while open repair has decreased. In addition, we hypothesized that the mortality risk in BTAI patients undergoing TEVAR would be lower than open repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2015. The primary end points of interest included the incidence of TEVAR and open repair, as well as mortality in BTAI patients undergoing intervention. Covariates were included in a multivariable analysis to determine risk for mortality in BTAI patients undergoing open repair versus TEVAR.

RESULTS

We identified 3,628 BTAI patients undergoing intervention. Of these, 3,226 underwent TEVAR (87.9%), and 445 (12.1%) underwent open repair. Compared with open repair, TEVAR had a shorter mean length of stay (LOS) (19.8 vs. 21.3 days, P < 0.05) and lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) (5.6% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.05) and mortality (8.8% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.05). Open repair had greater risk for mortality than TEVAR (odds ratio = 1.63, confidence intervals = 1.19-2.23, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of open repair decreased from 7.4% in 2007 to 1.9% in 2015, whereas TEVAR increased from 12.1 to 25.7% during the same time period. We confirmed previous findings that endovascular repair is associated with decreased mortality, LOS, and major complications, including AKI. Future investigations should focus on identifying the ideal patient candidate for TEVAR and elucidate precise indications for TEVAR in BTAI.

Comparison of open surgical versus hybrid endovascular repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms with distal arch involvement

Background

Our aim was to compare the efficacies of conventional open thoracotomy and hybrid endovascular technique in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms involving the distal arch.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2015, 125 consecutive patients with descending aneurysms involving distal arch underwent open repair via thoracotomy (n=79) or zone 1/2 hybrid endovascular repair (n=46). Surgeries entailing total arch replacement by elephant trunk technique (with sternotomy) and Zone 0 hybrid arch repairs were excluded. Early and late outcomes were compared using propensity scores and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results

In-hospital mortality rates for open repair (10.1%) and hybrid repair (6.5%) did not differ significantly (P=0.49). Major adverse outcomes included stroke (11.4% vs. 8.7%), paraplegia (2.5% vs. 0.0%) and lung complications (19.0% vs. 6.5%). Once adjusted by IPTW, hospital mortality risk for conventional open repair (OR =4.396; P=0.086) tended to be higher, and there was significant risk of lung complications (OR =4.372; P=0.025). However, both techniques were similar in terms of 30-day mortality (OR =2.745; P=0.257), stroke (OR =2.134; P=0.217), paraplegia (OR =3.639; P=0.407), and midterm survival (OR =1.05; P=0.90). Freedom from reintervention at 10 years was significantly better for open repair (85.2%±7.1%) compared with the hybrid approach (46.3%±11.0%; OR =0.13; P<0.01).

Conclusions

Hybrid arch repair conferred a significantly lower incidence of pulmonary complications, without benefitting perioperative mortality and stroke. However, open repair proved more reliable, showing greater durability. Long-term investigations are needed to confirm the viability and safety of hybrid repair as an alternative treatment in this setting.

Zone zero hybrid arch exclusion versus open total arch replacement

Open total aortic arch replacement is one of the most technically demanding operations in cardiothoracic surgery, requiring operator expertise and intraoperative and postoperative teamwork. Despite current advancements in the field of open aortic surgery with regard to intraoperative brain protection and postoperative care, the morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch operations varies. Endovascular and hybrid procedures involving the use of zone 0 as a landing zone allow fair comparison between open total arch and hybrid operations. Hybrid procedures involving all of the other landing zones [1-4] should not be compared with open total arch replacement, as the extent of the pathology is different.

Clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches for proximal descending thoracic aneurysm involving the distal arch

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of different approaches to patients with proximal descending thoracic aneurysm (DTA) involving the distal arch.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2016, 229 consecutive patients with proximal descending aorta aneurysm involving the distal arch underwent surgery using different approaches: total arch and DTA replacement via sternotomy (TAR group; n = 98), hemiarch and DTA replacement via thoracotomy (DTR group; n = 84), or hybrid arch repair (HAR group; n = 47). We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of the 3 groups with a mean follow-up duration of 60.2 months.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality rate was 3.1% (3/98) in the TAR group, 11.9% (10/84) in the DTR group, and 4.3% (2/47) in the HAR group (P = .04). The TAR group had a lower incidence of stroke (3.1%, 3/98) compared with the DTR (13.1%, 11/84) and HAR (10.6%, 5/47) groups (P = .03). The overall survival rate at 10 years was 82.8% ± 5.6% for the TAR group, 61.0% ± 8.6% for the DTR group, and 55.9% ± 9.0% for the HAR group (vs DTR [P = .03] and HAR [P < .01]). The freedom from composite of aortic events at 10 years was 75.6% ± 8.1% in the TAR group, 43.6% ± 14.9% in the DTR group, and 31.1% ± 11.5% in the HAR group (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The sternotomy approach showed better outcomes in terms of operative mortality, stroke, and long-term survival compared with the thoracotomy or hybrid approaches. This study suggests that the sternotomy approach is the superior option for patients with proximal descending aneurysm involving the distal arch.

Objective analysis of midterm outcomes of conventional and hybrid aortic arch repair by propensity-score matching

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the objective outcomes of conventional total aortic arch repair (CTAR) and hybrid arch repair by using propensity-score matching to reduce selection bias.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and April 2016, 470 consecutive patients underwent isolated aortic arch repair (excluding hemiarch or partial arch reconstruction, and cases with concomitant cardiac surgeries) at a single cardiovascular institute. We categorized 337 total aortic arch repair with antegrade cerebral perfusion under circulatory arrest as the CTAR group and 58 hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair as the HAR group. Seventy-five patients with scheduled and staged thoracic endovascular aortic repair after total aortic arch repair with elephant trunk were excluded. Then, we compared early and midterm outcomes between the propensity-matched group (43 CTAR vs HAR pairs).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 30-day and operative deaths between the CTAR and HAR groups (4.7% [2/43] vs 7.0% [3/43]; P = .4142 and 11.6% [5/43] vs 16.3% [7/43]; P = .5637). Although there were no significant differences in the incidences of other major complications, permanent stroke was observed more frequently in the HAR group (0% [0/43] vs 11.6% [5/43]; P = .0064) compared with the CTAR group. Matching analysis, however, revealed an equivalent 5-year survival rate between the CTAR and HAR groups (80.5% vs 59.9%; P = .1300).

CONCLUSIONS

Matching analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of stroke in the HAR group but equivalent midterm outcomes in the hybrid group compared with the CTAR group.

Treatment of an Aortic Arch Aneurysm with Scalloped and Fenestrated Thoracic Stent Graft and Left Carotid to Subclavian Artery Bypass

We report a successful treatment of thoracic arch aneurysm using a combination of hybrid approach and a customized stent graft in a frail patient with challenging anatomy and concomitant large retrosternal goiter. The patient is an 82-year-old lady with multiple comorbidities who presented to her general practitioner for anorexia and significant weight loss. She was incidentally found to have a 6.6-cm saccular distal aortic arch aneurysm, a 5.5-cm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, and a large goiter adjacent to the left common carotid artery (CCA) with retrosternal extension. The arch aneurysm was successfully managed with an open left common carotid to left subclavian bypass followed by thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a Cook stent graft customized to the patient's anatomy incorporating a proximal scallop for the brachiocephalic artery and a fenestration for the left CCA, and Amplatzer plug for occlusion of the ostium of the left subclavian artery. There was no endoleak and she was discharged uneventfully. She is planned for staged EVAR of her abdominal aortic aneurysm at a later date. In the presence of difficult arch aneurysm anatomies, the hybrid approach with bespoke stent grafts is a feasible alternative to open aortic arch replacement.

Evolving practice pattern changes and outcomes in the era of hybrid aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVE

The role of hybrid repair in the management of aortic arch pathology, and long-term outcomes with these techniques, remains uncertain. We report a decade of experience with hybrid arch repair (HAR) and assess institutional practice patterns with regard to the use of hybrid and open techniques.

METHODS

Hybrid and open total and distal arch procedures performed between July 2005 and January 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional aortic surgery database. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival were calculated. Hybrid and open procedural volumes over the study period were assessed to evaluate for potential practice pattern changes.

RESULTS

During the study period 148 consecutive procedures were performed for repair of transverse and distal aortic arch pathology, including 101 hybrid repairs and 47 open total or distal arch repairs. Patients in the hybrid repair group were significantly older with a greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Perioperative mortality and outcomes were not significantly different between the hybrid and open groups, aside from decreased median length of stay after hybrid repair. Need for subsequent reintervention was significantly greater after hybrid repair. Unadjusted long-term survival was superior after open repair (70% 5-year survival open vs 47% hybrid; P = .03), although aorta-specific survival was similar (98% 5-year aorta-specific survival open vs 93% hybrid; P = .59). Institutional use of HAR decreased over the final 3 years of the study, with an associated increased use of open total or distal arch repairs. This was primarily the result of decreased use of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. Concurrent with this apparent increased stringency around patient selection for HAR, perioperative morbidity and mortality was reduced, including avoidance of retrograde type A dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

HAR remains a viable option for higher-risk patients with transverse arch pathology with perioperative outcomes and long-term aorta-specific survival similar to open repair, albeit at a cost of increased reintervention. This observational single-institution study would suggest decreased use in more recent years in favor of open repair due to avoidance of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. This decline in the institutional use of native zone 0 hybrid repairs was associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

Midterm results of endovascular stent grafts in the proximal aortic arch (zone 0): an imaging perspective

BACKGROUND

Endovascular options to repair the arch and ascending aorta are rapidly evolving. Little is known about the durability of endovascular devices deployed at this location. This report describes a single-centre experience with the novel application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by examining clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for a cohort of patients undergoing TEVAR of the arch or ascending aorta, or both, at a single centre from November 2008-July 2012.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were included in the study, with mean imaging follow-up of 38 months (range, 15-72 months). Two complications at the proximal landing zone in the ascending aorta were identified: 1 endoleak and 1 infolding identified at 3 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. Clinically, both these complications were attributed to the bird-beak configuration at the proximal landing zone site. At up to 72 months of follow-up, there were no cases of retrograde dissection of the native sinus of Valsalva. There were no cases of stent graft migration, graft fracture, open surgical reintervention for aortic pathologic conditions, or late mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Early outcomes suggest that the current generation of thoracic aortic endografts can be placed in the complex anatomy of the ascending aorta and aortic arch without a high incidence of early graft fracture or migration. Future endeavors will need to focus on techniques to achieve optimal apposition with the curves of the ascending aorta. These findings are important as indications for endovascular aortic therapies expand to address proximal aortic pathologic conditions.