Systematic review of clinical outcomes in hybrid procedures for aortic arch dissections and other arch diseases

Does Higher Temperature During Moderate Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest Increase the Risk of Paraplegia in Acute DeBakey I Aortic Dissection Patients?

BACKGROUND

In this study, we sought to assess the safety of high-moderate (24.1-28.0°C) and low-moderate (20.1-24.0°C) systemic hypothermia during circulatory arrest (MHCA) in patients with acute DeBakey I aortic dissection (DeBakey I AAD), particularly concerning spinal cord protection.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2020, 1759 patients with DeBakey I AAD who underwent frozen elephant trunk and total arch replacement surgery at a tertiary centre were divided into preoperative malperfusion (viscera, spinal cord, or lower extremities) and nonmalperfusion subgroups. The baseline differences were balanced with the use of propensity score matching. Prognoses were compared between those who were subjected to high-MHCA (nasopharyngeal temperature 24.1-28.0°C) and low-MHCA (nasopharyngeal temperature 20.1-24.0°C).

RESULTS

In the nonmalperfusion subgroup (n = 1389), 469 pairs of matched patients showed lower in-hospital mortality and incidence of acute kidney injury in the high-MHCA group than in the low-MHCA group: in-hospital mortality 7.0% vs 10.2% (P = 0.01); acute kidney injury, 57.1% vs 64.6% (P < 0.01). The duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the high-MHCA group than that in the low-MHCA group (P = 0.03). No significant difference in the incidence of paraplegia was observed between the 2 groups. In the malperfusion subgroup (n = 370), 112 pairs of matched patients showed a higher incidence of paraplegia in the high-MHCA group than in the low-MHCA group (15.9% vs 6.5%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of high-MHCA, a commonly used temperature management strategy during aortic arch surgery, was recognised in most patients with DeBakey I AAD. However, among patients with preoperative distal organ malperfusion, low-MHCA may be more appropriate owing to an increased risk of postoperative paraplegia associated with high-MHCA.

Assessment of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Relay Proximal Scallop: Results of a French Prospective Multicentre Study

OBJECTIVE

A proximal scallop design allows aortic arch repair without complex endovascular manipulation in the aortic arch. The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy at one year of the Relay proximal scallop stent graft.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study evaluated consecutive patients treated with the Relay proximal scallop stent graft in 10 French aortic centres. All consecutive patients eligible for elective thoracic endovascular repair with proximal scallop in the 10 participating centres between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Primary endpoints were 30 day mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) rates. Outcomes including safety and efficacy, technical and clinical success, all cause death, neurological events, vessel patency, and device specific complications were analysed. Survival and survival without severe complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Ten aortic centres treated 40 patients for thoracic aortic aneurysm (45%), penetrating atherosclerotic aneurysm (30%), and dissection (25%). Half of the procedures (50%) targeted zone 0 of the aortic arch (zone 0 in 17.5% and zones 0/1 in 32.5%), 37.5% targeted zone 2 (35% zone 2 alone; 2.5% zones 1/2), and 15% targeted zone 1 (12.5% zone 1 alone). Median follow up was one year. Thirty day mortality, stroke, and SCI rates were 10%, 5%, and 0% respectively. Primary technical success was 95%. Type Ia, Ib, and III endoleaks rates were 5.4%, 0%, and 0% respectively at one month. The overall mortality rate at one year was 17.5%. Aneurysm expansion was > 5 mm in one case at one year associated with type Ia endoleak (3%). There was no supra-aortic trunk thrombosis, one (2%) graft kink, and no migration.

CONCLUSION

One year outcomes showed that the Relay proximal scallop stent graft is an acceptable answer to thoracic aortic disease to deal with short proximal landing zones.

Aortic arch endovascular branch and fenestrated repair: Initial Canadian experience with novel technology

Objective

The objective is to describe the initial Canadian experience using novel aortic arch branched endograft technologies.

Methods

We performed a retrospective consecutive case series of all patients undergoing aortic arch branched repair with newly available endograft technology since 2020 at our site. We describe the patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

Eleven patients received arch branched endografts, indicated for penetrating aortic ulcer in seven patients (64%), arch degeneration after prior aortic dissection repair in three (27%), and acute aortobronchial fistula in one patient (9%). Their average age was 72 ± 7 years. Complete arch repair from zone 0 to 4 was performed in six cases (55%); the remaining repairs landed proximally in zones 1 or 2. Seven repairs used a single retrograde facing inner branch (thoracic branch endoprosthesis; W.L. Gore & Associates), three used double antegrade inner branch (Bolton Relay; Terumo Interventional Systems), and one emergent case used double in situ fenestrations. Seven repairs (64%) used an adjunctive extra-anatomic bypass to complete great vessel perfusion, two of which were created during a prior aortic repair. Inferior vena cava balloon inflow occlusion during deployment was used in all cases. No mortalities, transient or permanent spinal cord paralysis, myocardial infarction, dialysis dependence, venous thromboembolism, or bleeding requiring reintervention occurred. No patient undergoing elective arch branch repair experienced a stroke. The one patient undergoing emergent repair did suffer a stroke. The median length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2-8 days). Two endoleaks developed: a type Ia endoleak successfully treated with a Palmaz stent (Cordis) during the index admission, and a type II endoleak with ongoing sac regression on postoperative follow-up. Postoperatively, one patient suffered a suspected aortic graft infection that was treated with lifelong antibiotics. During a mean radiographic follow-up of 7.2 months, no cases of branch vessel instability (ie, no migration, reintervention, arterial rupture, intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, stenosis, or kinking of the branch grafts) developed. Three patients experienced sac regression of >5 mm, and no patient experienced continued postoperative dilation.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported Canadian volume of aortic arch repair using novel branched or fenestrated technology. The series demonstrates that a multidisciplinary program and properly selected patients can yield excellent results using endovascular repair for complex aortic arch pathology.

Management of complex thoracic aortic diseases with aberrant right subclavian artery

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively evaluated early and intermediate outcomes of hybrid repair of complex thoracic aortic diseases involving an aberrant right subclavian artery. This paper aims to report features and available treatment options for this rare, hard-to-diagnose, and manage, aorta-related vascular condition.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and May 2019, 13 patients (mean age, 60.1 ± 9.3 years; nine men) underwent complex thoracic aorta repair surgery. Six patients had a thoracic aortic aneurysm, two had type A aortic dissection, and five had complicated type B aortic dissection. Hybrid repair strategies included de-branching in combination with single-stage aortic arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique performed in four patients, thoracic endovascular aortic repair in six patients, and 2-stage hybrid repair consisting of a total arch replacement with a conventional/frozen elephant trunk (first stage) and subsequent endovascular repair (second stage) in three patients.

RESULTS

One early death occurred: a patient with acute type A aortic dissection, who underwent Bentall procedure and aortic arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, died in-hospital of multiorgan failure 41 days after the procedure. The remaining 12 patients were discharged in stable condition. The median follow-up duration was 36 months (2-71 months). Two late mortalities occurred: a patient with residual type A aortic dissection, who underwent arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, died of intracranial hemorrhage 3 months after the surgery. And 72 years old female patient died of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2 months after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that various hybrid strategies can be used to treat complex thoracic aortic diseases involving an aberrant right subclavian artery. The approach of choice depends on the features of disease pathology, the aortic segments involved, and the operating surgeon's experience.

Risk of Stroke with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of the Aortic Arch

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch is increasingly being performed and novel endografts have been developed for this procedure, but the association of stroke and relative risk of procedural techniques remains unclear. This study evaluates the procedural risk factors for stroke and mortality with zone 0-2 TEVAR.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR with proximal landing in zone 0-2 from 2013 to 2022. Emergent and ruptured cases were excluded. Primary exposure variables included proximal seal zone (0-2) and branch vessel revascularization technique: open debranching/bypass, total endovascular incorporation, or combination (at least 1 branch open and 1 branch endovascular). The primary outcome was perioperative inhospital stroke and the secondary outcome was inhospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 4,355 cases were analyzed with 350 in zone 0 (8%), 513 in zone 1 (12%), and 3,492 in zone 2 (80%). For zone 0, 1, and 2, the stroke rates were 11.1%, 5.3% and 4.7% (P < 0.0001) and inhospital mortality rates were 6.9%, 5.3% and 3.5% (P = 0.002), respectively. Branch vessel revascularization technique was associated with stroke in zone 0 with a 3-fold higher stroke rate for total endovascular incorporation of branches compared to combination and open techniques (P = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, zone 0 was independently associated with a greater than 2-fold increased odds of stroke compared to zone 2 (95% CI 1.4-3.2, P = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke rate was 2-3 times higher for zone 0 TEVAR compared to zones 1 and 2. Within zone 0, total endovascular branch incorporation was associated with a 3-fold higher stroke rate than open and combination techniques. Future device design modifications and novel endovascular strategies for stroke prevention are required to make total endovascular repair of the aortic arch an acceptable alternative to combination and open debranching/bypass techniques.

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.

TEVAR for aortic arch lesions combining physician-modified endograft and in-situ fenestration

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the outcomes of combining physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and in-situ fenestration (ISF) for aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in 12 patients with aortic arch pathologies who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with PMEG and ISF between June 2019 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Revascularizations of supra-aortic arteries were successfully performed in 91.7% patients (11/12). One patient with aberrant right subclavian artery was unsuccessful because of tortuosity and sharp angle. One patient received endovascular exclusion by Viabahn due to artery injury of the femoral access. During the follow-up (mean 22.7 months), one patient underwent Bentall surgery because of retrograde type A aortic dissection, and one patient received coils embolization due to occurrence of a type I endoleak. In addition, one patient died of myocardial infarction 13 months after surgery. Results obtained after computed tomography angiography confirmed patency of all the supra-aortic arteries.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining PMEG and ISF could be a feasible option for aortic arch lesions in selected patients. Long-term durability concerns require further evaluation.

Branch-first Continuous Perfusion Aortic Arch Replacement: Midterm Results

BACKGROUND

Aortic arch surgery necessitates interruption of perfusion, thus conferring higher morbidity and mortality compared with other aortic surgery. This report describes a branch-first continuous perfusion aortic arch replacement (BF-CPAR) technique that overcomes these shortcomings and describes midterm results with this technique.

METHODS

This report represents the corresponding author's 15-year experience with BF-CPAR, which involves preliminary mobilization and branch reconstruction before circulatory arrest by using a modified trifurcation graft. Demographic, procedural, and outcome (mortality, reintervention, morbidity, and stroke) were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression.

RESULTS

Over 15 years (July 2005-February 2021), 155 patients underwent BF-CPAR, at a median age of 66.8 years, 106 (68.3%) on an elective basis and 49 (31.6%) on an emergency basis. There were no aortic deaths after the first postoperative year, thereby resulting in a 1- and 10-year freedom from aortic death constant at 95.6% in patients undergoing elective BF-CPAR and 93.3% in patients undergoing emergency BF-CPAR patients, respectively. Freedom from reintervention on the operated segment at 5 and 9 years was 93.2% and 93.2% in patients undergoing elective cases and 97.1% and 91.4% in emergency cases, respectively. The 10-year freedom from any aortic reintervention was 72.8% in elective patients and 29.2% in emergency patients; there were 38 reinterventions, 76.3% (n = 29/38) done for progression of aneurysmal or dissection disease, of which 79.3% (n = 23/29) were completed endovascularly. Freedom from cerebrovascular-related events at 5 and 10 years was 90.3% and 82.6% in patients undergoing elective BF-CPAR and 75.4% for both time points in patients undergoing emergency BF-CPAR, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BF-CPAR has excellent 10-year results for elective and emergency cases of arch replacement.

Triple-Branched Stent Graft Implantation for Acute Non-A-non-B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection remains controversial. Triple-branched stent graft (TBSG) implantation has been used to treat acute type A aortic dissection. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TBSG as a treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection.

METHODS

Fifty patients with non-A-non-B dissection received TBSG implantation in our center between January 2014 and December 2019. Early mortality, morbidity, and dissected aorta remodeling during follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

There were no deaths in-hospital or within 30 days. Postoperative complications included pneumonia (n = 12), acute kidney injury (n = 6; preoperative renal malperfusion, n = 4), transient cerebral injury (n = 6; preoperative cerebral malperfusion, n = 4), pleural effusion (n = 4), and pericardial effusion (n = 2). During follow-up, 1 patient experienced a stroke, and 2 patients required secondary interventional therapy for residual dissection below the level of the TBSG. All implanted TBSGs had good positioning, and all sidearm stent graft grafts were fully patent. No retrograde aortic dissection or type I endoleak was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

TBSG implantation for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection had a low incidence of mortality and morbidity, featuring good remodeling of the dissected aortic wall during follow-up. The early outcomes of this technique were satisfactory.

Mid-Term Results of Treating Kommerell's Diverticulum and Aberrant Subclavian Artery Anomalies Using a Patient-Centered Team Approach

INTRODUCTION

The management of Kommerell's Diverticulum (KD) has evolved from open surgical resection and graft replacement of the aorta, to endovascular repair in asymptomatic patients due to its recognized possible sequelae - aortic rupture and dissection. Despite these technical advances, standard indications for intervention and treatment algorithms remain unclear. We will present our single-center experience in the treatment of KD, supporting a multidisciplinary endovascular-first approach.

METHODS

All patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for KD between 2017 and 2020 were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained institutional surgery database. Chart review was used to characterize presenting symptoms, interventions, technical results, and complications. Revascularization was performed using carotid-axillary bypass. Routine endovascular subclavian artery occlusion was employed to eliminate retrograde diverticulum perfusion and avoid open ligation.

RESULTS

8 patients were identified, including 6 females and 2 males between the ages of 44-76. Patients presented with dysphagia (n = 3), acute embolic stroke (n = 1), transient ischemic attack (TIA) (n = 1), upper extremity embolization (n = 1), and acute type B aortic dissection (n = 1). One patient had a prior incomplete open repair that was successfully treated endovascularly. Another patient had a mediastinal neoplasm infiltrating an incidental aberrant subclavian artery and KD. All cases had symptomatic improvement and successful endovascular repair as demonstrated on post-operative imaging. Perioperative complications included percutaneous access site pseudoaneurysm (n = 2), stroke (n = 1), and subclavian artery rupture immediately recognized and treated (n = 1). There was no perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular techniques have resulted in technical success and symptomatic improvement for KD without open thoracotomy or sternotomy. Significant rates of endovascular complications and paucity of long-term durability data should be considered. Until formal criteria for repair are established, early application of TEVAR using a consistent multi-specialty approach may mitigate the risk of unpredictable aortic complications in these patients while avoiding the accepted morbidity and mortality of open surgery.

Endovascular Repair of Penetrating Thoracic Aortic Ulcers Using Tubular Stent Grafts Versus Stent Grafts With a Proximal Scallop

PURPOSE

In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

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.

Analysis of Spinal Ischemia after Frozen Elephant Trunk for Acute Aortic Dissection: An Observational, Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

This observational study aimed to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients who underwent aortic repair with the frozen elephant trunk technique (FET) after acute aortic Stanford A dissection.

METHODS

From May 2015 to April 2019, 31 patients underwent aortic arch replacement with the FET technique, and spinal ischemia was observed in 4 patients. The risk factors for postoperative SCI were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients with acute aortic dissection was 57.1 years, and 29.4% were female. Four patients developed SCI. There were no significant differences in characteristics such as age and body mass index. The female gender was associated with most of the SCI cases in the univariate analysis (75%, p = 0.016). Known perioperative and intraoperative risk factors were not related to postoperative SCI in our study. Patients who developed SCI had increased serum postoperative creatinine levels (p = 0.03). Twenty-four patients showed complete false lumen thrombosis up to zones 3-4, five patients up to zones 5-6 and two patients up to zones 7-9, which correlates with the postoperative development of SCI (p = 0.02). The total number of patent intercostal arteries was significantly reduced postoperatively in SCI patients (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative acute kidney injury, the reduction in patent intercostal arteries after surgery and the extension of false lumen thrombosis up to and beyond zone 5 may play a significant role in the development of clinically relevant spinal cord injury after FET.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair with Supra-Aortic Trunk Revascularization is Associated with Increased Risk of Periprocedural Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Ischemic stroke is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This risk may be higher in more proximal aneurysms that require arch manipulation. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe 30-day stroke and death rates in patients undergoing TEVAR, (2) compare stroke rates in patients undergoing TEVAR for arch versus descending aneurysm pathology, and (3) identify predictive factors associated with stroke after TEVAR.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried (2015-2021) for TEVAR procedures performed for degenerative aneurysms. Our primary outcomes were any stroke or death at 30 days. Patient-, procedure-, and hospital-level predictors of stroke were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Among 3,072 patients with degenerative aneurysms (197 [6.4%] arch versus 2,875 [93.6%] descending) treated with elective TEVAR, the median age was 73 years (interquartile range 67-79) and 54.8% were male. Within the arch aneurysm group, there were 27.4% zone 0, 22.8% zone 1, and 49.8% zone 2 interventions. Overall 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% and 3.8%. The distribution of stroke events was bilateral (52.9%), left carotid (20.7%), left vertebrobasilar (11.5%), right carotid (9.2%), and right vertebrobasilar (5.7%). Although mortality was similar between groups, the rate of ischemic stroke was higher for patients undergoing TEVAR for arch aneurysm versus descending aneurysms (7.1% arch versus 2.9% descending, P = 0.001). Factors that were associated with ischemic stroke after TEVAR included age (>79 years, relative risk [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.98 vs. <79 years), dependent functional status (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.78), procedural time (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), and endovascular intervention for supra-aortic trunk revascularization (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.06-6.70 versus no intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemic stroke risk after TEVAR was increased for arch aneurysms compared to descending aneurysms. More proximal zone coverage and endovascular interventions on the supra-aortic trunks were associated with increasing risk for stroke. Adequate preparation for stroke prevention is necessary prior to TEVAR with supra-aortic trunk revascularization.

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.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with chimney technique for aortic arch diseases

Objective

This study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.

Methods

From November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28–83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

Results

Among the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1–108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).

Conclusion

TEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.

Early and midterm results of frozen elephant trunk operation with Evita open stent-graft in patients with Marfan syndrome: results of a multicentre study

Background

Endovascular treatment of patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) is not recommended. Hybrid procedures such as frozen elephant trunk (FET), which combines stent-graft deployment with an integrated non-stented fabric graft for proximal grafting and suturing, have not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of FET operation in patients with MFS.

Methods

Patients enrolled in the International E-vita Open Registry (IEOR) who underwent FET procedure between January 2001 and February 2020 meeting Ghent criteria for MFS were included in the study. Early and midterm results were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative, postoperative and follow-up computed tomography angiography scans were analysed.

Results

We analyzed 37 patients [mean age 38 ± 11 years, 65% men]. Acute or chronic aortic dissection was present in 35 (95%) patients (14 and 21 patients respectively). Two (5%) patients had an aneurysm without dissection. Malperfusion syndrome was present in 4 patients. Twenty-nine (78%) patients had history of aortic surgical interventions. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality amounted to 8 and 14% respectively. False lumen exclusion was present in 73% in stented segment in last postoperative CT. The overall 5-year survival was 71% and freedom from reintervention downstream was 58% at 5 years. Of the nine patients who required reintervention for distal aortic disease, one patient died.

Conclusions

FET operation for patients with MFS can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity. In long-term follow-up no reinterventions on the aortic arch were required. FET allows for easier second stage operations providing platform for surgical and endovascular reinterventions.

Branch-first continuous perfusion aortic arch replacement: insight into our results

BACKGROUND

Aortic-arch surgery often necessitates interruption of perfusion conferring higher morbidity and mortality compared to other aortic segments. We describe our Branch-first continuous-perfusion aortic-arch replacement (BF-CPAR) technique which overcomes these shortcomings, describing technique, results and improved outcomes.

METHODS

This represents the senior author's 15-year experience with BF-CPAR. Description of demographics, procedures and outcomes have been stratified by dissection and aneurysm etiology, with prediction of mortality, cerebrovascular events, renal failure, and end-organ ischemia undertaken using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

From July 2005 to February 2021, 155 patients underwent BF-CPAR, 93 for aneurysms and 62 for dissections. Median age at intervention was 66.8 years, 96 (61.9%) male, 18 (11.6%) with history of previous dissection repair, and 49 (31.6%) on an emergent basis. We observed an overall mortality of 4.5% (N.=7) and stroke of 3.2% (N.=5). Comparing elective to urgent cases, the mortality and stroke rates were significantly lower at 0.0% and 1.9% versus 14.2% and 6.1% (risk differences: 14.3% and 2.3%, P<0.01) respectively. Predictors of mortality were age (1.11 per year, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23, P=0.05); of stroke were hypercholesterolemia (14.4, 1.84-111.9, P=0.01) and hypertension (0.07, 0.01-0.84, P<0.01); and of dialysis were dissection (6.60, 1.76-24.7, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

BF-CPAR is safe and adds to the armamentarium of aortic arch repair. In elective and uncomplicated acute-dissection cases, it has no mortality and low stroke (1.9%), and vital organ dysfunction risk. Its results which are comparable to many of the best currently reported series, is driven by avoidance of cerebral circulatory arrest and reduction of cardiac and visceral ischemic time.

Midterm Outcomes of One-Stage Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair for Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection: A Single Center's Experience

This study sought to identify the midterm outcomes of one-stage hybrid aortic arch repair (HAAR) in patients with Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD). Between January 2010 and December 2015, 75 consecutive patients with TAAD involving the aortic arch who underwent one-stage type Ⅱ HAAR at our institution were identified. During this period, 496 consecutive patients with TAAD underwent traditional total aortic arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk. The preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data of all patients were compared. A propensity score-matching analysis was applied to adjust for baseline risk factors. 571 patients were included for analysis (428 men; mean age, 48.9±11.1 years). For all patients, the mean follow-up time was 41.1±22.1 months, in-hospital mortality was 4.7% and the 5-year survival rate was 89.5%. Midterm outcomes between the propensity-matched groups were compared (59 HAAR vs TAR pairs). HAAR group showed shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (105-159 min vs 158-230 min, p < 0.001), aortic cross-clamping time, postoperative ventilation time and intensive care unit stays (33-108 h vs 45-131 h, p = 0.010) than the TAR group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, rate of stroke and rate of paraplegia between the two groups, however, better 5-year survival rate was found in HAAR group (94.9% vs 75.8%, Log-rank p = 0.005). As compared to propensity matched cohort of TAR patients, HAAR shows good midterm outcomes for patients with TAAD. Further randomized study was needed to clarify the optimal management strategy of TAAD.

Outcomes of Great Vessel Debranching to Facilitate Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVES

With the expanding application of endovascular technology, the need to deploy into zone 0 has been encountered on occasion. This study evaluates the outcomes of great vessel debranching (GVD) as a method of extending the proximal landing zone (PLZ) to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review of all patients who underwent GVD followed by TEVAR between May 2013 and December 2020 was conducted. The primary outcome was primary patency of all targeted vessels, with all-cause perioperative mortality as a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to account for censoring the mortality and primary patency. The extent of hybrid aortic repairs was characterized into type I: GVD + TEVAR without ascending aorta or aortic arch reconstruction; type II: GVD + TEVAR with ascending aorta reconstruction; and type III: GVD + TEVAR with ascending aorta and aortic arch reconstruction with an elephant trunk (surgical or "frozen").

RESULTS

There were 42 patients (23 males [54.8%], mean age of 62.2 ± 11.2 years) who underwent GVD with 122 vessels revascularized (42 innominate, 42 left common carotid [LCCA], and 38 left subclavian [LSA] arteries). The indication for TEVAR was aneurysmal degeneration from aortic dissection in 32 (76.2%) patients, thoracic aneurysm in 9 (21.4%) patients, and perforated aortic ulcer in 1 (2.4%) patient. Median duration between GVD and TEVAR was 82 days. Mean follow-up was 25.7 ± 23.5 months. Type I repair was performed in 4, type II in 16, and type III in 22 patients. Perioperative mortality, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. Neither the extent of repair (p = 0.80) nor a prior history of aortic repair (p = 0.90) was associated with early mortality. Late deaths (>30 days) occurred in 6 of 38 patients who survived the perioperative period. At 36 months, the survival estimate was 68.6% (95% CI: 45.7% - 83.4%); the overall primary patency of the innominate artery, LCCA, and LSA was 100%, 89.5%, and 94.1%, respectively. The primary assisted patency rate was 100% for all vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

GVD is a safe and effective means of extending the PLZ into zone 0 with outstanding primary patency rates. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and longer-term durability in these patients.

Mid-term outcomes of hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair in landing zones 0-2

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to summarize a single-center experience of hybrid debranching endovascular repair of the aortic arch and proximal descending thoracic aorta (DTA) with regard to the mid-term outcomes with highlighting the difference between the landing zones 0-2.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from a prospectively collected registry (Gangnam Severance Endovascular Aortic Registry) was performed. From among 332 patients whose aortic pathology was managed with TEVAR, 112 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair during the study period between 2012 and 2016 were identified. The patients were grouped into three cohorts according to the proximal landing zones (0, 1, and 2) of Ishimaru. The early outcome (30-days) in terms of mortality, morbidity, supra-aortic vessels patency, and presence of endoleak were analyzed. The survival, freedom from re-intervention, and major complications during follow-up were demonstrated.

RESULTS

During the study period. 112 patients (mean age 65±7, 79% males) were included. The patients were distributed in three cohorts: 8 (7%) patients with proximal landing zone 0, 20 (18%) with zone 1, and 80 (75%) with zone 2 hybrid aortic arch repair. Technical success was achieved in 7 (88%), 19 (90%), and 79 (94%) patients for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .005). The mean total hospital stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .03). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5% (4/112). There was no spinal cord ischemia or early surgical conversion. Renal function deterioration was seen more but not significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .08). Respiratory failure was seen significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .01). Stroke occurred in 6/44 (14%) patients with degenerative aneurysm versus 1/60 (2%) patients with aortic dissection (p =.06). Early CTA showed 100% patency of the supra-aortic vessels. The early endoleak rate was significant in zone 0 patients (p = .008). The mean follow-up period was (32±19 months). The survival rates and freedom from re-intervention were not statistically significant among the three zones. However, the survival rate and freedom from intervention tend to be higher in zone 2 versus zone 0 (p = .07 and .09), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair is feasible and relatively safe with acceptable mid-term outcomes. Zone 0 patients has worse early and late outcomes in comparison to other zones. Careful patient selection and improved endovascular technology may be the key to improve the outcomes.

Aortic arch debranching in hybrid thoracic aortic replacement

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the outcomes of aortic arch debranching in hybrid thoracic aortic replacement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 107 patients who underwent hybrid thoracic aortic repair with debranching of supra-aortic vessels between 2015 and 2021. Patients underwent total and partial debranching (subtotal debranching and subclavian-carotid anastomosis/bypass). Debranching was performed in patients with type 3 dissection, type B aneurysms, post-traumatic aortic isthmus and arch aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aneurysms type A and DeBakey type 1 dissections.

RESULTS

One patient (0.9%) died from thoracic aorta rupture after retrograde dissection. There was a moderate decrease of blood flow velocity through the left vertebral artery after subtotal debranching without severe hemodynamic disorders. Despite mild surgical trauma, subtotal and especially total debranching are characterized by higher risk of thrombosis of branches with potential fatal outcomes. In young patients requiring subtotal aortic arch debranching, open reconstruction or repair with fenestrated stents is preferred. We recommend a Bavaria type II hybrid procedure for patients with high surgical risk. In our opinion, more physiological hybrid interventions with anatomical arrangement of supra-aortic vessels such as Elephant Trunk and Frozen Elephant Trunk procedures are preferred.

Current Clinical Implications of Frailty and Sarcopenia in Vascular Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature and Consideration of Perioperative Management

Frailty is a well-known geriatric syndrome of impaired physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors. Sarcopenia is also used as a parameter of physical impairment characterized by muscle weakness. As population aging has become more prominent in recent years, both modalities are now regarded as clinically important prognostic tools defined by multidimensional factors that may affect clinical outcomes in various clinical settings. A preoperative surgical risk analysis is mandatory to predict clinical and surgical outcomes in all surgical practices, particularly in high-risk surgical patients. In vascular surgical settings, frailty and sarcopenia have been accepted as useful prognostic tools to evaluate patient characteristics before surgery, as these may predict perioperative clinical and surgical outcomes. Although minimally invasive surgical approaches, such as endovascular therapy, and hybrid approaches have been universally developed, achieving good vascular surgical outcomes for high-risk cohorts remains to be challenge due to the increasing prevalence of elderly patients and multiple preoperative co-morbidities in addition to frailty and sarcopenia. Therefore, to further improve clinical and surgical outcomes, these preoperative geriatric prognostic factors will be of great importance and interest in vascular surgical settings for both physicians and surgeons.

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.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Retrograde In-Situ Branched Stent Grafting for Complex Aortic Arch Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the early outcomes of retrograde in-situ branched stent grafting (RIBS) using the gutter balloon technique for complex aortic arch aneurysms (CAAs).

METHODS

The RIBS technique is an in-situ needle fenestration procedure during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with the reconstruction of cervical branches. The Double-RIBS (D-RIBS) for the reconstruction of the left common carotid artery and the brachiocephalic artery using the gutter balloon technique was performed in 30 high-risk patients. We describe the early clinical results of the D-RIBS technique for CAAs. Primary endpoints were technical success and 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, rates of endoleaks, overall survival, aneurysm-related death, and re-interventions.

RESULTS

The mean age was 77.1±6.6 years and the mean maximum minor-axis aneurysmal diameter was 65.9±8.9 mm. Twenty six patients underwent D-RIBS for elective arch aortic aneurysm and four patients were for reintervention after Zone 2 TEVAR failure. Stent graft puncture was performed 60 times from the common carotid arteries and technical success was achieved in all cases (100%). Postoperative complications included cerebral infarction in 2 patients (6.7%), recurrent nerve palsy in one patient (3.3%). The 30-day mortality was 0%. During the median follow-up period of 14 months (6-56), overall survival at 12 months was 92.3% without any aneurysm-related death. Type 1b and type 2 endoleaks were observed in one each and no reintervention was encountered.

CONCLUSION

Early clinical outcomes of the D-RIBS for high-risk patients with CAAs are acceptable. The gutter balloon method enables safe and reliable fenestration. Further studies and dedicated devices are warranted.

Endovascular repair of the aorti arch

AIM

The study was aimed at assessing the in-hospital results of aortic arch endoprosthetic repair using different variants of endovascular supraaortic debranching.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The analysis included 27 patients subjected within the framework of aortic arch endoprosthetic repair to various types of supraaortic endobranching, including the technique of parallel prostheses and implantation of fenestrated stent grafts. We analysed the clinical and morphological status of patients prior to operation, peculiarities of the intervention (type of debranching and Ishimaru's classification zones in which the reconstruction was performed) and in-hospital results of treatment.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age amounted to 66 years. The main nosology (70%) was an aortic aneurysm. Nearly in 30% of cases, the operation was performed emergently for acute aortic syndrome. The main causes of refusal from the traditional prosthetic repair included chronic kidney disease (22.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11%), acute cerebral ischaemia within the previous 6 months (15%). The technical success rate of the operation was achieved in 100% of cases. The average duration of the intervention amounted to 226 min, with the mean blood loss equalling 355 ml. The majority of reconstructions were performed in zones 1 and 2 according to Ishimaru (59 and 33%, respectively), in 2 (7%) patients prosthetic repair was performed in zone 0. The total number of the aortic branches involved into reconstruction amounted to 45. Intervention-related complications included 3 (11%) cases of acute cerebral circulation impairment, 2 (7.4%) aortic branch occlusions, and 1 (3.7%) type II endoleak. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates amounted to 3.7 and 7.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Aortic arch endoprosthetic repair using supraaortic endobranching is considered to be an effective alternative method of treatment for patients with various pathology of the aortic arch and contraindications to traditional prosthetic repair involving artificial blood circulation.

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.

Comparison of Open Repair vs. the One-Stage Hybrid Extra-Anatomic Technique for Distal Aortic Arch Disease Treatment: Mid-term Outcomes With a Risk-Adjusted Analysis

Objective: This study aims to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stented elephant trunk (SET) procedure combined with supra-arch branch reconstruction and one-stage hybrid arch repair combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in the management of distal arch disease.

Methods: From January 2009 to January 2019, 97 patients underwent one-stage hybrid arch repair combined with TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (HAR group), and 206 patients underwent the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction (SET group). We used inverse-probability-of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust baseline differences.

Results: Before IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference in operative mortality between the two groups (5.2 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.064). The incidences of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and endoleak also showed no significant differences (4.1 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.066; 2.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000; 0 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.831; 6.2 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.113, respectively). After IPTW adjustment, the incidences of stroke, SCI, and AKI showed no significant differences between the two groups (1.8 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.138; 0.8 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.448; and 0 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.148, respectively). However, the HAR group tended to have higher operative mortality and incidence of endoleak than the SET group (12.4 vs. 1.3%, P = 0.01; 9.9 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.031, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, open repair decreased the risks of endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 0.171, 95% CI, 0.060–0.401; P < 0.001) and operative mortality (OR, 0.093, 95% CI, 0.027–0.238; P < 0.001). The overall survival and event-free survival of the HAR group were significantly lower than those of the SET group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: One-stage hybrid arch repair combined TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass and the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction both provided good postoperative treatment outcomes for distal arch disease. However, hybrid arch repair increased the risks of endoleak and operative mortality. The SET procedure provided better mid-term survival than hybrid arch repair without increasing operative mortality. Carefully selecting the indications for the procedure, while receiving close long-term follow-up, may improve the survival rate of patients undergoing hybrid arch repair.

Endovascular repair of the aortic arch: State of the art

BACKGROUND

Open total arch replacement remains the gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch. However, high-risk surgical candidates may benefit from endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity, especially neurologic complications. Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some devices are fenestrated or scalloped, while others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Furthermore, chimney techniques and in situ fenestration may be utilized in bailout or emergent situations.

RESULTS

Initial results describing outcomes of complete endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging, with current data estimating that technical success ranges from 84.2% to 100%. Moreover, operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, while neurologic complications also remain common, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%. However, more data are necessary to determine the comparative treatment effect of endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch, compared with conventional open and hybrid repairs. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. Nevertheless, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in patients with complex and potentially devastating pathologies of the aortic arch.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection

BACKGROUND

A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Endovascular aortic arch repair with a pre-cannulated double-fenestrated physician-modified stent graft: a benchtop experiment

OBJECTIVES

The critical step in total endovascular aortic arch repair is to ensure alignment of fenestrations with, and thus maintenance of flow to, supra-aortic trunks. This experimental study evaluates the feasibility and accuracy of a double-fenestrated physician-modified endovascular graft [single common large fenestration for the brachiocephalic trunk and left common carotid artery and a distal small fenestration for left subclavian artery (LSA) with a preloaded guidewire for the LSA] for total endovascular aortic arch repair.

METHODS

Eight fresh human cadaveric thoracic aortas were harvested. Thoracic endografts with a physician-modified double fenestration were deployed for total endovascular aortic arch repair in a bench test model. A guidewire was preloaded through the distal fenestration for the LSA. All experiments were undertaken in a hybrid room under fluoroscopic guidance with subsequent angioscopy and open evaluation for assessment.

RESULTS

Mean aortic diameter in zone 0 was 31.3 ± 3.33 mm. Mean duration for stent graft modification was 20.1 ± 5.8 min. Mean duration of the procedure was 24 ± 8.6 min. The Medtronic Valiant Captivia stent graft was used in 6 and the Cook Alpha Zenith thoracic stent graft in 2 cases. LSA catheterization was technically successful with supra-aortic trunk patency in 100% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a double-fenestrated stent graft with a preloaded guidewire appears to be a useful technical addition to facilitate easy and correct alignment of stent graft fenestrations with supra-aortic trunk origins.

Evaluation of the Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis in the treatment of proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has radically transformed the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, when aneurysms involve the aortic arch in the region of the left subclavian artery, branch vessel preservation must be considered. Branched aortic endografts have provided a new option to maintain branch patency.

METHODS

Six investigative sites enrolled 31 patients in a nonrandomized, prospective investigational device exemption feasibility trial of a single branched aortic endograft for the management of aneurysms that include the distal aortic arch. The Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz), an investigational device, allows for graft placement proximal to the left subclavian artery and incorporates a single side branch for left subclavian perfusion.

RESULTS

All 31 patients (100%) had undergone successful implantation of the investigational device in landing zone 2. Men slightly outnumbered women (51.6%). Their average age was 74.1 ± 10.4 years. The aneurysm morphology was fusiform in 12 and saccular in 19 patients, with a mean maximum aortic diameter of 54.8 ± 10.9 mm. The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 25.2 ± 11.1 months. We have reported the patient outcomes at 1 month and 1 year. At 1 month, the side branch patency was 100% and the freedom from core laboratory-reported device-related endoleak (types I and III) was 96.7%, without 30-day death or permanent paraplegia. One patient experienced a procedure-related stroke. Through 1 year, five patients had died; none of the deaths were related to the device or procedure (clinical endpoint committee adjudicated). One thoracic reintervention was required. No conversions were required, and no aneurysm growth (core laboratory) was reported. One case of the loss of side branch patency was diagnosed in the left subclavian artery in an asymptomatic individual from computed tomography at 6 months, with no reported subsequent adverse events due to loss of patency. Endoleaks were reported by the core laboratory in five patients at 12 months (two, type II; and three, indeterminate).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigational device exemption feasibility study has reported the preliminary results of the use of a single side branch endograft to treat patients with proximal descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Four-year results of the Bolton relay proximal scallop endograft in the management of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathology with unfavorable proximal landing zone

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a scallop design (scallop-TEVAR) is a useful treatment strategy to extend the proximal landing zone (PLZ), while maintaining perfusion to one or more of the supra-aortic trunks (SATs) when treating aortic pathology with an unfavorable PLZ. The durability of this approach with the Bolton Relay scallop endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Fla) has not been established.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients that received scallop-TEVAR in zones 0 to 2 at a tertiary aortic unit was undertaken. The main outcome was durability, characterized by survival estimates, freedom from reintervention to the thoracic aorta and PLZ, migration and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2019, 38 patients (71% male; median age, 70 years) underwent scallop-TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology (n = 28, 74%) or as a part of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair (n = 10 [26%]). The use of scallop-TEVAR significantly extended the PLZ (median, 5 mm preoperative PLZ vs 26 mm extended PLZ; P = .0001). A total of 41 SATs were perfused with a scallop, including the left subclavian artery (n = 25), left common carotid artery (n = 6), neo/innominate artery (n = 4), left subclavian artery, and vertebral artery (n = 1), innominate artery, and left common carotid artery (n = 2) in conjunction with 15 extra-anatomical bypasses. The PLZ was at Ishimaru zone 0 and 1 in 6 cases (16%), respectively, and zone 2 in 26 cases (68%). Technical success was 98%. The 30-day mortality was 5% (2/38; 1 death from myocardial infarction and 1 from multiorgan failure). A minor stroke occurred in three patients (8%) and temporary spinal cord ischemia in two patients (5%). The median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-10.53 years) during which two patients (5%) developed type Ia endoleak and required intervention to the PLZ (one from device-related migration and one from disease progression). All-cause and aorta-related survival were 72% and 85% and freedom from thoracic and PLZ reintervention was 92% and 97%, respectively. There were no cases of early or late thoracic aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection or SAT occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scallop-TEVAR offers a less invasive treatment option to extend the seal zone in selected patients with an unfavorable PLZ, allowing for a durable repair in terms of overall survival and reintervention. Periprocedural stroke remains a principle concern.

Association of carotid ultrasonography with perioperative stroke after thoracic aortic aneurysm treatment: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to verify whether carotid ultrasonography (CUS) findings could be associated with the occurrence of perioperative stroke after thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) treatment.

METHODS

Patients with TAAs who were treated by either total arch replacement or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) were retrospectively enrolled. Left subclavian artery (LSA) embolization and bypass surgery of the left common carotid artery (CCA) to the LSA before TEVAR were additionally performed for some patients. CUS was performed before TAA treatment to evaluate carotid atherosclerosis and flow velocities of bilateral cervical arteries. After dividing patients into those with and without perioperative stroke, their background, atherosclerotic risk factors, history of stroke, TAA location and size, treatment procedures, and CUS parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients (18 women, 42 men; mean age 73.5 ± 10.2 years) with TAA, four (7.5%) developed perioperative stroke. There were no significant differences in the patients' characteristics and their TAAs between those with and without perioperative stroke. For the CUS parameters, end-diastolic velocity (EDV) of bilateral CCAs was significantly decreased in perioperative stroke patients (with vs without stroke; right: 9.2 ± 1.8 vs. 14.5 ± 4.6 cm/s, P = 0.025, left: 9.1 ± 0.3 vs. 15.0 ± 4.5 cm/s, P = 0.012), whereas the resistance index (RI) of bilateral CCAs was significantly elevated (right: 0.76 vs. 0.87, P = 0.008, left: 0.76 vs. 0.87, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower EDV and higher RI of bilateral CCAs were significantly associated with perioperative stroke after TAA treatment. Thus, CUS findings may help predict the occurrence of perioperative stroke.

Frozen elephant trunk in total arch replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and aortic proximalization

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

The frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure became a popular entity for utilization in aortic arch aneurysm disease. However, its proper mortality and morbidities as well as the predictors of outcomes are poorly identified. This systematic review and meta-analysis explore FET outcomes and its predictors with a focus on zone aortic proximalization.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from their beginning to June 2020 to find studies reporting the outcomes of the FET procedure for the total arch replacement (TAR).

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies including 7967 patients were evaluated. The pooled estimates of cerebrovascular accidents, paraplegia, renal failure, and in-hospital mortality were 7.104 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.691-8.661; I²  = 78.53%), 3.465 (95% CI, 2.852-4.136; I²  = 15.96), 14.969 (95% CI, 11.361-18.977; I²  = 91.26%), and 8.933 (95% CI, 7.128-10.919; I²  = 78.51%), respectively. Stratification by the geographical locations and by the aortic pathologies led to lower heterogeneity, but not for renal failure. The distal anastomosis in Zone 2 was associated with a lower rate of renal failure compared with Zone 3 (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; p = .003; I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The FET procedure for TAR can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidities among patients with complex aortic pathologies. Moreover, the distal anastomosis in Zone 2 was associated with lower renal failure compared to Zone 3.

Epidemiology of aortic dissection

Aortic dissection remains a highly morbid diagnosis. The treatment of aortic dissection has undergone several paradigm shifts since it was first understood. However, despite the robust research in treatment, the epidemiology of aortic dissection is limited. In this review, we discuss the historical perspectives of aortic dissection with a review of risk factors and presentation. We review the trends in incidence during the past 40 years, with consideration for sex, race, and ethnicity in admission. We further focus our discussion of the classically described Type B aortic dissection treatment. Lastly, we review the impact of long-term events, readmissions, cost assessments, and quality of life studies of patients with aortic dissection. Care for those with aortic dissection remains a long-term challenge for providers and a multispecialty approach is needed for complete patient management.

Non-A non-B aortic dissection: A literature review

Non-A non-B aortic dissections are an infrequent occurrence and represent a small proportion of aortic dissections. Treating this life-threatening medical emergency often requires surgeons to undertake some one of the most challenging surgical or endovascular cases in medicine. This literature review aims to define and classify non-A non-B dissections, describe their epidemiology as well as their pathology. This review also aims to discuss the range of surgical techniques employed in their treatment and management and to investigate the patient outcomes associated with each technique.

Review of frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex Hybrid device

The frozen elephant trunk technique has revolutionized aortic arch repair to enable more extensive arch and descending thoracic aortic treatment in a single setting. We review the current evidence supporting the use of the Thoraflex Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, FL, USA) device and discuss advantages, pitfalls and future design considerations.

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.

Analysis of clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure without thoracotomy for aorta lesion involving distal aortic arch

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure for aortic lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 99 consecutive patients who underwent the hybrid procedure (thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with supra-arch branch vessel bypass) in our center between April 2009 and January 2020 for lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

RESULTS

Median age was 64.0 (57.0-69.0) years, and 83 (83.8%) patients were male. There were five deaths in the perioperative period (three due to cerebral infarction and two due to intimal rupture). During the median follow-up of 41.0 months, 20 patients died, three had endoleak, one had a newly formed intimal tear, and two had femoral artery pseudoaneurysm. The 5- and 10-year survival rates of the total population were 72.2% and 48.8%, respectively. Additionally, there was no difference in the 5-year survival rate among the four groups according to different pathologies (Type B aortic dissection, aortic ulcer, aortic aneurysm, aortic pseudoaneurysm: 74.7%, 78.2%, 61.1%, and 75.5%, respectively, p = .58). Furthermore, there was no difference in the 5- and 10-year survival rates between the two groups according to the different bypass methods (right axillary artery [RAA]-left axillary artery [LAA] vs. RAA-LAA-left common carotid artery: 74.1% vs. 68.9%, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although one-staged hybrid procedure has fewer complications in high-risk patients with lesions involving the distal aortic arch, the long-term survival rate is not optimistic.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Various Endoluminal Approaches Available for Treating Pathologies of the Aortic Arch

Open surgical repair of the aortic arch for degenerative aortic disease in an unfit patient is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal techniques have advanced over the last decade. Contemporary endovascular options including a hybrid approach (supra-aortic debranching and aortic stent graft), inner branched endograft, chimney stents, and scallop or fenestrated endografts are being used frequently as an alternative to open surgical arch repair. Understanding of the available endoluminal technology along with careful planning and effective teamwork is required to minimise complications associated with the endoluminal techniques, particularly neurological ones. Custom made techniques are superior to chimney or parallel technology in terms of their complications and durability. Integration of the protective devices such as embolic protection filters into stent design may reduce the risk of poor neurological sequelae. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of these devices.