Open total aortic arch reconstruction for patients with advanced age in the era of endovascular repair

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Zone 1-Landing Hybrid TEVAR by Comparing Its Outcomes with Those of Zone 2-Landing Hybrid TEVAR

Background: Hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) without median sternotomy is increasingly being performed in high-risk patients with aortic arch disease. The outcomes of hybrid TEVAR were reported to be worse with a more proximal landing zone. This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR by comparing the outcomes of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. Methods: From April 2008 to October 2020, 213 patients (zone 1: zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 82, 38.5%; zone 2: zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR, n = 131, 61.5%) were enrolled (median age, 72 years; interquartile range [IQR], 65-78 years), with a median follow-up period of 6.0 years (IQR, 2.8-9.7 years). Results: The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 20.9 ± 14.8%: the logistic EuroSCORE of the zone 1 group (23.3 ± 16.1) was significantly higher than that of the zone 2 group (19.3 ± 12.4%, p = 0.045). The operative time and hospital stay of the zone 1 group were significantly longer than those of the zone 2 group. On the other hand, the in-hospital and late outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. There were no significant differences in cumulative survival (66.8% vs. 78.0% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.074), aorta-related death-free rates (97.6% vs. 99.2% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.312), and aortic event-free rates (81.4% vs. 87.9% at 10 years, Log-rank p = 0.257). Conclusions: Zone 1- and 2-landing hybrid TEVAR outcomes were satisfactory. Despite the high procedural difficulty and surgical risk, the outcomes of zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR were equal to those of zone 2-landing hybrid TEVAR. If the surgical risk is high, zone 1-landing hybrid TEVAR should not be avoided.

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.

Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for distal aortic arch aneurysm in elderly patients aged over 75 years old

Background

We examined the outcome of debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (d-TEVAR) without sternotomy for distal aortic arch aneurysm in patients aged ≥75 years.

Methods

Patients who underwent d-TEVAR or TAR for aortic arch aneurysm between 2008 and 2015 at our hospital and aged ≥75 years were included. Age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, preoperative creatinine level, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were matched using PS.

Results

Among 74 patients (d-TEVAR: 51, TAR: 23), 17 patients in each group were matched. No difference in surgical outcome was detected between the d-TEVAR and TAR groups, including 30-day death (0% vs. 0%), hospital death (5.8% vs. 0%: p = 0.31) and incidence of cerebral infarction (5.8% vs. 7.6%: p = 0.27) as well as the long-term outcomes of 5-year survival (92.8% vs. 74.8%: p = 0.30) and 5-year aorta-related event-free rate (88.2% vs. 100%: p = 0.15). Average duration of ICU stay (1.3 ± 1.1 days vs. 5.6 ± 1.3 days: p = 0.025) and hospital stay (16.5 ± 5.2 days vs. 37.7 ± 19.6 days: p = 0.017) were significantly shorter in the d-TEVAR group.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that d-TEVAR is less invasive without affecting long-term outcome up to 5 years. Although the number of the patients included in the study was small, debranching TEVAR could be one of the treatments of the choice in the elderly, especially with comorbidities.

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.

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.

Endovascular Repair of an Aortic Arch Aneurysm with Triple Chimney Stent Grafts: A Case Report

The treatment of an aortic arch aneurysm in high-risk individuals poses a significant challenge. We present a surgical patient with a patent left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft and a large aortic arch aneurysm who underwent aortic stent-graft implantation and complete endovascular branching to preserve the LIMA inflow, with successful exclusion of the aneurysm. A moderate flow, proximal type I endoleak was observed after deployment that disappeared at 2-year follow-up.