Late complications after hybrid aortic arch repair

Aortic remodeling following hybrid arch repair with zone 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs for complex arch and descending thoracic aortic pathologies

Objective

For high-risk patients with aortic arch pathology, hybrid aortic arch repair with simultaneous or staged thoracic endovascular repair of the descending aorta may be a viable alternative to open repair. However, data on postintervention aortic remodeling remain limited. We report the short-term outcomes of remodeling of the thoracoabdominal aorta after hybrid arch repair + thoracic endovascular repair.

Methods

All patients undergoing hybrid arch repair with planned zones 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular repair from January 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography angiography scans preoperatively, after hybrid aortic arch repair, and on long-term follow-up were analyzed for thoracoabdominal aorta remodeling. Mean change in aortic true luminal diameter and full luminal diameter was calculated at every level, and paired-samples t test was used to compare means.

Results

Of 39 patients, 38 had follow-up data at a mean duration of 14.9 months. There were a total of 3 (7.7%) deaths, 0 (0.0%) strokes, and 0 (0.0%) paralysis. For the 35 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular repair for aortic dissection, at follow-up, there was a significant increase in the mean true luminal diameter at each level (P < .05), except at the aortic bifurcation and common iliac arteries. The largest increase in mean true luminal diameter (P < .01) was observed at the level of the left inferior pulmonary vein (mean difference +13.22 mm, 95% CI, 10.38-16.07), tracheal carina (mean difference +13.06 mm, 95% CI, 10.05-16.07), and inferior left atrium (mean difference +11.19 mm, 95% CI, 7.84-14.53).

Conclusions

Hybrid arch repair with zones 0 to 5 leads to improved true lumen augmentation in zones 0 to 8 with complete false lumen thrombosis down to zone 5 at short-term follow-up. Zones 9 to 11, if involved, may require adjunctive treatment strategies for total aortic remodeling and complete false lumen obliteration.

Mid-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Hybrid Procedures to Treat Complex Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

To compare the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies with an unfavorable proximal landing zone, and analyze the different indications of the 2 methods.

METHODS

We collected the clinical data from 59 patients with complex aortic arch pathologies who underwent endovascular or hybrid surgery from March 2018 to April 2020 at a single center. Among the patients, 45 were treated by branched or fenestrated surgery and 14 by hybrid surgery. The clinical data of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results were retrospectively analyzed and compared. The main study indexes were the branch patency rate and endoleakage rate during the follow-up period. The secondary study indexes included the operation success rate, operative time, hospital expenses, complication incidence, freedom from reintervention rate, mortality, etc.

RESULTS

The operation success rate of all the groups was 100%. The hospital expenses of the hybrid group were lower than those of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The operative time of the hybrid group was longer than that of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The incidence of anatomic variants in the hybrid group was 28.6%, which was significantly higher than that in the endovascular group (2.2%, p=0.011). However, there were no significant differences in operative bleeding, ventilator use duration, and treatment time in intensive care units between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Follow-up was conducted for a period of 12 to 34 months. Four patients of the hybrid group experienced numbness of the upper limb (28.57%); the proportion was higher than the endovascular group (0%, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of endoleaks, retrograde aortic dissection, target lesion, secondary operation, branch patency rate, paraplegia, cerebral apoplexy, renal failure, or other complications in either group (p>0.05). The mortality of the endovascular group was 6.67% (3/45). Overall cumulative survival at 1 year was 100% in the hybrid group and 93.3% in the endovascular group. There was no statistical difference in the increase of the true lumen between the 2 groups for vascular remodeling (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The hybrid surgery costs less and proves more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch. The endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) is a devastating complication of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with low incidence but high mortality. The objective of this study is to report the incidence, mortality, potential risk factors, clinical manifestation and diagnostic modalities, and medical and surgical treatments.

METHODS

A systematic review and single-arm and two-arm meta-analyses evaluated all published reports of RTAD post-TEVAR through January 2021. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. Outcomes of interest were procedural data (implanted stent-grafts type, and proximal stent-graft oversizing), the incidence of RTAD, associated mortality rate, clinical manifestations, diagnostic workouts and therapeutic management.

RESULTS

RTAD occurred in 285 out of 10,600 patients: an estimated RTAD incidence of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.9-2.8); incidence of early RTAD was approximately 1.8 times higher than late. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing showed that the proportion of RTAD patients with acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) was significantly higher than those with chronic TBAD (P = .008). Pooled meta-analysis showed that the incidence of RTAD with proximal bare stent TEVAR was 2.1-fold higher than with non-bare stents: risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.87-2.75; P = .13). Single arm meta-analysis estimated a mortality rate of 42.2% (95% CI: 32.5-51.8), with an I2 heterogeneity of 70.11% (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

RTAD is rare after TEVAR but with high mortality, especially in the first month post-TEVAR with acute TBAD patients at greater risk as well as those treated with proximal bare stent endografts.

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.

Chimney Stenting Versus Surgical Debranching for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies-A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions requires revascularization of epiaortic vessels in case of coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical bypass versus endovascular reconstruction with a chimney graft.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a multicenter register between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 127 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: thoracic endovascular aortic repair + surgical debranching (n = 72) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair + chimney stenting (n = 55). The main end points were major neurologic sequelae and type IA endoleak. Propensity score matching was performed to analyse baseline variables related to these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 35.6 months for the debranching group and 34.1 for the chimney group (P = 0.65). The incidence of stroke was higher in the chimney group although not statistically significant (7.3% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.46); for both groups, a wide angle between the ostium of the target vessel and the aorta and landing in Ishimaru Zone 0 was found to be the main predictors for major neurologic sequelae (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). During follow-up, 9 (12.5%) type IA endoleaks occurred in the debranching group and 12 (21.8%) in the chimney group (P = 0.14). Aortic diameter larger than 66 mm and arch angle >46° had a strong association with proximal endoleak incidence (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: Surgical debranching showed better results than chimney stenting in terms of major neurologic events incidence and type IA endoleak, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to establish the indications for these procedures.

A review: Single and multi-branch devices for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies with proximal sealing in Ishimaru Zone 0

Recently published experience has shown that endovascular management of the aortic arch, including sealing in the proximal zones, can be a viable option for patients considered unfit for conventional open repair. Endograft designs vary and include single or multibranch devices, with or without the addition of surgical debranching. Initial reports show that both techniques can be performed with high technical success and acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates in high volume centers. Single branch devices, available off-the-shelf, may provide a treatment option for emergent presentations where patients cannot wait for the design and manufacture of a customized endograft. Double or triple branched endografts are now increasingly implanted in high-volume aortic centers. The purpose of this review is to describe the single and multibranched endovascular devices currently available for aortic arch repair, their associated published outcomes, and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.

Comprehensive review of hybrid aortic arch repair with focus on zone 0 TEVAR and our institutional experience

Even with increasing operator experience and a better understanding of the disease and the operation, intervention for aortic arch pathologies continues to struggle with relatively higher mortality, reintervention, and neurologic complications. The hybrid aortic arch repair was introduced to simplify the procedure and improve the outcome. With recent industry-driven advances, hybrid repairs are not only offered to poor surgical candidates but have become mainstream. This review discusses the evolution of hybrid repair, terminology pertinent to this technique, and results. In addition, we aim to provide a pervasive review of hybrid aortic arch repairs with reference to relevant literature for a detailed understanding. We have also discussed our institutional experience with hybrid repairs.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Acute thrombotic occlusion of a brachiocephalic branch graft and pseudoaneurysm formation after debranching surgery for a "non-A non-B" aortic dissection

Non-A non-B aortic dissection is a pathology with potentially life-threatening consequences, and aortic debranching followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair is one of the possible treatment options. Branch graft occlusion is an infrequent complication and no definite guidelines exist about postoperative antithrombotic therapy nor preoperative evaluation of individual anatomical characteristics-in particular regarding cerebral circulation-in such patients. We present the case of a 54-year-old man undergoing an aortic debranching procedure for a thoracoabdominal aortic dissection originating in the aortic arch, complicated by thrombotic occlusion of the brachiocephalic branch of the prosthesis and pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta, with our management and considerations.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Type II Hybrid Arch Repair for Complex Aortic Arch Pathology

Background

The hybrid arch repair (HAR) is an appealing surgical option in the management of aortic arch diseases. The aim is to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR involving replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and zone 0 stent graft deployment in diverse arch pathologies.

Methods

200 patients with various diffuse aortic pathologies involving the arch were enrolled between 2016 and 2019. Complex arch diseases included acute type A dissection (n = 129, 64.5%), acute type B dissection (n = 16, 8.0%), aortic arch aneurysm (n = 42, 21.0%) and penetrating arch ulcer (n = 13, 6.5%). Mortality, morbidity, survival and re-intervention were analyzed.

Results

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 8.0% (16/200). Stroke was present in 3.5% (7/200) of the general cohort and spinal cord injury was occurred in 3.0% (6/200). Multivariable logistic analysis showed that cardiac malperfusion and CPB time were the risk factors associated with 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up duration was 25.9 months (range 1–57.2 months), and the 3-year survival rate was 83.1%. On Cox regression analysis, age, diabetes, cardiac malperfusion and CPB time predicted short and mid-term overall mortality. A total of 3 patients required reintervention during the follow-up due to the thrombosis of epiaortic artificial vessels (n = 1), anastomotic leak at the site of the proximal ascending aorta (n = 1) and the type I endoleak (n = 1).

Conclusions

Type II HAR was performed with satisfactory early and mid-term outcomes in complex aortic arch pathologies.

Zone 2 hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Is it a good option for all types of thoracic aortic disease?

BACKGROUND

Zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is performed for the treatment of various thoracic aortic diseases involving the left subclavian artery. This study aimed to analyze the late clinical outcomes of zone 2 hybrid TEVAR according to the various indications.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients who underwent zone 2 TEVAR at our institution between December, 2010 and July, 2020 were enrolled. The indications were aortic aneurysm (AA, n = 15), acute type B aortic dissection (AD, n = 14), penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU, n = 8), traumatic aortic injury (TAI, n = 8), and others (n = 3). The clinical outcomes including early complications and mid-term aortic measurements were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100% and in-hospital mortality occurred in one patient. The early postoperative complications included stroke (n = 1), transient spinal cord ischemia (n = 1), neck wound hematoma (n = 1), and left phrenic or vagus nerve injury (n = 9). In patients with AD, positive remodeling was observed in ten patients (76.9%) (false lumen regression in the entire or thoracic aorta [n = 9], false lumen thrombosis in the thoracic aorta [n = 1]). However, in patients with AA, increased aneurysm was found in six patients (40%). Persistent aneurysmal growth was found in patients with a maximal aortic diameter of > 60 mm on initial imaging (4/6, 50%). No aortic expansion was observed in those with TAI or PAU. Endoleak was noted in five patients (10.4%), and among them, aortic reintervention was required only in patients with large AAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 2 hybrid TEVAR was associated with an acceptable early complication rate and provided acceptable mid-term aortic results for patients with AD, PAU, and TAI. However, patients with large AAs were at increased risk of aortic reintervention. In cases of large AA, clinicians should carefully consider whether zone 2 hybrid TEVAR or open surgical repair will be more effective for the patient.

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.

Late Retrograde Aortic Dissection after Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR): A Case Report

Open total arch replacement is allied to high rates of mortality and morbidity; surgeons, therefore, tend to choose hybrid aortic arch repair as a less invasive operative procedure for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms, especially in high-risk patients. However, studies on the early and late outcomes of patients undergoing hybrid aortic arch repair have revealed high rates of reintervention and reoperation compared with open total arch replacement. Here, we describe a male patient with late retrograde aortic dissection after hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch aneurysms. The patient returned 3 years after the procedure with signs of dyspnea on exertion and chest pain. Transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography showed dissection of the ascending aorta, for which he underwent a redo Bentall procedure. The patient was weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass without any problem and discharged after 7 days.

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.

Safety and durability of single-stage type I hybrid total aortic arch repair for extensive aortic arch disease: early- and long-term clinical outcomes from a single center and our 10-year of experience

Background

Single-stage type I hybrid total aortic arch repair is a surgical treatment for extensive aortic arch disease, but the clinical outcomes were distinguishing. The purposes of this study were to share our experience and evaluate the perioperative safety and long-term durability.

Methods

Thirty-six patients who underwent single-stage type I hybrid total aortic arch repair in Fuwai Hospital between January 2010 and June 2020 were respectively reviewed. Early primary endpoint was defined as early composite adverse events, including mortality, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), unplanned reoperation, stroke, paraplegia, acute renal failure (ARF) necessitating continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), respiratory failure and stents related complications. Long-term endpoints included late mortality, late aortic related reintervention and late adverse aortic events. When evaluating the early- and long-term outcomes, all patients were stratified into two subgroups by age (65 years).

Results

All patients acquired technical success. Early composite adverse events rate was 11.1% (4/36), in-hospital mortality was 8.3% (3/36). Average follow-up period was 48.0±35.3 months. Overall survival rate was 83.3% and 51.9% at 5 and 10 years respectively. Late aortic related reintervention occurred at one (3.0%, 1/33) patient and this patient died after reintervention. Overall freedom from adverse aortic events was 79.2% and 47.5% at 5 and 10 years respectively. Significant difference was not observed between the elderly and young subgroups, no matter in early- and long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Single-stage type I hybrid total aortic arch repair has achieved desirable outcomes in our center, which does not increase perioperative risk in the elderly patients, meanwhile, also acquire acceptable durability in the young patients. In conclusion, this surgery is a practical mini-invasive treatment for extensive aortic arch disease with strict and limited indications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Endovascular and hybrid treatment of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissections]

The article deals with immediate and medium-term results of hybrid and endovascular treatment of 74 patients with various pathologies of the thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta (31 with aneurysms, 43 with thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic dissections). Elective and emergency interventions were performed in 49 and 25 patients, respectively. Endoprosthetic repair of the arch, descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta was performed in 25 patients, hybrid operations in 47 subjects (open switch of brachiocephalic, visceral and renal arteries followed by aortic endoprosthetic repair - 37, endovascular methods of making a landing zone - 12). The duration of the follow-up period after discharge from hospital amounted to 24.9±16.3 months. The technical success level was 98.6%. The overall hospital mortality rate was 11% (n=8), elective - 4% (n=2), emergency - 24% (n=6). Eight patients underwent repeat interventions on the thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta. The 5-year cumulative survival rate was 82.3%, with freedom from repeat interventions amounting to 51.3%. Hybrid operations on the arch and descending thoracic aorta are considered to be a relatively safe and effective method of treatment. Follow-up and timely treatment of remote complications after hybrid or endovascular operations are obligatory for improving the results.

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.

Hybrid Repair versus Conventional Open Repair Approaches for Aortic Arch Disease: a Comprehensive Review

Objective

To investigate whether hybrid repair has supremacy over conventional open repair in aortic arch diseases.

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken in two major databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) to identify all studies comparing the two surgical techniques in five years, up to December 2018, that met the established criteria in this study. The search returned 310 papers, and 305 were selected after removing duplicates. The abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed, resulting in 15 studies that went to full-text analysis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers remained for the final revision.

Results

Eight studies met the criteria, with the inclusion of 1,837 patients. From a short-term perspective, hybrid repair and conventional open repair had similar outcomes in terms of postoperative mortality and acute neurological events. Hybrid repair was associated with less respiratory complications and risk of new intervention, as well as reduced hospital length of stay. Conventional open repair showed better mid- and long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Hybrid repair should be used in selected patients, with a high risk or very high-risk profile for conventional surgery. Finally, since most of the current data were obtained from limited to large samples, with narrow follow-up and had great heterogeneity, the best approach to the aortic arch is still variable. Therefore, the decision of the approach should be individualized and evaluated by the whole Heart Team, considering the expertise of the surgical team.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed.

RESULTS

Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.

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.

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.

One minute of circulatory arrest for acute type A aortic dissection --------- a simple operation for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD)

Background

Sun’s procedure is currently recognized as the standard procedure for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). But the operation istoo difficult for beginners. We hope to reduce the difficulty and complications of this operation.

Methods

The aortic arch was immediately cross-clamped after the stented graft was inserted into the distal aorta. Thereafter, the lower-body perfusion was restored. Then, anastomosis was performed between the proximal stent graft and the distal 4-branched Dacron graft. The other arteries were anastomosed to the arched branch of the 4-branched graft.

Results

The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was (207 ± 52) min, and the aortic cross-clamp time was (114 ± 39) min. The circulatory arrest time was (38 ± 16) sec. One patient (4%) died. The incidence of complications was stroke (4%), renal dysfunction requiring dialysis (4%), prolonged intubation(12%).

Conclusions

The time of circulatory arrest in this operation is less than 1 min, which can avoid the complications caused by DHCA and decrease risk of bleeding and complexity by shifting anastomosis more proximally. The effect of our operation is similar to and even better than that of Sun’s procedure. It does not even require relatively advanced skill, much experience and excellent psychological quality, especially suitable for beginners.